|
|||||||||
NFL Moneyball - Digging Deeper
Jason La Canfora of NFL.com put together a list of actual dollars spent on salary by each NFL team from 2004 through 2008. The Dallas Cowboys were first at $566 million. The Colts were fourth at $532 million. The Steelers, Patriots, Giants, and Eagles ranked eighth ($516m), tenth ($513m), nineteenth ($497m), and twentieth ($495m), respectively. The Cowboys spent the most money and have nary a playoff victory to show for their excesses. The Chargers spent the 26th most ($485m) and have three playoff victories. What can be learned from such a list? Money isn't everything - shrewd decision making is a more important indicator of success. Let's take a look at the numbers in terms of what really matters (Joe Banner just bookmarked this post under his porn folder).
Dollars Spent Per Win
In terms of overall regular season efficiency, the Birds rank an impressive 8th; second amongst NFC teams behind only the New York Giants. What really jumps out here are the number of teams that have spent over the $500 million threshold from the Saints (23rd) on down. That's some horrifically inefficient spending. In fact, the top 10 teams in the league spent an average of $495.98 million over the five year period, while the bottom 10 teams spent an average of $510.71 million. The middle 12 spent an average of $501.30 million. Talk about diminishing returns. Now let's look at the real indicator of success - postseason accomplishment.
Dollars Spent Per Postseason Victory
Of the Super Bowl Champions over the past five years, only the New York Giants have spent under that $500 million threshold. So it seems money does buy happiness. The most successful teams, the Patriots and the Steelers have spent an average of $515.00 million. Those second tier teams with 4+ postseason victories over the five year period averaged an expenditure of $519.64 million. The third tier squads (2 to 3 postseason victories) averaged $501.89 million and the fourth tier teams averaged $501.45 million. The teams without a playoff victory over the five year span (here's looking at you Cowgirls!) spent an average of $495.95 million.
So what does all of this mean? It's not really clear to me actually. Without spending hours on end studying each team's salary structure, I really don't think you can make any concrete conclusions (Looking at you beat writers, and other salaried writers who do this type of thing as their full-time jobs). I'll take a stab though.
1. The best teams have productive franchise players who they've awarded huge contracts over this defined 2004-2008 timeframe. Manning signed a $99 million dollar deal in 2004. Brady signed a $60 million dollar deal in 2005. Roethlisberger signed a $102 million dollar deal is 2008. If you remember, McNabb signed his deal back in 2002. If you're defining a period of time, these franchise contracts have large implications on these aggregate numbers. For example, Brady made $51 million bucks from 2004-2008, Manning made $68 million, and McNabb made $32 million. Hell, Mike Vick was due $44 million over the same time period. So imagine McNabb was looking at a new, market-level deal in 2005, the Birds would likely be right at that $515 million number the Patriots and Steelers have bracketed. Thus, if you've got a roster with one or more franchise players with a contract due in such a defined timeframe, you'll likely rank amongst the top teams on this list. Look at Seattle - in 2005 they re-signed Matt Hasselbeck and Shaun Alexander to massive contracts, only to be followed in 2006 with a new deal for Walter Jones. No wonder they rank number two overall - but look at those deals now - they were bad decisions.
2. Why do some of these bad teams have high rankings? Inefficient spending. Bad teams with top 5 draft picks who turn out to be busts, thus a bad team commits a disproportionate level of salary to a player who can't play. To make up for the top heavy spending they snatch up average veteran players at average to below average deals to round out their rosters. The Raiders paid JaMarcus Russell, Robert Gallery, and Darren McFadden huge money. For what exactly? The Lions went Joey Harrington (3rd overall), Charles Rogers (2nd overall), Roy Williams (7th overall) and Mike Williams (10th overall). Ouch. These teams continue to suck because they pay the wrong players the right money and the right players, well, they tend to move on.
3. Overspending tends to snowball - lack of flexibility in the interim, with less consistency from year to year. In 2006 the Washington Redskins guaranteed over $40 million to Adam Archuleta, Andre Carter, Brandon Lloyd, and Antwaan Randle El. Only Randle El and Carter remain on the team and neither player has consistently excelled. I think this is less of argument because of the ever expanding salary cap.
If anything, the Birds are an efficient team. They are one of the elite teams that are always in the mix for the top end free agent. They are not cheap. Do they underpay players based on below market long term deals offered and accepted by younger players? Yes, but who's signing their names on those contracts? Do the Birds jettison players based on age which tend to snowball into PR disasters? Sure, but we all know who usually comes out on top on those deals. The NFL is less about money and more about decision making. Just look at those Washington Redskins. I love to hear some alternate theories from the readership.
[Cue Joe Banner sexy-time explosion]
Great post, Dave! The Eagles are, if nothing else, efficient with the way they spend their money.
Awesome post! I really enjoyed!
A lot of fans dislike the actions that our front office takes, but we are really lucky to have a good bunch of people in the FO.
The Birds play to win. They've signed plenty of guys to big money deals (some good some bad) over the years. Two years in a row now - two premier deals.
Jason Peters - monster deal
Asante Samuel - monster deal
The teams at the top have expensive Quarterbacks. Either those teams lucked out or the general managers of those teams understand the necessity of success at that position.
Let's see what kind of new events NFL brings for games and players. It looks like that last year was a bit crazy in sports comparing to last. Hope 2010 will yield rather more exposure.