The Random Thought Thread

[Deebo813]

Right, but they're not paying themselves. It's easy to say you're "all about winning" when a) your bank account is being fed by somebody else and b) you've already made a lot of money.
25 year old Tom Brady knew nothing about the word "paycut". Neither did 30 year old Tom Brady. He was signing top of the market, highest paid player in the league, elite of the elite level money deals.

Owners don't think the same way. Their compensation is driven by how well the business does. And the business doing well doesn't require winning. We know this, because there are franchises that make tens of millions of dollars each year in profits (or more), and are valued in the billions, that have quite literally never won anything.

That's why this discussion about "being a forward-thinking" business leader goes nowhere for me. It ignores the fact that the purpose of an NFL franchise, above and beyond literally anything else, is to make money. Its not to win games. It's not to win Lombardi's. Those are things they strive for and can ultimately boost their profits, but that's not the #1 objective.

So it really doesn't matter if players judge themselves by winning or not. Players come and go. The franchise is there long after they're gone.

He could take a paycut because his wife is super rich and it also came to a point where he realized he has enough money that its his legacy he cares about..look at mike evans, he wants to take a pay cut to keep those guys. Even though players are long gone, they will never be forgotten.. brady will never ever be forgotten, not even in tampa will he be.. jordan, kobe,.. if lamar wins a bowl, he will be remembered with the greats

 

[rossihunter2]

It depends how much GMs buy into analytics. You know as time goes on, there's going to be some heavy analysis that says a team with a guy on a rookie contract has a much better chance of winning it all than a team with a good but not great QB on a $40M/year contract. Of course, if you have a Mahomes then you pay what you have to pay, but if you're one of those teams with a forward thinking coach and a GM, I think you could sell it to an owner, especially after the most recent disaster contracts (Wentz, Goff, etc.)

oh i think that's possible that a team just recycles decent to good QBs rather than paying them - but i don't see a team ever letting go of an elite franchise qb purely because they become too expensive

 

[rossihunter2]

I'm not saying this is the new way of the NFL or anything like that. But I wouldn't be shocked at all to see a team try it at some point. It's not just about saving money - it's better allocating that money. So instead of this $35-40M QB that is good but not great, you have that rookie QB with the G in front of him that would have walked and that premiere pass rusher that you couldn't afford on the other side of the ball. Also in this scenario, that QB gets turned into additional assets via draft picks. Risky? Absolutely. Likely? Maybe not any time soon. But all it takes is one.

but to me that's not an analytics based approach/moneyball type thing - the best guys are still gonna be worth paying - it just means that as long as there continues to be an influx of talent at the QB position from the college level, you're less forced into paying tons for a mediocre QB

 

[Deebo813]

oh i think that's possible that a team just recycles decent to good QBs rather than paying them - but i don't see a team ever letting go of an elite franchise qb purely because they become too expensive

Yea i agree.. in the right situations, guys like tanheill, goff and those kinds are capable on winning a sb but id never pay them elite qb money

 

[rossihunter2]

Yea i agree.. in the right situations, guys like tanheill, goff and those kinds are capable on winning a sb but id never pay them elite qb money

that's the kind of guy a team will happily move on from in the future

but i dont think that's necessarily more of a moneyball approach vs just a changing understanding of the value of average QB play now that more and more talent is coming in (and the talents in the league already are staying longer)

 

[Simba]

that's the kind of guy a team will happily move on from in the future

but i dont think that's necessarily more of a moneyball approach vs just a changing understanding of the value of average QB play now that more and more talent is coming in (and the talents in the league already are staying longer)

Maybe "moneyball" wasn't the right term, but what has been mentioned in the last few replies is more of what I'm getting at. If you have a guy like Goff coming due for a contract and he wants to be the latest guy to blow the contracts out of the water, maybe a team trades him (because we know teams are still going to overpay) with the idea of trying again rather than just caving because you have a above average to good QB. Currently, all of those guys are getting paid by their respective teams. But I think analytics are going to start to show that maybe it's not in your best interest to keep a guy on a big deal unless he's a superstar that hits certain benchmarks. Kind of the baseball WAR model for lack of a better description. I'm sure there will be data that suggests you could potentially be a better team by trading that guy and getting more resources while also being able to keep some other talented players that you might not have otherwise.

 

[rossihunter2]

Maybe "moneyball" wasn't the right term, but what has been mentioned in the last few replies is more of what I'm getting at. If you have a guy like Goff coming due for a contract and he wants to be the latest guy to blow the contracts out of the water, maybe a team trades him (because we know teams are still going to overpay) with the idea of trying again rather than just caving because you have a above average to good QB. Currently, all of those guys are getting paid by their respective teams. But I think analytics are going to start to show that maybe it's not in your best interest to keep a guy on a big deal unless he's a superstar that hits certain benchmarks. Kind of the baseball WAR model for lack of a better description. I'm sure there will be data that suggests you could potentially be a better team by trading that guy and getting more resources while also being able to keep some other talented players that you might not have otherwise.

for sure i get that - it's reliant on the current continued success of the QBs in college and that progression feeding into the NFL talent pool

the issue for these hypothetical teams is how do you determine whether your guy is one you pay for or one you move on from

 

[rmcjacket23]

He could take a paycut because his wife is super rich and it also came to a point where he realized he has enough money that its his legacy he cares about..look at mike evans, he wants to take a pay cut to keep those guys. Even though players are long gone, they will never be forgotten.. brady will never ever be forgotten, not even in tampa will he be.. jordan, kobe,.. if lamar wins a bowl, he will be remembered with the greats

LOL, I don't care if they're remembered or not. How it Tom Brady going to make Tampa money 10 years from now? Answer... he's not.

Sure they'll get remembered. But the team will be making money long after they're gone.

I don't even care about whether Brady has a rich wife or not. 25 year old Brady and 30 year old Brady thought exactly like every other 25-30 year old QB did...pay me my money. Paid first, win second.

As for Evans, has he taken the paycut, or has he merely "said" he would take a paycut. Lots of guys say a bunch of nonsense to get hype in the media, and most of them don't follow through. If I were a betting man, no paycut will happen. He'll restructure to get paid MORE, earlier, in exchange for a reduced salary cap.

AND if he did take a paycut... I still wouldn't be impressed. Why is he waiting until he made nearly $70M to discuss paycut? So in 2021 its about winning, but in 2018, it was about... what, exactly? When you signed an $82.5M contract at market value, was that about winning first? Why not take less then?

Money first, winning second. There are almost no examples that contradict this.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Maybe "moneyball" wasn't the right term, but what has been mentioned in the last few replies is more of what I'm getting at. If you have a guy like Goff coming due for a contract and he wants to be the latest guy to blow the contracts out of the water, maybe a team trades him (because we know teams are still going to overpay) with the idea of trying again rather than just caving because you have a above average to good QB. Currently, all of those guys are getting paid by their respective teams. But I think analytics are going to start to show that maybe it's not in your best interest to keep a guy on a big deal unless he's a superstar that hits certain benchmarks. Kind of the baseball WAR model for lack of a better description. I'm sure there will be data that suggests you could potentially be a better team by trading that guy and getting more resources while also being able to keep some other talented players that you might not have otherwise.

And the problems I have are:
1. There aren't any analytics possible that would identify critical "benchmarks". Those are subjective, which is why nobody can tell me or anybody else what those benchmarks are. If those benchmarks are individual statistics, we would already have that data and people would be using it. If history said "thou will never win a SB without a QB who throws X number of passing TDs on his rookie deal", then teams would already do that. But nothing like that exists, because there's no correlation.
The benchmarks would be purely subjective, which largely takes the "analytics" approach out of it.
2. I don't think there will be data on your last sentence, because in order for their to be data, there has to be previous instances of data to analyze it. I.e., it has to have proof of concept. We don't know whether trading away a "franchise" QB and spending your money elsewhere can work, because nobody has really done it. Even the teams that are doing it, like the Rams, are also saying that its so important that we have a good QB that we're not going back in the draft to find one.

 

[Deebo813]

LOL, I don't care if they're remembered or not. How it Tom Brady going to make Tampa money 10 years from now? Answer... he's not.

Sure they'll get remembered. But the team will be making money long after they're gone.

I don't even care about whether Brady has a rich wife or not. 25 year old Brady and 30 year old Brady thought exactly like every other 25-30 year old QB did...pay me my money. Paid first, win second.

As for Evans, has he taken the paycut, or has he merely "said" he would take a paycut. Lots of guys say a bunch of nonsense to get hype in the media, and most of them don't follow through. If I were a betting man, no paycut will happen. He'll restructure to get paid MORE, earlier, in exchange for a reduced salary cap.

AND if he did take a paycut... I still wouldn't be impressed. Why is he waiting until he made nearly $70M to discuss paycut? So in 2021 its about winning, but in 2018, it was about... what, exactly? When you signed an $82.5M contract at market value, was that about winning first? Why not take less then?

Money first, winning second. There are almost no examples that contradict this.

Oh im not saying money isnt first.. im saying that success is often based on winning super bowls. You brung up of the money and thats why i mentioned the brady situation. Brady brung aloooooooot of fans to TB and even made guys come back out of hiding.. those guys that brady brung to TB( fans) will be buying tickets and making the franchise 10-20 yrs from now because of what brady did 10-20 prior to that.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Oh im not saying money isnt first.. im saying that success is often based on winning super bowls. You brung up of the money and thats why i mentioned the brady situation. Brady brung aloooooooot of fans to TB and even made guys come back out of hiding.. those guys that brady brung to TB( fans) will be buying tickets and making the franchise 10-20 yrs from now because of what brady did 10-20 prior to that.

In regards to success, I'm saying very few people around the league measure themselves purely on SB victories. There are many, many players who measure themselves based on their individual performances. There are many franchises who consider winning divisions, playoff games, etc. to be the measurement of a successful season. There are Owners who's #1 measuring stick for a successful year is Net Income, not Net games won.

If fans think that 31 NFL teams and all of its players, coaches, Owners, etc. all think the year was a failure because they didn't win the Lombardi, then fans are sorely misguided.

As for the Tampa fans, no they won't. Florida in general (and especially Tampa) is one of the worst sports areas in the whole country. Tampa is historically terrible with sports franchises in terms of drawing fan interest, mostly because its a haven for retired old people and people who would rather spend time doing literally anything else rather than watch sports.

5 years after he's gone, season ticket sales will bottom out, and they'll go back to being what they were.

 

[Dom McRaven]

Tampa is historically terrible with sports franchises in terms of drawing fan interest, mostly because its a haven for retired old people and people who would rather spend time doing literally anything else rather than watch sports.

Not when it comes to visiting fans regarding the Bucs. It's a home game for most of the teams that play there including us.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Not when it comes to visiting fans regarding the Bucs. It's a home game for most of the teams that play there including us.

LOL, my point exactly.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

In regards to success, I'm saying very few people around the league measure themselves purely on SB victories. There are many, many players who measure themselves based on their individual performances. There are many franchises who consider winning divisions, playoff games, etc. to be the measurement of a successful season. There are Owners who's #1 measuring stick for a successful year is Net Income, not Net games won.

If fans think that 31 NFL teams and all of its players, coaches, Owners, etc. all think the year was a failure because they didn't win the Lombardi, then fans are sorely misguided.

As for the Tampa fans, no they won't. Florida in general (and especially Tampa) is one of the worst sports areas in the whole country. Tampa is historically terrible with sports franchises in terms of drawing fan interest, mostly because its a haven for retired old people and people who would rather spend time doing literally anything else rather than watch sports.

5 years after he's gone, season ticket sales will bottom out, and they'll go back to being what they were.

Seems as if you’re speaking strictly from a team owners perspective and considering nobody on this forum is a team owner, well I’m not sure why we’d speak strictly from that perspective.

I can assure you that the vast majority of fan bases around the league judge their team on wins and not net income, and that is the standard for all teams across all sports and at this point idek what this discussion is supposed to be about

 

[rmcjacket23]

Seems as if you’re speaking strictly from a team owners perspective and considering nobody on this forum is a team owner, well I’m not sure why we’d speak strictly from that perspective.

I can assure you that the vast majority of fan bases around the league judge their team on wins and not net income, and that is the standard for all teams across all sports and at this point idek what this discussion is supposed to be about

I'm speaking from an Owners perspective because a) they make the decisions, or decide who they delegate to in order to make those decisions and b) fans get precisely zero input into that decision making process, and so how fans evaluate their team really doesn't matter.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

I'm speaking from an Owners perspective because a) they make the decisions, or decide who they delegate to in order to make those decisions and b) fans get precisely zero input into that decision making process, and so how fans evaluate their team really doesn't matter.

If you think fans evaluations on the team do not matter then please explain tv blackouts and how they don’t matter either

fan support matters. Please stop trying to convince anyone that it doesn’t lol.

 

[rmcjacket23]

If you think fans evaluations on the team do not matter then please explain tv blackouts and how they don’t matter either

fan support matters. Please stop trying to convince anyone that it doesn’t lol.

Well, simple... really

TV blackouts haven't existed for several years. In fact if I asked you to tell me the last time you heard or saw one, you'd have to research it. They stopped occurring because literally nobody could figure out their purpose.

Fan support matters. NFL owners figured out a long, long, long time ago that fan support doesn't require winning for it to happen.

When was the last time you heard or saw an Owner seek input from the fanbase on personnel choice? A contract situation? Really anything involving the business of running an NFL franchise?

Bill Parcells: when you start listening to the fans, you'll start sitting with the fans.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Well, simple... really

TV blackouts haven't existed for several years. In fact if I asked you to tell me the last time you heard or saw one, you'd have to research it. They stopped occurring because literally nobody could figure out their purpose.

Fan support matters. NFL owners figured out a long, long, long time ago that fan support doesn't require winning for it to happen.

When was the last time you heard or saw an Owner seek input from the fanbase on personnel choice? A contract situation? Really anything involving the business of running an NFL franchise?

Bill Parcells: when you start listening to the fans, you'll start sitting with the fans.

Nobody said take input from fans, but their support matters, hence teams with less support moving to new cities(rams, chargers, jags were rumored for a long time and likely will continue to be). Ask Dan Snyder how he feels about fan support after removing entire decks of seating at fedex field 3 times in 5 years.

I never once suggested that gms listen to the fans, but to suggest that fan support doesn’t matter in a spectator sport is ridiculous.

 

[purplepittabread88]

but to me that's not an analytics based approach/moneyball type thing - the best guys are still gonna be worth paying - it just means that as long as there continues to be an influx of talent at the QB position from the college level, you're less forced into paying tons for a mediocre QB

The problem with the approach that doesnt make it possible to moneyball or anything, all qbs still make a shit ton of money. The 15th best qb in the league is still seen as super good and probably gets 25 million plus if they aren't on their first contract. Paying Lamar 40 million is worth it over having Goff for 25 million.

 

[purplepittabread88]

Are we talking specifically second contracts, or basically anybody not on a rookie deal?

Brees, Rodgers have done it. So have both Manning's and Brady.

Obvious problem I have with this sort of analysis is it implies that winning the SB is the only metric of success. That, of course, isn't true.

I would actually rather be competitive for 10 years and never win a Super Bowl than be like the Eagles. I think Decosta has the vision of being a top 8 team every year for the next decade more so than the Ram's gm who is really only gunning for a Super Bowl w.
Obviously every GM including ours builds for the Super Bowl, im just trying to say he isn't going to sell his soul or ours to a 100 million wr and fuck us over. and Im okay with that