Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Average Gain from Big FA Spending Sprees? 0 Wins

UNCrules2187

By UNCrules2187,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

UNCrules2187 Mentor

UNCrules2187

Posted
Posted
Do NFL teams improve after signing top free agents?
 
Not as much as fans might hope. Looking across all the teams that picked up a top-five free agent over the last decade, it turns out that those teams didn’t get any better. On average, they ended up winning almost exactly the same number of games.
 
If you include all top-ten free agents, there’s a little upward blip, amounting to something like .1 additional wins, but again that is basically nothing. Even if you look across two years, on the assumption that perhaps it takes some time for new players to have their biggest impact, there are no real gains.

 

 

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/16/nfl-teams-improve-after-signing-top-free-agents/HVtLsCoK0CkbHfCgJCgqcI/story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted

Patriots - Browner, Revis, Amendola, Blount

Seahawks - Avril, Bennett, Harvin, Lynch

Ravens - Boldin, Jones, McKinney, Pollard

SB winning teams seem to spend on free agency.

Are you a new person who doesnt read and grasp the article or just somebody with a new name? Whatever the case, you do not seem to grasp the intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevin Greene Newbie

Kevin Greene

Posted
Posted

What a crock of shyt that article is. All Opinion with very little actual numbers to back it up.

Compares signing the current preeminent NFL QB Peyton Manning at 18 million dollars per year to a washed up Ed Reed at 5 million per year.

What a joke.

 

 

 

Absolutely. After acquiring Peyton Manning, the Broncos went from 8-8 to 13-3. And one reason the 2010 Bears reached the conference championship was because they had picked up Julius Peppers.

Having said that, there are also some striking counter-examples. In 2013, the Texans signed Ed Reed to a three-year, $15 million contract, after which they only won two games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoobyPls Mentor

GoobyPls

Posted
Posted

Are you a new person who doesnt read and grasp the article or just somebody with a new name? Whatever the case, you do not seem to grasp the intent.

 

What is there to grasp?

 

Bad teams do overpay for free agents like the raiders and redskins.  That doesn't mean SB winning teams don't spend in free agency

 

Let me guess your one of those lets build strictly through the draft guys?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ooglechi Newbie

ooglechi

Posted
Posted

What is there to grasp?

Bad teams do overpay for free agents like the raiders and redskins. That doesn't mean SB winning teams don't spend in free agency

Let me guess your one of those lets build strictly through the draft guys?

The Packers did it. In fact, the only player on their roster that wasn't drafted by them is Julius Peppers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...