Random Packer News & Notes

[AlexGreen#20]

On 5/24/2019 at 6:33 PM, AlNFL19 said:

@AlexGreen#20 Just tested AV against Draft Position with a cubic regression equation. It's correlated better, but it's really not worth the hassle IMO. It's only correlated 0.01 better than a linear equation. Pretty surprising, actually.

Any chance you have it compiled on Google docs? 

Only reason that I ask is that seems extremely contradictory to the overall player sample that I've run previously.

That makes me wonder if WRs are significantly different than other positions, or if there's just not enough of a sample size with only receivers to make the correlations. 

[AlNFL19]

29 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Any chance you have it compiled on Google docs? 

Only reason that I ask is that seems extremely contradictory to the overall player sample that I've run previously.

That makes me wonder if WRs are significantly different than other positions, or if there's just not enough of a sample size with only receivers to make the correlations. 

No, I don’t. I just plugged it into a calculator online. I have the projections and the results if you want to check it out and see if the calculator was wrong. 

[AlNFL19]

37 minutes ago, festiveonion said:

One year I tested into a 5th grade reading level in 4th grade 

Can I ultra-like this?

[Leader]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Production doesn't correlate at all with contracts. Having a quarterback like Kirk Cousins adds as much stability to a team and organization as a player like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.

I'm not gonna get into a Kirk Cousins pissing match. I just selected him for reference purposes. That said, I dont think he "adds as much stability to a team and organization as a player like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers" That one is a bit unclear to me - but its really not relevant to the discussion so no need to quibble over it.

2 hours ago, deathstar said:

It's tempting to look at his numbers and wonder if they are 'better' or 'worse' than another quarterback's, because they're both numbers and it's easy for us to evaluate them. But what's harder to evaluate is what one of those QBs does to an organization as a whole.

Whats this got to do with the topic/question I posed. You're saying a players production doesnt count? You may note I didnt compare Cousins stats to anyone else. I cited them in a effort to "define" him as a football player.

2 hours ago, deathstar said:

Now your question: why is the player entitled to ever increasing money? Because he's the only one in the entire football operation putting his body on the line for that money.

This I simply disagree with and again, doesnt deal with the question posed: what is it that defines a players worth? His statistical production or the elevating CAP. If a given player is achieving his average production levels - sometimes exceeding them in fact - does "average" production entitle that player to increased salary because the CAPs gone up?

[deathstar]

14 hours ago, Leader said:

 

This I simply disagree with and again, doesnt deal with the question posed: what is it that defines a players worth? His statistical production or the elevating CAP. If a given player is achieving his average production levels - sometimes exceeding them in fact - does "average" production entitle that player to increased salary because the CAPs gone up?

Well I specifically said a players statistical production does not equate to his contract worth. Given that the last question you posed in that paragraph is irrelevant.

I don’t know how else I can answer your question. 

Im curious why you disagree with my statement. They aren’t putting their body on the line? They don’t deserve more money because they’re putting their body on the line? Or they don’t deserve more money?

[Leader]

10 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Well I specifically said a players statistical production does not equate to his contract worth. Given that the last question you posed in that paragraph is irrelevant.

I don’t know how else I can answer your question. 

Im curious why you disagree with my statement. They aren’t putting their body on the line? They don’t deserve more money because they’re putting their body on the line? Or they don’t deserve more money?

If their production isnt the basis for their contract worth? How to you measure success? Leadership? On the field presence? Decision making? Marketability? All Pro nominations? SB rings?

Yes - I dont equate the "they're putting their body on the line" concept as reason why an individual player is worth 30M per season (for an example) - plus - minus any statistical differentiation between the 32 starters - they'd all be worth the same as they're all facing the same jeopardy. Unless of course we're back to the intangibles............ 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Leader

[deathstar]

2 hours ago, Leader said:

If their production isnt the basis for their contract worth? How to you measure success? Leadership? On the field presence? Decision making? Marketability? All Pro nominations? SB rings?

Yes - I dont equate the "they're putting their body on the line" concept as reason why an individual player is worth 30M per season (for an example) - plus - minus any statistical differentiation between the 32 starters - they'd all be worth the same as they're all facing the same jeopardy. Unless of course we're back to the intangibles............ 

It seems like contracts are based on position, past success, a players age, and the current/projected size of the cap. 

[Leader]

2 hours ago, deathstar said:

It seems like contracts are based on position, past success, a players age, and the current/projected size of the cap. 

In the last 11 years leading passers have accounted for:

55415 total yards - 5037 yards per season average
5476 total yards - high water mark - 4577 total yards - low.

488 total TDs - 44 TDs per season average
55 total TDs - high - 34 low

For discussion purposes, lets say the game doesnt change anymore - i.e. rules favoring the offense versus defense remain constant.

Those stats  indicate the average production from the top QB performers. Thats it. Thats the best the top players can produce.

We've broken the 30M per season mark and are marching towards the first 40M per season QB.

If their production stays stagnant. If they're not humanly possible to achieve more. Why do they deserve an increase in salary?

The market? CAP increases? It certainly cant be because the player can consistently produce more on the field. 

At what point do the Owners consider: "We've quantified the best this position can provide (as I think is possible already.....) and we're not paying more for the same production"

 

[deathstar]

54 minutes ago, Leader said:

In the last 11 years leading passers have accounted for:

55415 total yards - 5037 yards per season average
5476 total yards - high water mark - 4577 total yards - low.

488 total TDs - 44 TDs per season average
55 total TDs - high - 34 low

For discussion purposes, lets say the game doesnt change anymore - i.e. rules favoring the offense versus defense remain constant.

Those stats  indicate the average production from the top QB performers. Thats it. Thats the best the top players can produce.

We've broken the 30M per season mark and are marching towards the first 40M per season QB.

If their production stays stagnant. If they're not humanly possible to achieve more. Why do they deserve an increase in salary?

The market? CAP increases? It certainly cant be because the player can consistently produce more on the field. 

At what point do the Owners consider: "We've quantified the best this position can provide (as I think is possible already.....) and we're not paying more for the same production"

 

Why do players not deserve a percentage of revenue? 

[Leader]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Why do players not deserve a percentage of revenue? 

Because they're replaceable and have a finite capability to produce. 

There's lots of them. There's only 32 teams.

Using the QB position for discussion purposes and a handful of statistical metrics, I've shown there's both an average and cap to their production capabilities.

Conceptually speaking, would you stop watching football - contributing your cash - if the average passing yards per season dropped from 5037 to say 4037 each year?

Conceptually speaking again, you think those 1000 yards drives the league economically?

This is an entirely conceptual discussion and there is no right or wrong to it.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Because they're replaceable and have a finite capability to produce. 

There's lots of them. There's only 32 teams.

Using the QB position for discussion purposes and a handful of statistical metrics, I've shown there's both an average and cap to their production capabilities.

Conceptually speaking, would you stop watching football - contributing your cash - if the average passing yards per season dropped from 5037 to say 4037 each year?

Conceptually speaking again, you think those 1000 yards drives the league economically?

This is an entirely conceptual discussion and there is no right or wrong to it.

The league operates via a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The basis of the league structure is that the teams are in competition with each other.

If the player's portion of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ever became too offensively low, the court wouldn't approve the CBA under the basis that they weren't negotiating in good faith and actually competing. 

[Leader]

25 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The league operates via a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The basis of the league structure is that the teams are in competition with each other.

If the player's portion of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ever became too offensively low, the court wouldn't approve the CBA under the basis that they weren't negotiating in good faith and actually competing. 

This is true and I stated previously in this discussion I think the CBA mandates the players are supposed to get 48% of revenues. Not sure of the % but I think its something like that.

But positionally - a player has to max out at some point simply based on his ability to produce.

In fact, just to put a slight twist on those passing yard stats........

In the time period checked (2008-2018) 5000 total yards was only exceeded 6 times - by a total of 3 QBs

Brees (4 times) (2008, 2011, 2012, 2016)
Manning (2013)
BB (2018)

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Leader

[OneTwoSixFive]

43 minutes ago, Leader said:

BB (2018)

I'm guessing that is supposed to be BR (Ben Roethlisberger), but didn't Mahomes do it in 2018 as well ?

[deathstar]

12 hours ago, Leader said:

Because they're replaceable and have a finite capability to produce. 

There's lots of them. There's only 32 teams.

Using the QB position for discussion purposes and a handful of statistical metrics, I've shown there's both an average and cap to their production capabilities.

Conceptually speaking, would you stop watching football - contributing your cash - if the average passing yards per season dropped from 5037 to say 4037 each year?

Conceptually speaking again, you think those 1000 yards drives the league economically?

This is an entirely conceptual discussion and there is no right or wrong to it.

The players generate the revenue. If it weren’t for them there would be no league. Same for the teams themselves. How could you sit down in front of the players association and justify not giving them a percentage of the revenue?

[Leader]

28 minutes ago, deathstar said:

The players generate the revenue. If it weren’t for them there would be no league. Same for the teams themselves. How could you sit down in front of the players association and justify not giving them a percentage of the revenue?

I've not said that so the origin of the comment is unclear to me. 

As stated (again....for I think the third time), the NFLPA negotiated the players (collectively) are to get 48% of revenue. II believe thats the %. Not sure. I dont think thats 48% of all revenue streams available to the Owners. Perhaps you can clarify those points.

It's at the Owners/Teams discretion which positions they pay the highest.

Again - does a player - an individual player (and for ease of discussion purposes, we're using the QBs because they have the most recognizable salaries and have experienced the greatest gains) - have a cap on his earning capability since he can only produce so much on the field? Thats the thrust of the discussion.

Again, conceptually speaking: if the top tier QBs can only throw for 5000 yards and are humanely incapable of throwing more than 5000 yards - are they worth more over time?

Should industry revenue drive a players salary (?) - and if it increases - should the Owners pay more that those same 5000yards?

Now - they are.
Should that continue to be the case?