Should have never let Eric Walden walk

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by M'Kevon

Packers:

Matthews: $1,930,000
Nick Perry: 1,363,500
Moses: $391,000
---------------------
Packers OLB sacks: 19
Packers Total $3.6 for OLB position
Packers cost per sack: $190,131
Cowboys:

Ware: $7,546,000
Butler: $739,000
Albright: $465,000
--------------------
Cowboys OLB sacks: 14.5
Cowboys Total $8.74m for OLB positon
Cowboys cost per sack: $603,034

The real question there is how are the Packers getting away with paying a 4 time Pro-Bowler like Clay Matthews a piddly $1.9m?

How are they getting away with paying Aaron Rodgers $8m a year?

How are they getting away with paying Jordy Nelson $4.3m a year?

This offseason Adam had hinted as some cap manipulation that he believed he saw in the Packers payroll -- I believe he said he was shocked the Packers didn't get hit with a salary cap fine like the Redskins and Cowboys.

Anybody else wonder how the Packers continue to get away with paying these kinds of salaries?

[M'Kevon]

Originally Posted by yimyammer

I like the creative thinking involved and I don't consider it a great justification for Walden nor am I trying to argue they should replace Spencer with Walden, I just like the idea of looking at the value of a group of players vs the value of a single player because I think its essential a team not be too top heavy with high contracts to a few players and instead build a team that is collectively better than a few individuals. This enables a team to withstand the long run and deal with the inevitable injuries that happen to all teams.

I believe a team has to be real careful about giving cap crippling contracts to players (especially 30+ old) that if injured or their performance drops off will leave the team with no other options.

A high quality QB is the only contract that comes to mind that I think a team should always put a ton of $$ toward because without a high quality QB, you're pretty much screwed anyway

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.

[yimyammer]

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"

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

The real question there is how are the Packers getting away with paying a 4 time Pro-Bowler like Clay Matthews a piddly $1.9m?

How are they getting away with paying Aaron Rodgers $8m a year?

How are they getting away with paying Jordy Nelson $4.3m a year?

This offseason Adam had hinted as some cap manipulation that he believed he saw in the Packers payroll -- I believe he said he was shocked the Packers didn't get hit with a salary cap fine like the Redskins and Cowboys.

Anybody else wonder how the Packers continue to get away with paying these kinds of salaries?

Because they are the bestestists organization ever?

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by DallasDW00ds0n

Should have never let that dude walk... bah!!

Who???

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by iceberg

Who???

We are supposed to be ruing a scrub starter.

We are scraping the bottom of the barrel for our ruing. Running low.

Get a good rue or two in.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by Vintage

We are supposed to be ruing a scrub starter.

We are scraping the bottom of the barrel for our ruing. Running low.

Get a good rue or two in.

It really seems we want players gone just to regret the move.

[Shinywalrus]

Walden is a far below replacement value player who had a good game.

Butler is much, much better than Walden. Gotta watch him in more than a single game, guys. He's physically outmatched against nearly every team he plays.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by Shinywalrus

Walden is a far below replacement value player who had a good game.

Butler is much, much better than Walden. Gotta watch him in more than a single game, guys. He's physically outmatched against nearly every team he plays.

I don't think anybody is really arguing Walden is a good player. He is a below average 3-4 OLB who the Packers have been trying to replace.

The more nteresting idea being kicked around in this thread is whether or not it makes sense to field a couple of "serviceable" players to platoon at a position sorta like Green Bay does with Walden and their rookie UDFA Moses who together had 7 sacks and together cost $1,000,000 in salary vs spending $8,000,000 - $10,000,0000 to resign Spencer.

If you could sign two guys like that to replace Spencer for $1m and then take the other $8-9m and invest it in a pass rushing DL, would the make for a better defense?

[M'Kevon]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

I don't think anybody is really arguing Walden is a good player. He is a below average 3-4 OLB who the Packers have been trying to replace.

The more nteresting idea being kicked around in this thread is whether or not it makes sense to field a couple of "serviceable" players to platoon at a position sorta like Green Bay does with Walden and their rookie UDFA Moses who together had 7 sacks and together cost $1,000,000 in salary vs spending $8,000,000 - $10,000,0000 to resign Spencer.

If you could sign two guys like that to replace Spencer for $1m and then take the other $8-9m and invest it in a pass rushing DL, would the make for a better defense?

Except the reason they are platooning Walden and Moses is because they don't trust either player as a full time starter, and if they had their druthers, they would replace both.

Yes, if you could find DL that replaces Spencer's contributions, you have a better D. But that is true across the board, with all positions save QB.

If you swapped Albright for Ware, and used his salary to upgrade both safety positions, would that made a better D? It makes for an interesting question; very few teams would gamble on such a move.

[yimyammer]

Originally Posted by yimyammer

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?

[View Full Quote]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"

And of course I'm not the first one to think on these lines, Pro Football Focus has positional rankings using the same scale

Here's an interesting article in this vein:

Dallas Cowboys Roster And Position Groups vs. The NFC East

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by yimyammer

And of course I'm not the first one to think on these lines, Pro Football Focus has positional rankings using the same scale

Here's an interesting article in this vein:

Dallas Cowboys Roster And Position Groups vs. The NFC East

Interesting read.

Shocked at some of the low scores -- notable Claiborne, Demarcus Ware, Brandon Carr, and Tyrone Smith.

Nice to see Hatcher listed as blue chip.

[yimyammer]

From the article:

To account for these differences, the table below doesn't show the total value of a position group, instead it shows the average positional rank for a player in that teams' position group:



As is to be expected, almost half of the position groups here are marked in yellow, which means they are about average, with a positional value between 60 and 41 points.

Interestingly though, every team looks structurally different. The Redskins are the most balanced team, and although they look like a thoroughly average team in the table above, keep in mind that the table does not contain the ground game, and the Redskins did lead the league in rushing yards. At the same time, what looks like average everywhere also means they have no glaring weakness among their units for opposing teams to exploit.

Given this years results, the Redskins lend credence to the theory it may not be terrible to sacrifice some top level talent and commensurate cap cost in order to have a more similar talent level across the board and perhaps more depth. This doesn't account for their running game but I find it interesting nonetheless.

Scary how low the secondary ranked considering how many cap $$ were allocated there

[Illini88228]

The guy has fewer career sacks than Victor Butler, and he started all year for the Packers last year. 26 career starts to 2 for VB. Erik Walden is exactly the kind of player that floats around the league playing a little when a team doesn't have anyone better. He's not someone to make a part of your long term plans.