Clowney Cost

[Pegger]

Elite players aren't really available through FA, and if they are, you are going to pay huge amounts of money and a long term contract to get that player. I don't think your rationale is really workable, and I don't see why it would only apply to a top draft choice instead of all draft choices.

Elite player are available in FA, but you pay top dollar for them. What I'm saying is having a good portion of your roster in rookie contracts allows you to get those elite players when they become available.

If Clowney is an elite player, he is going to be a much, much bigger bargain cap-wise than two mid-round 1sts.

That's a big 'if'. Better prospects have failed. Just think in the past few years:

JaMarcus Russell - Total failure, but also elite in terms of arm strength and athletic ability.
Wendall Bryant - Many don't even know him, but he was a very good prospect not long ago.
Courtney Brown - He had around the same hype as Clowney has with better college production.
Lawrence Phillips - He even failed in the CFL...
Akili Smith - Completely awesome prospect. Couldn't handle the jump to the bigs.
Tim Couch - Injury left him with no arm strength. He was todays Andrew Luck.
Tony Mandarich - he was on the cover of ESPN before he ever played a down in the NFL.
Brian Bosworth - Huge college production with a frame that should have mapped over. Was below average in the NFL.
Aaron Curry - Mayock, who studies as much as anyone, said he's the 'can't miss' prospect of that draft and a potential #1 pick.
Vernon Gholston - Athletic freak that didn't like contact. He has yet to register a sack in the NFL. 14 sacks his last year in college = 0 sacks in 4 NFL seasons.
Matt Leinart - The 'would have' been #1 pick who went back had the smarts and was used to the big stage.

Imagine if any of those teams gave up multiple draft picks to get those guys? It would derail the franchise for the next few years and almost certainly end the GM/HC's job in the process.

Off the top of my head, I know the Cowboys traded a bunch of picks to Seattle to draft Tony Dorsett. They won the SB that year and played in another SB the next. The following year, Houston traded a bunch of picks to Tampa to draft Earl Campbell...they went to the AFC Championship two years in a row. I don't think it happens as much now, because NFL teams are far more unwilling to give up a top 5 draft pick.

Both of those examples are in a non-salary cap era. The whole point that I'm making is that you need players on their rookie contracts actually on the field so you can afford your elite players.

Maybe look at it this way. The best players in the league, on average are between 27-32 years old (depending on position). It's rare to have players in that group on their rookie deal, so if you want any of those elite players you'll need cap space to make that happen. You can't do that if you are paying $2-3M to role players, backups and/or special teamers. Football also tests your depth, so it's not like anyone off the street will do (as the Bears learned at DT).

 

[Pegger]

I was thinking of something on the way into work today. On Mike & Mike they were talking about Manziel going #1 overall and Golic was really leaning towards Clowney. It got me thinking. Let's look at the top 5 teams picking in this draft and try to draw some conclusions:

#1 pick = Houston - They have a good DL. They were near the bottom on sacks, but their offense turned the ball over a lot and faced a lot of teams who held the lead. They already have some very solid, young pieces there in Watt, Reed, Mercilus and Smith. It was their lack of a QB that tanked their season.

#2 pick = St. Louis via Washington - Washington couldn't do anything, but their D stunk the previous season. The big differece was their QB play wasn't on par with the previous season. I'd add that looking at St.Louis is in a tough division, but they have picked high regularly and it's not because their DL can't get to the QB.

#3 pick = Jacksonville - They are the wild card in my analysis. A constant top 5 pick. When trying to figure out why since their lefty left they have needed a QB, but they have almost always needed DE help. They have missed a lot in drafting both areas. I say they suck too much to draw any meaningful conclusions.

#4 pick = Cleveland - Their D was actually pertty good this year and they have some solid players along the DL (Sheard, Taylor, Mingo and Kruger), but the revolving door at QB lead to their failure.

#5 pick = Oakland - Comparable to Jacksonville, but they have had decent pass rushers in the past. The one consistent is that they haven't had a franchsie QB in a very long time.

There are many moving parts, but you can't deny the value of a QB. You can have the one of the best DLs in the league (Watt) and still end up the worst team in the league. Now add in what a franchise QB costs a team ($20+M) it's almost with a top 5 pick you are going BQBA as opposed to BPA.

 

[Pegger]

LOL at this. It seems like most of those franchises (Raiders, Bengals, Browns, Cards, Packers) were derailed for the next few years anyways. Which is kind of my point. If the Bears view Clowney as being a sure-fire elite player, then its safer to trade away a few of your speculative picks for a more guaranteed pick.

Those teams are terrible because they haven't drafted well and don't have a QB.

You're 'sure fire' approach reminds me of Ditka in NO when he essentially traded an entire draft for Ricky Williams. I can't stress this enough, there are no 'sure fire' picks. Andrew Luck is one shoulder injury away from being a guy that 'could have' had a great career. If some other team mortgaged their future to grab him #1 overall and a Tim Couch type of injury happened that team would not only be screwed trying to replace him, but they would have a lot less ammo trying to do it.

It seems like you don't want the Bears to take Clowney because he's too "risky" of a pick, but you have no problems envisioning a 3rd round pick becoming an above-average starter in the NFL.

Remember, I'm not a Bears fan, I'm an Eagles fan. I don't think Clowney is any more risky then other top tier prospects. Actually I really like him as a prospect. I'm against the logic of giving up draft picks because you are completely sold on a specific player. If it doesn't cost much then it's a good idea to move up a few spots and get him. If it will cost a lot then in the long run you are making a huge bet that the player will not only dominate at the next level but he'll be healthy. For me without seeing the player against known NFL competition it's just too much of a gamble.

 

[Pegger]

Makes sense. So in retrospect we have a team like the Raiders who made a terrible pick of JaMarcus Russell and who always drafted terribly...and your point is "imagine if the Raiders had given up multiple draft picks for Russell!" when you already said that the Raiders drafts were garbage anyways. I don't see how trading away draft picks that you would have blown anyways somehow makes you "worse". Thats why I was always happy when Angelo would trade away his picks...they were essentially as worthless as a Confederate bond during the Civil War.

Those teams are just bad. They need an overhaul, but there's still things that can be learned from their failures. There are situations where teams not only lose regulary, but they also have low talent and don't have a buget (i.e cap room) to get better. It's the perfect storm of sucking now, not having the players to get better and not having the capacity to change that. The way to avoid those situations is hire good management (GM) and don't mess with your future budget.

Ricky Williams was a very good RB. It would interesting to see how much more productive NO's draft was with just Ricky Williams compared to other NFL teams.

It's broken down fairly well over here, but on a high level:

Washington Received
•Champ Bailey
•Derek Smith
•LaVar Arrington
•Lloyd Harrison

New Orleans Received
•Ricky Williams

Now factor in that NO had to spend at least the vet minimum for each player they couldn't draft and it starts wearing on your cap situation.

But the "ammo" you are talking about are just more of the same. It makes very little sense to think that draft picks themselves are risky, but having 3 mediocre picks is somehow more of a guarantee than Clowney being a good player.

It's about diversifying the risk. Look at the Bears top 5 palyers. How many of them came after the first round, or in this situation after the first 5 picks? All of them. Same can probably be said for the past few Superbowl champs. Good players are available late. I agree that the probability of success drops, but you aren't so tied to one players success.

What I'm thinking is if you get 2 starters and 4 backups all on rookie deals earning between $300K and $2M you essentially have 5 roster spots locked up for ~$4-5M per seaon. If you traded up for Clowney you'd pay at least $4-5M for him alone (consistent with #5 pick of 2013 Ezekiel Ansah) and you'd have to replace 5 other roster spots with vet minimum contracts ($600K-$1M)

If assuming you can get Clowney for $4M and go real cheap on vets (which will effect the product you put out) you are still spending an additional $2.5-$3M. That may not seem like much, but saving a few million on moves like this is how teams affort to keep players like Jay Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Matt Forte, etc...

To simplify things paying a roster spot is cheaper than paying a vet. By going cheap in jobber positions it allows you more money to keep/attract elite players. Having draft picks not only help you potentially get good players for cheap, but it also allows you to keep/attract players you know are good.

 

[Pegger]

I cannot comprehend the stupidity of this post. Good players are available late...better players are available sooner!! I'm not explaining some new theory or new type of draft logic.

How many players on the Bears roster were a top 5 pick? How does that affect/disprove decades of NFL draft history?

If you can give me an example of any modern era dynasty that was built by moving up in the draft to get a single player than maybe your argument might carry some weight. At this point it's just sound like a man crush you have on Clowney and would be willing to do anything to satisfy it.

At the end of the day football is still a team game and you need to field a full team. Having a great single player at one spot (like JJ Watt) does not assure you any kind of success. Look at Seattle. They have picked their BPA when drafting lower round players and it has made them a good enough team to win. It has also given them some salary cap flexibility to add select free agents that helped the cause (Avril, Bennett and Harvin).

I get we've got different ideas of how to build a winner and I'm okay with that. I'm assuming you see Clowney as a top tier NFL player and consider getting him as a rookie would be a considerable discount to paying for someone in free agency. For me the savings of hitting on Clowney is offset by the risk that he won't be that great and that the other holes in the roster will affect the teams ability to succeed.

Good banter back and forth and I honestly respect your opinion, but maybe it's best we just agree to disagree?

 

[Pegger]

No, that wasn't what I said, nor was it my point. You are just showing me that Washington drafted well with the picks they received, so you are basically saying that all NFL teams draft with the same success rate, and that NO would have duplicated Washington's draft success had they held on to those picks. Thats nice. My point was to compare NO's draft that year to other NFL teams' drafts. I would guess that Williams alone was more productive that a lot of team's drafts.

I thought you were curious to see how that trade panned out, which I provided the breakdown.

Looking at your statement of "It would interesting to see how much more productive NO's draft was with just Ricky Williams compared to other NFL teams" it's partially a simple answer. From the 98 draft the Saints got a starting RB for 38 total games over 3 years. One roster spot of 52 playing in a total of 38 games. You can then look at each other team to compaer but I'm assuming some of them got multiple starters for more than 3 years.

 

[Pegger]

Rory,

I was starting to reply to your points then thought 'why?'. We clearly have different views on this. I respect your opinions as I do anyone, but I doubt going back and forth will yeild a consensus.

 

[DMelt36]

But spending a ton of money in FA is an even greater risk than drafting a rookie, because the FA's salary is going to be much longer/larger than a rookie's salary. I'm still stunned at your idea that you'd bypass a chance to draft an elite player and think its safer AND cheaper to test the FA waters. Decades of NFL history would say otherwise...

True, wouldn't you think there's a higher success rate among signing FAs in their mid-late 20s than there is in drafting players out of college?

It's definitely not cheaper, you're right. But I'm not sure that it isn't the safer route.

You cited a lot of examples where teams traded up and drafted players that helped lead them to Super Bowls, but I'd be willing to be that teams have also traded up for players who were total busts.

[Edit] First one I found was the Jets trading up in '09 for Sanchez.

 

[DMelt36]

How many teams allow their elite players in their mid-late 20s to hit FA?

Probably not many, and if they do, it's most likely for salary cap reasons, I'd assume.

 

[Doubledown]

Clowney may need surgery for bone spurs will drop to #14

 

[Raskolnikov]

True, wouldn't you think there's a higher success rate among signing FAs in their mid-late 20s than there is in drafting players out of college?

It's definitely not cheaper, you're right. But I'm not sure that it isn't the safer route.

You cited a lot of examples where teams traded up and drafted players that helped lead them to Super Bowls, but I'd be willing to be that teams have also traded up for players who were total busts.

[Edit] First one I found was the Jets trading up in '09 for Sanchez.

I think its clear to win a super bowl you have to do both amazingly well. The next thing it can be good to do, is to become the "chic" place to be, such as with Seattle where all of a sudden bargain veterans jump on board with you…..

Avril, Bennett, etc

They also traded for harvin and drafted well was the key.

Lets focus on drafting well and having the right free agency for our team. Players know how great it is to win in chicago and the cold keeps some away.

We are doing ok right now in a competitive league. I have to be please with our management effort since 2001.

 

[DMelt36]

Players you could probably throw in the "elite" category who hit FA in mid/late 20s: Deion Sanders, Charles Woodson, Mario Williams, Curtis Martin, Kevin Mawae, Bryce Paup, Simeon Rice.

There's also Reggie White and Julius Peppers. Pep had just turned 30 when the Bears signed him, White was 32 but still playing HOF-worthy football.

Drew Brees also falls in to this category, but it's kinda hard to include him because of the circumstances.

 

[Raskolnikov]

your evaluations of "elite" free agents have to be spot on.

I think Rory, we are looking at a higher risk area than the draft. The Redskins ruined themselves with free agency, but the right player at the right spot can be a big help. Mistakes are bigger than draft mistakes, and the reward can be almost as high minus the cost difference, but you might get a guy.

Striking a balance between all of it (trades, draft, free agency) and mastering them all is the only way to the top.

It is clear to me the only way to win a Super Bowl without free agency jackpot is to collect compensatory picks. The teams that don't sign free agents often (raven, niners, pats) and still compete at the top are 1, 2, and 3 in the league in compensatory picks since 2000.

When is the last time we got one? We are a master of none of these phases, though you could say we got the trade we wanted.

 

[DMelt36]

For the record, I'd say that this topic is irrelevant to this year, because I don't see that top-flight player available in FA and Clowney appears to be a damn good prospect.

 

[Pegger]

I think its clear to win a super bowl you have to do both amazingly well. The next thing it can be good to do, is to become the "chic" place to be, such as with Seattle where all of a sudden bargain veterans jump on board with you…..

Avril, Bennett, etc

They also traded for harvin and drafted well was the key.

Lets focus on drafting well and having the right free agency for our team. Players know how great it is to win in chicago and the cold keeps some away.

We are doing ok right now in a competitive league. I have to be please with our management effort since 2001.

For Seattle everything was built off of their draft success. They were able to have a large number of starters playing at a high level under their rookie contracts. That allowed cap space for things like the Harvin trade or signing DEs in what was a down market year.

IMO for a team to have long term success they have to build through the draft. Not only do you pay less for good players early on but you also have more cap space to get players that can get you over the hump.

This was one of the critical negotiation items in the last CBA. Owners were focused on their being a rookie cap which would limit the cost of high picks and they wanted no contract extensions before their 3rd year. This created a beautiful situation where if you draft well for 3 years you are in a great spot to compete immediately.

 

[EaCoBear]

Your Picks:
Round 1 Pick 4 (CLE): Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina (A)
Round 3 Pick 5 (NYJ): Ra'Shede Hageman, DT, Minnesota (A)
Round 3 Pick 16 (NYJ): Ahmad Dixon, SS, Baylor (A)
Round 3 Pick 20 (ARI): C.J. Fiedorowicz, TE, Iowa (A)
Round 4 Pick 16 (MIA): Bryan Stork, C, Florida State (A)
Round 4 Pick 17: Anthony Johnson, DT, LSU (A)
Round 5 Pick 16: Stanley Jean-Baptiste, CB, Nebraska (A)
Round 6 Pick 7: Brett Smith, QB, Wyoming (A)
Round 6 Pick 14 (MIA): James Wilder Jr., RB, Florida State (A)
Round 6 Pick 15: Deion Belue, CB, Alabama (A-)