So in your opinion.. Despite overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work, why do teams still splurge?!

[top dawg]

Since you brought up Maclin, I will say that I don't think that his contract was as outlandish as people are trying to make it. It's a five year deal with 22.5 mil guaranteed for a legitimate playmaker. For my money, Maclin is an overall better all around receiver than Cobb ever was. He put up numbers last season. The biggest question is whether you want to give that type of money to a player that had an ACL. Well, Maclin played a whole season without any real issues to speak of, so the Chiefs apparently thought this wasn't an issue. In my opinion. People just need to accept that receivers' salaries are on the rise, just like passing has been on the rise. You want a top guy, you are going to have to pay for him.

[AceBoogie]

I'm not so sure, you never hear about Green Bay going crazy in free agency aside from locking in their own guys.  I think the key is, if you're one or 2 pieces away, make a power play and it can work.  If you're missing a lot of pieces, Free Agency won't fill the holes as you can see with the redskins, jaguars, raiders ect.  First and foremost your core has to be solid then if you need 1 or 2 big pieces then free agency can help you greatly.  

Peppers? They also have Aaron Rodgers and a really good coach and system. Much easier to plug and play. We have no system, we need playmakers.

[rodeo]

Both teams in the Super Bowl last year had lots of name free agents recently. Avril, Bennett, Revis, Browner, etc.

 

They don't always work, but they do work. The successful formula is to draft well and fill the holes you couldn't draft with high quality free agents.

[Johnny Rockets]

Interesting article from last year about the Packers ignoring free agency for the most part. Notice that the most active teams in free agency all missed the playoffs again in 2014 (after this article was written) and all in fact had disastrous years:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000342053/article/green-bay-packers-continue-to-ignore-free-agency

 

Green Bay's hands-off approach borders on the epic. Since March 2010, the Packers have signed just five unrestricted free agents from other teams, by far the lowest in the league behind theFalcons (13), Bengals (17) Cowboys (18) and Steelers (21).

 

Four of the five teams on this list have made the playoffs since 2010, with the Packers making it all four years. The Falcons and Bengals have earned three trips to the postseason in that span, with the Steelers making the playoffs twice.

 

On the flipside, the five most active teams in free agency this offseason -- the Buccaneers, Giants,Redskins, Raiders and Bears -- all missed the party in 2013. It's obvious: Losing teams have more holes to fill, while squads stocked with talent use more salary cap dollars to keep their own.

 

[KSpan]

The real argument is around big-dollar players, as no one really doubts the benefit of signing cheap players who play well. Signing strategic FAs, even big-dollar guys, is a good plan once a solid core is in place. Trying to build that core out of expensive FAs is a surefire way to be talent-starved and cap-strapped.

[O-Ther]

Makes sense I suppose from that perspective. Still hard to believe that despite overwhelming historical evidence, these teams that splurge think they are different and it will actually work out for them

 

For some teams, winning games is not as important as selling tickets and merchandise. That's a reality. I can speak about the Dolphins cuz I live in Florida and hear more local news and gossip circles about them than any other team.

 

The Dolphins aren't sure if Ryan Tannehill can be the franchise guy for them. He's not consistent despite the players they've drafted for him and the free agents they've brought in. They haven't been selling out the stadium consistently since RBs Ricky Williams and Ron Brown were there. Few people buy season tickets.

 

So bringing in $uh makes sense for them because they need to sell tickets and make $$$, since it is a business. They've had to release players like Danell Ellerbe and Randy Starks to make cap room for $uh, so despite $uh arriving, they've actually downgraded their team for winning games.

 

But they'll sell tickets and get locals excited because the big guy is here. And that's what all owners really care about is the bottom dollar.

 

[LinvilleGorge]

Makes sense I suppose from that perspective. Still hard to believe that despite overwhelming historical evidence, these teams that splurge think they are different and it will actually work out for them

 

Well, think about it.  If you make a bunch of signings as a GM, you've kind of covered your ass a little bit.  You've tried to do something.  If they don't work out, you blame the coach, fire him, and buy yourself a couple more years.  If you do nothing, then your ass is on the hook for it.

[Nick_81]

Interesting article from last year about the Packers ignoring free agency for the most part. Notice that the most active teams in free agency all missed the playoffs again in 2014 (after this article was written) and all in fact had disastrous years:

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000342053/article/green-bay-packers-continue-to-ignore-free-agency

 

Green Bay's hands-off approach borders on the epic. Since March 2010, the Packers have signed just five unrestricted free agents from other teams, by far the lowest in the league behind theFalcons (13), Bengals (17) Cowboys (18) and Steelers (21).

 

Four of the five teams on this list have made the playoffs since 2010, with the Packers making it all four years. The Falcons and Bengals have earned three trips to the postseason in that span, with the Steelers making the playoffs twice.

 

On the flipside, the five most active teams in free agency this offseason -- the Buccaneers, Giants,Redskins, Raiders and Bears -- all missed the party in 2013. It's obvious: Losing teams have more holes to fill, while squads stocked with talent use more salary cap dollars to keep their own.

No no no... this philosophy can't be true.  I mean, there's guys on here that know how to build winning franchises, and they'll tell you that this is just too small of a sample size, and it's not the norm.  The guys who win consistently, obviously make a splash in FA.

[Dingo_ate_Babies]

Teams are required to spend 89% of their cap over a certain number of years, which is why the spending will never stop.  The good teams spend it on their own homegrown talent rather than in free agency. 

[LinvilleGorge]

Both teams in the Super Bowl last year had lots of name free agents recently. Avril, Bennett, Revis, Browner, etc.

 

They don't always work, but they do work. The successful formula is to draft well and fill the holes you couldn't draft with high quality free agents.

 

Yep, you gotta draft well.  Specifically in the mid-late rounds.  That's where your roster is really built.  You only have one 1st round pick (barring trades).  You get a lot more mid-late rounders to play with.

 

Just look at the stars the Seahawks landed later in the draft:

 

Russell Wilson:  3rd round

Richard Sherman:  5th round

Kam Chancellor:  5th round

 

To be fair, they've had some damn good 1st rounders too:

 

Russell Okung

Earl Thomas

Bruce Irvin

 

But they've had a decent amount of 1st round busts as well:

 

Aaron Curry

Lawrence Jackson

trading a 1st for Percy Harvin

 

My point is that if you draft well in the mid-late rounds, you don't have to knock it out of the park with every 1st rounder.  Hurney almost always did well in the 1st round, but he drafted terribly in the mid-late rounds and that's why we were never able to build a consistent winner under him.

[Mr. Scot]

In reality, if you have a smart personnel man making the decisions, you're likely going to build a good team.

It has to start with strong drafting, which is then supplemented by free agency.

And to be clear, you don't judge who got the best free agent by looking at who signed the biggest contract. Frankly, sometimes it's not even close. You have to understand player value.

[shreddingdefense]

If the Patriots don't get Revis and Browner last year, do they win a Super Bowl? Acquisitions do indeed work, don't buy the hate. It's not a guaranteed science, but look at the teams that have won, they're always very active in the offseason. The ones you never hear from (like us) are the ones who usually get worse by failing to get better.

 

But for every revis and browner signed they let go of one or multiple players that a fan could say is all pro.  We let go of players but we are still paying them years later. That is the difference. We have no cap space.

[CarolinaPanthers8789]

I think the Patriots have found a nice medium. They usually pick one huge position of need and try to get one of the best players at that position.

The rest of their needs they address through average starters and draft picks.

The difference between the Patriots and those other teams is that they have a solid coaching staff that is always able to get the team to gel regardless of who they sign or draft.

[Frizzy350]

If the Patriots don't get Revis and Browner last year, do they win a Super Bowl? Acquisitions do indeed work, don't buy the hate. It's not a guaranteed science, but look at the teams that have won, they're always very active in the offseason. The ones you never hear from (like us) are the ones who usually get worse by failing to get better.

 

Revis and Browner were signed to FLEXIBLE contracts to the Pats, preventing the signings from wrecking havoc on the cap years down the line.  Most players don't want these kind of contracts, unless you are trying to nab yourself a ring on a contender.