Mankins' price just went up

[Miguel]

FWIW - Every year the NFL and the NFLPA lists the 10 players who had the adjusted highest cap numbers at their position. By adjusted I mean the numbers exclude offseason workout bonus and LTBEs.

Minnesota 6 playoff
San Diego 6 playoff
Indianapolis 6 playoff
Oakland 5
NY Jets 5 playoff
San Francisco 5
Atlanta 5
Philadelphia 4 playoff
Chicago 4
Pittsburgh 4
Green Bay 4 playoff
St. Louis 4
Tennessee 4
Carolina 3
Cleveland 3
Tampa Bay 3
NY Giants 3
Baltimore 3 playoff
Cincinnati 3 playoff
Dallas 3 playoff
Houston 3
Miami 3
Washington 3
Arizona 3 playoff
New England 2 playoff
Denver 2
Buffalo 2
New Orleans 2 playoff
Detroit 2
Jacksonville 2
Seattle 2
Kansas City 1
Grand Total 110

I see no evidence that having several players that are paid well at their position will prevent a team from being a Super Bowl contender.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

FWIW - Every year the NFL and the NFLPA lists the 10 players who had the adjusted highest cap numbers at their position. By adjusted I mean the numbers exclude offseason workout bonus and LTBEs.

I see no evidence that having several players that are paid well at their position will prevent a team from being a Super Bowl contender.

I hope you also can see evidence that not having them won't prevent a team from being a superbowl contender, either. You know the tennants of this system, whether you've never agreed with them or not...

 

[emoney_33]

I see no evidence that having several players that are paid well at their position will prevent a team from being a Super Bowl contender.

Well that data consists of exactly 1 year and to really see if there is correlation we'd need % of total salaries for the say top 10 players on the team over multiple seasons.

We know it's not impossible to win investing high percentage of dollars in the top of the roster but the question remains whether it's more likely. Indy has a very solid/simple system and drafts well for it allowing them to have a top-heavy payroll structure. (Although I admit I do not know the details of Indy's salary structure over the last decade).

 

[emoney_33]

I would take 25 million and 2 rings (be a part of history and play in the Superbowl) over 30 mil and 0 rings. I really think I would. It makes me wonder if these guys care that much more about the money than playing football. Same with musicians that sell out. They don't care about the music as much as the fame and cash. Well... Who doesn't like money anyway?

You can't possibly know that you are going to definitely win a ring when you sign a contract. It's not like most players are going from NE to Detroit. Samuel for example has a legit shot at a ring in Philly. Also playing for a large sum for a few years in one place doesn't preclude you from ever winning a ring. Seau was a loyal fan favorite on a good team and never won a ring. So it's not like sticking with a "good" team is a guarantee of future rings. You are just letting your fan bias cloud your judgement.

 

[Ring 6]

Well that data consists of exactly 1 year and to really see if there is correlation we'd need % of total salaries for the say top 10 players on the team over multiple seasons.

We know it's not impossible to win investing high percentage of dollars in the top of the roster but the question remains whether it's more likely. Indy has a very solid/simple system and drafts well for it allowing them to have a top-heavy payroll structure. (Although I admit I do not know the details of Indy's salary structure over the last decade).

I don't thin you can ever find statistics for something like this that are useful. There are just too many variables.
And example is the Colts. While they typically are one of the most top heavy rosters in terms of the cap, they also consistently get a lot of contribution from the cheap guys on the roster, such as draft picks that contribute a lot in year 1 or 2.
It works for them, but only because they have a way to plug the holes that are created; drafting guys who can contribute and be at least decent right away. Other teams who try to follow that approach and dont draft as well are sunk.
Also the Colts schemes seem to play into it because their schemes are more one-dimensional than most teams (OL pass blocking much more important than run blocking, DL play the run if they find it will rushing the QB, DBs rarely in man coverage) and can make use of players who are limited in some ways but strong in others moreso than a lot of teams.
There are just so many factors that go into success that its real hard to pin one down based on winning teams did this often.
Most of the cause of success and failure, especially long term is owner/GM/Coach so anything those teams do in common would seem to be a cause of success, while it may just be coincidental.

 

[Ring 6]

You can't possibly know that you are going to definitely win a ring when you sign a contract. It's not like most players are going from NE to Detroit. Samuel for example has a legit shot at a ring in Philly. Also playing for a large sum for a few years in one place doesn't preclude you from ever winning a ring. Seau was a loyal fan favorite on a good team and never won a ring. So it's not like sticking with a "good" team is a guarantee of future rings. You are just letting your fan bias cloud your judgement.

A lot of top end players feel THEY are the key to a ring. If they are on a bad team, they just need to get to a decent one to get them over the top, and if they are on a good one, they are the reason the team is good, so whoever they go to will become good. Most evident in the diva WR.

 

[emoney_33]

Never understood why fans who make $50K a year get so upset when a player only getrs $7 mil a year when he 'deserves' to make $8 mil.

I also think it is funny about the "A football player only has a few years to make money so he has to maximize it." Yeah, so he can only make millions a year for 5 years. Boo hoo.

I don't see any fans making $50K getting "upset" at any player getting $7M instead of $8M...?

I also don't understand why you are making it into a "boo hoo" about the short careers of the average NFL player. No one is crying or desperately trying to make it seem like these guys have it so tough. It's just extremely understandable to want to put yourself and your family in the best possible position now and in the future.

Don't think of it as desperately trying to find more millions. Why would any human give up $5M today when the future includes 0 guarantees? I leave it up to each individual to determine the correct balance of happiness and financial security for themselves and their families so long as they aren't hurting others.

Also agree about chasing every nickel. What is the point of earning $5 ml a year if you can play where you want to play. Is your life really better playing with the Brown or Lions for $6 mil and losing all the time than getting $5 mil a year and play for the Colts, Pats, etc?

How much does your quality of life improve by making $30 mil in five years instead of $25 mil? What do you need in your life that $25 mil cannot make you happy?

Who are any of us to determine what the correct decision for any individual is in that type of situation? Just because you think you would value playing in NE over an additional $5M doesn't make it the correct and only viewpoint. What's the point of getting on an individual for making personal decisions for himself, his family and his future? Are you going to be there to pick him up or help him out in the event of unforeseen future financial disaster? If not then why the hell would anyone listen to you and take LESS money.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't thin you can ever find statistics for something like this that are useful. There are just too many variables.
And example is the Colts. While they typically are one of the most top heavy rosters in terms of the cap, they also consistently get a lot of contribution from the cheap guys on the roster, such as draft picks that contribute a lot in year 1 or 2.
It works for them, but only because they have a way to plug the holes that are created; drafting guys who can contribute and be at least decent right away. Other teams who try to follow that approach and dont draft as well are sunk.
Also the Colts schemes seem to play into it because their schemes are more one-dimensional than most teams (OL pass blocking much more important than run blocking, DL play the run if they find it will rushing the QB, DBs rarely in man coverage) and can make use of players who are limited in some ways but strong in others moreso than a lot of teams.
There are just so many factors that go into success that its real hard to pin one down based on winning teams did this often.
Most of the cause of success and failure, especially long term is owner/GM/Coach so anything those teams do in common would seem to be a cause of success, while it may just be coincidental.

I agree mostly, but I do believe the data over a decade would potentially give us a true idea into what at this point is just all hypothesis. Between 32 teams (with NE and IND being extreme successes on each end of the spectrum) over a decade, I'd be interested if there were any correlation between salary spread and success.

 

[Miguel]

I hope you also can see evidence that not having them won't prevent a team from being a superbowl contender, either.

I have a pretty good grasp of the obvious

 

[Miguel]

Well that data consists of exactly 1 year and to really see if there is correlation we'd need % of total salaries for the say top 10 players on the team over multiple seasons.

Here's the data for 2008
Cincinnati 6
Seattle 6
Dallas 6
Atlanta 5 Playoff
New England 5
Minnesota 5 Playoff
Carolina 5 Playoff
Oakland 5
Indianapolis 5 Playoff
Arizona 5 Playoff
Kansas City 5
Jacksonville 4
St. Louis 4
San Diego 4 Playoff
Philadelphia 3 Playoff
Washington 3
Pittsburgh 3 Playoff
San Francisco 3
Baltimore 3 Playoff
Green Bay 3
NY Giants 3 Playoff
Tennessee 3 Playoff
Chicago 3
NY Jets 3
Denver 2
Buffalo 2
Detroit 2
New Orleans 2
Miami 2 Playoff

For 2007
Seattle 7 Playoff
Atlanta 6
Dallas 6 Playoff
Cincinnati 5
Arizona 5
Minnesota 5
Green Bay 5 Playoff
Indianapolis 5
Oakland 4
Washington 4 Playoff
Chicago 4
San Diego 4 Playoff
San Francisco 4
Tennessee 4 Playoff
Carolina 4
Buffalo 3
Baltimore 3
Pittsburgh 3 Playoff
New England 3
Kansas City 3 Playoff
Philadelphia 3
Jacksonville 3 Playoff
St. Louis 3
NY Jets 3
NY Giants 3 Playoff
Miami 2 Playoff
Detroit 2
New Orleans 2
Denver 2
Houston 0
Cleveland 0
Tampa Bay 0 Playoff

 

[Miguel]

You know the tennants of this system, whether you've never agreed with them or not...

I think that you mean "tenets".

As for the last phrase in your sentence. FWIW - In 2001 I predicted on the Patriots mailing list that the Patriots method would lead to playoff success. In 2002 I predicted that the Patriots would 3 peat. As a very competitive person I like winning. So I agree with any methods that lead to winning. I just happen to believe that there is not just one way to win in the NFL.

 

[Sicilian]

I think that you mean "tenets".

As for the last phrase in your sentence. FWIW - In 2001 I predicted on the Patriots mailing list that the Patriots method would lead to playoff success. In 2002 I predicted that the Patriots would 3 peat. As a very competitive person I like winning. So I agree with any methods that lead to winning. I just happen to believe that there is not just one way to win in the NFL.

By human nature, we gravititate towards the most recent success. For that reason, the general public believes that the only way to win in "today's" NFL is the way it was done last year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

By human nature, we gravititate towards the most recent success. For that reason, the general public believes that the only way to win in "today's" NFL is the way it was done last year.

Oddly if that is the case then less is more...

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

You can't possibly know that you are going to definitely win a ring when you sign a contract. It's not like most players are going from NE to Detroit. Samuel for example has a legit shot at a ring in Philly. Also playing for a large sum for a few years in one place doesn't preclude you from ever winning a ring. Seau was a loyal fan favorite on a good team and never won a ring. So it's not like sticking with a "good" team is a guarantee of future rings. You are just letting your fan bias cloud your judgement.

Obviously there is no guarantee, but I don't recall saying there was either.

 

[emoney_33]

Obviously there is no guarantee, but I don't recall saying there was either.

No you are just pissed off when players sign contracts that aren't with your favorite team.

 

[CheeseMonkeys]

No you are just pissed off when players sign contracts that aren't with your favorite team.

It amazes me how ignorant you have been throughout this entire discussion. I'm not pissed off at players who don't sign with my favorite team. I said I could care less if our pro bowl players want to leave for more money. That's really all I have been saying. I have been stating my opinion and you have had to oppose every post I have made, in which I have simply stated my opinions. How old are you man?

 

[Miguel]

Thanks for the correction. How do you think this is going to play out as the offseason unfolds?

For the one year where it is possible to draw a meaningful comparison, Kraft IS looking like a tightwad based on those admittedly non-final numbers.

I think that more teams will do what the Redskins did with the contracts of Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under the Cap: Redskins Utilizing the Uncapped Year

 

[SeauOUCH]

I think that more teams will do what the Redskins did with the contracts of Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Under the Cap: Redskins Utilizing the Uncapped Year

Hmm is it possible the Pats could structure TB's new contract this way?

 

[Miguel]

Hmm is it possible the Pats could structure TB's new contract this way?

Yes, it is....

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Hmm is it possible the Pats could structure TB's new contract this way?

While anything is possible, given the Patriots carefully conservative financial approach his closing cautionary comment bears repeating:

As I’ve previously written, given the uncertainty of what 2011 holds, clubs who take advantage of the uncapped year by incurring high team salaries in 2010 run the risk of possibly being penalized in 2011 as part of a new salary cap and CBA. Clearly, this is a risk the Redskins are willing to take -- or perhaps they know something the rest of us don’t.

Because it's just as likey the Redskins remain willing to take any risk because given his revenue stream that's been his approach to the cap and contracts all along as opposed to they know something the rest of us don't...