What Is Your Philosophy: Build Through The Draft, Or Proven Talent?

[PCP63]

I know that I'll be in the minority here, but I'd take proven talent any day of the week. There are pros/cons to both. Let's say you manage to get the #1 overall pick.

Do you trade down, trade away, or stay? No player is guaranteed to be great. For every Manning, there's a Leaf. Sure, most #1 overall picks at least make one Pro Bowl, but, for that draft position, you could get A LOT more in return. Guys like Carson Palmer may have been to a Pro Bowl, but how many truly great seasons did he have? Three? And one wasn't even with his original team, and was at the twilight of his career.

If you look from 2000 until this past draft, how many truly game-changing QBs were there? A handful. But trading the top pick could easily get you a top player.

Now, there are some pros and cons to each. Sure, the draft is a crapshoot, but if you hit on a good player, you have him locked up for cheap. And sure, getting proven talent is nice, but they can always regress and take up valuable cap space.

I tend to think that proven talent is always the better gamble, even if it doesn't work out every time. I like to think there's a bigger chance of proven talent outplaying the crapshoot talent than the proven talent regressing dramatically.

While I'm not saying it would always be feasible or smart, imagine if a team traded their 1st rounder for proven talent every single year. You'd get quite a few instant contributors. The picks you traded away might get you a handful of decent/good players, if any.

[joewilly12]

Both smart free agent moves have worked out well for many teams. 

[T0mShane]

If I were a GM, I'd:

 

1. Spend two years sabotaging my head coach in an attempt to seize the means of production.

 

2. Draft 12 stiffs.

 

3. Get fired, cash checks.

 

4. Get a cush job in Florida.

 

5. Sit back and watch the quietly slick moves I made during my prior reign bear fruit.

 

6. Pad my resume and wait for Jeff Fisher to get Les Snead fired.

[Jet9]

65/35 Draft, ideally. 

Though this assumes you have the right people in place to develop. For me Free Agency in sports is to bring in help/support and MAYBE once in a while a mega star. 

 

As an example: Loved the way the 90s Yankees were assembled, hate the way it is now. For me the '09 Yanks were an anomaly.

 

Now if you're talking the ridiculously top heavy NBA, then yeah, free agency all the way. 

 

[Villain The Foe]

Complicated question. It depends on the type of team that you're acquiring at the time and the money situation. 

 

Lets be honest, every team wants to build through the draft because every team has draft picks. Also, many teams like to grab talent through free agency because they need talent at certain positions. Some may look at teams like Green Bay and say "they build through the draft and you rarely if ever hear about the Packers during free agency". Well, thats easy to do when your QB is Aaron Rodgers and you can put 90% of the teams success on his arm. The dude is a legend and is arguably the best QB of his generation. Unfortunately other teams have to decide between guys like Geno Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick or Christian Hackenberg. 

With that said, Id say that its a mixture of the two. You need the draft because you need the youth and the depth, however, you need free agency because you need the experience, veteran leadership and respectable talent to put around these young cats along with supporting the coaching staff in order to get the scheme across. 

 

Going all in with the draft could work when you have the QB position solidified and you can put up 30 points no matter who the hell is on the field, or you can be stuck in a situation like Drew Brees and no matter how many points you put up, the defense is just so piss poor that it doesnt really matter. 

 

You can go the route of trying to pick up as much talented free agents as possible but then you come across the problem of guys doing things their way and too many guys wanting to be the general and not wanting to be soldiers and playing a role assigned to them...basically have another "Dream Team" Eagles season on your hands. The team was arguably the most talented team on paper, but was getting handled every week. 

 

With that said, Im huge on trading down so If I had the #1 pick I'd trade down for future picks, making sure that I received a 1st rounder for the following season. I'd have to see the specific scenario however. 

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

The economics force NFL teams to build through the draft, you have to balance "cheap" (usually first contract) players with second or third contract players (usually overpaid based on the "market") to field a complete team, I think some of these over inflated contracts actually hurt the game and I am not sure if it matters anymore if you drafted the player or not if the market forces you to pay top dollar for a player that you successfully developed (Mo Wilkerson, Snacks, etc...)

[New York Mick]

Whatever the Jets aren't doing because their method obviously doesn't work. 

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, T0mShane said:

If I were a GM, I'd:

 

1. Spend two years sabotaging my head coach in an attempt to seize the means of production.

 

2. Draft 12 stiffs.

 

3. Get fired, cash checks.

 

4. Get a cush job in Florida.

 

5. Sit back and watch the quietly slick moves I made during my prior reign bear fruit.

 

6. Pad my resume and wait for Jeff Fisher to get Les Snead fired.

[BowlesMovement]

If I was a GM, I'd just hold up the other GM's at gun point.

I'd be like Yo Ted Thompson mother fkr, give me Aaron Rodgers for Geno Smith and nobody gets hurt!

Fk the draft and FA!

[EM31]

1 minute ago, BowlesMovement said:

If I was a GM, I'd just hold up the other GM's at gun point.

I'd be like Yo Ted Thompson mother fkr, give me Aaron Rodgers for Geno Smith and nobody gets hurt!

Fk the draft and FA!

But Geno has upside.  Didn't you get the memo?

[Integrity28]

False choice.

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

I believe you have to build through the draft, while supplementing your drafts with a nice blend of value and top-of-the-market free agents. It's really not about throwing a philosophy label at the team and it just working, or not working. It always comes down to how the collection of talent gels.

End of the day, it's a room full of 250 - 350 lb. roided out, drugged out toddlers with world class athletic ability and strength.

[RutgersJetFan]

Not really an option. The NFL has a hard cap, draft picks are cheap and proven veterans aren't.

[dbatesman]

18 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Not really an option. The NFL has a hard cap, draft picks are cheap and proven veterans aren't.

ok professor, name one good team built through the draft

[RutgersJetFan]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

ok professor, name one good team built through the draft

Well for one, the Wildcats as soon as Homer stopped Flanders from pussifying the team.

[jetfan39]

3 hours ago, dbatesman said:

ok professor, name one good team built through the draft

green bay says hello

[SouthernJet]

Through Draft, with maybe 1-2 high price Free agents every few years, and yearly stock depth and maybe a starter with more money value types so you have that cap $ for the 1-2 guys you buy every few years

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Not really an option. The NFL has a hard cap, draft picks are cheap and proven veterans aren't.

+1 At the same time, though, there are proven veterans and proven veterans. Further, age is a factor. If Brandon Marshall were 7 years younger he couldn't be locked up for under $10M. Ditto Forte at his relatively low number, etc. One of the more effective things a team can do in FA is get highly-talented veterans on the tail ends of their respective primes: they don't cost nearly what their 4-6 year younger counterparts would, allowing a GM to allocate more resources to other positions. The downside, obviously, is that one doesn't solidify the position for as long, and a replacement player or replacement contract may be needed as soon as 2 years later (instead of 4-5 years later, at the natural/planned end of a younger player's contract). 

Then there are other proven veterans where they're not necessarily better, or not so much better, at their relative positions than the 30+ crowd, but have youth on their side (e.g. Olivier Vernon, Suh, Cox, Norman, Malik J., etc.). The problem ("problem") is they're so much more expensive that it's debatable that the disparity between a $15-18M FA at 25-28 years old is more prudent than one maybe slightly less productive but who costs half or a third as much, allowing the rest to be used elsewhere, instead of crossing fingers on Brian Winters again, or upgrading more significantly from Breno to a beastly stud of a tackle.

The problem with going with all-veterans (more correctly, chiefly building through free agency, since nobody does "all" veterans) is two-fold. One, as I mentioned, the established veterans have shorter careers than drafted players (those that actually pan out, I mean). Two, as you mentioned, each one costs a multiple of their draftee counterpart so you will run out of space long before you've filled up that roster with stud veterans.

Conversely, a beastly draft pick makes backup money for 4 years. Only hit on one such player, and it's no big deal, especially if the one "beast" doesn't even play a premium position). Hit on multiple such players on cheap, rookie deals (particularly if one of them is a QB) and you're the Seahawks. 

The other unseen part of those cheaper rookie deals is that misfiring on an expensive, veteran FA doesn't hurt nearly as much. Again, look at Seattle, who were still winners despite the crazy contracts they paid for multiple such bust FAs relative to their cost: Flynn, Miller, Rice, Harvin (and to a lesser extent, guys like Mike Williams and Leon Washington). This collection of terrible FA contracts would have decimated most teams' ability to compete. Meanwhile, because of such effective drafting Seattle absorbed all of this and went to championship games and superbowls instead of midseason planning of who they'll take with their top 5-10 pick in April. 

[SenorGato]

Mix it up, but whatever maxes profits for me. The draft is obviously where you want to get the majority of talent, especially star or better talent, but due to several factors there are always good buys in FA if a team is clever enough.

That said, the real key is hope.

[southparkcpa]

I dont see how this is even close...

The best teams over the years have drafted very well and developed those players very well.

Top QBs, hell almost all top players in the league have all been drafted and play for the team they were drafted by. The team then surrounds them with talented role players.

Free agency can help round it out but youth wins.  Sabermetric developer (Moneyball) Bill James speaks about building a winning team takes youth above all else assuming talent is equal. 

[JiFtheOracle]

The draft.  100%.  There's this thing called the cap and FA's take up a lot of that.  FA's are made to supplement your team.  You have to build through the draft.  Bottom line.

I cant think of one team that built a championship off FA.  The Broncos definitely had a lot of FA help but their core were guys they draft - Miller, Thomas, Wolfe, Jackson, Travethean, Chris Harris, Hillman, Anderson, Roby - all draft picks.  Granted, you cant argue that Ware, Alib, Manning, Ward and Sanders werent huge reasons why they won it all.

On the flip side, the Panthers were basically completely built through the draft with very few impact FA signings over the years outside Greg Olson. 

[Warfish]

11 hours ago, Integrity28 said:

False choice.

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

I believe you have to build through the draft, while supplementing your drafts with a nice blend of value and top-of-the-market free agents. It's really not about throwing a philosophy label at the team and it just working, or not working. It always comes down to how the collection of talent gels.

 

[KRL]

The goal should be 80% draft and 20% free agency but you have to work to that ratio.
The last few drafts Tannenbaum had where worthless and the two Idzik drafts where
shaky.  That led Maccagnan to use a ratio closer to 50-50 in his first two years.
He needed to replace the "middle class" of our roster with 26-28 year old free
agents like Skrine, Carpenter and Gilchrist to make up for the bad drafts we had.
Going forward I expect that ratio to work towards the 80-20 that successful teams
like GB, PIT & BAL have.  That way you can control your cap because as players
become successful and need to get paid you have a pipeline of young talent ready to
replace them.  You can then use free agency to get an "impact player"

[LIJetsFan]

26 minutes ago, KRL said:

The goal should be 80% draft and 20% free agency but you have to work to that ratio.
The last few drafts Tannenbaum had where worthless and the two Idzik drafts where
shaky.  That led Maccagnan to use a ratio closer to 50-50 in his first two years.
He needed to replace the "middle class" of our roster with 26-28 year old free
agents like Skrine, Carpenter and Gilchrist to make up for the bad drafts we had.
Going forward I expect that ratio to work towards the 80-20 that successful teams
like GB, PIT & BAL have.  That way you can control your cap because as players
become successful and need to get paid you have a pipeline of young talent ready to
replace them.  You can then use free agency to get an "impact player"

Good post.

You build a team thru the draft.  You fill holes with FA.  If you can't draft well then you fire your GM.  This is not rocket science.      

[FidelioJet]

15 hours ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

The economics force NFL teams to build through the draft, you have to balance "cheap" (usually first contract) players with second or third contract players (usually overpaid based on the "market") to field a complete team, I think some of these over inflated contracts actually hurt the game and I am not sure if it matters anymore if you drafted the player or not if the market forces you to pay top dollar for a player that you successfully developed (Mo Wilkerson, Snacks, etc...)

Great post..and this is exactly correct.

You HAVE to get production from your draft picks on their first contract...They NEED to be significant contributors.  Then you fill in holes with free agents...Once in a while you can spring for a big ticket free agent but they're so expensive it's very hard to find a lot impact talent that way. 

[slats]

3 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

I dont see how this is even close...

The best teams over the years have drafted very well and developed those players very well.

Top QBs, hell almost all top players in the league have all been drafted and play for the team they were drafted by. The team then surrounds them with talented role players.

Free agency can help round it out but youth wins.  Sabermetric developer (Moneyball) Bill James speaks about building a winning team takes youth above all else assuming talent is equal. 

Top QBs is the key. Finding a championship QB outside of the draft is rare. Drew Brees, Rich Gannon. I wouldn't count Peyton because he was along for the ride last year, not the catalyst. Brady, Wilson, Eli, Rodgers, Roethlisberger - you gotta find your guy in the draft and build around them. 

But then, yeah, you gotta draft well all around. Pittsburgh always gets accolades for knowing when to let their players go (i.e.: not pay them), but it's something they can do because they always have young talent in the pipeline. Kinda what I thought the Jets were doing with Leonard Williams, but now they're paying Mo's franchise tender, anyway. 

The way not to do it is the Tannenbaum way: draft mostly like crap, and then sign the highest priced free agents every year. That just destroys any depth, and those high priced free agents generally don't play up to their deals. 

Getting bargains in free agency can be tricky, because you're often shopping character or injury concerns. Sperm makes a good point about filling out the roster with talented players in the twilight of their careers. Jets have done well at RB over the years like that (Thomas Jones, LT, but not CJ2K so much), and Forte signing would seem to fall right in line. When you can get players like this in a trade on the cheap (like Marshall for a 5th rounder), that's also a nice way to add talent frugally. 

But it's all about the QB. I'm excited about the team's current LB overhaul, but if Mac hit on a top ten type QB in either Hack or Petty, he and Bowles will be here for the next dozen years. 

[SouthernJet]

1 hour ago, slats said:

Top QBs is the key.

yes, Yes and Yes.

[drdetroit]

Hire accountants to be the GM

[SouthernJet]

3 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

Hire accountants to be the GM

Hey Syracuse just hired a ESPN guy to be AD who went to work at ESPN  out of college and was there whole career (36 years) and was in Production/Scheduling. 

Go figure. No resume for AD, but Syracuse probably gets some sweet TV games and times in coming years, LOL

[drdetroit]

1 minute ago, SouthernJet said:

Hey Syracuse just hired a ESPN guy to be AD who went to work at ESPN  out of college and was there whole career (36 years) and was in Production/Scheduling. 

Go figure. No resume for AD, but Syracuse probably gets some sweet TV games and times in coming years, LOL

I actually visited Syracuse when I was applying to colleges.  Awful campus, was cold , I cannot understand why anyone would go there

[SouthernJet]

2 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

I actually visited Syracuse when I was applying to colleges.  Awful campus, was cold , I cannot understand why anyone would go there

he is an alumn and my guess is ESPN ready to can him so he has sweet pension after 36 years at ESPN, wants more dough so he is double dipping now w/ESPN pension/buyout and Syracuse salary which I am sure he has a pension/buyout written into contract. Kids gone, mortgage paid, this Syracuse salary is house money and he will invest and turn this into a sweet 8 digit million$ nest egg. Smart for him, let ssee how SU feels in 4 years  My best to them, but odd hire for a Power conference.

[SouthernJet]

6 minutes ago, drdetroit said:

I actually visited Syracuse when I was applying to colleges.  Awful campus, was cold , I cannot understand why anyone would go there

I didnt know the campus wasnt impressive. 1st I heard that.

[Raideraholic]

The draft is the lifeline of any organization.   The teams that can draft well( find their franchise Qb  in the draft) ,and sign  the best undrafted Fa's ( after the draft) are the organization that are going being able substain longterm success .( cheap contracts). See Packers, and Ravens.( Dallas and 49ers dynasties were built through multiple great drafts).

Signing Free agents going on their second contract is expensive , and if you follow this path , you're going to eat up your salary cap space in a hurry.( can't sub stain it using this philosophy). Poor drafting teams have to follow this path, and why a lot are stuck in limbo.

You know you have arrived as an organization when you rarely have to dip into free agency , as your team more concern with signing THEIR OWN FREEAGENTS.( again the Packers).

Lets face it teams that have great drafts are eventually going to lose some of those players , as you can only keep so many under the cap.    That why it's paramount that your team draft well to keep replenishing the roster.( get cheap guys who can step in for the expensive Fa's you can't keep.