Can free-agent spending buy a title?

[Nightman]

Yes because pointing to one example of a team that didn't win nit all proves something? Nevermind that their QB....probably the beset in history....was hurt down the stretch.

I hate when people point to individual outcomes/occurrences and use that as some kind of referendum on what to do or not to do. In a game with so many moving parts its a fools errand.

Nevermind using cash value is a silly.

Plus they won their division and had a home playoff game. I don't see how that is a failure in any world and they are still under the cap by almost 30m. If Manning doesn't get hurt they are playing for the AFC Championship again.

What should they have done after reaching the SB with a 39 year old QB in 2013, started over?

 

[Nightman]

The Philadelphia Eagles dream team went all out and look how that turned out.

I wouldn't say all out when they were still 15m+ under the cap

 

[endersdragon]

Didn't we just see the All-In model with the Broncos last year? Signing Ware, Talib, Ward, and Sanders all at large numbers that will screw their potential cap? And didn't we see how that worked out?

It would have worked out pretty decently if they would have had the same Manning down the stretch that they had in 2013. It wasn't their defense that could only put up 13 points on the Colts. They had the 3rd overall defense in 2014, where they ranked 19th the year before, the defense was better, and that was where most of their attention went... Manning just wasn't there in December and January.

 

[Galian Beast]

I think the mistake people are making here is in suggesting that every move in free agency is equal.

It isn't.

Examples:
Team A and Team B spend 50 million dollars in free agency in 2015.

Did Team A and Team B do the same thing here? No. Team A signed 10 players with an average salary of 5 million, whereas Team B signed 4 players with an average salary of 12.5 million.

These aren't the same at all.

There is also the difference in signing players depending on their age, injury history, relation to a coach or scheme.

Signing a 30 year player to a huge contract who has never played the role you are asking them to in your scheme can backfire.

Nnamdi Asomugha signed with the Eagles for big money and it was a disaster. Had he signed with us instead he likely would have excelled in Rob Ryan's scheme that he had already played in before, and would have been asked to play man coverage which was his forte.

Many people want to suggest that you can build entirely through the draft, while that might work out better for some teams, in general it isn't realistic. Suggesting this is like trying to make puzzle pieces fit where they don't.

Many people want us to emulate our efforts on the offensive line with the defensive line, but they aren't taking into perspective the deterioration rate of the offense while that defensive line develops. There is no guarantee, especially drafting late in the first round consistently that you're going to have the same success with the defensive line that you did with the offensive line. The prudent thing to do is to manage the cap and make investments financially where you can.

 

[endersdragon]

A real quick thing here... the best teams always seem to put themselves in a position to consistently go BPA in the draft. Look at the Pats last year, they went QB in the 2nd round. Was QB a need, not at all, Brady probably still has 4 more good years to go, but they recognized the talent and took it. While this might seem hard to believe, part of the way teams put themselves in that sort of position is through filling holes in free agency. In this years draft I have no doubt there will be some good players at 27... but I just don't see those players being DL. I think if we have to take a DL it's going to be a 2nd round talent at best (which sometimes can work... just ask Fredbeard... but its still less than ideal). However there are drafts consistently coming out that have guys like Gurley, Gordon, Strong, and the like there. The way we best allow ourselves to go after players like that, is by eliminating holes through free agency.

 

[TrailBlazer]

You can get the right pieces in FA and help the team take the next step. But you can't shake up the lockerroom by going out and getting a ton of new guys. It never works. You go out and find a Darrelle Revis and pair him with the homegrown talent you already have from drafting well. Can't rely on FA.

 

[Idgit]

You can improve your odds for a season or two by betting your house. But not enough for it to be a gimme. And then you are forced to reload if you crap out.

No matter what, though, you can't win one without also drafting smart and developing players. It's best to become great at that and hope you can replace the spots that need replacing each offseason to remain competitive for a long time. You never know when things break well for you that way and you can make a run like the Giants and Steelers have done in recent years.

 

[Rogah]

I don't think free agency is a good method of turning your team around overnight, but free agency can be a good way to get that final piece of the puzzle to make yourself a championship team. Problem is, before the season begins, there's no way of knowing if you are only a piece or two away.

It backfired big time in Denver this past year. They figured all they needed was an upgrade in defense to put them over the top so they got Ware and Talib. At the time, this seemed like a pretty good move, but things didn't work out so well.

Meanwhile, in New England, they lost Talib and added Revis, which was a pretty big upgrade. Obviously it worked out well for them.

I consider the Cowboys a team that is only a piece or two away. However, we are in the unfortunate situation where we have to spend a lot of money just to maintain the status quo, so that is a major drawback. :-(

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

I don't think free agency is a good method of turning your team around overnight, but free agency can be a good way to get that final piece of the puzzle to make yourself a championship team. Problem is, before the season begins, there's no way of knowing if you are only a piece or two away.

It backfired big time in Denver this past year. They figured all they needed was an upgrade in defense to put them over the top so they got Ware and Talib. At the time, this seemed like a pretty good move, but things didn't work out so well.

Meanwhile, in New England, they lost Talib and added Revis, which was a pretty big upgrade. Obviously it worked out well for them.

I consider the Cowboys a team that is only a piece or two away. However, we are in the unfortunate situation where we have to spend a lot of money just to maintain the status quo, so that is a major drawback. :-(

This is pretty much where I stand. Good teams are built through drafting. Free agents generally get overpaid.

 

[Rogah]

This is pretty much where I stand. Good teams are built through drafting. Free agents generally get overpaid.

Agreed, and that's the Commanders model. Take a crappy team, try for an overnight quick fix by spending a ton on big name free agents, then the result is you only dig yourself deeper. :-D

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

Agreed, and that's the Commanders model. Take a crappy team, try for an overnight quick fix by spending a ton on big name free agents, then the result is you only dig yourself deeper. :-D

That's actually counter productive, because those expensive free agents destroy the salary cap. I mean, what happens when the overpaid FA starts deteriorating.

 

[BAT]

That's actually counter productive, because those expensive free agents destroy the salary cap. I mean, what happens when the overpaid FA starts deteriorating.

Just because the Skins and Eagles have not been able to 'but' a title doesn't mean it has never been done.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

Just because the Skins and Eagles have not been able to 'but' a title doesn't mean it has never been done.

It's a HUGE risk. We are better off drafting well. Buying a team is just asking for 1) underproduction and 2) increased need in the draft.

 

[BAT]

It's a HUGE risk. We are better off drafting well. Buying a team is just asking for 1) underproduction and 2) increased need in the draft.

Not saying it's not risky, just saying let's stop pretending that it hasn't worked. Draft is also risky, teams who perennially draft in top 5 not guaranteed ring either. It always comes down to player evaluation and coaching, no matter if draft or FA.

 

[xwalker]

It's a HUGE risk. We are better off drafting well. Buying a team is just asking for 1) underproduction and 2) increased need in the draft.

Not saying it's not risky, just saying let's stop pretending that it hasn't worked. Draft is also risky, teams who perennially draft in top 5 not guaranteed ring either. It always comes down to player evaluation and coaching, no matter if draft or FA.

It's best to use both the draft and free agency. The Cowboys could sign the most expensive free agent available and that really wouldn't be what I would call "buying a team" if that was the only significant free agent they signed.

The Patriot wouldn't try to buy a team but they did pay Revis 12M for 2014.

 

[Nightman]

You can improve your odds for a season or two by betting your house. But not enough for it to be a gimme. And then you are forced to reload if you crap out.

No matter what, though, you can't win one without also drafting smart and developing players. It's best to become great at that and hope you can replace the spots that need replacing each offseason to remain competitive for a long time. You never know when things break well for you that way and you can make a run like the Giants and Steelers have done in recent years.

The last big FA we signed was Carr in 2012. We signed Bern and Livings but they weren't huge deals. Selvie, Mincey, McClain and McClain were also small deals. Almost everyone else has been through the draft or UDFAs.

If they spend big money on one or two FAs that would be OK. They aren't going to a have a Top 10 draft pick again for awhile, so a trade or FA is a good way to get top talent. Give me a guy like Hardy for DE, a mid level guy for WR5/KR and maybe a RT depending on Free/Parnell and I'm happy.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

Not saying it's not risky, just saying let's stop pretending that it hasn't worked. Draft is also risky, teams who perennially draft in top 5 not guaranteed ring either. It always comes down to player evaluation and coaching, no matter if draft or FA.

There is a difference between drafting "high" and drafting "well".

Drafting well is the best method to winning a Super Bowl. Period. The Patriots dynasty is a direct result of them finding a franchise quarterback out of nowhere and continuing to surround him with strong draft picks. They have obviously gotten some free agents, but the reality is they are a drafting success.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If they spend big money on one or two FAs that would be OK.

That might not be the approach the Cowboys take. I fully expect more of what we saw last year similiar to the players you mentioned.

 

[BAT]

There is a difference between drafting "high" and drafting "well".

Drafting well is the best method to winning a Super Bowl. Period. The Patriots dynasty is a direct result of them finding a franchise quarterback out of nowhere and continuing to surround him with strong draft picks. They have obviously gotten some free agents, but the reality is they are a drafting success.

Patriots are a different team with Revis, Browner and Blount.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Didn't we just see the All-In model with the Broncos last year? Signing Ware, Talib, Ward, and Sanders all at large numbers that will screw their potential cap? And didn't we see how that worked out?

Yep.

And the The dream team in philly didn't work out.