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

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...