5501

I’m not supporting the argument that spending money is the answer, either. I’m a Redskins fan as well, I know better.

5502

Well, the idea that spending more money gets you better players sounds correct intuitively. After all, if you sign 52 players for minimum salary, you would expect to have a really bad team. You can overpay for players, but in aggregate players get paid roughly what they’re worth, so the more players you have who are earning less than comparable players around the league, the more you would expect your team to be below-average, talent-wise.

This is intuitive. Then we had the debate, people crunched the numbers, and the numbers support what makes sense intuitively. So I’m not really sure why you’re still arguing. You seem to be saying that performance and pay are completely unrelated, which files in the face of the whole idea of market economics. Due to supply and demand, you generally get what you pay for. If you buy a $50,000 car, you expect it to be nicer than a $20,000 car; that’s why you’re paying more. Similarly, you expect a guy making $2 million a year to be better than a guy at the same position making $400,000, otherwise you wouldn’t sign him. The further you are below the average spending in the league, the further your team is below the average talent level. In the case of a young team, where a lot of guys are still on their rookie contracts, you may be getting better than average value. But in general it’s the case, and the numbers bear it out.

5503

You are equating pay with talent, and I’m saying there are a variety of reasons why that may not be the case. And more importantly, the number crunching has been based on one season - a season that is unusual to begin with given the lockout and the impact that had on how teams played early on. Forgive me if I don’t find one seasons data “proof” of anything.

I’m not saying that there aren’t teams who intentionallly underspend. We all know about the Bengals ownership reputation, for example. But to apply that broadly ignores a lot of things, including long-term contract planning and other things, such as where a team is at in its development. You need to look at each team individually and see whether they even had worthy free agent options to begin with. Matt’s made the argument that the Chiefs have generally made good decisions in acquiring talent, and signing a bunch of high priced backups when you have young (and cheap) players on your roster that you want to devlelop would be stupid.

There are too many exceptions (on both sides - bad teams right up against the cap and good teams over $15m under) to make broad statements, especially when those are based on just one season’s worth of data.

5504

You are equating pay with talent, and I’m saying there are a variety of reasons why that may not be the case.

None of your reasons are credible, Sarkus. Good talent gets paid. Maybe not that moment, but as soon as that player can get better paid, he will. That’s always been the case. Can a team have a SB winner on the cheap? I don’t recall one since the Ravens back in the day, but perhaps you have more data?

I’m not saying that spending money willy nilly will solve any team’s problems, the Raiders are a prime example of that. They’ve been in the top five of salary (before this year) since they left the SB and still haven’t gotten a winning season from their hefty payroll. Al Davis just lost his touch over time and signed free agents that didn’t fit, or didn’t want to play for him or got injured or whatever.

Problem solving for teams is hard. Scouting is huge, as well as data analysis to see what exactly the team needs vs what is out there and how much it will cost to obtain necessary players. Then you end up with the emo factor (‘fast receivers are automatically better’) and it can be real mess to improve a team. And ‘fit’ is very difficult to determine. For example, if by some miracle the Raiders got Rodgers, the Raiders aren’t going 13-0 with him because they have other issues that one player can’t solve. They would win games that they’ve lost because of poor QB play, but really that’s only been a couple of games. Same thing with a lot of teams.

The thing though that spending money on big free agents does do is at least temporarily energize the fan base. The Raiders would sell out every game with Rodgers as QB, no matter what their win/loss record was. Eventually the fans would get mad and not come if the Raiders couldn’t get to the playoffs with him, but for the first two years he’d be like gold. And that’s part of the problem that this fan has with KC; no glamor players.

So how much to spend on players is complicated, but in the end as a fan I’d rather my team spend more than less.

5505

Sarkus, sure there are exceptions. If you look at the graph, it’s got a lot of noise in it. Some teams do better than they should for their money. Some teams do worse. That reflects a mixture of talented scouts, coaches, and management, plus luck.

But there’s still a correlation, and on average, spending more money gets you more wins. If you think that’s an artifact of this year, feel free to spend the time looking up numbers for previous years and graphing them, but I’m convinced.

5506

There was no cap in 2010, but here is what PFT says teams spent on player salary that year.

On another note, there is potentially a pretty big story developing around the arrest of Bears receiver Sam Hurd on drug trafficing charges. Apparently the word is that there were a number of current NFL players he was selling to, according to PFT.

5507

It seems one Bill Barnwell takes it as a forgone conclusion that Peyton Manning is going to be traded. Does anyone else besides me think that’s crazy talk? Scouts talk about Andrew Luck being the next Peyton Manning, but thats still a maybe, and whats the point of having the NEXT Manning when you already have THE Manning. Plus, what this season revealed is the Colts have a lot of problems throughout the organization, including a lack of talent outside the quarterback position. If he’s healthy, you stick with him. If he’s not healthy, no other team is going to pick him up in a trade (I mean for a low enough price they would, but at that point there’s not much point in trading him).

Also, its kind of insulting to see the Browns as a team that Manning would never, ever play for. If nothing else, are hospitals are top notch! And hey! We have two first round picks to trade for Luck, and could probably throw in McCoy so Manning has a real back up.

PS) The jury is still sort of out for McCoy. This is only his second season, and right now he’s playing behind a swinging gate instead of an offense line (Joe Thomas excepted) and is passing to tall guys instead of receivers. Still, his stats peg him as a little below the league average as a quarterback.

5508

That is a Wire-esque shitload of product. Hurd was also in Dallas for awhile as well; there could be multiple teams affected by this if true.

5509

Idiot.

5510

I think it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Peyton will not be on the Colts next year. Whether he’ll be traded, cut or retire is another matter.

The fact is that Peyton is near the end of his career. He may never play again, or he may play for three or four more years. But either way, the Colts will need a new starting QB, and they clearly don’t have anyone on the roster who fits the bill. On top of that, they are nearly assured of having the #1 overall pick in a draft when there is an elite QB available. So their “choice” is to either draft the guy many think is the best QB of a generation, or not draft him and go into next year with the same uncertainty about the position they had this year. If Peyton can play next year, it’s unlikely they will have the opportunity to draft someone as good as Luck. If he can’t play, then they don’t have a starting QB at all. So it’s really not much of a choice. Like it or not, the Peyton Manning era in Indianapolis is over.

So, assuming they have the #1 pick, they will draft Luck. In an ideal world they could keep Peyton and let Luck carry a clipboard for a year or two. In the real world, Peyton is due a $28 million bonus in March. They’re not going to give him that kind of money when there are still serious concerns that his career could be over.

That’s why I don’t think a trade is likely. Who is going to be willing to give up draft picks and $28 million for a player who may be forced to retire? If he gets cut, of course someone will pick him up. But in a trade? I just don’t see it being worth the risk.

5511

Yeah, a trade isn’t going to be part of Peyton’s future. Retire, stay in Indy, or be cut are the only real likely options.

That said, its been reported that Peyton could voluntarily delay the $28m payment to let the Colts check him out physically. But a lot of this is going to depend on things we don’t really know right now about the Colts, like if they are going to change the coach and front office after this fiasco of a season. A new regime might be more likely to say goodbye to Peyton and start over with Luck.

5512

If Peyton really wants to stay in Indy, they will work something out. No contract is written in stone, so if the team says to him “we can’t pay you that bonus, we need to renegotiate or we’re going to have to cut you” he’ll probably renegotiate, because he’s not going to get that $28 million if he gets cut either.

My guess is that he doesn’t want to stay in Indy, though. As we’ve talked about before, the team has a hell of a lot more holes than just at QB. I bet Peyton would rather go to a team that has a chance to compete than stay in Indy, get beat up every Sunday and win 6-8 games a season.

5513

It would be a gamble to take Luck and let Manning go, but Manning is at the end of his career and QBs that project like Luck don’t come around that often. It’s a tough call.

Anyway, if Manning could go to the Ravens or 49ers he might prefer it. What chance is there the likely 0-16 Colts are going to be a playoff contender next year even with Manning? Put Manning on the 49ers and all he has to do is get 20 points a game to win most of the games. Playing in the cakewalk NFC West might result in a Manning-led 49ers getting the top seed in the playoffs.

5514

Hey Ram boy, go look at the standings. ;-) The only cakewalk team is turning out to be yours. Seattle and Arizona are 6-7 now and both have wins over teams that are headed to the playoffs.

5515

I’m starting to feel bad for Blaine Gabbert. He’s clearly a rookie quarterback, but his receivers and o-line aren’t doing him any favors.

5516

The Rams beat the Saints! :)

I still think the NFC West is weak. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Niners lose their first playoff game even. That offense of theirs isn’t very good.

5517

It’s a pretty messed up game. Maybe the Falcons will take pity on them and only score field goals from now on, while trying to figure out how to get the Jaguars to score at least once.

5518

It makes a lot of sense to get rid of Manning. He’s an unknown quantity in regards to recovery, and who knows what will happen in regards to future injuries. He’s also not exactly a young QB these days. As you note the Colts have a lot of problems and need to start rebuilding, releasing Manning should free up more money for other positions, they really are at a point where they need to start building for the future and go with a fresh start.

5519

Look out! Here come the Jaguars!

5520

Damn right here come the Jags!

edit: worst.punt blocking.ever