Clayton praises GMing

[Fencer]

What the rest of the NFL can learn from the Patriots, Packers and Bengals

A good way to evaluate the top teams in football is by counting how many draft choices those franchises have signed to second or third contracts.

The Green Bay Packers are the best. They have 14 on the roster. The Cincinnati Bengals are next at 13. The New England Patriots are third at 10. What do the three teams have in common?

They are currently unbeaten. Again: the teams that have been the best about retaining their draft picks into multiple contracts are a combined 17-0 so far.

My thoughts start:

• The article title is stupid, but don't necessarily blame that on Clayton.
• The article premise is not stupid.
• UDFAs are left out, but that may be OK; the average value of UDFA successes is less than the average value of a success in the draft, so just doing a nose count may be a bit misleading.

Beyond that, the article's premise does have one interesting flaw. Suppose you draft guys good enough to retain with a 2nd contract. The peak value you get from that is not necessarily during the life of the second contract. Rather, it may be late in their rookie contract and, in most cases, early in their second one.

A classic example of that phenomenon on the Pats would be Mayo. Indeed, the whole Mayo/Hightower/Collins trio illustrates the point well.

An example of somebody who truly did provide his biggest value only after being re-signed is Edelman.

 

[n1997y]

What the rest of the NFL can learn from the Patriots, Packers and Bengals

My thoughts start:

• The article title is stupid, but don't necessarily blame that on Clayton.
• The article premise is not stupid.
• UDFAs are left out, but that may be OK; the average value of UDFA successes is less than the average value of a success in the draft, so just doing a nose count may be a bit misleading.

Beyond that, the article's premise does have one interesting flaw. Suppose you draft guys good enough to retain with a 2nd contract. The peak value you get from that is not necessarily during the life of the second contract. Rather, it may be late in their rookie contract and, in most cases, early in their second one.

A classic example of that phenomenon on the Pats would be Mayo. Indeed, the whole Mayo/Hightower/Collins trio illustrates the point well.

An example of somebody who truly did provide his biggest value only after being re-signed is Edelman.

I think it's more complicated than that. Suppose you draft guys good enough not only to retain with a second contract, but also good enough that the rest of the league wants to woo them away from you...

So the premise is at best a simplification, perhaps a proxy for something more subtle. Yes, it is clearly correlated with success. But correlation and causation can be confused. Could it be that draft picks are more likely to resign with teams that are successful, not dysfunctional teams throwing money at a problem they don't understand?

Also, I'm confused by your use of the word "value". Just what do you mean? Is it the value in contributions on the field? Is it the value of cheap contracts leaving more cap space for others? What is this "value" of which you speak?

 

[Concussion Protocol]

I think it's more complicated than that. Suppose you draft guys good enough not only to retain with a second contract, but also good enough that the rest of the league wants to woo them away from you...

Letting Vereen walk and replacing him with Lewis is a good illustration of this

 

[n1997y]

I would be very interested to see some similar analysis about UDFA players on the rosters, both initial contracts and re-signings. I disagree that "the average value of UDFA successes is less than the average value of a success in the draft", to me it seems that a UDFA inevitably has a lower cost, and the value is really independent of where the player was sourced. So it should be that a UDFA will always have a higher value than a drafted player, all else being equal. The real question is, how do you define value?

Look at it this way: suppose you have two rookie guards. One was drafted, the other was UDFA. Both make the team and start, with equivalent success on the field. Which is the best value?

 

[Fencer]

Also, I'm confused by your use of the word "value". Just what do you mean? Is it the value in contributions on the field? Is it the value of cheap contracts leaving more cap space for others? What is this "value" of which you speak?

Difference between performance and what you have to pay for it.

 

[n1997y]

Difference between performance and what you have to pay for it.

I like that as a definition.

I feel it reinforces my belief that UDFAs have an inherent value advantage, as the lowest cost rung in the salary ladder. Asserting they are not the best value can only be based on the unstated assumption of inferior performance, compared to higher cost players. Lots of examples show otherwise.

 

[Fencer]

I would be very interested to see some similar analysis about UDFA players on the rosters, both initial contracts and re-signings. I disagree that "the average value of UDFA successes is less than the average value of a success in the draft", to me it seems that a UDFA inevitably has a lower cost, and the value is really independent of where the player was sourced. So it should be that a UDFA will always have a higher value than a drafted player, all else being equal. The real question is, how do you define value?

Look at it this way: suppose you have two rookie guards. One was drafted, the other was UDFA. Both make the team and start, with equivalent success on the field. Which is the best value?

My contention is that the drafted keepers will, on average, be better players than UDFA keepers.

For example, among the 10 guys the article refers to on the Pats are Brady, Gronk, McCourty, Vollmer, Mayo, Gostkowski ... If we added UDFAs, who would we have? Ryan Allen, Ryan Wendell, and at the moment I'm not thinking anybody else. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, UDFAs in the BB era have topped out at about the Stephen Neal level. (Or Vinateri, but he predates BB.) Malcolm Butler has a shot at eventually being the best.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For example, among the 10 guys the article refers to on the Pats are Brady, Gronk, McCourty, Vollmer, Mayo, Gostkowski ... If we added UDFAs, who would we have? Ryan Allen, Ryan Wendell, and at the moment I'm not thinking anybody else. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, UDFAs in the BB era have topped out at about the Stephen Neal level. (Or Vinateri, but he predates BB.) Malcolm Butler has a shot at eventually being the best.

Mike Wright is up there, too; it's a shame concussions derailed his career.

He's not current, but Dan Connolly would almost count there (he initially signed with the Jags).

 

[n1997y]

My contention is that the drafted keepers will, on average, be better players than UDFA keepers.

For example, among the 10 guys the article refers to on the Pats are Brady, Gronk, McCourty, Vollmer, Mayo, Gostkowski ... If we added UDFAs, who would we have? Ryan Allen, Ryan Wendell, and at the moment I'm not thinking anybody else. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, UDFAs in the BB era have topped out at about the Stephen Neal level. (Or Vinateri, but he predates BB.) Malcolm Butler has a shot at eventually being the best.

There are quite a few Pats players, past and present, who came to the team as UDFAs:
Andrews.
Kline.
Bolden.
Connolly.
BJGE.
Vellano.
Arrington.
Dane Fletcher.
Kenbrell Thompkins.

We've also picked up some UDFA players that came into the league with other teams, most notably:
Welker.
Amendola.
Woodhead.

 

[Nikolai]

It'd be a lot of work, but one metric you could use is to look at the value of the contracts that players sign when they leave your team versus the value of the contract for their replacement and compare the performances of both against each other. There's a lot of other things that would have to be considered, but assessing intelligent GM work is a pretty difficult analytical task, and one that is probably beyond the scope of people in the media. Hell, most teams probably don't even put that kind of work into it, but I bet the Pats and Packers are two of them.

 

[n1997y]

My contention is that the drafted keepers will, on average, be better players than UDFA keepers.

For example, among the 10 guys the article refers to on the Pats are Brady, Gronk, McCourty, Vollmer, Mayo, Gostkowski ... If we added UDFAs, who would we have? Ryan Allen, Ryan Wendell, and at the moment I'm not thinking anybody else. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, UDFAs in the BB era have topped out at about the Stephen Neal level. (Or Vinateri, but he predates BB.) Malcolm Butler has a shot at eventually being the best.

Stephen Neal level:
NCAA championship caliber athlete. Ten years in the NFL, three Super Bowl rings. Starter in two Super Bowls.

Most NFL players top out far below that level.

 

[n1997y]

It'd be a lot of work, but one metric you could use is to look at the value of the contracts that players sign when they leave your team versus the value of the contract for their replacement and compare the performances of both against each other. There's a lot of other things that would have to be considered, but assessing intelligent GM work is a pretty difficult analytical task, and one that is probably beyond the scope of people in the media. Hell, most teams probably don't even put that kind of work into it, but I bet the Pats and Packers are two of them.

Yep. Vereen vs. Lewis. QED.

 

[n1997y]

My contention is that the drafted keepers will, on average, be better players than UDFA keepers.

For example, among the 10 guys the article refers to on the Pats are Brady, Gronk, McCourty, Vollmer, Mayo, Gostkowski ... If we added UDFAs, who would we have? Ryan Allen, Ryan Wendell, and at the moment I'm not thinking anybody else. Unless I'm forgetting somebody, UDFAs in the BB era have topped out at about the Stephen Neal level. (Or Vinateri, but he predates BB.) Malcolm Butler has a shot at eventually being the best.

Fencer, I don't mean to be picking on you, but you hit one of my hot buttons with that.

I agree, as well scouted as prospects are it seems likely that the draft is an exact science and thus players who go undrafted are lesser talents and less likely to be as good as players that are drafted.

Point is, that's an attractive fiction. The draft is not an exact science. Many highly drafted players wash out and fail, some spectacularly. Equally, many undrafted players perform as well or better than their highly touted teammates (Arian Foster for example).

One of the things that makes Belichick the GOAT is his willingness to evaluate performance fairly and without prejudice, including that based on draft position or UDFA status. Keep in mind, we got Woodhead in large part because the Jets cut him to keep a drafted player in the same position (Joe McKnight). Coach's ego, led to prejudice based on draft position.
Why did New York Jets cut Danny Woodhead? Rex Ryan's ego - NFL.com

 

[Digit]

There are quite a few Pats players, past and present, who came to the team as UDFAs:
*list edited out, but seems to be missing someone*

What was Malcolm Butler, if not an UDFA? Seems like getting a #1 CB as an UDFA probably ranks as the highest value ever. (Even more so when you throw in his last act as a rookie UDFA.)

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

What an interesting and lucid point Clayton makes. Allow me to add to his point with this interesting statistic: 100 million. No it is not a player's contract number or a salary cap benchmark. That is the dollar amount ESPN has been directed to cut from its operating costs by its parent company, Disney, due to realized and expected unsubscribe numbers 'cutting' into the company's revenue.

Clayton and his whole rotting lot of PC pushing, carefully aimed smear machine, entrenched power protecting slime can start using their fingers and toes to count the cord cutting and graph the coming unbundling subscribe model with their NFL branded, Roger Goodell autographed tablets.

But in the meantime, thank you John! Until now I had no idea that good drafting aids success.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I can't stand that little goober faced snot bag. "That's football."

 

[rookBoston]

Difference between performance and what you have to pay for it.

Not the difference, the ratio. How many units of "quality play" do you get per dollar of salary cap committed to that player.

And I'll add, it should be the marginal ratio compared to the next best option.

So, while Gronk makes a lot of plays, this is diminished by the fact he has a big contract. His value comes from the fact that his next best replacement would either make far fewer plays (Chandler) or cost much more (imagine the cost to the franchise of luring Witten away from Dallas).

 

[Fencer]

Not the difference, the ratio. How many units of "quality play" do you get per dollar of salary cap committed to that player.

Depending on how you mean that, either it's a distinction without a difference, or else I disagree. More likely the former. Everybody has a very similar pool of cap dollars. So getting the best difference or best ratio between value and resources is, in the aggregate, the same thing.

That said, a single rookie-contract Gronk yields more excess value than several rookie-contract Ryan Wendells.

 

[Fencer]

Stephen Neal level:
NCAA championship caliber athlete. Ten years in the NFL, three Super Bowl rings. Starter in two Super Bowls.

Most NFL players top out far below that level.

Right. He was a solid starter.

But that's nowhere near the level of a Brady or Gronk, and it's even well behind McCourty.

 

[Nikolai]

Depending on how you mean that, either it's a distinction without a difference, or else I disagree. More likely the former. Everybody has a very similar pool of cap dollars. So getting the best difference or best ratio between value and resources is, in the aggregate, the same thing.

That said, a single rookie-contract Gronk yields more excess value than several rookie-contract Ryan Wendells.

Right, which is why you have to go with replacements when doing the comparative analysis.