Quote: @medaille said:
I think you'd probably want to only look at salaries of starters on post rookie deals, and filter out the rookie deal guys as their salaries are pretty much set by draft position. I think QBs would probably be excluded from this as they are so important you should really have a specific plan for dealing with QBs. In mind you need to have a QB pipeline, where you are always looking at getting better, and be drafting a day one or two QB every 2-3 years or whenever you see a guy with elite potential. I think it's important that your starter knows that all these guys behind him are part of an overarching plan, rather than because he sucks and is being replaced. This idea that we have to have shitty backups with no future at the most important position, because our starter is too sensitive is BS
that would be ideal, but I couldnt find the starter only avg salaries, so I went with what I had for demonstration purposes. IMO the higher the annual salary the more emphasis put on finding that players replacement in the draft instead of FA where they will likely be making more money that what a 1-3 round rookie contract would demand. and this should improve our backups at key positions as well.
Quote: @medaille said:
If I were creating a similar offseason scheme, it would be based on how easy it is to get that position up to speed and being productive. Use FA to fill the positions that take longer to learn, and use the draft for positions that can thrive immediately. I think more than anything the NFL now is about how you can get a bunch of inexperienced players (or new to your system) playing at a high level, as so much of the team is young guys.
unfortunately it seems that QB is one of the longest to develop, and you dont find quality and value in FA at that position. if its a QB and it is cheap, it is broken shit and not worth having. IMO QB is a position that needs to be part of every other day 1 or 2 plan until you have a true franchise guy that is willing to work to build a team around him, as well as a viable back on a rookie deal, until you have both you should still be drafting QBs in the top 3 rounds at least every other year. you may not always have that 2nd QB that works out, or that franchise guy willing to work within a budget (hes still going to be making major bank, but maybe doesnt need to reset the record books with every new deal)
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
So this is surely going to get blown full of holes, but I have been wondering if draft boards have or should have a metric to account for average salary of position. This might be a little hard to explain, but IMO the higher the average salary of a position the higher it should be weighted in ranking players for a draft board. My likely flawed logic on this is if we can draft a player to fill a need cheaper than we can typically find one in free agency, while there are uncertainties with both, typically the higher we take a player the better the odds are that said player will at least reach a serviceable level in terms of play. So by targeting positions higher in the draft that traditionally carry larger cap hits, we can save cap space via free agency by keeping more of those positions on rookie deals, and then use that extra space to target better free agents to fill the areas that we either suck at drafting or just need more help. Obviously you might need to refine this even more to average out OTs vs Interior OL, NT vs 3T, and other areas, but does it makes sense to weigh those higher priced positions more than those that can be filled cheaper in FA? IE: you have a grade the same on a QB as DE, you take the QB, and so on down the list. It also stands to reason that if you lose those draft picks to FA at the end of their rookie deals you will net higher compensatory picks as a result of losing them, and they should have higher trade value as well.... provided they dont suck which is more of scouting issue than a draft weight issue.
Positions by average salary:
| Position | Salary (in million) |
| | | | |
| | Offensive Lineman | 11 to 11.7
|
|
| Linebacker 11 to 11.5
Defensive Tackle 9 to 9.7
| Safety | 8 to 8.4 | | Tight End | 7 to 7.2 |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
I think what you're proposing is already in place in all NFL draft rooms. It's basically drafting with position value in mind, which all teams do. Setting that "value" by average salary per position might help put a number on it, which I suppose could be helpful, but I don't know that it has to be quite that mathematical. For example, Vikings might need a safety more than an edge, but the position value of an edge far outweighs that of a safety.
you always have needs, but is it wise to use a premium draft pick on a player that could be gotten in FA or to take a shot at a guy from a much higher salary bracket with that top tier pick and use some of those savings in FA to address that need at safety?
say you have a decent DE that makes that 13 million a year, and a need for improvement at S (which you can find for about 8 million in FA. Instead of using that first round pick on a safety you use it on a DE who makes about 4 million a year on a rookie deal, you hit FA and you buy a nice safety at 8 million for a total of 12 million. conversely you keep your 13 million dollar DE, use that first rounder on a safety, who still makes about a 4 million dollar avg., for a total of 17 million, and you can either trade or let that DE walk in FA for additional future draft considerations. but with my scenario you get the added bonus of saving about 5 million in cap space which is always nice.
lots of fantasy type theory here, but at some level this has to be applicable to the real game of managing a salary cap and still fielding a quality team, at least until you are loaded with future hall of famers.
|
