The Methuselah Factor in Free AGEncy - Dallas Cowboys Forum

BulletBob · 03-15-2005

Why all the complaining about the age of the guys we are signing in FA?

From what little I have been able to gather, it takes 5 years of accrued (at least 6-game) seasons to qualify as an Unrestricted Free Agent.

Assuming a kid graduates at age 22 or 23, and spends 5 years uninjured (likely in this day and age?), that puts him at 27 or 28 as an UFA.

Isn't this right, Adam?

So, given the injuries, and given the fact that teams tend to lock down their best players either by franchising them or signing them to long-term contracts before they ever become UFAs in the first place, is it any wonder that there are so few studs out there?

And if studs are available, why is there so much surprise/belly-aching when we find out that they are in their late 20s?

I can see complaining about a FA who is > 31 or 32, but 28 or 29? Come on - isn't that the age we should expect as a default for any UFA? I bet the average age of a UFA is probably well north of 30.

I think we may need to recalibrate the compasses, folks. The draft is how you get younger and build for the future. You do not get younger in FA. FA is simply for augmenting areas in which your team is weak.

Drew Bledsoe - 33 (Yes, this is old by UFA standards)

Marco Rivera - 33 (Yes, this is old, but by OL standards, maybe not ... the issue here is injury)

Jason Ferguson - 30 (2 years past default age for UFAs)

Anthony Henry - 28 (default age for a UFA)

Darren Howard (TBD) - 28 (1 year past default age for a RFA)

If we do land Howard via a trade, we will have added FIVE free agents, two of them older than the norm. In the process, we will have only lost a 2nd Round Pick (possibly) ... for FIVE free agents. In other words, we will have traded one young guy (22 or 23) for FIVE guys (3 of whom are 30 or younger). In the grand scheme of things, we haven't really lost a ton of youth to gain in FA.

One man's opinion ...

CowboysNumeroUno · 03-15-2005

good post man, good post

jksmith269 · 03-15-2005

I like your thinking.....Good post

NYCowboy22 · 03-15-2005

Good point. I just hope Rivera will be able to stay in one piece.

Dale · 03-15-2005

Bulletbob, just shaddup. You're making way too much sense.

Don't you realize we should be acquiring 24-year old players who have five years of All Pro experience under their belts?

Good post.

Eskimo · 03-15-2005

I think the issue with signing these old guys is that football is mostly a young man's game - all the collisions and injuries make for short careers. The older you get, the more susceptible you are to injury.

If you are lucky enough to avoid injury, there still tends to be a tendency of your level of play to begin to decline around age 30. It seems to high RBs the hardest but is relatively forgiving of OL.

The other factor is that these FAs had previously existed within a confined salary structure imposed by the league that made them very cheap to their original teams. Now in the open market, good players command high salaries.

These 3 factors - injury, declining production and expense are what it makes it difficult to build much of your team through FA in the setting of a hard salary cap.

Dale · 03-15-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimo

These 3 factors - injury, declining production and expense are what it makes it difficult to build much of your team through FA in the setting of a hard salary cap.

Bingo.

If you're going to try to replace a lot of key positions through free agency, it's inevitble you're going to sign 'older' players (or, at the very least, guys on the verge of becoming 'older'). Unfortunately due to so many poor drafts and a coach that may not be here past this season, this team finds itself in a position where it is trying to win immediately but lacked the guns to do so entering the offseason.

To be honest, I like the players we have signed, but hate the fact we lack an overall plan.

This team's philosophy changes as often as the wind blows.

We want an offense like St. Louis. No, no...scratch that. Defense wins championships. Wait, we need to be patient in the offseason. Hang on, no we don't, we must be aggressive!

I'd much rather just see this team find a direction and stick with it. I like the overall philosophy this offseason (at least more so than last year's), but fail its overall impact will not be felt due to this inconsistency.

The poor drafting is a whole 'nother story...

Eskimo · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

To be honest, I like the players we have signed, but hate the fact we lack an overall plan.

This team's philosophy changes as often as the wind blows.

We want an offense like St. Louis. No, no...scratch that. Defense wins championships. Wait, we need to be patient in the offseason. Hang on, no we don't, we must be aggressive!

I'd much rather just see this team find a direction and stick with it. I like the overall philosophy this offseason (at least more so than last year's), but fail its overall impact will not be felt due to this inconsistency.

The poor drafting is a whole 'nother story...

I think you are absolutely correct, Dale. This is the reason we have failed - it is due to lack of a clear organizational philosophy that starts at the top and filters its way through the whole organization. The fundamental deficiency is the lack of a true GM to oversee the football side of the operations. JJ tries to wear two hats - he does the owner part well, but not the GM part. At least Stephen does the accounting part well.

Bringing in Parcells was supposed to help correct this deficiency. However, he is too close to the players in his role as coach and I feel he sometimes fails to see the big picture because his concern rarely seems to exceed the next game - forget about the next season. He needs someone above him who acts as a check and balance, who has a more global and long-term point of view - a GM.

No matter who we bring in to coach, I feel we will be ultimately doomed to failure until we bring in a GM and adopt a coherent organizational philosophy.

Maybe that new GM could the yearly shame that accompanies our botched drafts (although they have been better the past two years with BP).

Cbz40 · 03-16-2005

Jerry in this case does not have much choice.......he's backed into a corner.

You go with BPs plan or you fire BP.........After firing Landry...do you really think he wants to fire Parcells......I don't think so.

Chief · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cbz40

Jerry in this case does not have much choice.......he's backed into a corner.

You go with BPs plan or you fire BP.........After firing Landry...do you really think he wants to fire Parcells......I don't think so.

Boy, that's the truth.

I really think Jerry would like to revisit 1990 and rebuild with younger players (including Henson at QB), but like you said, he "married" the great Bill Purcells two years ago and he doesn't want to be the Elizabeth Taylor of NFL owners. Daniel M. Snyder currently carries that title.

The only thing is, Jerry wouldn't have to fire Purcells. He would quit ... like he's done before.

Hoov · 03-16-2005

I agree with Eskimo...our drafts have been better with BP, this year should help as well as we have 2 1st rounds and high 2nd round. I think the cowboys have a lot of young talent, throwing in some veterans to provide leadership is good idea as long as we have a plan to stay out of cap hell. I like what BP is doing here.

wileedog · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

To be honest, I like the players we have signed, but hate the fact we lack an overall plan.

Steve Spurrier came into Washington with a Plan.

He had his system, made all the personnell moves to fit it, refused to adjust it. And failed miserably.

One of Parcell's strengths is versatility. He's run 3 yard cloud of dust offenses in New York, and Air Bledsoe Campaign in New England, a play action based offense with the Jets.

HIs mistake last year was he stuck with a defense that went against his grain because that was what he had the personnel to run. He's busy rectifying that mistake this offseason.

I don't think you'll see a Plan(tm) with Bill, because Bill plays to what he has or what he can acquire, not simply picking a system and hammering his players into it. As an example, you'll notice they still have not really decided if we will go 4-3 or 3-4. Some may say that's lackluster planning. IMO, Bill is waiting until he knows what pieces are going to be available to him after the draft and FA is done to see if the switch is viable. That makes more sense to me than declaring the switch and hoping the right guys come available, or passing on opportunities like Howard because he doesn't fit in your preconceived "plan".

My 2 cents.

Dale · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by wileedog

Steve Spurrier came into Washington with a Plan.

He had his system, made all the personnell moves to fit it, refused to adjust it. And failed miserably.

One of Parcell's strengths is versatility. He's run 3 yard cloud of dust offenses in New York, and Air Bledsoe Campaign in New England, a play action based offense with the Jets.

HIs mistake last year was he stuck with a defense that went against his grain because that was what he had the personnel to run. He's busy rectifying that mistake this offseason.

[View Full Quote]

I think we're coming at this from two different angles.

I agree versatility is needed when coaching. A coach should be able to adjust to the sort of personnel he has.

But I'm not speaking of a plan from the coaching staff, rather from the front office in how it approaches the offseason.

Our direction changes like the wind. Over the last five years, we change every offseason whether we want the next Troy or some serviceable quarterback; whether we want to be an offensive or defensive team; and whether we want to be aggressive or passive in free agency.

The thing that scares me is the reasoning. Last offseason, we heard the smart thing was being prudent, that this is the best way to win games--look at the Patriots' approach in the offseason. This year, we're hearing that aggression is needed, and this is how Jerry won Super Bowls in the past.

Well which is it?

If the rationale for the changes were due to the available personnel, it'd be a little more believable. But we're not saying that our aggressive approach this year is because of a better free agency class, but rather because it's the best way to win games.

I just don't get it. Why wasn't aggression needed last offseason? And will we be again hearing next offseason how a prudent approach is what is necessary?

Mike 1967 · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulletBob

Why all the complaining about the age of the guys we are signing in FA?

From what little I have been able to gather, it takes 5 years of accrued (at least 6-game) seasons to qualify as an Unrestricted Free Agent.

Assuming a kid graduates at age 22 or 23, and spends 5 years uninjured (likely in this day and age?), that puts him at 27 or 28 as an UFA.

Isn't this right, Adam?

So, given the injuries, and given the fact that teams tend to lock down their best players either by franchising them or signing them to long-term contracts before they ever become UFAs in the first place, is it any wonder that there are so few studs out there?

And if studs are available, why is there so much surprise/belly-aching when we find out that they are in their late 20s?

[View Full Quote]

I guess Newman is going to be a very very old FA

wileedog · 03-16-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

I just don't get it. Why wasn't aggression needed last offseason? And will we be again hearing next offseason how a prudent approach is what is necessary?

Why should offseason philosophy be any different than an on-field philosophy in terms of being versatile?

You play the cards you are dealt.

Bill's passive philosophy last year was based on one faulty assumption - he thought this team was a lot better than it was. I think he thought a lot of the young, unheralded talent was going to develop far better than it actually did. He probably expected that someone like Coleman or Ogbagu could develop into enough that someone like Berry and his pricetag would not be necessary, or that Hunter could step up making a $15M SB cornerback pointless (after all, all Hunter had to do was replace the imminently replaceable Edwards).

In short, he was trying to develop young talent from within, assuming he had some building blocks in place already which apparently he did not have. And, in fairness, the D did have a no.1 ranking the year before and kept us in some games we had no business being in.

He based his passive philosophy on what he thought he had. He was wrong, and should be held accountable for that, but I'm not sure that necessarily implies the "rudderless" description of the FO you are implying.

This year its obvious Bill has no illusions what this team is. You are what your record says you are. So he's being more aggressive, filling holes with proven players instead of gambles, and for the most part (where feasible), not relying on "up and comers" at key spots.

Again, I see a coach reactinng to the situation, not necessarily trying something different just for the sake of trying something different.

I will give you that many of the moves seem a bit short-sighted, albeit not in a crippling, Washington sort of way. There's a lot more reactive here than pro-active. However Bill did trade for an extra #1 last year, did trade a 3 for Henson, did draft Julious instead of signing a Corey Dillon, and as Bob so rightfully pointed out in the original post its not like everyone we are signing other than Rivera and perhaps Bledsoe is really all that old.

There's a plan, its just not on a long enough timeline for some I expect.