Football Outsiders content published by ESPN
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
15 Jun 2010
This week's ESPN article uses salary data to analyze who spent the most and least at each position in 2009, and what return those teams got on their investment.
Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 15 Jun 2010
5 comments, Last at
17 Jun 2010, 11:55am by
To me, this further proves that the draft is still a bargain when compared to free-agency as it relates to building a team.
The first two parts state what is obvious to anyone who reads FO--spend money on your QB, not your RB. Regarding the O-line and Miami, isn't that the reason for their success? I mean, Brown, Williams, & the FB Polite (iirc) aren't LDT in his prime and Peterson. As far as defense goes, I think that you pay money to obviously good players who would start anywhere, and work your way down from there. For example, that's why the Saints didn't pay Sharper as an UFA, and their SS Roman Harper signed his tender at the deadline to avoid getting a MAJOR pay cut. Neither of those guys are difference-makers--they're average starters. Sharper an All-Pro at pass D, but below replacement at run D--thus an average safety with one really marketable skill in Gregg Williams' attaking defense--but not in Minnesota's.
I think Ronnie Brown is underrated. If he could only stay healthy.
"Regarding the O-line and Miami, isn't that the reason for their success?"
Only if you define "sucess" as a 7-9 record and third place.
No offense, but there's not any real analysis here. I expected a discussion involving perhaps replacement-level or the spread in talent at various positions. Those concepts can help provide a framework for what teams *should* be spending on various positions. Looking at the extremes tells us very little, especially when you don't even compare across positions. It might, for instance, be the case that the team that spent the least on say DL got the least production out of DL, but that it nonetheless made a wise decision because perhaps there is very little spread in talent at DL relative to other positions.
FO has set the bar for themselves higher than this...
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties