Brit Pack Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 I did some research into roster compositions in terms of where are players acquired and what percentage of the cap do they take up. I selected teams which are similar in certain ways, are typically long-running challenging teams and our recent Super Bowl champions. These teams were not selected to prove a point or support a data view they just seemed right to select and I was interested to see what the data showed. The data was taken Spotrac. Also the cap percentage doesn’t add up to 100% as not all cap is spent and dead money is not calculated in here. Finally, the roster figures I have taken are for all players that have ended up on the the 53 due the course of season. What did I find: Green Bay 20 players account for 76.6% of the cap 48 players account for 18.4% of the cap Total players used: 68 Atlanta 25 players account for 78.9% of the cap 32 players account for 15.87% of the cap Total players used: 57 Philly 27 players account for 69.87% of the cap 36 players account for 18.5% of the cap Total players used: 63 New England 32 players account for 80.76% of the cap 32 players account for 11.9% of the cap Total players used: 64 Pittsburgh 25 players account for 76.1% of the cap 32 players account for 13.75% of the cap Total players used: 57 Minnesota 19 players account for 66.45% of the cap 41 players account for 24.49% of the cap Total players used: 60 What was interesting here initially was that Green Bay used a lot more players than anyone else here with 68 players. Indicative to the injury bug that we normally face. Furthermore, we have the most top heavy roster from a financial perspective., where only 20 players account for 76.6% of the roster. While the other extreme is New England which has a more balanced roster from a cost perspective where 32 players account for 80.76% of the cap. What that says to me is that ‘success’ doesn’t rest on a few well paid team members rather it is spread out across the majority of the roster, which is philosophically an interesting stance. Out of all of those teams we rely significantly more heavily on ‘cheap labour’ using 48 players. Comparatively New England, Atlanta and Pittsburgh, all used 32 players each to account for cheap labour. From a pure player numbers perspective the aforementioned teams had a more equal balance between cheap and expensive players, a team like New England had an equal split 32 cheap labour and 32 expensive labour players. Green Bay Cap Acquired from: Number of players 67.50% Second contracts 13 9.11% Significant free agents 7 1.70% Cheap free agents 9 13.50% Rookie contracts 24 3.20% UDFAs 15 Atlanta Cap Acquired from: Number of players 53.90% Second contracts 16 25.00% Significant free agents 9 4.50% Cheap free agents 12 10.15% rookie contracts 16 1.22% UDFAs 4 Philly Cap Acquired from: Number of players 42.95% Second contracts 11 26.92% Significant free agents 16 3.36% Cheap free agents 10 11.79% Rookie contracts 18 3.40% UDFAs 8 New England Cap Acquired from: Number of players 48.76% Second contracts 13 32.00% Significant free agents 19 3.80% Cheap free agents 11 5.12% Rookie contracts 13 2.98% UDFAs 8 Pittsburgh Cap Acquired from: Number of players 60.90% Second contracts 17 15.20% Significant free agents 8 3.76% Cheap free agents 12 9.24% Rookie contracts 17 0.75% UDFAs 3 Minnesota Cap Acquired from: Number of players 41.95% Second contracts 9 24.50% Significant free agents 10 4.43% Cheap free agents 13 18.16% Rookie contracts 21 1.90% UDFAs 7 The first thing that jumps out at me here is the Green Bay not by a little but by a lot rely on UDFA’s. 15 of our current roster, who have not got a second contract, have come in from an UDFA route. Compare that to Pittsburgh that have 3 UDFAs. With the next highest in this sample size being 8. The next thing goes to the draft and develop philosophy we have in Green Bay where we still have 24 players still on rookie contracts. That shows that we do hit on our picks better than others. The other side of the argument is that we might not be aggressive enough by challenging rookies with free agent players to compete for places. The next thing is that we dedicate 67% of our cap to second contracts. Again that is more than anyone else. Are we over paying for retaining our own grown players? Take for example New England they have retained the same number of players at 13 but that only accounts for 48.7% of the cap, we spend almost 20% more. While Brady is on a home town discount, it only accounts for a 4% difference between what he takes up in the cap compared to Rodgers. With significant free agents no surprise we spend the least as percentage of cap at 9.11% and 7 players. Pittsburgh are quite similar from a philosophical roster composition as well with only 8 free agents at 15.20%. Compare that to New England, 19 significant free agent signings and 32% of cap allocated to them. What is interesting over the last few years and this year thus far we have only dedicated no more than 10% of our cap to free agent signings. Furthermore for 2018 currently we have an even more top heavy roster where 15 players account for 75.66% of the cap. I don’t think we have learnt anything remarkably new here. It just nice to see in numbers what we have all felt. We are a team that loves to grow our own players and pay a premium to retain them and rely on rookies and UDFAs over free agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted April 9, 2018 Author Share Posted April 9, 2018 Apologies it posted twice. Don't know how to delete the duplicate. If anyone knows how could they please tell me or if the moderators can delete that would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Great post! I've always wondered if the numbers actually back up whats been though regarding FA signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 9, 2018 Share Posted April 9, 2018 Awesome post. Average Age is going to hit that second contract category hard. Of the UDFAs, Lane Taylor makes up more than 3% of the cap in 2018. The 4,068,750 is more than 2% of the cap by himself. Don't know which category you put Tramon is, but those two will make up 7/177 million we've got. That affects the percentages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 Sneaky big spend on Mason Crosby, who is below average for his position in terms of kicking accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted April 10, 2018 Author Share Posted April 10, 2018 9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Awesome post. Average Age is going to hit that second contract category hard. Of the UDFAs, Lane Taylor makes up more than 3% of the cap in 2018. The 4,068,750 is more than 2% of the cap by himself. Don't know which category you put Tramon is, but those two will make up 7/177 million we've got. That affects the percentages. The average age was a lot lower than I thought it was 28.84 across 13 players. I forgot to state that but the data was based off the 2017 season as rosters were set. I got no issues with the Lane Taylor contract. I want more players that account for 2% - 4% range. The issue I got is we typically way overpay our own talent. Cobb accounts for 7.43% of our cap this year in 2018!!! For a non-QB you should be an elite performer at that cap percentage. In 2019 Nick Perry's contract is going to look very ugly. I find we extend players too late and pay a price premium for good but not great production. We wait for them to run their contracts down rather than extend during the season, or even a season earlier. Look at Ha Ha now, I bet we'll pay a price premium to extend him and again it will be good but not great production. Same with Davante, if we had paid him before he entered the last year of his contract we'd of had a reasonable deal. Now we are praying he doesn't get concussed and lives up to his contract which is 6.16% of the cap in 2018, for a guy who has never had a 1000 yard season!!! On the other hand we extended Bhak before his contract ended and we are getting good value for his production. in 2017 he accounted for 3.66% of the cap, bargain. This year he'll account for 6.47% of the cap which is in line and a little cheap for a proven very good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Brit Pack said: The average age was a lot lower than I thought it was 28.84 across 13 players. I forgot to state that but the data was based off the 2017 season as rosters were set. I got no issues with the Lane Taylor contract. I want more players that account for 2% - 4% range. The issue I got is we typically way overpay our own talent. Cobb accounts for 7.43% of our cap this year in 2018!!! For a non-QB you should be an elite performer at that cap percentage. In 2019 Nick Perry's contract is going to look very ugly. I find we extend players too late and pay a price premium for good but not great production. We wait for them to run their contracts down rather than extend during the season, or even a season earlier. Look at Ha Ha now, I bet we'll pay a price premium to extend him and again it will be good but not great production. Same with Davante, if we had paid him before he entered the last year of his contract we'd of had a reasonable deal. Now we are praying he doesn't get concussed and lives up to his contract which is 6.16% of the cap in 2018, for a guy who has never had a 1000 yard season!!! On the other hand we extended Bhak before his contract ended and we are getting good value for his production. in 2017 he accounted for 3.66% of the cap, bargain. This year he'll account for 6.47% of the cap which is in line and a little cheap for a proven very good player. Takes two to Tango my man. Nobody wants to sign a contract during a bad year. These are extremely proud men who always feel like they can do better on the field. Lowballing them when they're performing poorly comes off like kicking them when they're down and doesn't endear yourself to them long term. They say "No, I don't want to discuss contracts with two years left on my current deal" and walk away. It's not Madden, nobody wastes potential earning power. Also per CBA you can't extend guys on their rookie contracts immediately. You can only extend them after their 3rd season, and even that is not a good strategy because you have them cheap for another year, and a year after that if they're a first round draft pick. You're talking about this like you're one hundred percent confident that every player you've drafted is going to turn out. Some guys don't ever get out of second gear, loading the team down with 5/year contracts on non performers can be devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted April 10, 2018 Author Share Posted April 10, 2018 Truth is we don't know when they start negotiations etc. However, we do end up in a situation where the player has all the leverage by extending them at the end of their contracts opposed to at the end of the third year, maybe that's just the way it is. It's funny, I'm from the UK and follow soccer here. I know it has it's differences but a team typically doesn't let a player run down their contract, even if it doesn't look like a deal can be had to extend them, they sell them on with a year remaining, so at least they get some value in return. What I'm surprised at in the NFL is that teams are happy to lose talent at the end of a contract for no compensation (I know you get the compensatory picks) while you could maximise value with a trade while there is still a year remaining on a deal. Why don't we see more teams trying to trade players at the end of year 3? I think by the end of year 3 you should know whether the player is worth keeping or not. Year 1 they learn, year 2 big jump, year 3 they solidify. Take Casey Heyward, we got a 5th round comp pick for him. At the end of his third season he had 3 picks and 7 passes defended. Extend him then or trade him, you would have got more than a 5th for sure. The risk granted, is that you might reward players earlier and they might not pan out and you give up a year of 'cheap labour' but I'd prefer that than overpaying for good talent and then still have the risk if they live up to their contract or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: Truth is we don't know when they start negotiations etc. However, we do end up in a situation where the player has all the leverage by extending them at the end of their contracts opposed to at the end of the third year, maybe that's just the way it is. It's funny, I'm from the UK and follow soccer here. I know it has it's differences but a team typically doesn't let a player run down their contract, even if it doesn't look like a deal can be had to extend them, they sell them on with a year remaining, so at least they get some value in return. What I'm surprised at in the NFL is that teams are happy to lose talent at the end of a contract for no compensation (I know you get the compensatory picks) while you could maximise value with a trade while there is still a year remaining on a deal. Why don't we see more teams trying to trade players at the end of year 3? I think by the end of year 3 you should know whether the player is worth keeping or not. Year 1 they learn, year 2 big jump, year 3 they solidify. Take Casey Heyward, we got a 5th round comp pick for him. At the end of his third season he had 3 picks and 7 passes defended. Extend him then or trade him, you would have got more than a 5th for sure. The risk granted, is that you might reward players earlier and they might not pan out and you give up a year of 'cheap labour' but I'd prefer that than overpaying for good talent and then still have the risk if they live up to their contract or not. There's just very little market. I doubt you would have gotten a 5th for Heyward, just way too many mid-round CBs who briefly showed flashes but ultimately didn't work out bouncing around the trade market. Also important to remember that the team getting him is getting him on the same temporary contract that you had him on. Additionally the trade structure sees the team who traded him eating the remainder of the guaranteed cash. It costs the Packers 1.25 millilon to trade Kenny Clark next year if the team decided they didn't want to resign him. Is a midround pick (It's not, but let's pretend that's Clark's trade value) worth losing the depth and cap space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted April 10, 2018 Author Share Posted April 10, 2018 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: It costs the Packers 1.25 millilon to trade Kenny Clark next year if the team decided they didn't want to resign him. Is a midround pick (It's not, but let's pretend that's Clark's trade value) worth losing the depth and cap space? Valid point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 This was a really well written post. I think your data highlights 2 points -With a large cap number going to a few players, it kills us when those players don't perform (Clay, Perry, Cobb). Our "hometown discount" is probably a complete farce. -We need to hit on our draft picks to sustain success. Even having one year like 2015 really hurts us, but that could just be the result of sitting at the bottom of the draft order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted April 10, 2018 Author Share Posted April 10, 2018 1 hour ago, pgwingman said: -With a large cap number going to a few players, it kills us when those players don't perform (Clay, Perry, Cobb). Our "hometown discount" is probably a complete farce. Thank you. And also not only if these players don't perform if they are injured it kills a team. American Football is such a high injury sport I find the concept of putting all your eggs in one or in this case a few baskets rather risky. That's why I like the New England and Philly model where the cap is spread out between second contract players and significant free agents. That way the next man up is not an inexperienced UDFA or rookie or cheap free agent it is someone who has had some NFL experience and a bit of a seasoned vet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgwingman Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: Thank you. And also not only if these players don't perform if they are injured it kills a team. American Football is such a high injury sport I find the concept of putting all your eggs in one or in this case a few baskets rather risky. That's why I like the New England and Philly model where the cap is spread out between second contract players and significant free agents. That way the next man up is not an inexperienced UDFA or rookie or cheap free agent it is someone who has had some NFL experience and a bit of a seasoned vet. Yeah, it seems like your data confirms that. It's not a lack of starpower holding us back, it's a lack of depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 22 hours ago, Brit Pack said: I don’t think we have learnt anything remarkably new here. It just nice to see in numbers what we have all felt. We are a team that loves to grow our own players and pay a premium to retain them and rely on rookies and UDFAs over free agents. We may not have learned anything remarkably new Brit Pack but your effort to back up oft-repeated assertions about the makeup of the Pack's roster with hard data is still appreciated. My only quibble is that while you state "We are a team that" (i) loves to grow its own players, (ii) pays a premium to retain those homegrown players, and (iii) relies upon rookies and UDFA rather than free agents from other teams (and made no real trades for players from other teams), I would argue those preferences reflect the previous GMs predilections rather than the organization's priorities as a whole. I also suspect the previous GM's unparalleled devotion to drafting and developing players he personally brought in while virtually ignoring other avenues for acquiring (veteran) talent is why the organization moved on from him after the 2017 season. It will be interesting to see if the data changes after a year or two under Gute. Keep up the great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted April 10, 2018 Share Posted April 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Brit Pack said: It's funny, I'm from the UK and follow soccer here. I know it has it's differences but a team typically doesn't let a player run down their contract, even if it doesn't look like a deal can be had to extend them, they sell them on with a year remaining, so at least they get some value in return. What I'm surprised at in the NFL is that teams are happy to lose talent at the end of a contract for no compensation (I know you get the compensatory picks) while you could maximise value with a trade while there is still a year remaining on a deal. Why don't we see more teams trying to trade players at the end of year 3? I think by the end of year 3 you should know whether the player is worth keeping or not. Year 1 they learn, year 2 big jump, year 3 they solidify. It's apples and oranges trying to compare sports. For instance, in the NBA, contracts are guaranteed, so when a team trades a player, the entire cap hit goes with him to the other team. It doesn't work like that in the NFL, where any prorated signing-bonus cap hit stays on your books as dead money if you trade a player. In the NFL, if a team is willing to take that hit, it often means that the player is drastically under-performing his contract. The team they're trying to trade him away to would be aware of this and thus know that his team is under pressure to actually cut him. And if you can just wait for them to cut him and sign him as a free agent, why would you trade assets for him? I'd also venture to guess that there is alot more deviation in an NFL player's performance. Injuries are more likely to happen and this means there's much less reliability in predicting future performance. The sport has more specialization in positions and a guy's performance can swing from one year to the next just based off the scheme his team runs and in the differences in ability in the players around him. There's just alot more moving parts in less space and more contact, which makes evaluation difficult. There is also alot more turnover in the NFL. Avg career length is 3.5 yrs (vs. 4.8 NBA, 5.5 NHL, 5.6 MLB, 8+? soccer). That creates very different team-building dynamics. Different sports also have different cap rules, which change the cost/benefit analysis of different decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.