The self-perpetuating cycle of really bad teams

eom · Mar 9, 2015

I think a lot of these terrible teams stay terrible just simply due to terrible management --- the nfl is very competitive in all respects, and if you are terrible there are plenty of guys who will be taking your lunch every year.

if you look at belichick's stint with cleveland, you'll see a good manager who almost steered a terrible team back on track.
think he got them with 2 wins and after making some decisions that maybe weren't very popular at the time ended up winning 11 games before they moved.

terrible management will just manifest itself in all aspects of the team --- hiring coaches, drafting, and signing guys, but I think the op was pretty genius -- thx for tabulating that stuff.

ps

I thought belichick the gm was terrible?

doesntmatter1 · Mar 9, 2015

I feel like some kid wished/traded away the Bill's future success for the chance to go to four super bowls but the d ick genie was like "you didn't specifically ask for them to win".

RelocatedPatFan · Mar 9, 2015

Another aspect to building the team is the synergy between GMs and coaches. Finding the right player for the coach/system. any miscue and it has ramifications. Obviously BB does this very well and it will certainly be interesting to see the results of Chip Kelly for the next year or two as he has the same situation.

The think that separates BB too, is his ability to find role players that emphasize their strengths and masks their weakness within the team. Other GMs need to get the "stud" guy with fewer weaknesses as they might not completely understand how their system all works together. Thus BB is constantly able to identify "bargains" and get 90-95% of the productivity (due to coaching and preparation skills of BB) for 2/3 or less of the price.

Not sure if there are more than a handful of people that can do that and clearly BB is the top dog in that category.

Rusty Coupe · Mar 9, 2015

Jay Gruden and RG3 talking about BB and Brady during joint practices. This seems like a pretty big part of the overall difference

"It takes a lot of time," Gruden said. "It takes a lot of trust, a lot of wins, a lot of ups and downs that you fight through together. You work out together, off the field, on the field. Fifteen years? That's something that you only hope to have, you only dream of having as a head coach. Not many coaches last 15 years in the same city, but obviously that's our goal here is to get Robert here for a long time, myself here for a long time. Hopefully we can build a relationship similar to that."

It's a sobering lesson. Shared experience might get Gruden-Griffin in formidable lockstep in a few years, but no one is that patient anymore. There are games to be played in 2014.

"Fifteen years is a lot different than one year," Griffin said. "And they've had 15 years to evolve that offense and continue to build upon it. ... As far as knowing our offense and moving forward, I think we're there, but I look forward to evolving with coach Jay and Sean (McVay, the new offensive coordinator). Fifteen years, I don't know how to put that in perspective, but I think we're where we want to be right now and will continue to grow each day."

Belichick about his relationship with Brady.

Belichick said his relationship with Brady grew considerably in 2001, Brady's second year, after quarterbacks coach **** Rehbein died suddenly of heart failure during training camp. Belichick started splitting the quarterback coaching duties with offensive coordinator Charlie Weis and would meet with Brady and the other QBs anywhere from two to six times per week, depending on what was going on.

Of course, that was the year in which starter Drew Bledsoe was hurt, and Brady took over and led the Patriots to the first of three Belichick-Brady Super Bowl titles.

Nowadays, Belichick doesn't have to meet with Brady nearly as often.

"As a head coach, you want your quarterback to be able to control the team, the way you see it, (the way you) want it controlled when he's out there on the field," Belichick said. "The last thing you want is to be looking out there and kind of have the feeling of, 'What's going on? What are we doing? This isn't what we want.' That isn't where you want to be.

"I'm fortunate I haven't had that feeling very many times — rarely have I ever had that. So being on the same page with a quarterback, whatever it is you're trying to do, whether it's strategy, plays, where the ball is going to go on a play — when we call a play we get a certain defense, we know where the ball should go on that play. That's part of it, too. Tom does a great job of that."

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/...gruden-experience-shows-at-patriots-redskins/

primetime · Mar 9, 2015

FreeTedWilliams said:
Some teams just have never, ever found their QB, and if you don't have that, then you are screwed!

Yup. If the Jaguars take Aaron Rodgers instead of Matt Jones in the 2005 draft, are we still having this conversation? Heck, a 2006-7 Jaguars team with MJD, Taylor, John Henderson, Darryl Smith, Rashean Mathis all still in their prime and quarterbacked by a second-year Rodgers would probably have been a Super Bowl contender.

eom · Mar 9, 2015

ForThoseAboutToRock said:
It's interesting to me that teams in FL and other 0% income tax states can't or don't seem to leverage their advantage for better outcomes with FA's. Perhaps it did just happen with Suh.

Put another way, I guess the Jags have been so poorly managed that their FA advantage is lost in a sea of ineptitude.

I really don't think the state income tax gives the jags any appreciable edge.
maybe very occasionally on some guy like a suh, but that's far outweighed by their general terribleness, just as you mentioned.

I think these guys actually file state income taxes for every state they play in, so the 0% thing might only be applicable to a portion of their contract, and it probably has to be a giant one, like suh's, to make the difference.
so, if some guy signs for 4m/yr maybe 2m is subject to the state income tax savings.
I think california is the highest, but let's say we take a more average figure and give the fla guy and extra 7% on his 2m --- all a team has to do to offset that, assuming the guy will sign for absolute top dollar and cares nothing about winning, is to offer the guy an extra 140k/yr to make up the difference, which might go on all the time but you just aren't aware of it.

QuantumMechanic · Mar 9, 2015

ForThoseAboutToRock said:
It's interesting to me that teams in FL and other 0% income tax states can't or don't seem to leverage their advantage for better outcomes with FA's.

While there's a definite advantage, it's not exactly as much as you might think -- players have to file non-resident tax returns to every state they played an away or neutral game in if that state has an income tax, and pay tax on what they were paid for that game.

Still, on balance you do have a good point since the 0% rate will apply to home-game salaries, signing bonuses, endorsement deals, investment profits, business profits, etc.

primetime · Mar 9, 2015

Speaking of the Jaguars, they just signed a tackle who's started 7 games in his career to a 5 year, $32m contract. *shrug*

Bill Lee · Mar 9, 2015

mayoclinic said:
Even aside from the really bad teams, look at Miami in 2013 and who they have already cut this year. Teams that are trying to get "over the top" also get caught up in this process.

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
I saw a headline the other day, just the headline, on the Suh signing... it read "Worth Every Penny." How many times will this Groundhog Day-like myth continue to repeat itself from supposedly insightful writers. The media loves big names, big contracts, and other versions of sensationalism, so it is the teams own faults for buying the praise in February and pointing the finger in December.

Steven Ross ticks all of these boxes. All the reports I read say he loves to make a splash. $60M guaranteed for a DT certainly will do that. He single handedly is bringing non-franchise QBs into the same financial space as franchise QBs, and given his past over spending on free agents, is going to have to cut a bunch of players to make it work, never mind next year when Tannehill is due a new contract.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Mar 9, 2015

Teams that frequently chase "top of the market at their position" free agents from outside their organization, even if it requires a mega-deal:
Buffalo Bills
Chicago Bears
Denver Broncos
Miami Dolphins
New Orleans Saints
Oakland Raiders
Philadelphia Eagles
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Washington Redskins

Teams that only pay big-money to their own guys, although they'll occasionally spend if the deal is right:
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Dallas Cowboys (recent philosophy shift)
Green Bay Packers
New England Patriots
Pittsburgh Steelers
Seattle Seahawks

You tell me which group is more successful.

eom · Mar 9, 2015

primetime said:
Yup. If the Jaguars take Aaron Rodgers instead of Matt Jones in the 2005 draft, are we still having this conversation? Heck, a 2006-7 Jaguars team with MJD, Taylor, John Henderson, Darryl Smith, Rashean Mathis all still in their prime and quarterbacked by a second-year Rodgers would probably have been a Super Bowl contender.

maybe it's unfair to the jags, but yeah, I think we probably would.
they had a pretty solid team for a little bit, but I don't think it's just qb that got them to their current situation.

not to mention the fact that jones over rodgers is just further evidence of what we're talking about.

Rusty Coupe · Mar 9, 2015

rlcarr said:
While there's a definite advantage, it's not exactly as much as you might think -- players have to file non-resident tax returns to every state they played an away or neutral game in if that state has an income tax, and pay tax on what they were paid for that game.

Still, on balance you do have a good point since the 0% rate will apply to home-game salaries, signing bonuses, endorsement deals, investment profits, business profits, etc.

When the Jets practice facility used to be at Hofstra, in West Hempstead, NY that was the official business address of the team. But because they played their games in the swamps of Jersey, the Garden State decided that is where they worked. What that meant for the players was they had to pay New York and New Jersey plus the federal income taxes.

primetime · Mar 9, 2015

eom said:
not to mention the fact that jones over rodgers is just further evidence of what we're talking about.

To be fair, they had taken Leftwich in the 1st round a couple years before and had one of the best backups in the league in Garrard at the time. Both of these guys were considered up and coming young quarterbacks, especially after the 12-4 season in 2005 - though their main offense was built around running the ball rather than passing. Leftwich got hurt that year and Garrard was actually better for a few years (and certainly an above-average QB) until he himself suffered some bad turns due to injury. Matt Jones was a terrible pick, but 23 other teams passed on Rodgers as well.

eom · Mar 9, 2015

primetime said:
To be fair, they had taken Leftwich in the 1st round a couple years before and had one of the best backups in the league in Garrard at the time. Both of these guys were considered up and coming young quarterbacks, especially after the 12-4 season in 2005 - though their main offense was built around running the ball rather than passing. Leftwich got hurt that year and Garrard was actually better for a few years (and certainly an above-average QB) until he himself suffered some bad turns due to injury. Matt Jones was a terrible pick, but 23 other teams passed on Rodgers as well.

yeah, I don't specifically say any team that passed on rodgers is a bad team, and certainly every team in the league, including the pats, gets some matt joneses, but you can't really just say bad teams are bad because of poor drafting 'luck' --- I think poor picks by poor teams have to be owned, just like good picks by good teams is more likely evidence of good management than good 'luck'.
I'm not even sure if the jags count since they weren't actually terrible back then.

primetime · Mar 9, 2015

eom said:
I think poor picks by poor teams have to be owned, just like good picks by good teams is more likely evidence of good management than good 'luck'.

Most studies of the draft show that it's really just a crapshoot and basically all comes down to luck, with building a good team heavily weighted towards the teams that luck into a good quarterback, whether he's the 1st overall pick like Manning or a 6th rounder like Brady.

eom · Mar 9, 2015

primetime said:
Most studies of the draft show that it's really just a crapshoot and basically all comes down to luck, with building a good team heavily weighted towards the teams that luck into a good quarterback, whether he's the 1st overall pick like Manning or a 6th rounder like Brady.

or, like matt cassel, right?
how many games did they win in 2008?

there's no doubt that luck is part of the draft, or the importance of the qb, but an element of luck and 'a crapshoot' are really 2 different things, and I'll buy into the former before I buy into these 'studies'.
I'll refer you back to the op --- that's all just luck?

primetime · Mar 9, 2015

eom said:
or, like matt cassel, right?
how many games did they win in 2008?

there's no doubt that luck is part of the draft, or the importance of the qb, but an element of luck and 'a crapshoot' are really 2 different things, and I'll buy into the former before I buy into these 'studies'.
I'll refer you back to the op --- that's all just luck?

Cassel took a team that was essentially unchanged from a 16-0 season and won 11 games with a really weak schedule. Cassel was also not a bad quarterback.

If Blaine Gabbert turned out to be a Pro Bowler, I just don't think the OP happens.

I just tend to think there's a lot of confirmation bias at play here, especially in that Ice Ice Brady post above - the Seahawks must be superior drafters and personnel managers because they've won. In reality, the Seahawks have only been good the last couple years, and that's because they found Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, and Earl Thomas. They were bad before that.

varjao · Mar 9, 2015

RecoveringCowboy · Mar 9, 2015

Couple of days before this thread, I was thinking about most of noise in FA is from bad teams rolling the dice because they did not draft well. Great thread!

eom · Mar 9, 2015

primetime said:
Cassel took a team that was essentially unchanged from a 16-0 season and won 11 games with a really weak schedule. Cassel was also not a bad quarterback.

If Blaine Gabbert turned out to be a Pro Bowler, I just don't think the OP happens.

I just tend to think there's a lot of confirmation bias at play here, especially in that Ice Ice Brady post above - the Seahawks must be superior drafters and personnel managers because they've won. In reality, the Seahawks have only been good the last couple years, and that's because they found Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, and Earl Thomas. They were bad before that.

yeah, but what you're doing is the same kind of circular reasoning you accuse that guy of doing.

I've established that the draft is entirely luck, evidenced by 'studies', therefore seattle has been incredibly lucky in building their team with this laundry list of lucky picks, therefore everything comes down to luck.
personally, I think seattle started on this road when they brought in some good management, who built a good team through good stewardship --- not just luck.
like they say --- better to be lucky than good, but best to be both.

I'd say, as maybe an affirmation of the op, that if you always win the bidding wars on everybody you probably end up with a locker room full of guys who prioritize $$ above anything else, whereas to really build a winning team and a winning culture I'd think you'd want to load up on guys who prioritize winning for their quality of life.

I'm not actually denigrating the $$ guys, or passing any kind of judgement on them, but what I'm saying is that everybody has different goals, and if you're willing to sacrifice a couple million just to win football games, that sounds more like the kind of guy who will always give you more effort towards winning, and is somebody I'd want to influence my young draft picks.
the guys whose quality of life is about $$ have pretty much reached their goals once they get the $$.

The self-perpetuating cycle of really bad teams

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Burn it all down!

Pro Bowl Player

What, me worry?

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

In the Starting Line-Up

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

In the Starting Line-Up

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads