NFL 2019 Super Bowl: the restless shade of Mike Martz

[dbunting]

It says Bells contract has 35 mill in guaranteed money. His avg per year is less than Gurley got last year. He gave up 17 mill last year that he can never get back, to sign a contract for less than 14 mill per year. He stuck to his guns so more power to him.

[Rhom]

With the Niners signing Dee Ford, I’m not sure what it means for the draft.  For months now, assumption was they’d go edge rusher at 2.  Josh Allen originally (which I would love) and then Nick Bosa after the Murray to Cardinals talk heated up.  So what now?  Trade to a QB desperate team?

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, Rhom said:

With the Niners signing Dee Ford, I’m not sure what it means for the draft.  For months now, assumption was they’d go edge rusher at 2.  Josh Allen originally (which I would love) and then Nick Bosa after the Murray to Cardinals talk heated up.  So what now?  Trade to a QB desperate team?

I think you still go pass rusher, because you need more than one or two, and I don't think it's wise to put all your eggs in the Dee Ford basket.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Rhom said:

With the Niners signing Dee Ford, I’m not sure what it means for the draft.  For months now, assumption was they’d go edge rusher at 2.  Josh Allen originally (which I would love) and then Nick Bosa after the Murray to Cardinals talk heated up.  So what now?  Trade to a QB desperate team?

I still draft Bosa if he's there.  If not, who knows, lots of options -- and they still desperately need to address the secondary if they don't do anything in free agency.

[Maithanet]

Maybe I have too much of a "moneyball" outlooks when it comes to the NFL, but I'm always leery of trading draft picks for non-qbs who already have big money deals.  Because it has been demonstrated over and over again that signing big money players in free agency does not help teams win.  Whichever team "wins" free agency almost inevitably goes 7-9 the next season. 

Well, trades like the one for Cooper or Beckham or Ford are like that (paying top dollar for talent), but you ALSO have to give up valuable first and second round draft picks.  I know that early draft picks don't always pan out, whereas all of those guys have already demonstrated they can win at the NFL level.  But with the money that these star players are going to require, they have to be stars in order to be worth it.  And if they get injured (as happens to everyone, but particularly older players), then it's much worse.  In contrast, hitting on draft picks is virtually the only way you get a competitive advantage in the NFL, because successful draft picks are always underpaid.  Trading away early draft picks is something I'm always going to be skeptical about.

[briantw]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe I have too much of a "moneyball" outlooks when it comes to the NFL, but I'm always leery of trading draft picks for non-qbs who already have big money deals.  Because it has been demonstrated over and over again that signing big money players in free agency does not help teams win.  Whichever team "wins" free agency almost inevitably goes 7-9 the next season. 

Well, trades like the one for Cooper or Beckham or Ford are like that (paying top dollar for talent), but you ALSO have to give up valuable first and second round draft picks.  I know that early draft picks don't always pan out, whereas all of those guys have already demonstrated they can win at the NFL level.  But with the money that these star players are going to require, they have to be stars in order to be worth it.  And if they get injured (as happens to everyone, but particularly older players), then it's much worse.  In contrast, hitting on draft picks is virtually the only way you get a competitive advantage in the NFL, because successful draft picks are always underpaid.  Trading away early draft picks is something I'm always going to be skeptical about.

Well, when you have a franchise QB on a rookie deal, it allows you a bit of short term flexibility to add guys like OBJ to your team.  When your QB is making 20 million plus, though, you have to be a lot more careful.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Silence, worm! Or I'll have your guts for garters.

HAHAHAHAHA!

It looks like Jace is the one with egg on her face.

And all the Normies saw it!!!

[Fez]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe I have too much of a "moneyball" outlooks when it comes to the NFL, but I'm always leery of trading draft picks for non-qbs who already have big money deals.  Because it has been demonstrated over and over again that signing big money players in free agency does not help teams win.  Whichever team "wins" free agency almost inevitably goes 7-9 the next season. 

Well, trades like the one for Cooper or Beckham or Ford are like that (paying top dollar for talent), but you ALSO have to give up valuable first and second round draft picks.  I know that early draft picks don't always pan out, whereas all of those guys have already demonstrated they can win at the NFL level.  But with the money that these star players are going to require, they have to be stars in order to be worth it.  And if they get injured (as happens to everyone, but particularly older players), then it's much worse.  In contrast, hitting on draft picks is virtually the only way you get a competitive advantage in the NFL, because successful draft picks are always underpaid.  Trading away early draft picks is something I'm always going to be skeptical about.

I think its more that NFL teams still kinda suck at evaluating talent and really suck and understanding injury risk. There are just as many, if not more, draft picks that flame out than free agents do, but the cost is less so we usually don't remember it; except for the really noticeable 1st round busts.

There certainly have been times that big money free agents have made a huge difference for their teams, but I'd chalk that up to coincidence rather than due to teams actually understanding why a particular signing worked out. And there's been plenty of times that smaller, less noticeable signings have turned into huge wins (e.g. almost every free agent the Patriots sign), and those players would've been the ones to have bidding wars over if team front offices were better.

[briantw]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think its more that NFL teams still kinda suck at evaluating talent and really suck and understanding injury risk. There are just as many, if not more, draft picks that flame out than free agents do, but the cost is less so we usually don't remember it; except for the really noticeable 1st round busts.

There certainly have been times that big money free agents have made a huge difference for their teams, but I'd chalk that up to coincidence rather than due to teams actually understanding why a particular signing worked out. And there's been plenty of times that smaller, less noticeable signings have turned into huge wins (e.g. almost every free agent the Patriots sign), and those players would've been the ones to have bidding wars over if team front offices were better.

Situation matters too.  The Pats make a lot of signings look good because they have great coaching that actually adjusts to the roster.  A lot of coaches expect guys to adapt to their system, not the other way around, whereas the Pats alter their system every year to adapt to the personnel.  I doubt a lot of guys who sign for the Pats would look anywhere near as good most other places.

[DMC]

30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Maybe I have too much of a "moneyball" outlooks when it comes to the NFL, but I'm always leery of trading draft picks for non-qbs who already have big money deals.  Because it has been demonstrated over and over again that signing big money players in free agency does not help teams win.  Whichever team "wins" free agency almost inevitably goes 7-9 the next season. 

Thing is though that's not really what moneyball is about - moneyball isn't about one specific strategy but rather exploiting market inefficiencies found through data analysis.  In other words, doing what everyone else isn't doing in an inherently copycat league (and both the NFL and MLB are totally copycat leagues).  E.G., for a while the market inefficiency the A's exploited was concentrating on players that were really good defensively.  Then that inefficiency shifted entirely and they focused on players that were shitty on defense.

Also, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of a team acquiring a big name star then winning the Super Bowl.  "Winning" free agency is not important, no, but that doesn't mean acquiring a big contract star is necessarily the bad move.  I mean, my example would be the 94 Niners and Deion Sanders - they signed him, finally beat the Cowboys, won the Super Bowl, then the next year he went to the Cowboys and they won the title.  That's a spurious relationship - Deion wasn't that important, but still.  And while things might not be like that anymore in terms of the elite teams of the 90s, there certainly is a sweet-spot in terms of going big and spending a lot to try to win.  In baseball this has been very demonstrable with the past few World Series winners.

[Maithanet]

I'm using moneyball to mean "trying to get players who will outplay their contract in order to get a competitive edge."  The easiest way to do this is by hitting on your draft picks.  If they're decent starters they're a good value, and if they're stars they're a fantastic value.  In contrast, big money free agents who have already made multiple pro bowls almost never outplay their contracts.  The best you can hope is that they stay healthy and continue to perform like they have, in which case you get what you pay for.  But if they either underachieve or get injured, you're screwed. 

Yes, I understand that there are definitely cases where a key free agent signing helped a team make the SB.  Aquib Talib did it three times, for three different teams.  But those cases are pretty unusual, and more often they're a single big signing to put a team over the top, rather than a string of signings and trades to fill a bunch of holes.  The more holes you try and fill with big money guys on other teams (be it free agency or trades) the more likely you are to get screwed with an injured, hollow roster. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm using moneyball to mean "trying to get players who will outplay their contract in order to get a competitive edge."  The easiest way to do this is by hitting on your draft picks.

I know, but first, this is much easier said than done.  Second, it's entirely possible teams in general (and definitely specific teams) are overvaluing draft picks right now - that would be the market inefficiency.  I don't know if that's true, haven't followed football enough recently.  But it's certainly an emerging inefficiency in how late/protected 1st round draft picks are overvalued in the NBA right now.  

In contrast, even if you're paying the actual market value of a big name free agent, that could still be exploiting an inefficiency if that players' position is undervalued.  I will say in the niners' case with Ford this almost certainly isn't true - if anything edge rushers are probably overvalued right now, and in general ShanaLynch have done a horrible job identifying inefficiencies.  Their only saving grace is their contracts guy - Paraag Marathe - is still very good at getting out of deals as quick as possible with minimum burden.

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The more holes you try and fill with big money guys on other teams (be it free agency or trades) the more likely you are to get screwed with an injured, hollow roster.

Sure, of course.

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'm using moneyball to mean "trying to get players who will outplay their contract in order to get a competitive edge."  The easiest way to do this is by hitting on your draft picks.  If they're decent starters they're a good value, and if they're stars they're a fantastic value.  In contrast, big money free agents who have already made multiple pro bowls almost never outplay their contracts.  The best you can hope is that they stay healthy and continue to perform like they have, in which case you get what you pay for.  But if they either underachieve or get injured, you're screwed. 

Yes, I understand that there are definitely cases where a key free agent signing helped a team make the SB.  Aquib Talib did it three times, for three different teams.  But those cases are pretty unusual, and more often they're a single big signing to put a team over the top, rather than a string of signings and trades to fill a bunch of holes.  The more holes you try and fill with big money guys on other teams (be it free agency or trades) the more likely you are to get screwed with an injured, hollow roster. 

The Browns already have a ton of players who are likely to out play their contracts.  Mayfield, Ward, Garrett, Njoku, Ogunjobi, Ogbah, Callaway, Hunt...they pretty much have a three to four year window before extensions start coming due and now is the time to exploit that.

Yes, drafting a rookie WR and him producing at an elite level would be great, and a bargain.  But there's no guarantee that the receiver you draft will end up elite, even if you're an above average evaluator of talent like Dorsey clearly is.  And sometimes rookie receivers take a couple of years to develop.  Beckham is ready to contribute at an elite level now, and the Browns had enough cap space that his contact won't be an issue for a couple of years.

[Jaime L]

The Browns have to be the #1 RZ Channel team next year. Just some really compelling offensive skill guys and swag levels off the charts. Fun to see the most miserable franchise of the last 20 years now becoming the most compelling. 

And if we have Baker vs. OBJ screaming fights on the sidelines, all the better. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Jaime L said:

And if we have Baker vs. OBJ screaming fights on the sidelines, all the better. 

Yes, but can Baker Mayfield defeat a kicking net? 

[briantw]

10 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

And if we have Baker vs. OBJ screaming fights on the sidelines, all the better. 

Mayfield will probably actually be able to get the ball to him, so he won't have a lot to scream about.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I know, but first, this is much easier said than done.  Second, it's entirely possible teams in general (and definitely specific teams) are overvaluing draft picks right now - that would be the market inefficiency.  I don't know if that's true, haven't followed football enough recently.  But it's certainly an emerging inefficiency in how late/protected 1st round draft picks are overvalued in the NBA right now.  

Teams overvalue first round picks. I’m forgetting the exact equation, but I read something a few years back that made it seem like it’s better to always trade out of the first round unless you need a QB and there’s a potential franchise QB available. Amassing mid round picks has the highest chance to quickly overhaul your roster with fresh talent.

[Ferrum Aeternum]

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Teams overvalue first round picks. I’m forgetting the exact equation, but I read something a few years back that made it seem like it’s better to always trade out of the first round unless you need a QB and there’s a potential franchise QB available. Amassing mid round picks has the highest chance to quickly overhaul your roster with fresh talent.

Look no further than the Patriots for proof of this. 

[DMC]

Earl Thomas off the board - 4/55 with 32 guaranteed to the Ravens.  Boo!

[DanteGabriel]

It looks like conventional wisdom is that the Browns got the best of the OBJ trade, which I guess I can see when you consider the amount of offensive skill they've put together. I can see how OBJ's presence allows Landry and Calloway to be slot into roles they're better suited to. But I am still naturally skeptical that trading a bunch of assets for a mercurial, expensive receiver is a winning strategy. It's too bad Hard Knocks did Cleveland last year -- they're the most interesting team of the upcoming off-season for sure.