Free Agents Usually Underpeform their Contracts

[MHS831]

I have been very interested in the science of the draft and free agency--wondering how so many people could fail.  So I thought I would share some highlights with everyone who might be interested in some off season reading.

A little over half of the first rounders in the NFL succeed.  Most of the picks after that do not.  https://theriotreport.com/scout-camp-2018-about-the-author/

Even though they are weighed and measured, put through agility, speed, and strength tests, given an intelligence quiz, and interviewed, followed by private workouts and hours of game film analysis--NFL scouts and GMs basically toss a coin---in the FIRST ROUND.  How does that happen?  Well, I have heard it is because the pro game is so much faster, more violent. etc. than college.

If so, and I think that the pro game is faster and more physical than college, then why do MOST free agents fail?  They have been in the league for some time and have a resume with actual NFL game footage.  Yet most of the franchise-saving free agents under-perform their contracts.  Why is that?  https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct-spt-nfl-free-agency-risk-20190316-story.html 

It is different from the draft, where you are not competing for a player's decision to come to your team, and the pressure to win is so high, some teams decide to gamble on an established player by paying that player more than they are worth to come to your team--based on performances in a different system with a different supporting cast and different coaching staff.

Now if you are assuming the lesson to be learned is to draft and sign your own players when they hit free agency, WRONG CONCLUSION.  For example, everyone is saying keep Bradberry--we cannot afford to lose him.  He wants top money and has never been elite--just solid.  Yet there is pressure to keep your own, so the likelihood that Marty has to overpay to keep him is high.  But that is even worse for the cap than letting him walk and going after a free agent. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/03/nfl-free-agent-premium-overpay 

This is not to suggest that you should not re-sign your core or even role players, but the key is not to overpay when there is a market.  Yes, we could drop a notch at CB by not giving in to Bradberry's contract demands, but the money saved makes you better somewhere else.  The best article I found to explain this also details how front offices rate and examine players.  The underlying premise of free agency?  It is full of people whose own teams did not think their projected value is worth their contract demands.  This quote supports the irony of free agency---without accounting for contracts not offered due to cap constraints:

FREE AGENCY MOSTLY BAD VALUE
"Free Agency is almost always (80-85% of time since free agency started) a bad value proposition because teams will always look to keep their top homegrown players. So when a player reached free agency it is mainly because his team—-the people who know him best—decided that his projected production will NOT match the price of his contract demands. And if the team that knows the player better than anyone else is taking a pass, you must give that some deep thought. " Notice that the phrase "projected production" is important here; free agency does not want to be blinded by expecting past production to transfer into equal or increased productivity on the new team. Some fans think contracts are rewards for past performance; I have accused Marty of overpaying for past performance.  Nope.  That is why there is a divide between fans who want Cam at all costs without much concern for the risk clinging to the unlikely hope that he will return to 2015 Cam. Others see that his future expected performance is much lower than his peak due to a variety of factors, so they (we) see giving him a 50% salary increase (in 2021, even if healthy) as ludicrous, especially during a rebuild.  That is not hate-it is business. This is not about that specific situation,  so stay focused.

https://landryfootball.com/understanding-the-best-way-to-approach-the-nfl-free-agent-process-and-philosophy-from-the-front-office-perspective/

Here, the author explains that there are basically 2 types of players in free agency: 

FREE AGENT PLAYERS USUALLY FALL INTO ONE OF TWO CATEGORIES:
A) Role Players  (Paradis, Hogan, and Elliot, for example)
B) Players past their prime  (Peppers, McCoy, Irvin, etc.)

I strongly suggest that you read these articles--rather sobering.  It will change your views about free agency and signing our own players.  I am now not inclined to overpay for Bradberry.  I am now more interested in Marty doing more diligence after round 1 of the draft.  When I think of the 2 categories of players, I think of people like Boston and Eric Reid- they seemed unwilling to see themselves as role players, so they were not signed.

So if draft picks don't pan out, and it does not pay to sign your own free agents, and most top free agents are not worth the investment, where are players coming from?

I am convinced that good teams have the best role players--the best depth, supporting cast, etc.  Think about it--the better the depth, the better the reps at practice, the better the team if a starter is injured.  Forget shelling out tons of bucks to the top players that drains your ability to fill the roster--thing the other way around. 

It seems that the more players you have on the roster producing on first contracts, the better off you are.

So what does this mean to the Panthers?  There will be no reaching for free agents--and that should include Bradberry.  (Marty and his job insecurity may overpay, but in the end, that hurts him, not helps him).  Boston has been looking for that big payday, and his performance suggests that he has earned it.  But how big?  Do not overpay.  Let good players walk and learn to play the market-what Tepper has done his entire life. 

Our best free agents have been players buried on rosters behind star players or players in systems that did not allow a full utilization of their talents (Kurt Coleman comes to mind).  Play the waiting game.  Let the player come to you--they are much cheaper.  With a long-term over a short-term emphasis, that should be easier.

Thoughts?  (sometimes I post these long threads and I have someone respond in 30 seconds with a critical zinger.  Cracks me up).

 

[1of10Charnatives]

I really like this. It's an intriguing evaluation of some thorny questions that I've never gotten good answers to before, and maybe one or two that it never even occured to me to ask. The conclusion you describe in brief is a little surprising, but seems logical in terms of the information put forward. It's also refreshingly different from what most of what gets discussed and posted here, so thanks for that. I have not yet had time to read those articles obviously, and I've gotta run out and do my super bowl grocery shopping, but I will definately read them and come back later with more in depth response. I think your post deserves it.

I love anything that comes at old problems from fresh angles and raises questions few thought to ask. This seems like pretty orginal thinking here so I'm excited to dig in deeper when it isn't actually super bowl sunday.

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I really like this. It's an intriguing evaluation of some thorny questions that I've never gotten good answers to before, and maybe one or two that it never even occured to me to ask. The conclusion you describe in brief is a little surprising, but seems logical in terms of the information put forward. It's also refreshingly different from what most of what gets discussed and posted here, so thanks for that. I have not yet had time to read those articles obviously, and I've gotta run out and do my super bowl grocery shopping, but I will definately read them and come back later with more in depth response. I think your post deserves it.

I love anything that comes at old problems from fresh angles and raises questions few thought to ask. This seems like pretty orginal thinking here so I'm excited to dig in deeper when it isn't actually super bowl sunday.

You really need to read the Landry article--takes some time because it is so rich with detail.  I did not summarize it very well because it is so complex for a novice to tackle.  Thanks for the kind words.

[Khyber53]

Okay, I read the articles. I've got to say the first one is bad stylistically -- it becomes very dense reading and it makes it harder to process than it should be. Some good editing could correct that. As to information, it's chock full of it and it speaks to methodology but rarely points directly at a better one.

It's an inexact science, to be fair, but talent evaluation is fraught with so many pitfalls, both when it comes to the draft and free agency.

Coaching is oftentimes the biggest deal, I think. Great coaches can get the most out of middling players, poor coaches can get little out of the most gifted of athletes. Did they have good positional coaches in high school, college and in the pros or did they have poor ones or a mix. Did the coordinators make game plans that showcased the talent, hide deficiencies or not make any use of a particularly player's skill set? Can the player adjust to new schemes? Are your coaches good at developing talent, managing egos and scheming to strengthen results?

Teams with good scouts are also able to self scout their own team, and that is one of the hardest things to do. The Patriots have been masterful at it, but rare is the team that can approach that kind of thing with the cold blooded detachment that Belichick does. In Boston, you join the team and fight for the ring together. In most other clubs, you fight for your team. There's a certain mindset that creates that juggernaut of performance, and it is cold and Machiavellian. 

Still, the biggest takeaway I got from this that I agree with is that free agency is like playing the sucker games at a carnival. It's rare to take away one of those big prizes, but everyone is ready to pony up their entire wallet to do so. Might be better to hold on to the money and just work at building something at home.

[Tbe]

“Teams should let other veterans walk and replace them with rookies or low-cost vets. In other words, what New England has done throughout its two-decade reign over the NFL.”

Yup.

[MHS831]

2 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

Teams with good scouts are also able to self scout their own team, and that is one of the hardest things to do. The Patriots have been masterful at it, but rare is the team that can approach that kind of thing with the cold blooded detachment that Belichick does. In Boston, you join the team and fight for the ring together. In most other clubs, you fight for your team. There's a certain mindset that creates that juggernaut of performance, and it is cold and Machiavellian. 

Still, the biggest takeaway I got from this that I agree with is that free agency is like playing the sucker games at a carnival. It's rare to take away one of those big prizes, but everyone is ready to pony up their entire wallet to do so. Might be better to hold on to the money and just work at building something at home.

There is some great stuff in your response. I really like the carnival reference.  We are all behind Marty (daddy) saying come on Daddy, win us a bear!!!  Then when we get the goldfish in a zip lock bag home (after Marty spent all of his money to buy it), we realize that it dies a few days later.

[rayzor]

Players work their asses off the first half of their career to get a big contract that will take care of the remainder of their career. No incentive to work their asses off anymore. So...yeah....they are typically going to underperform. No incentive = lackluster performance.

[stbugs]

8 minutes ago, Tbe said:

“Teams should let other veterans walk and replace them with rookies or low-cost vets. In other words, what New England has done throughout its two-decade reign over the NFL.”

Yup.

We could reap a bunch of comp picks if we play the FA game well this year. We have a lot of FAs.

[rayzor]

13 minutes ago, stbugs said:

We could reap a bunch of comp picks if we play the FA game well this year. We have a lot of FAs.

Better than throwing a poo ton of money at whoever the most hyped players are just to watch them suck and/or get hurt.

[stbugs]

5 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Better than throwing a poo ton of money at whoever the most hyped players are just to watch them suck and/or get hurt.

You mean like watching $30M+ of DTs sitting on IR or $9M for a C who clearly wasn’t healthy? That was $40M in cap space in 2019 for which we got a handful of good snaps. Due to ignoring DTs and Cs in the last draft and restructuring Short, we’re going to be paying that all over again in 2020.

[LinvilleGorge]

21 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Players work their asses off the first half of their career to get a big contract that will take care of the remainder of their career. No incentive to work their asses off anymore. So...yeah....they are typically going to underperform. No incentive = lackluster performance.

Yeah, with pricey free agents is imperative to try to determine if the guy LOVES football. Is he playing for championships and his legacy or is he just trying to get that bag? It's why I'm so leery of guys who have out of the norm career performances in a contract year. 

Scheme fit and surrounding talent is a big factor too. You probably shouldn't pluck a guy from a very different scheme and then try to plug him into your own while surrounding him with lesser overall talent and expect the same results. Or, guys who have shown promise but just don't really fit their current scheme.

The free agents I really like to look at are guys who've shown promise when they've had opportunities but are just stuck behind great players on their current depth chart. The Saints were able to get a solid player in Klein from us because we had Luke. We were able to get a great player in Olsen because he didn't fit what Martz was trying to do in Chicago.

[1of10Charnatives]

13 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, with pricey free agents is imperative to try to determine if the guy LOVES football. Is he playing for championships and his legacy or is he just trying to get that bag? It's why I'm so leery of guys who have out of the norm career performances in a contract year. 

Scheme fit and surrounding talent is a big factor too. You probably shouldn't pluck a guy from a very different scheme and then try to plug him into your own while surrounding him with lesser overall talent and expect the same results. Or, guys who have shown promise but just don't really fit their current scheme.

The free agents I really like to look at are guys who've shown promise when they've had opportunities but are just stuck behind great players on their current depth chart. The Saints were able to get a solid player in Klein from us because we had Luke. We were able to get a great player in Olsen because he didn't fit what Martz was trying to do in Chicago.

I would suspect one of the things about those talented free agents is, when they get there, do things go well and it seems like the team has a chance at a ring or at least a good playoff run? If yes that guy busts his ass for you. If not, or if things go south, he very quietly, very silently goes into "I'm just collecting a paycheck" mode.  I'm thinking specifically of McCoy when he came here. I think he legitimately thought we were on the verge and had a shot. After the GB game and Boger's absurd penalty on him when it became obvious we were going nowhere, I wonder if his play shows he was packing it in?

[sml1950]

The defensive player o

[sml1950]

This year’s defensive player of the year was a FA who NE signed from Buffalo.  So good teams are good because they make better decisions and bad teams are lousy because...........