Originally Posted by M'Kevon
I understand wanting to determine value, I just don't believe such comparisons offer the insight you seek. All we have is a salary and sack comparison of the two teams. There's no value in comparing the sack totals of just the OLBs absent the impact of the two defenses.
And only a comparison between GB and Dallas? How does that offer any insight on the impact on the cap, i.e., too top heavy in salary?
It's an empty analysis. It demonstrates little and proves less.
you could be right, his post just illustrated a concept to me that I found interesting, I wasn't really focused on the players he used.
What his post got me thinking about is how should the Cowboys spend the likely 10 million a year it would take to keep a 30 year old Spencer (who played great this year) and the relative risk associated with committing to a player of his age & who has admitted to taking plays off in the past and could be motivated by his potential contract. I think a % should be assigned to the risk of him getting injured and a % assigned to the chance he will lose motivation to arrive at an adjusted expected value. Then compare that to how the money could be spent elsewhere.
Could the Cowboys let Spencer walk and get two younger defensive guys and two offensive guys (say in their mid 20's) via free agency for the same cost that will improve the team as a whole in exchange for the drop off in Spencer's position?
I'm just spit balling here, but let's use A, B, C & D = 100% (meaning the best player available for that position).
Could a model be built that would assign values to his replacements that might look something like this (A = Spencer or his replacement):
The analysis is dependent upon good and accurate scouting which some might argue is up for debate with the Cowboys and is really just a mathematica way of trying to answer the question of whether its better to spend $10,000,000 on one player Spencer vs 4 players that could be had if they let Spencer walk and improve 3 other positions while having a drop off in Spencers old position.
Is there a scenario that could play out like my example and would improve the team as a whole while making them younger, deeper and also spreading the risk of injury/apathy for getting paid from one player to four?
I realize this is a incredibly rudimentary formula and there are many more factors that need to go into a sound analysis, I just like the thought process and hope these kinds of analysis are being done to improve decision making.
You're actually using the example to show how Walden is no where near worth trying to replace Spencer with, which is fine and probably correct in isolation.
However, if Walden or some other player could give the Cowboys 80% of Spencer while also upgrading three other positions across the team, then I lean toward that scenario, PROVIDING the scouting is accurate and reliable enough to make these kind of analysis.
After the Roy Williams fiasco, thats a pretty big "if"