will we see a "revolution" in the way this team is built?

realitybytes

Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
Messages
4,904
Reaction score
4,165
i was reading an article on nfl.com about how the two super bowl teams were built. the first thing that jumps out at me is that only half of the total starters in the super bowl were drafted by their respective teams. these teams do not appear big proponents of the "draft and develop" philosophy. and in fact neither team has any of their 2017 draftees starting.

21 of the 44 starters in the super bowl were not members of their respective teams just two years ago. and of those 21 starters, only four were acquired through the draft.

now the eagles acquired a total of 26 players through free agency, waivers and trades in 2016 and 2017. that's half of their 53-man squad. and frankly, they are in a bit of a predicament cap-wise. the patriots however acquired a total of 29 players through free agency, waivers and trades over the past two seasons (six of them are on ir). and their cap situation isn't much different from the packers.

it seems to me that a pretty strong case has been made for the importance of using all avenues of player acquisition, and not just dabbling in free agency but embracing it as a way to build the roster.



patriots:

DU-Z62nWkAA9_Ig.jpg:large




eagles:

DU4pOCfVAAAUi6N.jpg
 
Those are amazing figures when you think of it. So many free agents, yet, few of them being "break the bank" salary guys. Mostly guys who have a degree of talent, but want the ring, and apparently are coachable.

Signing with the Pats could be an obvious choice for a guy who wants a ring. But, the Eagles? I wouldn't think that would happen to be honest.

It makes a person wonder if maybe it's the coaches that are making that much of a difference, by getting more out of players than others might get?

Then there's the fact that the Pats actually hang on to guys who work to get better over their careers, and give them a shot at moving forward. They seem to be able to grab guys in the draft, and not play them for a year, while they learn. That's pretty much the concept that Lombardi had. You learn the game before you get to play it, and when you hit the field, you're ready to do it right.

I like the research that went into this. It tells a lot of how real championships can be built. The Pats got it right. The Eagles may be a bit tenuous because of cap restraints.
 
To answer your question per say , no we will not. We will see teams looking hard at the Viking and Jags model of defense and running the ball first. The QB talent pool is way down so teams will need to be creative in how they do things.

I think there continues to be an acute misconception in building in FA. Specifically people in packerland point to Ron Wolf. Well he was using FA prior to this CBA and supposedly the next one will be even tighter regarding caps etc.

Sometimes you can pick up 3-4 guys and make hay with them but just as many times you get 2-3 players and they don't gel with your current group. It's a gamble anyway you slice it. I don't think any of the GM will make a dramatic change based on the numbers posted but I do think once again they look at some of the formulas used for success this season. tc(
 
It's a lot like Billy Ball in baseball. There's a question of ROI. You need to choose wisely, to get the results you want. It's a crap shoot, and if you put too much money into FAs that don't work, you're screwed. That, combined with poor cap management on new contracts for vets, and extensions that strap you down the road, and you have a formula to fail.

That's pretty much what happened to the Packers with Sherman. We got squeezed by the cap.
 
Sometimes you can pick up 3-4 guys and make hay with them but just as many times you get 2-3 players and they don't gel with your current group.

picking up 3-4 guys is nothing. the eagles picked up 18 players from free agency, waivers and draft this year alone. eleven of them are starters. in the process, they went from 7-9, sitting at the very bottom of their division in 2016 to a super bowl team in 2017. it seems that it really is possible to build a successful team through free agency.

the packers actually did dip their toes in free agency a little more than usual in 2017. it didn't work out as well as they hoped i'm sure. martellus turned out to be a big mistake. brooks was almost a total waste. ricky jean francois ended up playing for the patriots. so you have to wonder a little about the quality of their pro player scouting. but wolf is gone now, so we'll just have to wait and see what the new guy comes up with.
 
Bringing in FA's is nice, and I'm all for it, but (to me) it only makes sense if that player is vetted properly as to whether or not they are a "good fit" for what/how the Packers do things on offense and defense. Just signing someone because they played well somewhere else doesn't always mean they will "fit"/play well in a different system.
 
3 FAs are actual real FAs on this team from that list. And they are lower end FAs. That is telling. Maybe you can make hay on offense with just drafting due to AR but you cannot do that on D. The Packers have proved that the last 7 years.
 
3 FAs are actual real FAs on this team from that list. And they are lower end FAs. That is telling. Maybe you can make hay on offense with just drafting due to AR but you cannot do that on D. The Packers have proved that the last 7 years.

So true on defense. You need more than one guy who can make plays, on defense, to help carry the team. You really need at least four or five, at various positions.
 
Back
Top