Cap per position

[Mike the Brit]

There's a weak but consistently positive correlation between offensive payroll and stats like YPP, PPG and winning percentage

This is interesting and puzzling (defense wins championships, yadda, yadda). A suggestion. Successful teams tend to have a good (expensive) quarterback. Is that enough to explain the difference?

Then it occurred to me that payroll stats may be misleading in a curious way...there are two different kinds of "spending" that NFL teams do, and they're probably negatively correlated. When you spend draft picks on a position, you typically reduce payroll at that position. When you don't draft to fill a position, you have to spend $$ on veteran FAs. So for instance, the unusually low payroll for the Pats OL isn't really a sign of neglect of the position, but a reflection of how much of their draft capital they've spent at the position in recent years.

Bingo! That's the point (immodestly, I might say that I think I was saying the same thing earlier).

Now add to this. The Pats do not draft by need. BB has made this clear (although, of course, he's not going to use a first-rounder on a quarterback while he has Tommy). So it follows that how many players on their rookie contract end up at each position is a matter of chance. It wasn't a matter of plan that we took Vince Wilfork, for instance -- BB thought he was a great player and (excuse the metaphor) he filled a hole. But we might just as well be paying for a Sam Adams/Mount Washington-type veteran.

For a total measure of resources that a team allots to each position, you'd need a composite of this dollar spreadsheet with a draft by round/position analysis. Anybody have a few spare hours?

So, in the light of the above, I don't think that this would be a good use of a superior football intellect -- at least in the case of the Patriots, I just don't believe that there is a systematic policy.

I can't believe I'm geeking out this badly. Bye week blues for sure.

Nice, thought-provoking post

 

[patchick]

This is interesting and puzzling (defense wins championships, yadda, yadda). A suggestion. Successful teams tend to have a good (expensive) quarterback. Is that enough to explain the difference?

Good question. Let me ask my trusty spreadsheet...

...and the answer is no! QB dollars spent don't correlate one little bit with points scored or wins. Hmm.

Now add to this. The Pats do not draft by need. BB has made this clear (although, of course, he's not going to use a first-rounder on a quarterback while he has Tommy). So it follows that how many players on their rookie contract end up at each position is a matter of chance. It wasn't a matter of plan that we took Vince Wilfork, for instance -- BB thought he was a great player and (excuse the metaphor) he filled a hole. But we might just as well be paying for a Sam Adams/Mount Washington-type veteran.

You know, for all that BB has stated this, and for all that his drafts confound the pundits, deep down I think that the Pats factor in need just about as much as everybody else. Look at even a "surprise" pick like Mankins -- the LG position was the one and only open starting spot on the team that year. And did we really draft Gostkowski in the 4th because he was the best football player available?

In fact, your Wilfork example -- "we might just as well be paying for a Sam Adams/Mount Washington-type veteran" -- would seem to support the idea that draft spending is the flipside of cap spending, and that a metric that sums the two could reflect a resource allocation philosophy. Maybe. Possibly.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Good question. Let me ask my trusty spreadsheet...

...and the answer is no! QB dollars spent don't correlate one little bit with points scored or wins. Hmm.

Ho hum. Back to the speculation board ...

You know, for all that BB has stated this, and for all that his drafts confound the pundits, deep down I think that the Pats factor in need just about as much as everybody else. Look at even a "surprise" pick like Mankins -- the LG position was the one and only open starting spot on the team that year. And did we really draft Gostkowski in the 4th because he was the best football player available?

Of course, need plays a role somewhere -- negatively (we don't need another quarterback) and positively (Gostkowski). But I think that they are so hooked on getting value for draft picks that they will take players they really like even if there isn't an immediate need (Ben Watson, Maroney) and figuring that they can design plays to get them on the field (two tight-end, running back rotation, etc.) The Mankins example isn't compelling to me.
Wasn't he a tackle in college and hadn't we just won a Superbowl with Hochstein starting? And then why take Kaczur as well?

In fact, your Wilfork example -- "we might just as well be paying for a Sam Adams/Mount Washington-type veteran" -- would seem to support the idea that draft spending is the flipside of cap spending, and that a metric that sums the two could reflect a resource allocation philosophy. Maybe. Possibly.

I thought that I was the one who said that "draft spending is the flipside of cap spending". We're agreed there. But I do doubt that there is an overarching resource allocation philosophy even allowing for re-balancing between draft picks and salary. We haven't allocated either a lot of money or a high draft pick to the defensive backfield in the last two years, but we were very prepared to pay Ty Law a lot of money. (The one area that that seems to have been true was offensive line, but in a few years time, when all of them have reached the end of their rookie contracts, will that still be so?)

It seems to me that BB is much more player-oriented than the Moneyball-style mad scientist that we sometimes paint him as.