Scout's Eye: 12 Thoughts On The Younger Players To Close Out Minicamp

[Stash]

Cobb got 10M per year and is the #2 WR in Green Bay. That is not exactly getting underpaid as a #2 WR.

But it's much less than he could have gotten from an irrelevant team like Oakland who was willing to overpay.

For players like Bulaga and Cobb, being a part of a winning and relevant organization is more important than getting the most money they can get.

 

[xwalker]

And projection is in what way reality? More 'fun games with math'. You want to project a negative number for Free because you can't stand the guy. Your bias is transparent.



Why do you fail to mention the $3 million the Cowboys would have in dead money next year in your 'Free must go' diatribe?



Yet, he didn't take Parnell to Washington with him...

Is there really any point in me answering something that you won't understand anyway?

If a player gave up 4 sacks in 8 games that is a rate 0.5 sacks per game. If that rate is applied to 16 games, then it would be 8 sacks. Free gave up sacks at a rate of 5.5/11 (.5 sacks per game). Tyron gave up sacks at a rate of 4/16 (0.25 sacks per game).

If Free is cut after this year, it is a 1 year, 6M contract. The fact that they only paid about half of that this season if not relevant to how much it actually costs to keep him. His average would be 5M per if they keep him all 3 years of his contract or they pay him 6M for 1 year. Dead money is just a function of how the team manages the cap. It is not an indicator of the actual cost of the player. The cost for Free will be 6M if he only plays 1 year.

 

[xwalker]

Weems' problem is that he's never been healthy. Parnell got opportunities to start, Weems hasn't. It is not like there is an even amount of evidence to project the two on the same level.

Weems has been here since December 2012 and I only remember the 1 injury that occurred in the 2014 training camp. He was on the 53 man roster in December 2012 and all of 2013, IIRC.

 

[xwalker]

But it's much less than he could have gotten from an irrelevant team like Oakland who was willing to overpay.

For players like Bulaga and Cobb, being a part of a winning and relevant organization is more important than getting the most money they can get.

Didn't everyone say that Oakland would drastically overpay to get Murray?

 

[xwalker]

That's a pretty hefty salary for a mostly unproven RT. RT's aren't valued as highly as LT's.

Yes, the top 5 Guards averaged more than the top 5 RTs last year. Parnell can also play LT if needed.

 

[Stash]

Is there really any point in me answering something that you won't understand anyway?

Not your version of 'math' anyway...

Numbers are your friend until they tell you what you don't want to hear, like Darren McFadden is a bust or that Doug Free isn't terrible. Then they're worthless.

If a player gave up 4 sacks in 8 games that is a rate 0.5 sacks per game. If that rate is applied to 16 games, then it would be 8 sacks. Free gave up sacks at a rate of 5.5/11 (.5 sacks per game). Tyron gave up sacks at a rate of 4/16 (0.25 sacks per game).

Doug Free either gave up 5.5 sacks or he gave up 8. Projections are worthless and a waste of keystrokes.

If Free is cut after this year, it is a 1 year, 6M contract. The fact that they only paid about half of that this season if not relevant to how much it actually costs to keep him. His average would be 5M per if they keep him all 3 years of his contract or they pay him 6M for 1 year. Dead money is just a function of how the team manages the cap. It is not an indicator of the actual cost of the player. The cost for Free will be 6M if he only plays 1 year.

Dead money is dead money. As long as there is a salary cap it's relevant.

If Free were to only play one year, the cost would be $6 million, but the team would be allocating $3 million for a player whose services they would no longer have.

If you're mentioning the scenario, I think it's important to mention all factors involved.

 

[Stash]

Didn't everyone say that Oakland would drastically overpay to get Murray?

Are you saying they never offered?

 

[xwalker]

That projection is silly. It isn't some highly predictable event. It is - even by Sturm's admission highly subjective. Had PFF put Free in a worse light, you'd be pushing their #s.

You continue to focus overly on outcome. Sacks aren't a great metric as no one can agree on whose fault it was and they are relatively rare and subject to small sample biases. Even based on you claim that Free projected to 8 sacks over the season, we are still talking a rare event.

Sacks per games is a rate just like Yards Per Carry for a RB. YPC is a common stat but it does not mean that a RB has exactly that number of yards every time he carries the ball. It's an average.

The only way to compare stats for players that didn't play the same number of games is to use a rate to projects how the would compare if they did play the same number of games.

In regards to comparing Free and Tyron, LT is more difficult. Even if they gave up the same number of sacks in the same number of games, it's a bigger accomplishment doing it at LT than at RT.

 

[xwalker]

Are you saying they never offered?

Not more than Philly.

 

[Stash]

Not more than Philly.

Then you're calling Murray a liar. He said himself that he had bigger offers elsewhere.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraide...-offered-more-in-free-agency-than-the-eagles/

 

[xwalker]

Not your version of 'math' anyway...

Numbers are your friend until they tell you what you don't want to hear, like Darren McFadden is a bust or that Doug Free isn't terrible. Then they're worthless.



Doug Free either gave up 5.5 sacks or he gave up 8. Projections are worthless and a waste of keystrokes.



Dead money is dead money. As long as there is a salary cap it's relevant.

If Free were to only play one year, the cost would be $6 million, but the team would be allocating $3 million for a player whose services they would no longer have.

If you're mentioning the scenario, I think it's important to mention all factors involved.

My version is Math is just Math. The fact that you don't understand it does not make it irrelevant.

A projection is based on a rate. If rates are a waste of time then why are they used so often. RBs are often judged by their YPC which is a rate. Baseball players are judged by their batting average which is a rate.

When a team has dead money from a contract it just means they borrowed from the future. It is not an indicator of the actual cost of the player. If the Cowboys had paid Free 6M in 2015 between his signing bonus and base salary, his overall cost if cut after the season would still be 6M total. The dead money would be zero, but the overall cost was the same. Teams manage the cap on a multiple year basis. It is the overall cost that they are concerned with when they sign a player. The actual years when the money hits the cap can be manipulated.

Math and the salary cap are facts, not opinions.

 

[xwalker]

Then you're calling Murray a liar. He said himself that he had bigger offers elsewhere.

http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraide...-offered-more-in-free-agency-than-the-eagles/

The report I saw said the Raiders offered 200K more. If he would leave Dallas who offer 6M per to go to Philly for 8M per do you really think he would have turned down 10M per from the Raiders?

 

[Stash]

My version is Math is just Math. The fact that you don't understand it does not make it irrelevant.

No, the fact that you twist it to serve your opinions does.

A projection is based on a rate. If rates are a waste of time then why are they used so often. RBs are often judged by their YPC which is a rate. Baseball players are judged by their batting average which is a rate.

And it's completely irrelevant here. Only brought up by you in yet another effort to undercut Doug Free. Your agenda on the subject is clear and widely known. And widely laughed at.

When a team has dead money from a contract it just means they borrowed from the future. It is not an indicator of the actual cost of the player. If the Cowboys had paid Free 6M in 2015 between his signing bonus and base salary, his overall cost if cut after the season would still be 6M total. The dead money would be zero, but the overall cost was the same. Teams manage the cap on a multiple year basis. It is the overall cost that they are concerned with when they sign a player. The actual years when the money hits the cap can be manipulated.

Not disputing any of that. But $3 million in dead money for releasing a player is still a factor in the equation. We don't dismiss it simply because it is unpleasant or makes our agenda less appealing.

Math and the salary cap are facts, not opinions.

Until someone manipulates them in a clear effort to support their opinions.

Then they're not worth much of anything.

 

[Stash]

The report I saw said the Raiders offered 200K more. If he would leave Dallas who offer 6M per to go to Philly for 8M per do you really think he would have turned down 10M per from the Raiders?

It's purely speculation at this point. Murray or his agent would be the only sources for the truth and it makes little sense for either one to ever divulge specifics. There's nothing to be gained from it and you never want to offend any of the 32 teams when you never know if and when you will have to deal with them.

A team like Oakland or Jacksonville will never let the world know that they tried and failed and that their money was not good enough. Their reputations would be irreparably damaged.

People can view reports and come to their own conclusions, but based on available information, both bottom-feeder organizations were rebuffed in their attempts to lure top-tier talents.

 

[xwalker]

It's purely speculation at this point. Murray or his agent would be the only sources for the truth and it makes little sense for either one to ever divulge specifics. There's nothing to be gained from it and you never want to offend any of the 32 teams when you never know if and when you will have to deal with them.

A team like Oakland or Jacksonville will never let the world know that they tried and failed and that their money was not good enough. Their reputations would be irreparably damaged.

People can view reports and come to their own conclusions, but based on available information, both bottom-feeder organizations were rebuffed in their attempts to lure top-tier talents.

My original point was that people said that Oakland would drastically overpay for Murray. Drastic, IMO, would be something like 2M per year more than the next best offer. There is no evidence that Oakland offered Murray 10M per year.

 

[xwalker]

No, the fact that you twist it to serve your opinions does.

And it's completely irrelevant here. Only brought up by you in yet another effort to undercut Doug Free. Your agenda on the subject is clear and widely known. And widely laughed at.

You have not shown technically how I twisted anything. Sturm determined who was at fault for the sacks, not me.

I used standard practices in calculating an average of sacks per game to give a relevant comparison between players that didn't play the same number of games.

Everybody seems to understand my "Math" except you and maybe 1 other poster.

 

[Stash]

My original point was that people said that Oakland would drastically overpay for Murray. Drastic, IMO, would be something like 2M per year more than the next best offer. There is no evidence that Oakland offered Murray 10M per year.

Conversely, there is no evidence to refute it.

It's simply an unknown. Murray said he received bigger offers, but he never said how much bigger, nor will he, as there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

1. Money. Parnell got over twice as much total money and guaranteed money as Free. Parnell's contract was 32M with almost half guaranteed. Free can be cut after this season and his deal will be 1 year, 6M. Money is obviously a big issue this year. They let Murray depart over 2M per year.

2. They drafted a 3rd round OT, a 7th round OT and signed a 1st round talent as a UDFA. I think they want to replace Free as soon as possible with a young cheap player. Parnell would have been expensive for 4 years.

3. The OL coach Callahan that departed this off-season had tension with Garrett going back to 2012 because Callahan wanted to bench Free and start Parnell but Garrett didn't want to bench Free. Callahan appealed directly to Jerry and the compromise was to have Free/Parnell rotate series for the final 4 games that season. That was the start of the tension between him and Garrett. The following year Callahan appealed directly to Jerry to become the play caller and the tension really escalated between him and Garrett. Callahan is gone and Garrett remains. The guy that remains probably advocated to re-sign his pet cat.

I think money had something to do with it, but in conjunction with the assessment that Parnell wasn't worth the money. They think Weems can match Parnell's level of play while they keep looking for something better.

 

[Stash]

You have not shown technically how I twisted anything. Sturm determined who was at fault for the sacks, not me.

Your pattern extends to numbers as a whole, not limited to Sturm's work on sacks. His credibility is selective with you based on whether or not he presents numbers you want to see.

If he's criticizing Doug Free - "he's the man!"

If he's doing the same for McFadden "he doesn't know what he's doing"

Your math is your math. It's valid if it supports your opinion.

I used standard practices in calculating an average of sacks per game to give a relevant comparison between players that didn't play the same number of games.

In an exercise where you already knew the answer. Which is what led you to care about it at all. If it was something that would cast Parnell in a negative light, it would have been disregarded. When everything is slanted, it's meaningless.

Everybody seems to understand my "Math" except you and maybe 1 other poster.

Yeah, it's quite clear exactly where you're coming from. You have been weighed and you have been measured.

 

[AbeBeta]

Sacks per games is a rate just like Yards Per Carry for a RB. YPC is a common stat but it does not mean that a RB has exactly that number of yards every time he carries the ball. It's an average.

The only way to compare stats for players that didn't play the same number of games is to use a rate to projects how the would compare if they did play the same number of games.

In regards to comparing Free and Tyron, LT is more difficult. Even if they gave up the same number of sacks in the same number of games, it's a bigger accomplishment doing it at LT than at RT.

YPC is a far better statistic as you can attribute that directly to a player. The RB has the ball in his hand for the entirety of the yards and attribution to yards is clear.

The sack per game piece is impossible to measure unless you know exactly the call and assignment. Attribution of sacks by outsiders like Sturm is highly subjective. Yet you feel OK taking those highly subjective values and using them to extrapolate. If you are comfortable with that, fine. But as an actual #s guy, I realize that you've taken a statistics that has a ton of error and magnified that error by projection.