Can free-agent spending buy a title?

[muck4doo]

It works if you're the 49ers, and cheat the cap.

 

[LittleD]

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.

Why in the world do people keep asking to target Hardy. He has red flags all over him and he's definitely not a Garrett RKOG. If he was in the draft this year
he would be placed in the "Box" to be excluded from draft consideration by the Cowboys. He is "NOT" going to be coming to the Cowboys for any price so
start doing some homework and concentrate on someone else....

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

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

Patriots can afford to sign these guys because of how well they draft.

 

[Nightman]

Why in the world do people keep asking to target Hardy. He has red flags all over him and he's definitely not a Garrett RKOG. If he was in the draft this year
he would be placed in the "Box" to be excluded from draft consideration by the Cowboys. He is "NOT" going to be coming to the Cowboys for any price so
start doing some homework and concentrate on someone else....

RKG doesn't mean never been in trouble

It's about guys that love football, leave it on the field, are coachable and put team first

Hardy wasn't convicted of anything and would be a perfect fit here

 

[Doomsay]

Patriots can afford to sign these guys because of how well they draft.

Yes, that is true, well coached as well, even if I don't like them.

Like your sig too - used to sit on those roofs for almost nothing in college (deck chairs and a keg) lived only a few blocks away. Incidentally, going to see the Cubbies and Cards the day after the final Dead show at Soldier.

 

[Nightman]

Yep.

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

Why do people keep insisting DEN did something wrong? They went to SB the year before and have a 38 year QB, what are they supposed to do, rebuild?

They went 12-4 with a greatly improved Defense thanks to Ware, Ward and Talib. They hosted a playoff game after a bye week and got beat because their old QB was playing injured for the last month of the season.

They are still almost 30m under the cap, so where is the long term damage? They didn't trade away draft picks, they merely spent some money on some good players.

 

[LittleD]

RKG doesn't mean never been in trouble

It's about guys that love football, leave it on the field, are coachable and put team first

Hardy wasn't convicted of anything and would be a perfect fit here

Like it or not, it's guys on roids who most often have anger management issues and wind up in trouble with the law.
He doesn't have to be convicted to have the NFL slap a suspension on him. He's bad news and definitely not
Cowboy's material. There are a few other good pass rushers that might come available and if not we might
be able to identify another one in the draft which is absolutely the best way to go.

 

[Stryker44]

You absoluely could, before the salary cap.

The league needs to stop with the socialist nonsense.

Its a billionaire boys club - and they need to stop acting like its not.

 

[Rogah]

Patriots can afford to sign these guys because of how well they draft.

They also don't overpay for players on the downside of their careers, even local fan favorites. They've dropped or traded Ty Law, Richard Seymour, Willie McGinest and most recently Logan Mankins when those guys got too expensive under the cap. Their philosophy is that it's better to let a guy go a year or two too early than a year or two too late.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

With NFL free agency beginning March 10, ESPN Stats & Information will examine some of the biggest stories surrounding the 2015 free-agent class.

What impact does “winning the offseason” have on win-loss records in the NFL?

Six of the 12 teams that have ranked in the top three in free-agent spending since 2011 did not improve their win total, including all three of last year’s top spending teams. The below information comes from spotrac.com.

2014 Offseason
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers ($147 million), Denver Broncos ($128M) and New York Giants ($111M) spent the most in terms of cash value during the offseason, but the trio averaged a two-win drop-off compared to 2013 (including playoffs). The Patriots, who won Super Bowl XLIX, ranked 16th in free-agent spending last offseason.

2013 Offseason
The Miami Dolphins ($160M), Indianapolis Colts ($129M) and Tennessee Titans ($133M) each added one win compared to their 2012 totals. The Colts were the only team to make it to the postseason. The Seattle Seahawks, winners of Super Bowl XLVIII, ranked 24th in total cash value spent that offseason.

link/http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102703/can-free-agent-spending-buy-a-title

it normally doesn't. you can probably add a piece or two here and there if you have failed in the draft, but building a team, with center pieces coming through FA often doesn't work.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Not really these days.

The roster restrictions and the injury rate work too much against each other. If a player gets injured and your substitute isn't that good, you've got a problem.

The other issue is that if you're relying on FA's then you may have a coaching issue. Coaches are there to develop talent and if they are not developing drafted and UDFA talent, teams find FA's to help with that. But after a while, that is likely to catch up with you and what is to say that those coaches will be able to continue to develop those FA's?





YR

 

[Hoofbite]

Paying your own or paying for another team's talent there's not much of a difference.

Unless a team can draft significantly better than the majority of the league every single year, free agents are a necessity. Spend wisely and you'll probably do okay.

 

[Longboysfan]

I don't personally think you can buy a title, but if someone was close enough and decided to go all in...I just imagine a healthy Cowboys team in 2015 (cough cough LEE cough cough), they resign their important guys like Dez, the LB's, decide what to do @ RB and then you mortgage the future a little with Tony's and Smith's contracts and you go out and get Suh AND JPP....stick both of those guys on the DL along with the rest of the crew, then you draft more defense....yikes, adding those two DL just bought us a legit title run while Tony is still viable....

...not going to happen before everyone jumps in with the "that is stupid, this ain't gonna happen"....I am just responding to the premise of whether a title can be bought....if you are close enough, and you have enough pieces in place already, then I say it is possible, although, not likely if you want to build a team that will stand the test of time

Nice thought. But I would rather forego some crazy spending, going for one big name DL and get a better back up at QB.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I find the "learn from history" comments similar to the earth is flat dialog back when Chris Colombus was looking for a way to spice up his lasagne.

I would suspect teams with large amounts of money to over-spend in FAgency have that because they are talent poor and not paying several play making super stars. Meaning, they have not lavished large baskets of money on one or two players, or more and have been spend thrifts in the recent enough past to not have a great deal of dead money. There is also the aspect that a player who is of great value stays with the team that had his rights before he left.

But making a blanket statement this never works, as so many statements like this get in line to deny FAgency can have a marked affect on a team is the same tired generalizations like you don't pay a running back and other nonsense that flies on this board as immutable truth.

Did Charles Haley make a difference? I bet the majority of posters here will attribute Haley as the catalyst which got Dallas over the hump and a championship.

Would it surprise you to know in his first two years with Dallas during the regular season he posted 6 sacks in 92 and 4 in 93?

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/06760039

But would anyone deny he had an affect on the team that was meaningful?

If history teaches us anything about this league, things are never really black and white, or fit within a generalization that locks in a result as cast in stone.

 

[KJJ]

Paying your own or paying for another team's talent there's not much of a difference.

Unless a team can draft significantly better than the majority of the league every single year, free agents are a necessity. Spend wisely and you'll probably do okay.

There can be a big difference between paying your own talent and paying for another teams talent. Sometimes you sign a free agent but they don't fit in as well with your team which is why you see a number of high priced free agents disappoint once they leave their original team. it could be a chemistry issue that causes them to disappoint or it could be that some lose their motivation once they sign a big free agent contract. Sometimes they're asked to do different things and they struggle making the transition. It's better to pay your own talent unless you're getting a significant upgrade by signing someone else's talent.

You build great teams through the draft look at the great teams of the 70's they were built entirely through the draft and with a few trades but their corp players were all draft picks. The Cowboys built their great 90's teams through the draft. They added Jay Novacek in plan B free agency and added Charles Haley via a trade but the rest of their great players were all acquired through the draft. Free agency should is used to supplement a team not build a team Seattle built their team through the draft and a trade for Marshawn Lynch.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There can be a big difference between paying your own talent and paying for another teams talent. Sometimes you sign a free agent but they don't fit in as well with your team which is why you see a number of high priced free agents disappoint once they leave their original team. it could be a chemistry issue that causes them to disappoint or it could be that some lose their motivation once they sign a big free agent contract. Sometimes they're asked to do different things and they struggle making the transition. It's better to pay your own talent unless you're getting a significant upgrade by signing someone else's talent.

You build great teams through the draft look at the great teams of the 70's they were built entirely through the draft and with a few trades but their corp players were all draft picks. The Cowboys built their great 90's teams through the draft. They added Jay Novacek in plan B free agency and added Charles Haley via a trade but the rest of their great players were all acquired through the draft. Free agency should is used to supplement a team not build a team Seattle built their team through the draft and a trade for Marshawn Lynch.

1. Your first assessment is directly in line with keeping Murray since chemistry is all important. Yet some argue that point.

2. The 70's teams did not have free agency. So you built through the draft or not at all. It was the inventiveness of Dallas to introduce the computer to quantify players from small schools that gave them an edge.

3. Jimmy had approximately 104 picks in his first five seasons. He traded away about 28% of those to move into position to get players he had a first hand knowledge of by either being their head coach in college, scouting them for recruitment, or playing against them and watching film.

4. There are so many reasons why a team fails at getting to the SB. Talent, drafting, execution, game planning, coaching, management, club culture. A combination of all of the above, or even half of the above suggests one player acquired, unless that player is a quarterback, will not have such a profound adverse affect that it prevents achieving the SB.

 

[KJJ]

1. Your first assessment is directly in line with keeping Murray since chemistry is all important. Yet some argue that point.

2. The 70's teams did not have free agency. So you built through the draft or not at all. It was the inventiveness of Dallas to introduce the computer to quantify players from small schools that gave them an edge.

3. Jimmy had approximately 104 picks in his first five seasons. He traded away about 28% of those to move into position to get players he had a first hand knowledge of by either being their head coach in college, scouting them for recruitment, or playing against them and watching film.

4. There are so many reasons why a team fails at getting to the SB. Talent, drafting, execution, game planning, coaching, management, club culture. A combination of all of the above, or even half of the above suggests one player acquired, unless that player is a quarterback, will not have such a profound adverse affect that it prevents achieving the SB.

My first assessment was directly in line with keeping Dez because chemistry between a WR and QB is vital to having success. Some of these high priced free agent WR's don't produce as well playing with a different QB on a different team. Jerry traded for Roy Williams a few years back and he and Romo could never establish any chemistry which caused that trade to go bust. An RB's success depends a lot on their OL. You never see a productive RB who's at the top of their game made available in free agency but it could very well happen with Murray. If it does any team that considers signing him better take a close look at their OL. Even with a talented RB they need blocking and have to fit in to their new surroundings with an entirely different team and system. Herschel Walker produced on some declining Cowboy teams because they had a system in place with Tony Dorsett when he arrived that helped him make a smooth transition. He was a boom for a declining Cowboys team and a bust for what many felt was an ascending Vikings team. He was in a different environment in a different situation in Minn on a team that was going to attempt to ride him to a SB and it didn't work out.

The 70's teams didn't have free agency and were able to build great teams through the draft and keep them together year after year which created continuity and cohesiveness. The Cowboys had a system for drafting players that led to 20 consecutive winning seasons but the Steelers dominated the 70's with their own system that produced some great drafts most notably the 74 draft that produced 4 HOF players Swann, Lambert, Stallworth and Webster. The Cowboys, Steelers and Dolphins built great teams through the draft. As for Jimmy and his 104 picks some of those were acquired through trades and the corp group of those great teams were built through the draft. The players you draft grow and develop with your team through your own coaching unlike players you bring in from other teams who've been coached differently and are forced to make a transition. Raising your own players through your system and coaching is why the Cowboys were so consistently good over such a long period of time through the mid 60's into the early 80's. Taking a player who's been raised and developed by another organization and trying get that player to do things your way doesn't always work and you end up not getting what you hoped for.

Teams don't don't do things the same way and when they sign a free agent they're looking to fill a hole and it may force the player to take on a slightly different role than what they had with their previous team. Being infused into a different system and having to take on a different way of doing things could lead to less than favorable results for a player who's leaving a situation that benefitted them making them a high priced free agent. Marcellus Wiley who was the Cowboys top free agent signing a decade ago flamed out and was dumped after one season. He claimed the Cowboys lied to him on how he was going to be used which led to his disappointing season. The truth is he was a declining player who took the money and was put in a situation he wasn't happy with. I believe in keeping the players who have gotten you where you are and bring in a couple of reasonably priced free agents to supplement what you have. Mincy who came at a lower price than Melton was a pleasant surprise. No need putting yourself in cap hell signing someone else's talent and not have them live up to their contract. The Cowboys wasted a lot of money on Carr who became a liability in coverage.

 

[Wood]

With NFL free agency beginning March 10, ESPN Stats & Information will examine some of the biggest stories surrounding the 2015 free-agent class.

What impact does “winning the offseason” have on win-loss records in the NFL?

Six of the 12 teams that have ranked in the top three in free-agent spending since 2011 did not improve their win total, including all three of last year’s top spending teams. The below information comes from spotrac.com.

link/http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/102703/can-free-agent-spending-buy-a-title

the answer is yes if done properly. I like NE approach few years ago by upgrading their team across the board with tier 2 and tier 3 FA signings. I think its become clear that key is not to have cap tied up in just few players. That works in NBA but not in NFL.

 

[Hoofbite]

There can be a big difference between paying your own talent and paying for another teams talent. Sometimes you sign a free agent but they don't fit in as well with your team which is why you see a number of high priced free agents disappoint once they leave their original team. it could be a chemistry issue that causes them to disappoint or it could be that some lose their motivation once they sign a big free agent contract. Sometimes they're asked to do different things and they struggle making the transition. It's better to pay your own talent unless you're getting a significant upgrade by signing someone else's talent.

You build great teams through the draft look at the great teams of the 70's they were built entirely through the draft and with a few trades but their corp players were all draft picks. The Cowboys built their great 90's teams through the draft. They added Jay Novacek in plan B free agency and added Charles Haley via a trade but the rest of their great players were all acquired through the draft. Free agency should is used to supplement a team not build a team Seattle built their team through the draft and a trade for Marshawn Lynch.

Getting lazy is no more or less likely by signing your own. A lazy player will get lazy.

As for signing poor fitting players, I wouldn't call that smart

 

[KJJ]

Getting lazy is no more or less likely by signing your own. A lazy player will get lazy.

As for signing poor fitting players, I wouldn't call that smart

I wouldn't use the word "lazy" unless we're talking about someone like Albert Haynesworth but there are some players that are motivated by money and once they get paid they lose some of their motivation. Haynesworth lost all his motivation and got lazy once the Commanders paid him. We see a lot of players that are in a contract year go out and have a great season trying to cash in. I'm sure part of why Murray was so good this past season was due to it being a contract year. He knew entering the season that if he gets injured forcing him to miss games for a 4th straight season his value would go way down and he wouldn't receive much if any interest. I'm not saying he's playing just for money but most players enter a season with a little extra motivation when it's a contract year.

Some players performances fall off once they cash in on a great season. When you sign a player to a big free agent contract it's not a reward for what they've done it's for what you hope they will do. As for signing poor fitting players you're never certain how any new addition is going to fit on your team in your scheme with the new players they have around them. If a player is leaving a team where they were surrounded by a lot of talent which helped their performance and signs with a far less talented team it may be a struggle for them to make a significant impact. A lot depends on the position you sign and what is going to be asked of that player.

A player has to buy into your way if they're going to be successful. You have to look at the reasons some of these players are made available in free agency. A player like Mike Wallace only had 2 real productive seasons in Pittsburgh and wasn't all that impressive his final season with the Steelers which should have sent up a red flag to Miami but they were in love with his speed and wanted to give Tannehill a deep threat. No way would I fork over a truck load of cash to a free agent who's only had one or two good seasons. You know your own players a lot better than you do someone else's players. You know their practice habits and what type of work ethic they have. I believe if a player is that good their team will do everything possible to retain their services.