So, @RapSheet tells us Julian Edelman could be worth $7M/year on the open market

[kennyb]

Given two 30 year old engineers, how would you decide whom to hire? THe one who's been more productive? Or would you ask them their SAT scores?

You probably wouldn't ask them their SAT scores. Even though that was a measure of "talent" or something once upon a time.

Hand to eye and ability to adjust your body to the ball can't necessarily be learned.

 

[kennyb]

At this point, I have to assume that you're a troll, because only a troll would claim that talent is measured in combine numbers. Literally nobody in the NFl would claim that. Just look at this: 2011 NFL Combine WR Results - Historical NFL Scouting Combine Data

Clearly you don't know what a sunk cost is. Let me help you:

Guaranteed money = sunk cost. It is pointless to even discuss this money in relation to his value going forward, because it's spent whether he stays or is cut.

Money that can be saved by cutting him = not a sunk cost. A rational person will evaluate his expected performance moving forward against this number, and this number alone, because that's the trade-off that's currently in question. You can either keep him and pay this money or cut him and save this money. Clearly, you are not a rational person.

We actually had a whole discussion about that as to whether Wilfork's 3.6M cap hit next year from the first contract he signed is a sunk cost or not.

I like the way you put it. Sunk costs are just monies already spent that you can't get back no matter what. Wilfork's bonus is certainly that.

 

[Huckleberry1]

At this point, I have to assume that you're a troll, because only a troll would claim that talent is measured in combine numbers. Literally nobody in the NFl would claim that. Just look at this: 2011 NFL Combine WR Results - Historical NFL Scouting Combine Data

According to the combine results, Ricardo Lockette is the most talented WR to come out that year. I mean, sure, AJ Green is okay, but Lockette is only slightly smaller and has a better shuttle time and a MUCH better 40 time. I forget which team he's currently dominating the NFL for, care to remind me?



“I had Randy Moss at one point. He was pretty good at [catching high balls]. Those are really unique players. We have a very good skill set of a receivers in Julian, and the way Austin [Collie] played yesterday, Danny [Amendola] played his heart out. We had plenty there yesterday, we just couldn’t do enough early in the game to put pressure on the team to really play from behind. We got behind and it was just too much to dig ourselves out of a hole.

Says Brady: “I wish we could have done more on the first couple of third downs of the game, just to put some points on the board so that we can make it a little bit tougher on them. But I’m proud of the way we fought. Our guys played with a lot of toughness, with a lot of resiliency. Even all the way up to the end we fought hard. That’s something to be [proud of]. That’s really the mark of coach [Bill] Belichick and what he talks about. For a team where — like I said, the NFL tries to level the playing field every year; we always feel like we’ve got a pretty good shot.”

.98http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports/newengland/football/patriots/2014/01/20/tom-brady-on-dc-its-a-very-abrupt-end-to-season/



I can pretty much guarantee that I'm significantly more educated in both than you are. For one, I didn't say anything about Amendola being 'so good'. For another, how good he is has no relevance whatsoever to which parts of his contract are a sunk cost and which are not. Clearly you don't know what a sunk cost is. Let me help you:

Guaranteed money = sunk cost. It is pointless to even discuss this money in relation to his value going forward, because it's spent whether he stays or is cut.

Money that can be saved by cutting him = not a sunk cost. A rational person will evaluate his expected performance moving forward against this number, and this number alone, because that's the trade-off that's currently in question. You can either keep him and pay this money or cut him and save this money. Clearly, you are not a rational person.

The only thing this post lacked was the KABOOM at the end.

 

[BelichicksHoodie]

You would have to be a complete moron to think that combine numbers are relevant to a player's contract after they have been in the league for 4 years, and only aa few of the PFF and fantasy football obsessed are actually dumb enough to cite them as relevant, so i am guessing you already have your answer.


Chad Jackson>Jerry Rice.


Don't believe me, look at their forty times...................

What? When in the world did I say combine numbers are relevant to a player's contract? I was asking where in this thread did you see someone say Edelman is as talented as Brown because you're going off about it even though no one here has said it.

Are you an alcoholic?

 

[supafly]

As far as devaluing Edelman because he stepped up when others were hurt that is just ridiculous. He caught 69% of the footballs thrown his way so it is not as if they threw the football to him 300 times and he ended up with 105 catches. I pointed out in another post that a lower percent of Brady’s passes were targeted at Edelman this past season than any season, Welker played with the Patriots. Welker played with the likes of Moss, Gronkowski, Hernandez, and others.

I'm not meaning to "devalue" Julian Edelman as much as I am meaning to put his production into perspective. As I have said before, I haven't seen anyone here who wouldn't be happy with retaining him for a fair cost. That said, our offense took steps backwards as his personal production increased, and that happened for a reason. That reason was that no one else was a reasonable target to actually catch the ball too often, at least with the injuries, poor receiving threats, and worst TE group in the entire league for 2013. Perhaps that changes for 2014, but then you'd also have to re-evaluate Edelman's production again, and whether the circumstances would be different in some areas. I believe they would be. We'll have to see how Belichick feels.

Talent | Define Talent at Dictionary.com



Talent - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I can't read all the back and forth, but it may be that people are arguing different definitions of "Talent".

Yes, sir. I would imagine that it's just a matter of semantics.

"Talent" vs. "Ability"

I still can't see any scenarios where Antonio Brown lacks either one when compared to Julian Edelman, but there's always a decent chance that I'm just outright dense, so I'll let this one go and move on. After all, different people have different opinions and they are entitled to their beliefs--right or wrong.

 

[Brady6]

Given two 30 year old engineers, how would you decide whom to hire? THe one who's been more productive? Or would you ask them their SAT scores?

You probably wouldn't ask them their SAT scores. Even though that was a measure of "talent" or something once upon a time.

We are talking about pro sports not engineering, but I will play along for this exercise. SATs would not really be relevant if a question was going to be asked it would be where the engineer went to college and what his GPA was. If the engineer had 30 years of experience and attended University of Phoenix and the other person had 5 years of experience and went to MIT than I would like go with the MIT graduate.

Hand to eye and ability to adjust your body to the ball can't necessarily be learned.

Maybe, in which case I would argue that Edelman’s hand eye coordination is good considering that he was #1 in the NFL in catch percentage by WRs with 75+ targeted passes in 2013.

1. Julian Edelman-69.50%
2. Keenan Allen-68.30%
3. Marques Colston-68.20%
4. Kendall Wright-67.60%
5. Jordy Nelson-66.90%
6. Antonio Brown-66.30%
7. Anquan Boldin-65.90%
8. Wes Welker-65.80%
9. Golden Tate-65.30%
10. Danny Amendola-65.10%
11. DeSean Jackson-65.10%
12. Roddy White-64.90%
13. Demaryius Thomas-64.80%
14. Harry Douglas-64.40%
15. Greg Jennings-64.20%
16. Eric Decker-64.00%
17. Dexter McCluster-63.90%
18. Marvin Jones-63.80%
19. James Jones-63.40%
20. Pierre Garcon-62.10%

 

[Brady6]

I'm not meaning to "devalue" Julian Edelman as much as I am meaning to put his production into perspective. As I have said before, I haven't seen anyone here who wouldn't be happy with retaining him for a fair cost. That said, our offense took steps backwards as his personal production increased, and that happened for a reason. That reason was that no one else was a reasonable target to actually catch the ball too often, at least with the injuries, poor receiving threats, and worst TE group in the entire league for 2013. Perhaps that changes for 2014, but then you'd also have to re-evaluate Edelman's production again, and whether the circumstances would be different in some areas. I believe they would be. We'll have to see how Belichick feels.

Honestly, this conversation has turned into 8th grade English class. My point is when comparing physical talent (size, weight, speed, agility, leaping ability) Edelman is better than Brown in every metric. When FTW suggested Brown was a superior talent I referenced their combine results to show him that was not the case. Is Brown a better wide receiver? Yes, now in his career he is; but he has had more opportunity on offense to develop into the receiver he is today. Brown has been targeted 100+ times in 2011, 2012 and again this season, prior to the 151 targets this season Edelman saw a combined 40 times in 2011 and 2012.

On a side note – I noticed in your avatar that you got married so I wanted to say congratulations.

 

[Brady6]

What? When in the world did I say combine numbers are relevant to a player's contract? I was asking where in this thread did you see someone say Edelman is as talented as Brown because you're going off about it even though no one here has said it.

Are you an alcoholic?

If the NFL combine did not matter as Ivan likes to believe, they would not have it. It matters we are talking about pro athletes and the suggestion that they capabilities as an athlete does not matter is silly. People think that because Brady was a sixth round pick that the combine does not matter, the reality is that Brady slipped to the sixth round because he was not a full time starter at Michigan and teams did not have enough tape on him in game to assess him. Is the combine the end all be all? No, of course not but saying that workout numbers do not matter to a pro athlete is like saying a driving record does not matter for a school bus driver.

 

[supafly]

Honestly, this conversation has turned into 8th grade English class. My point is when comparing physical talent (size, weight, speed, agility, leaping ability) Edelman is better than Brown in every metric. When FTW suggested Brown was a superior talent I referenced their combine results to show him that was not the case. Is Brown a better wide receiver? Yes, now in his career he is; but he has had more opportunity on offense to develop into the receiver he is today. Brown has been targeted 100+ times in 2011, 2012 and again this season, prior to the 151 targets this season Edelman saw a combined 40 times in 2011 and 2012.

I understand, I'm just not sure that I see it the same as you do. Either way, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure I've had plenty of "interesting" observations and opinions that others did not agree with.

I see Antonio Brown as being one of the top WRs in the AFC, at least in the top 5-10 rankings. I wouldn't put Julian Edelman in there after one season where he caught 69% of his targets due to Brady not having anyone else to throw to. By the way, what percentage of targets did Amendola catch this year, just out of curiosity?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see it there in your other post. Amendola was around 65%.

On a side note – I noticed in your avatar that you got married so I wanted to say congratulations.

Thanks buddy. It didn't just recently happen though. I just thought it was time to give Scarlett Johannson the old heave ho. I appreciate the gesture, however.

 

[Brady6]

I can pretty much guarantee that I'm significantly more educated in both than you are. For one, I didn't say anything about Amendola being 'so good'. For another, how good he is has no relevance whatsoever to which parts of his contract are a sunk cost and which are not. Clearly you don't know what a sunk cost is. Let me help you:

Guaranteed money = sunk cost. It is pointless to even discuss this money in relation to his value going forward, because it's spent whether he stays or is cut.

Money that can be saved by cutting him = not a sunk cost. A rational person will evaluate his expected performance moving forward against this number, and this number alone, because that's the trade-off that's currently in question. You can either keep him and pay this money or cut him and save this money. Clearly, you are not a rational person.

I am not going to diminish your education; fact is I do not know you from Joe and this are an online sports forum. I will say that I am educated having been in the air force for 12 years during which I received a BA in economics and also learned to fly and received all of licenses and commercial ratings. I do not practice economics and it has been a solid 10 years since I studied them but I do know a sunk cost is an investment that unrecoverable, Amendola’s would only be a sunk cost if the team cut him now and moved on. If the Patriots retain Amendola for 2014 than he would not be a sunk cost since they can still receive a return on their investment.


Why I am not a rational person? I never once said to cut Amendola, I actually said the complete opposite which is to retain him through 2014 and try to recoup as much return on our investment in him as possible and then sever ties in 2015 if he is still not performing.

Do not make assertions about the type of person I am simply because you do not agree with me about a specific player or personnel decision. We are fans, this is supposed be fun and enjoyable not abrasive and confrontational, the great part about the things we say on this board is if they’re wrong it doesn’t impact anyone or the team.

 

[mgteich]

So, you received a BA in economics without understanding sunk costs.

There is exactly ZERO way to recover our $10M investment in Amendola (last year's salary plus bonus). This money is sunk cost. It is gone, never to return.

The team is a DECISION POINT. You should also recall that concept.

We can CHOOSE to spend an additional $2M on March 11 which will give us the right to have Amendola's 2014 services for a total of more than $3.5M.

AT THE END OF THE 2014 SEASON
The team will have $10M of sunk cost plus another $3.5M gone for a total of $13.5M. WHAT WILL MATTER for 2014 is whether was worth the $3.5M of new money.

In addition to having the right to his services for 2014, the team will have an OPTION to pay Amendola over $4.5M for 2015 services rendered.

CUTTING AMENDOLA AFTER 2014
This is an idea that is strange on to me. Is Amendola really worth $3.5M for one year of services if we think that there is only an outside chance that he will be worth $4.5M for 2015? If Edelman comes back, is he really worth $3.5M as a backup slot receiver and to compete for reps as the #3 or #4 wide receiver on the team.

If Edelman is re-signed, doesn't make much more sense to sign a free agent for $3M plus bonuses instead of keeping Amendola?

FINALLY
I am NOT suggesting cutting Amendola. I am just point out the flaws in the logic of keeping him to try to "recoup" past sunk costs. I am also pointing out that the decision whether to pay him$3.5M for 2014 is areal one.

I am not going to diminish your education; fact is I do not know you from Joe and this are an online sports forum. I will say that I am educated having been in the air force for 12 years during which I received a BA in economics and also learned to fly and received all of licenses and commercial ratings. I do not practice economics and it has been a solid 10 years since I studied them but I do know a sunk cost is an investment that unrecoverable, Amendola’s would only be a sunk cost if the team cut him now and moved on. If the Patriots retain Amendola for 2014 than he would not be a sunk cost since they can still receive a return on their investment.


Why I am not a rational person? I never once said to cut Amendola, I actually said the complete opposite which is to retain him through 2014 and try to recoup as much return on our investment in him as possible and then sever ties in 2015 if he is still not performing.

Do not make assertions about the type of person I am simply because you do not agree with me about a specific player or personnel decision. We are fans, this is supposed be fun and enjoyable not abrasive and confrontational, the great part about the things we say on this board is if they’re wrong it doesn’t impact anyone or the team.

 

[Brady6]

So, you received a BA in economics without understanding sunk costs.

There is exactly ZERO way to recover our $10M investment in Amendola (last year's salary plus bonus). This money is sunk cost. It is gone, never to return.

The team is a DECISION POINT. You should also recall that concept.

We can CHOOSE to spend an additional $2M on March 11 which will give us the right to have Amendola's 2014 services for a total of more than $3.5M.

AT THE END OF THE 2014 SEASON
The team will have $10M of sunk cost plus another $3.5M gone for a total of $13.5M. WHAT WILL MATTER for 2014 is whether was worth the $3.5M of new money.

In addition to having the right to his services for 2014, the team will have an OPTION to pay Amendola over $4.5M for 2015 services rendered.

CUTTING AMENDOLA AFTER 2014
This is an idea that is strange on to me. Is Amendola really worth $3.5M for one year of services if we think that there is only an outside chance that he will be worth $4.5M for 2015? If Edelman comes back, is he really worth $3.5M as a backup slot receiver and to compete for reps as the #3 or #4 wide receiver on the team.

If Edelman is re-signed, doesn't make much more sense to sign a free agent for $3M plus bonuses instead of keeping Amendola?

FINALLY
I am NOT suggesting cutting Amendola. I am just point out the flaws in the logic of keeping him to try to "recoup" past sunk costs. I am also pointing out that the decision whether to pay him$3.5M for 2014 is areal one.

There is absolutely a way to recover the investment from Amendola, if he plays in 2014 and helps the team win a SB than the $10 million is a good investment that we saw the return that we sought when we made it. A sunk cost is an investment that you are unable to recover the value from, it is not just money that you cannot get back if that was the case every single player in the NFL that was paid a bonus is a sunk cost.

I don’t really want to get into cap scenarios, the fact is Amendola is not a sunk cost he is still a member of the team that could potentially contribute and give us a return on our investment.

 

[kennyb]

The fact that they have combines does not mean they're relevant after 4 years in the league.

 

[supafly]

If the NFL combine did not matter as Ivan likes to believe, they would not have it. It matters we are talking about pro athletes and the suggestion that they capabilities as an athlete does not matter is silly. People think that because Brady was a sixth round pick that the combine does not matter, the reality is that Brady slipped to the sixth round because he was not a full time starter at Michigan and teams did not have enough tape on him in game to assess him. Is the combine the end all be all? No, of course not but saying that workout numbers do not matter to a pro athlete is like saying a driving record does not matter for a school bus driver.

I think the combine is just a portion of the evaluation process, which is a combination of many different factors.

Of course it "matters," but how much it matters is highly debatable; otherwise, we'd never have any 1st or 2nd round busts in the NFL, since their measurables at the combine put them at the top of the NFL draft.

We've obviously seen a lot of players who've done well who weren't even invited to the combine, or did poorly. We've also seen plenty of players who have had great combine numbers but didn't pan out to do a damn thing in the NFL, hence the 50/50 percentage of busts in the top portion of the draft as high as round two.

 

[kennyb]

There is absolutely a way to recover the investment from Amendola, if he plays in 2014 and helps the team win a SB than the $10 million is a good investment that we saw the return that we sought when we made it. A sunk cost is an investment that you are unable to recover the value from, it is not just money that you cannot get back if that was the case every single player in the NFL that was paid a bonus is a sunk cost.

I don’t really want to get into cap scenarios, the fact is Amendola is not a sunk cost he is still a member of the team that could potentially contribute and give us a return on our investment.

There is no way to "recover" the 10M upfront cost. It might end up being a good investment, or not, but it's still sunk. Amazing you don't understand this.

The decision to keep Amendola on doesn't depend on the 10M investment they made. That is a sunk cost. It was paid long ago, and can't be recovered.

"But he still might turn out good...so it's not sunk!". No, the COST is sunk. That means it doesn't affect your decision as to whether to keep him on or not. The player isn't "sunk" or "not sunk", the COST is. If Amendola will play for 3M this upcoming year or whatever, the decision is "is he worth 3M for this upcoming year". The fact that he got x dollars last year is IRRELEVENT.

Just like Wilfork got upteen million dollars for his bonus many years ago. All but 3.6M of that has been expensed. It's a sunk cost though. Can't be recovered. So the decision is "is Wilfork worth the 7.5M salary or whatever" for the NEXT YEAR. The fact that he has an old cap hit of 3.6M from the LAST BONUS, is MEANINGLESS. That cap cost (3.6M) hits no matter what.

"But if Wilfork can be resigned or restructured, then it's not a sunk cost!". No, it's still a sunk cost. Sunk isn't a pejorative word meaning "bad investment", it means "sunk" as in "in the past, and not affected one way or another by anything in the future". Wilfork's bonus was paid many years ago. It's irrelevent as to whether he's worth the 7.5M cash for his salary next year or not. Doesn't enter into the equation of whether to keep him or not. Maybe he's worth 7.5M for the upcoming year, or maybe he isn't. The fact that he got a 20M bonus 5 years ago, or whatever is not relevent. Or it shouldn't be, if one is a rational person.

Sunk cost says you should consider FUTURE costs versus FUTURE benefits. You should ignore past costs. Sunk means past.

I would ask for my money back for your economics degree.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I think the combine is just a portion of the evaluation process, which is a combination of many different factors.

Of course it "matters," but how much it matters is highly debatable; otherwise, we'd never have any 1st or 2nd round busts in the NFL, since their measurables at the combine put them at the top of the NFL draft.

We've obviously seen a lot of players who've done well who weren't even invited to the combine, or did poorly. We've also seen plenty of players who have had great combine numbers but didn't pan out to do a damn thing in the NFL, hence the 50/50 percentage of busts in the top portion of the draft as high as round two.

Actually what i said was that combine numbers have absolutely no relevance to free agent deals 3-4 years into a player's career, and they don't and other than 1-2 posters on this site i have never come across anyone who believes they do. What matters at that point is how a player has performed in the NFL and what their career trajectory is perceived to be.


The Combine is a way for NFL teams to get baselines for players speed, agility etc... because they play in very different conferences and against very different levels of opposing teams and players, once they have been in the league a few years that is no longer the case nor is it necessary for teams to reevaluate them in such a context as they have been playing in the same league for several years. And the idea that The Combine is the actual test of a football player's talent and not their actual play is about as warped as it gets. Talent in sports is how well you play a game not how high you jump or fast you run, unless you are competing in a high jump or sprints in track and field.

I realize that you weren't the one taking issue with this Sup but felt the need to make myself clear when my position on it was once again grossly misrepresented.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There is absolutely a way to recover the investment from Amendola, if he plays in 2014 and helps the team win a SB than the $10 million is a good investment that we saw the return that we sought when we made it. A sunk cost is an investment that you are unable to recover the value from, it is not just money that you cannot get back if that was the case every single player in the NFL that was paid a bonus is a sunk cost.

I don’t really want to get into cap scenarios, the fact is Amendola is not a sunk cost he is still a member of the team that could potentially contribute and give us a return on our investment.

I'm honestly appalled that someone with a BA in economics can so thoroughly misunderstand such a basic economic principle. This is genuinely troubling. Did you get your degree from the University of Phoenix or something?

FWIW, my BA was in entrepreneurship (Babson College). I don't think they would have let me past Freshman year without understanding this stuff.

 

[kennyb]

Actually what i said was that combine numbers have absolutely no relevance to free agent deals 3-4 years into a player's career, and they don't and other than 1-2 posters on this site i have never come across anyone who believes they do. What matters at that point is how a player has performed in the NFL and what their career trajectory is perceived to be.


The Combine is a way for NFL teams to get baselines for players speed, agility etc... because they play in very different conferences and against very different levels of opposing teams and players, once they have been in the league a few years that is no longer the case nor is it necessary for teams to reevaluate them in such a context as they have been playing in the same league for several years. And the idea that The Combine is the actual test of a football player's talent and not their actual play is about as warped as it gets. Talent in sports is how well you play a game not how high you jump or fast you run, unless you are competing in a high jump or sprints in track and field.

I realize that you weren't the one taking issue with this Sup but felt the need to make myself clear when my position on it was once again grossly misrepresented.

Exactly, a player could look lightning fast against slower teams and you wouldn't have the baseline to judge if he's super fast or just looks fast against slow people. The combine is supposed to HELP with that. Although some players do play faster or slower than they time, so there's that added complexity.

After a few years in the league, there's enough tape to make combines meaningless. Like SAT scores for a 30 year old with 8 years in a field.

The talk about "talent" vs. "ability" where the combine measures "talent" and the NFL experience measures "ability" is just semantic games, IMO.

 

[Huckleberry1]

What? When in the world did I say combine numbers are relevant to a player's contract? I was asking where in this thread did you see someone say Edelman is as talented as Brown because you're going off about it even though no one here has said it.

Are you an alcoholic?

You asked who was making the claim that Edelman is as talented as Brown and i responded to that, unless you have Brady6 on ignore as i do then you must realize that he is the one who keeps making that ridiculous claim and that is what i was referring to, not your posts. Brady6 repeatedly invokes combine numbers for veteran players claiming they reflect a player's talent, any sane person knows that is crap but that's the way it is. Experience has taught us that regardless of how insane his argument is he will continue to repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...................................

 

[Brady6]

I'm honestly appalled that someone with a BA in economics can so thoroughly misunderstand such a basic economic principle. This is genuinely troubling. Did you get your degree from the University of Phoenix or something?

FWIW, my BA was in entrepreneurship (Babson College). I don't think they would have let me past Freshman year without understanding this stuff.

I got my degree from the USAFA. Sorry that you're appalled, had I known that you were so emotional over higher education I wouldn't have engaged in this discussion with you.

The Patriots made an initial up front investment in Amendola the return on that investment would come in the form of his production and contributions to the success of the team. It is not unrecoverable unless they sever ties because it can be returned by his play moving forward.

If you go to the dealership to buy a car you pay an upfront cost. Is that a sunk cost?