Posts: 1,265
Threads: 275
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
777
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 |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
Why isn't Chuck Foreman in the Hall of Fame?
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
essentially that is what I am saying. we need to see more QBs developed and quit paying the average QBs a higher % of available cap space. same goes with other positions with higher salaries. of course I am not saying you cut bait if you happen to stumble onto a true franchise QB, or other players of exceptional positional strength, but you quit overpaying, and accept that you might be better off keeping the QB and DE, OT train running on a regular basis instead of saying "good enough" and then over paying because you dont have a replacement in the pipeline.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Jor-El said:
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
essentially that is what I am saying. we need to see more QBs developed and quit paying the average QBs a higher % of available cap space. same goes with other positions with higher salaries. of course I am not saying you cut bait if you happen to stumble onto a true franchise QB, or other players of exceptional positional strength, but you quit overpaying, and accept that you might be better off keeping the QB and DE, OT train running on a regular basis instead of saying "good enough" and then over paying because you dont have a replacement in the pipeline.
Really dependent on being able to develop QBs quickly - or to have a system that a college QB can run right away. I think we're seeing some of that with Arizona getting Murray productive so quickly, Baltimore restructuring to run a style that Jackson could run soon. This can't work with the old-school "mentor Rodgers behind Favre for 3 seasons" approach.
But imagine if a team got on your plan and could do it, before everyone else did. The Chiefs won a SB with Mahomes still on his rookie deal. What if, instead of giving him the big 10-year deal, they had picked up his 5th-year (which is for the 2021 season), let him play on the 4th year, and then traded him away NOW? We are speculating on what a ransom Deshaun Watson might bring if traded; Mahomes would bring double. Chiefs could probably get the Jags' #1 overall and much more. But can a team count on replacing their QB every 5 years?
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Jor-El said:
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
essentially that is what I am saying. we need to see more QBs developed and quit paying the average QBs a higher % of available cap space. same goes with other positions with higher salaries. of course I am not saying you cut bait if you happen to stumble onto a true franchise QB, or other players of exceptional positional strength, but you quit overpaying, and accept that you might be better off keeping the QB and DE, OT train running on a regular basis instead of saying "good enough" and then over paying because you dont have a replacement in the pipeline.
Really dependent on being able to develop QBs quickly - or to have a system that a college QB can run right away. I think we're seeing some of that with Arizona getting Murray productive so quickly, Baltimore restructuring to run a style that Jackson could run soon. This can't work with the old-school "mentor Rodgers behind Favre for 3 seasons" approach.
But imagine if a team got on your plan and could do it, before everyone else did. The Chiefs won a SB with Mahomes still on his rookie deal. What if, instead of giving him the big 10-year deal, they had picked up his 5th-year (which is for the 2021 season), let him play on the 4th year, and then traded him away NOW? We are speculating on what a ransom Deshaun Watson might bring if traded; Mahomes would bring double. Chiefs could probably get the Jags' #1 overall and much more. But can a team count on replacing their QB every 5 years?
Great qbs are needle in a haystack type finds, I don't think teams are going to adopt a philosophy of blindly trying to ditch them at the five year mark.
Jimmy's theory is vaguely reminiscent of Ricky's relentless pursuit of 7th rounders, which is really just a way to capture desired UDFAs before they hit the market, getting the guy you want cheaper without competing on price for him. Just another attempt to game the draft system.
Quote: @comet52 said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Jor-El said:
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
essentially that is what I am saying. we need to see more QBs developed and quit paying the average QBs a higher % of available cap space. same goes with other positions with higher salaries. of course I am not saying you cut bait if you happen to stumble onto a true franchise QB, or other players of exceptional positional strength, but you quit overpaying, and accept that you might be better off keeping the QB and DE, OT train running on a regular basis instead of saying "good enough" and then over paying because you dont have a replacement in the pipeline.
Really dependent on being able to develop QBs quickly - or to have a system that a college QB can run right away. I think we're seeing some of that with Arizona getting Murray productive so quickly, Baltimore restructuring to run a style that Jackson could run soon. This can't work with the old-school "mentor Rodgers behind Favre for 3 seasons" approach.
But imagine if a team got on your plan and could do it, before everyone else did. The Chiefs won a SB with Mahomes still on his rookie deal. What if, instead of giving him the big 10-year deal, they had picked up his 5th-year (which is for the 2021 season), let him play on the 4th year, and then traded him away NOW? We are speculating on what a ransom Deshaun Watson might bring if traded; Mahomes would bring double. Chiefs could probably get the Jags' #1 overall and much more. But can a team count on replacing their QB every 5 years?
Great qbs are needle in a haystack type finds, I don't think teams are going to adopt a philosophy of blindly trying to ditch them at the five year mark.
Jimmy's theory is vaguely reminiscent of Ricky's relentless pursuit of 7th rounders, which is really just a way to capture desired UDFAs before they hit the market, getting the guy you want cheaper without competing on price for him. Just another attempt to game the draft system.
No I do understand giving up great QBs will be unlikely. Though the attitude could change and they might seem less rare in the future. Long ago, RBs like Earl Campbell and Tony Dorsett were valued almost as much as great QBs, and that has changed.
Interesting take on the 7th rounders. But I wonder why we have better success with UDFAs (Thielen, Harris, Wilson, Ham, Boone) than with late draft picks. Almost like different scout are picking them.
Quote: @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.
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
Quote: @comet52 said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Jor-El said:
Really interesting theory so let me see if I get it. You're saying don't draft a TE or S very high because you can usually afford to get a really good vet (either a UFA or one of your own on a non-rookie contract) without breaking the salary cap bank - right? At the other end, avoid having a QB or DE on anything but a rookie deal.
A team following this model would draft a QB, start him and use him for 4-5 years, and then move on. I think this is what the NFL has done with RBs and it has driven their salaries down - if you had run this 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago, I think RB would be a lot higher on the list.
essentially that is what I am saying. we need to see more QBs developed and quit paying the average QBs a higher % of available cap space. same goes with other positions with higher salaries. of course I am not saying you cut bait if you happen to stumble onto a true franchise QB, or other players of exceptional positional strength, but you quit overpaying, and accept that you might be better off keeping the QB and DE, OT train running on a regular basis instead of saying "good enough" and then over paying because you dont have a replacement in the pipeline.
Really dependent on being able to develop QBs quickly - or to have a system that a college QB can run right away. I think we're seeing some of that with Arizona getting Murray productive so quickly, Baltimore restructuring to run a style that Jackson could run soon. This can't work with the old-school "mentor Rodgers behind Favre for 3 seasons" approach.
But imagine if a team got on your plan and could do it, before everyone else did. The Chiefs won a SB with Mahomes still on his rookie deal. What if, instead of giving him the big 10-year deal, they had picked up his 5th-year (which is for the 2021 season), let him play on the 4th year, and then traded him away NOW? We are speculating on what a ransom Deshaun Watson might bring if traded; Mahomes would bring double. Chiefs could probably get the Jags' #1 overall and much more. But can a team count on replacing their QB every 5 years?
Great qbs are needle in a haystack type finds, I don't think teams are going to adopt a philosophy of blindly trying to ditch them at the five year mark.
Jimmy's theory is vaguely reminiscent of Ricky's relentless pursuit of 7th rounders, which is really just a way to capture desired UDFAs before they hit the market, getting the guy you want cheaper without competing on price for him. Just another attempt to game the draft system.
actually it isnt, if anything my system would put more emphasis on higher round picks which are more apt to hit and using those premium picks on traditionally higher paid positions.
but if you actually hit on a generational type player like Mahomes.. no you have to try and pay him and then modify your system around that... but for us without that top level QB, it would be a interesting look. IMO currently the only untouchables would be Hunter (if healthy) and Jefferson (albeit based on only 1 year of production.
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.
|
