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

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...