RSS Feed
PDF NOW DISCOUNTED 50%. FIND OUT WHAT YOU MISSED BEFORE THE SEASON.
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy print version.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy print version.
15 Jun 2010
ESPN: Spending By Position
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.
5 comments, Last at 17 Jun 2010, 11:55am by are-tee
Most Recent FO Features
» Super Bowl XLVI Quick Reads
Eli Manning and Tom Brady were nearly equal in value in the Super Bowl. One of them had to lose. What effect will that have on their legacies? Plus, the best players of Super Bowl XLVI and the game's DVOA ratings.
Most Recent Extra Points
Comments
Re: ESPN: Spending By Position
To me, this further proves that the draft is still a bargain when compared to free-agency as it relates to building a team.
Re: ESPN: Spending By Position
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.
Re: ESPN: Spending By Position
I think Ronnie Brown is underrated. If he could only stay healthy.
Re: ESPN: Spending By Position
"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.
Where's the analysis?
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...
Post new comment