Jump to content
DaveA1102

[Erickson] Clayton Geathers is finalizing a deal to return to the Colts (Merge)

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, ColtsArmy84 said:

Did the contract number ever come out for Clayton’s 1 year deal?

 

That's what I'm wondering. I don't know what's the holdup on simply releasing the terms. I would be curious to know the amount he signed for on his 1 year deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I wonder why we haven’t gotten details. It looks like he already signed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Yes I wonder why we haven’t gotten details. It looks like he already signed it.

 

He did, he is already on the active roster in colts.com. Interesting that the numbers haven't come out yet. Doesn't really matter though, the numbers are probably moderate.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The likely reason the details have not been made public is the agent is not happy with the deal.    He can’t brag about this deal.   He doesn’t want other agents trashing him with other possible clients.

 

The team does not reveal numbers.   The news comes from the player.   The details WILL eventually come out..  Maybe in a week or two?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

The likely reason the details have not been made public is the agent is not happy with the deal.    He can’t brag about this deal.   He doesn’t want other agents trashing him with other possible clients.

 

The team does not reveal numbers.   The news comes from the player.   The details WILL eventually come out..  Maybe in a week or two?  

I don’t believe that. I think since it is a one year deal it will actually be pretty big. I could see him getting more money on this one year deal then he would of got per year on a two year deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t believe that. I think since it is a one year deal it will actually be pretty big. I could see him getting more money on this one year deal then he would of got per year on a two year deal.

i don't either. 

IIRC, teams can put prerequisites on a deal, like physicals, etc. before it becomes "a deal". 

Not saying that's the case here, but we all know it will come out eventually. Doubt it's delay is because of a whiny agent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t believe that. I think since it is a one year deal it will actually be pretty big. I could see him getting more money on this one year deal then he would of got per year on a two year deal.

Huh?

 

The team does not reveal contract terms.    Period.

 

When it comes out it’s from the agents. If the info isn’t out, then what is the reason?    Usually agents are in a hurry to get the info out.   If the info isn’t out, why isn’t it?

 

And I never called any agent... “whiny”.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You local guys there can Guesstimate the contract by keeping a eye on Mrs. Geathers and where she is shopping at this week.

 

If she is shopping where the High Rollers shop it's a good contract.

 

If she's seen at Walmart, same place where Ballard frequents,then Geathers got low balled. Lol

hahahahahaha

 

But seriously, because of his neck issues, I hope he received Big Bucks incase he has to retire early from football. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

i don't either. 

IIRC, teams can put prerequisites on a deal, like physicals, etc. before it becomes "a deal". 

Not saying that's the case here, but we all know it will come out eventually. Doubt it's delay is because of a whiny agent.

 

I aooreciate you’re new...  but the deal is done.  We know that because Geathers is back on the roster.   The website has announced it.   They don’t do that if everything including physicals aren’t done.

 

And the only person who called an agent “whiny” is you, simply because you didn’t agree with my viewpoint.

 

You overplayed your hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We seen a picture of Geathers with his contract  I presume. But there was a lot of tweets saying it wasn’t signed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I aooreciate you’re new...  but the deal is done.  We know that because Geathers is back on the roster.   The website has announced it.   They don’t do that if everything including physicals aren’t done.

 

And the only person who called an agent “whiny” is you, simply because you didn’t agree with my viewpoint.

 

You overplayed your hand. 

i wasn't playing any hand. i just disagree like others do. no need to have a dramatic moment. 

and i may be new to posting more on this board, but i've been following it for much longer, and have been following the colts since they arrived in Indy.... the chance the agent is holding the info because of ego is pretty silly and borderline tin hat.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The likely reason the details have not been made public is the agent is not happy with the deal.    He can’t brag about this deal.   He doesn’t want other agents trashing him with other possible clients.

 

The team does not reveal numbers.   The news comes from the player.   The details WILL eventually come out..  Maybe in a week or two?  

 

All terms we read about are from agents?  I did not know that.  I thought it was from the teams.  Do you know why that is?  Something in the nflpa contract?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is all contracts have to be made public or at least available to all teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

All terms we read about are from agents?  I did not know that.  I thought it was from the teams.  Do you know why that is?  Something in the nflpa contract?  

Nothing in the NFLPA contract that I’m aware of.

 

And I don’t pretend to know the policies of other teams.   But typically it’s from agents...  sometimes I see posts  from NFL Information guys citing “league sources.”   I don’t think that’s the team (though it could be). But the contract has to be cleared with the NFL to make sure there are no rules violations on bonuses and escalator clauses and such. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

My guess is all contracts have to be made public or at least available to all teams. 

 

yup. highly doubt the agents hold the proverbial keys to contract communication. and i wouldn't call and agent, a "league source".  

 

it is fact that a player must take a physical before receiving any signing bonus (let alone playing). given his injury history, it's probably not an automatic assumption he passes.  he has a history of serious neck issues, and his latest neck issue was only 6 months ago, with a concussion on top. Add to that, the knee injury in Dec. and, teams can add any prerequisite to FA contracts they want. i highly doubt they would not add in specific language stating a failed physical voids the contract. 

 

to add, the NFLPA updates a daily cap report too that's on their website. pretty sure they do multiple detailed reports each year which include all the nitty gritty that goes at minimum out to all teams and players. all PA's across different sports want transparency as it helps the individual player understand the market for their services. 

 

i'm sure teams extend common courtesy and allow for players to announce though. in this case, i'd bet he's holding off till some type of box is checked. doubt the agent has shushed something based on low $$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

i wasn't playing any hand. i just disagree like others do. no need to have a dramatic moment. 

and i may be new to posting more on this board, but i've been following it for much longer, and have been following the colts since they arrived in Indy.... the chance the agent is holding the info because of ego is pretty silly and borderline tin hat.

 

And you accuse ME of having a dramatic moment?

 

Silly?   Borderline tin hat?       You must not follow football much.     If you have,  you'd know that it's often a war between agents for clients.  And everything goes.      And I didn't say ego.   You did.   And, even thought I've asked repeatedly in a number of posts,   if my reason doesn't work for you,  then at least float an idea of your own?   Have yet to see one from you or anyone else....

 

You're better than this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

 

yup. highly doubt the agents hold the proverbial keys to contract communication. and i wouldn't call and agent, a "league source".  

 

it is fact that a player must take a physical before receiving any signing bonus (let alone playing). given his injury history, it's probably not an automatic assumption he passes.  he has a history of serious neck issues, and his latest neck issue was only 6 months ago, with a concussion on top. Add to that, the knee injury in Dec. and, teams can add any prerequisite to FA contracts they want. i highly doubt they would not add in specific language stating a failed physical voids the contract. 

 

to add, the NFLPA updates a daily cap report too that's on their website. pretty sure they do multiple detailed reports each year which include all the nitty gritty that goes at minimum out to all teams and players. all PA's across different sports want transparency as it helps the individual player understand the market for their services. 

 

i'm sure teams extend common courtesy and allow for players to announce though. in this case, i'd bet he's holding off till some type of box is checked. doubt the agent has shushed something based on low $$

I don’t think it’s because of a physical. The colts would not of announced it if it was. I would hope a team would have that physical before announcing the deal.

 

Agents probably are the ones that initially release that info. But they don’t hold the cards.

 

The paperwork probably hasn’t been filed yet. Justin Houston’s name is listed but no amount yet just like Geathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

 

yup. highly doubt the agents hold the proverbial keys to contract communication. and i wouldn't call and agent, a "league source".  

 

it is fact that a player must take a physical before receiving any signing bonus (let alone playing). given his injury history, it's probably not an automatic assumption he passes.  he has a history of serious neck issues, and his latest neck issue was only 6 months ago, with a concussion on top. Add to that, the knee injury in Dec. and, teams can add any prerequisite to FA contracts they want. i highly doubt they would not add in specific language stating a failed physical voids the contract. 

 

to add, the NFLPA updates a daily cap report too that's on their website. pretty sure they do multiple detailed reports each year which include all the nitty gritty that goes at minimum out to all teams and players. all PA's across different sports want transparency as it helps the individual player understand the market for their services. 

 

i'm sure teams extend common courtesy and allow for players to announce though. in this case, i'd bet he's holding off till some type of box is checked. doubt the agent has shushed something based on low $$

 

An agent ISN'T a "league source"....    and if you're trying to quote me,  at least quote me right.

 

I never called an agent a "league source"....   those are two completely different things.

 

Contracts have to be viewed by the leaque office to make sure they're in full compliance with all rules about bonuses and incentives...    some contracts are in violation and have to be modified.

 

People who work in the league office would qualify as a "league source"...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

And you accuse ME of having a dramatic moment?

 

Silly?   Borderline tin hat?       You must not follow football much.     If you have,  you'd know that it's often a war between agents for clients.  And everything goes.      And I didn't say ego.   You did.   And, even thought I've asked repeatedly in a number of posts,   if my reason doesn't work for you,  then at least float an idea of your own?   Have yet to see one from you or anyone else....

 

You're better than this....

i gave you my idea the first time. i suggested it's prerequisite related. either physical or something else. 

 

name one confirmed time when an agent held contract details ransom because they got low balled and were unhappy. jerry maguire doesn't count. and if they did, that would be a perfect example of "ego"

 

And enough with the personal crap. you're little quips are tiresome. you're not some football whiz or colts expert. you're opinion based, nothing more. saying something is silly or tin foil is not dramatic.... dramatic is saying stuff like:  "you've overplayed your hand", or "you're better than this". or "I appreciate you're new", or suggesting someone doesn't follow football much.

 

i'm late 40s, and have followed the colts since they arrived in Indy. before i moved out of state, i had season tix for many many years. a lot of my family still walk to the games as they live only a mile or so from the stadium. i used to hang with Baldinger, Hinton, Bicket, Gusa, and several others in the late 80s / early 90s, and spent many night tossing down drinks at the Red Garter with them. i've also met manning several times, and my cousin worked for him personally for several years before he left for Denver. another family member worked for Irsay and the Simons. Another family member owned the contract for catering and rentals at the Hoosier Dome.... So, you might say I'm neither new, nor someone who hasn't followed the Colts or Football long. and obviously, based on many of our exchanges, i know stats a heck of a lot better than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

An agent ISN'T a "league source"....    and if you're trying to quote me,  at least quote me right.

 

I never called an agent a "league source"....   those are two completely different things.

 

Contracts have to be viewed by the leaque office to make sure they're in full compliance with all rules about bonuses and incentives...    some contracts are in violation and have to be modified.

 

People who work in the league office would qualify as a "league source"...

 

what you said this

Quote

 

The likely reason the details have not been made public is the agent is not happy with the deal.    He can’t brag about this deal.   He doesn’t want other agents trashing him with other possible clients.

 

The team does not reveal numbers.   The news comes from the player.   The details WILL eventually come out..  Maybe in a week or two?  

 

 

then you say this

Quote

And I don’t pretend to know the policies of other teams.   But typically it’s from agents...  sometimes I see posts  from NFL Information guys citing “league sources.”   I don’t think that’s the team (though it could be). But the contract has to be cleared with the NFL to make sure there are no rules violations on bonuses and escalator clauses and such

You conflict yourself. You say the news comes from the players, not teams. then you admit you don't know. Then it could be agents or league sources. Then it could be the team........ 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

I don’t think it’s because of a physical. The colts would not of announced it if it was. I would hope a team would have that physical before announcing the deal.

 

Agents probably are the ones that initially release that info. But they don’t hold the cards.

 

The paperwork probably hasn’t been filed yet. Justin Houston’s name is listed but no amount yet just like Geathers.

 

players can sign prior to physical on a typical contract. the below link is an nfl standard contract. there can certainly be additional terms, but when they sign, they are agreeing to get at minimum a physical prior to pre season work outs. and if the agreement includes a signing bonus, they must get a physical prior to receiving the signing bonus IIRC (should be covered in the attached). If a player has a history of injury (like Geathers), a physical might be required within a certain time frame from signing the contract. Also required if the league is providing and insurance policy. but the contract can be signed prior to physical. it's why i said geathers may be checking boxes post signature, and doesn't want to toss out the nitty gritty before he gets a thumbs up from doctors. doing so might be a disadvantage should he fail, and then try to go to another team. 

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1573683/000104746913009713/a2216998zex-10_3.htm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If just seems odd a team wouldn’t require a physical before signing. But it looks like it is done all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

If just seems odd a team wouldn’t require a physical before signing. But it looks like it is done all the time.

the contract is null and void if he doesn't pass the physical so not really IMO. i'm sure some teams looking at new/outside FAs could require a workout and physical prior, but Geathers is an insider. they were probably sitting down hammering out $$ and terms, and both player and GM know and trust each other. Probably high confidence he will show up at the docs on XX date. i'm sure geathers is plenty familiar with the team doc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

When it comes out it’s from the agents. If the info isn’t out, then what is the reason? Usually agents are in a hurry to get the info out.   If the info isn’t out, why isn’t it?

 

Why? Here is one possible reason: These contracts are not "interesting" for the large public. It's possible, that people working at Spotrac has/had their hands full of finalizing the details of tons of new "bigger" contracts. So they prioritized what they do and when they do it and moved smaller contracts back. They might have their time table to call all those agents one by one, and get these smaller contracts in bunches. They might've already called certain agents, but not all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Why? Here is one possible reason: These contracts are not "interesting" for the large public. It's possible, that people working at Spotrac has/had their hands full of finalizing the details of tons of new "bigger" contracts. So they prioritized what they do and when they do it and moved smaller contracts back. They might have their time table to call all those agents one by one, and get these smaller contracts in bunches. They might've already called certain agents, but not all of them.

 

The spotrac people don't have to call.   The agents call them with the info.

 

Houston's deal has no details yet either,  or that deal is much more recent.   It only shows 2 years and 24 Mill.    But no details on yearly breakdown or bonuses or anything else.

 

But the Geathers deal has been done for a while now.   And still no info at all.

 

Look,  I'm not saying my reason is the only possible reason.    I'm only throwing out an idea that I don't think is unreasonable.    I'm open to other ideas....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

the contract is null and void if he doesn't pass the physical so not really IMO. i'm sure some teams looking at new/outside FAs could require a workout and physical prior, but Geathers is an insider. they were probably sitting down hammering out $$ and terms, and both player and GM know and trust each other. Probably high confidence he will show up at the docs on XX date. i'm sure geathers is plenty familiar with the team doc.

That very well could be true with Geathers since he has been in the organization. As much as he has been injured he had probably lots of physicals during the season.

 

I cant imagine a team announcing a deal then bam nope he isn’t coming because of a bad physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

i gave you my idea the first time. i suggested it's prerequisite related. either physical or something else. 

 

name one confirmed time when an agent held contract details ransom because they got low balled and were unhappy. jerry maguire doesn't count. and if they did, that would be a perfect example of "ego"

 

And enough with the personal crap. you're little quips are tiresome. you're not some football whiz or colts expert. you're opinion based, nothing more. saying something is silly or tin foil is not dramatic.... dramatic is saying stuff like:  "you've overplayed your hand", or "you're better than this". or "I appreciate you're new", or suggesting someone doesn't follow football much.

 

i'm late 40s, and have followed the colts since they arrived in Indy. before i moved out of state, i had season tix for many many years. a lot of my family still walk to the games as they live only a mile or so from the stadium. i used to hang with Baldinger, Hinton, Bicket, Gusa, and several others in the late 80s / early 90s, and spent many night tossing down drinks at the Red Garter with them. i've also met manning several times, and my cousin worked for him personally for several years before he left for Denver. another family member worked for Irsay and the Simons. Another family member owned the contract for catering and rentals at the Hoosier Dome.... So, you might say I'm neither new, nor someone who hasn't followed the Colts or Football long. and obviously, based on many of our exchanges, i know stats a heck of a lot better than you.

 

You're also the same guy who offered proof of receivers being a good safe bet based on a report from 1990-2010.     Talk about anticent news.    That survery is meaningless.   Completely worthless.    And someone who follows football closely would know this.  

 

Football has changed dramatically since then whether you know it or not.

 

I didn't offer my idea as the definitive reason.   I only offered it as a possibility.   The idea that the Geathers deal has no info because of a physical, or something else is possible...    I just don't think it's likely.    Teams don't typically announce a deal and put the guy on the roster,  while running the risk that a physical might flunk him and they'd have to nulify the deal.    It's a bad look all the way around.

 

Does it really take this long to do a physical?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Irish YJ said:

what you said this

 

then you say this

You conflict yourself. You say the news comes from the players, not teams. then you admit you don't know. Then it could be agents or league sources. Then it could be the team........ 

 

 

 

I don't have 100% information.   I don't know the policies of all 32 teams.   Sue me.

 

But teams typically do not put out salary info first.    The info typically comes from the agent who has a vested interest in putting it out there,  or from league sources who leak it to the media.

 

Clear enough for you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

That very well could be true with Geathers since he has been in the organization. As much as he has been injured he had probably lots of physicals during the season.

 

I cant imagine a team announcing a deal then bam nope he isn’t coming because of a bad physical.

found this and several others. happens more than i thought. 

https://nationalfootballpost.com/monday-morning-md-deal-never-done-until-physical-passed/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You're also the same guy who offered proof of receivers being a good safe bet based on a report from 1990-2010.     Talk about anticent news.    That survery is meaningless.   Completely worthless.    And someone who follows football closely would know this.  

 

Football has changed dramatically since then whether you know it or not.

 

I didn't offer my idea as the definitive reason.   I only offered it as a possibility.   The idea that the Geathers deal has no info because of a physical, or something else is possible...    I just don't think it's likely.    Teams don't typically announce a deal and put the guy on the roster,  while running the risk that a physical might flunk him and they'd have to nulify the deal.    It's a bad look all the way around.

 

Does it really take this long to do a physical?

 

 

google "nfl didn't pass physical". 

i linked an article above. also linked an actual NFL contract. 

 

again, you criticize others based on your opinion. you provide no fact, past situation, or deductive reasoning that supports your opinion, only more quips like "And someone who follows football closely would know this."  i've provided a logical explanation supported by standard nfl process (even provided a contract showing the terms). and again, my suggestion is totally my opinion, and could be wrong. but it is plausible given geather's history, and it at least provided supporting information.

 

you on the other hand went all around the barn, "it's the agent, not the team, it's league sources, not the team, maybe the team", while admitting you have no clue about the process or policy.  and, you suggest the delay is due to an agent being irritated at contract terms when you have zero foundation to make that assertion. all that would be fine if you just said it was your opinion, and didn't quip at others for having their own opinion. 

 

the 1990-2010 article was one of many i found that said the same thing. i posted it because it had the largest sample size. there are smaller, more recent sample sizes that suggest the same thing.  if you know anything about mathematics or statistics, you know that data is more reliable the larger the sample size. it can certainly skew from year to year and in small batches.... your suggestion that it's irrelevant because it's doesn't contain the last 8 years, is another opinion based reach lacking any fact. just because it's 8 years old, does not make it incorrect. you provide no logical foundation as to what might have changed, or why it "meaningless" or "worthless". why don't you actually provide data for a change to prove me or others wrong, instead of making baseless claims, trashing data, and personal quips.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2019 at 6:28 PM, Irish YJ said:

i wasn't playing any hand. i just disagree like others do. no need to have a dramatic moment. 

and i may be new to posting more on this board, but i've been following it for much longer, and have been following the colts since they arrived in Indy.... the chance the agent is holding the info because of ego is pretty silly and borderline tin hat.

 

I think the point is that agents make sure big, impressive contracts get the details reported on. This Geathers deal is most likely not big and impressive, so the agent isn't trying to make sure national media reports the details. If it were five years, $60m, we'd know. If it were one year, $10m, we'd know. The agent would make sure of it.

 

I'm not saying the agent is hiding or withholding, just that he isn't super concerned with the details being published, like he would be if the details were impressive. And since no one outside of Indy really cares about Geathers one year contract, there isn't going to be a big push to get the details. They'll be out at some point, but it's not uncommon for deals like this to take a few days or even a couple weeks to be published.

 

Also, teams generally do not publish contract details. I'm pretty sure the majority of the time the details come from the agents. Irsay gave details on the Luck contract, and others. That's not common, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every year, teams draft players no one thinks will go at those spots. We need to stop acting like we know what players will be gone by the Colts pick. There very well could be good DL or pass rush talent available. Could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think the point is that agents make sure big, impressive contracts get the details reported on. This Geathers deal is most likely not big and impressive, so the agent isn't trying to make sure national media reports the details. If it were five years, $60m, we'd know. If it were one year, $10m, we'd know. The agent would make sure of it.

 

I'm not saying the agent is hiding or withholding, just that he isn't super concerned with the details being published, like he would be if the details were impressive. And since no one outside of Indy really cares about Geathers one year contract, there isn't going to be a big push to get the details. They'll be out at some point, but it's not uncommon for deals like this to take a few days or even a couple weeks to be published.

 

Also, teams generally do not publish contract details. I'm pretty sure the majority of the time the details come from the agents. Irsay gave details on the Luck contract, and others. That's not common, though.

i agree it can take days, or heck weeks. and i've seen it come from just about every source, but mostly agents and players. in the good old days, even some joint announcements. i doubt though the agent is purposefully delaying anything. outside of "it's no rush because it's just not that important", given Geather's recent and longer injury history, it would not shock me that they are being conservative until everything is 100. regardless, it all comes out eventually and not an issue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

google "nfl didn't pass physical". 

i linked an article above. also linked an actual NFL contract. 

 

again, you criticize others based on your opinion. you provide no fact, past situation, or deductive reasoning that supports your opinion, only more quips like "And someone who follows football closely would know this."  i've provided a logical explanation supported by standard nfl process (even provided a contract showing the terms). and again, my suggestion is totally my opinion, and could be wrong. but it is plausible given geather's history, and it at least provided supporting information.

 

you on the other hand went all around the barn, "it's the agent, not the team, it's league sources, not the team, maybe the team", while admitting you have no clue about the process or policy.  and, you suggest the delay is due to an agent being irritated at contract terms when you have zero foundation to make that assertion. all that would be fine if you just said it was your opinion, and didn't quip at others for having their own opinion. 

 

the 1990-2010 article was one of many i found that said the same thing. i posted it because it had the largest sample size. there are smaller, more recent sample sizes that suggest the same thing.  if you know anything about mathematics or statistics, you know that data is more reliable the larger the sample size. it can certainly skew from year to year and in small batches.... your suggestion that it's irrelevant because it's doesn't contain the last 8 years, is another opinion based reach lacking any fact. just because it's 8 years old, does not make it incorrect. you provide no logical foundation as to what might have changed, or why it "meaningless" or "worthless". why don't you actually provide data for a change to prove me or others wrong, instead of making baseless claims, trashing data, and personal quips.

 

Your survey, if done on QB's would tell you that Russell Wilson wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round in 2012.    It would tell you that Kyler Murray wouldn't be drafted in the first round at all this year.

 

As I said.....   completely worthless.

 

This is not your father's NFL.     If you think size is all that matters then go back to the 80's or the 70's...     Bigger is not better.   More is not better.

 

I've written and linked plenty of articles the past few years that says quite the opposite.   That taking a receiver in the first round is a poor investment.   I doubt I'll be able to find many articles,  but I'll look.    Many were from NFL.com.    And I've been posting them here for several years.   That's called a RECENT trend.   Because the league changes as the rules change and as the college games changes and the NFL game changes along with it.

 

I'll post it in April...    Until then,  we can just agree to disagree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Your survey, if done on QB's would tell you that Russell Wilson wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round in 2012.    It would tell you that Kyler Murray wouldn't be drafted in the first round at all this year.

 

As I said.....   completely worthless.

 

This is not your father's NFL.     If you think size is all that matters then go back to the 80's or the 70's...     Bigger is not better.   More is not better.

 

I've written and linked plenty of articles the past few years that says quite the opposite.   That taking a receiver in the first round is a poor investment.   I doubt I'll be able to find many articles,  but I'll look.    Many were from NFL.com.    And I've been posting them here for several years.   That's called a RECENT trend.   Because the league changes as the rules change and as the college games changes and the NFL game changes along with it.

 

I'll post it in April...    Until then,  we can just agree to disagree.

 

here's a recent article (below) i found after a 30 second google.

 

It contains recent data with roughly a 9 year sample size, and is very detailed.

so.... not worthless at all as you would suggest.

 

the data would show that if any position is not worth taking in the 1st, it's TE (which has the best production in the 2nd and maybe the 3rd rounds).

 

Quote

Below we provide an equivalent graph for each position to the original overall graph at the top of this article, showing each player's draft slot and average net points/game impact over a replacement player through their first 4 seasons, using the 2009-2017 draft classes. The trendlines shown (apart from kicker) are based on a natural log equation like the original graph, and can be compared to get an idea of the relative value of drafting players at different positions with each draft pick

 

Note that the vertical axis is production value, and horizontal axis is draft position. Please also note that horizontal axis is the same for all positions, but the vertical axis fluctuates from position to position as the ranges in production are different for each position. What I like about this is it considers the replacement level player.

 

Anyway, like most positions, there are hidden gems in later rounds and busts in early ones, but the value and production of 1st round WRs is very clear. What is also clear is the drop off after round 3.

 

What I found very interesting, is how great the fluctuation (regardless of position) is in the first 8 picks, especially 3-6. So in other words, your value/performance gamble is highest by a big margin in the top quarter of the draft. I don't think I ever want us to have 3-6...

 

What I also like is that this study is open about potential flaws in logic and data, and discusses alternative studies and their findings. In short, most all studies come to the same conclusion, even if they are getting there a bit differently. It's a little deep in some areas but does a great job explaining the voodoo.

 

draft-pick-wr.png

http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles/nfl-draft-pick-value/

 

i know you're not a stat guy, but here's another good read for you and others, which talks about value and trending among both FA and draft.

 

http://advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/draft/242-the-value-of-each-draft-pick-a-re-examination-of-massey-thaler-surplus-value-under-the-new-cba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Your survey, if done on QB's would tell you that Russell Wilson wouldn't have been drafted in the 3rd round in 2012.    It would tell you that Kyler Murray wouldn't be drafted in the first round at all this year.

 

As I said.....   completely worthless.

 

This is not your father's NFL.     If you think size is all that matters then go back to the 80's or the 70's...     Bigger is not better.   More is not better.

 

I've written and linked plenty of articles the past few years that says quite the opposite.   That taking a receiver in the first round is a poor investment.   I doubt I'll be able to find many articles,  but I'll look.    Many were from NFL.com.    And I've been posting them here for several years.   That's called a RECENT trend.   Because the league changes as the rules change and as the college games changes and the NFL game changes along with it.

 

I'll post it in April...    Until then,  we can just agree to disagree.

 

and by the way, it wasn't a "survey". it was study of stats simply looking at productivity (great to busts) over those years. i'm not sure how the "new NFL" vs "my father's NFL" inherently creates a different value / bust model. Sure schemes have changed. We have mobile QBs now. Not sure WRs have changed all that much from the 90s and 00s, to the 10s, and even so, why that would change draft value in terms of productivity relative to draft position.  You have provided no rationale why WR data would be vastly different. 

 

doesn't really matter, as now you have recent data, that says the same as the old data.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

and by the way, it wasn't a "survey". it was study of stats simply looking at productivity (great to busts) over those years. i'm not sure how the "new NFL" vs "my father's NFL" inherently creates a different value / bust model. Sure schemes have changed. We have mobile QBs now. Not sure WRs have changed all that much from the 90s and 00s, to the 10s, and even so, why that would change draft value in terms of productivity relative to draft position.  You have provided no rationale why WR data would be vastly different. 

 

doesn't really matter, as now you have recent data, that says the same as the old data.

 

I'll have data for you next month.

 

Here's a coming attraction.    Hint:   It does NOT support your position.   In fact,  quite the opposite.  This will be roughly the third time I've posted it.    But it's worth updating again and again I suppose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'll have data for you next month.

 

Here's a coming attraction.    Hint:   It does NOT support your position.   In fact,  quite the opposite.  This will be roughly the third time I've posted it.    But it's worth updating again and again I suppose.

 

can't wait. if it has accurate data, a good sample size, and comes from a credible source, I'll be happy to give it a look, and weigh it against the other accepted studies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 10:53 AM, Irish YJ said:

 

draft-pick-wr.png

http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles/nfl-draft-pick-value/

 

i know you're not a stat guy, but here's another good read for you and others, which talks about value and trending among both FA and draft.

 

http://advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/draft/242-the-value-of-each-draft-pick-a-re-examination-of-massey-thaler-surplus-value-under-the-new-cba

 

Forgive me for hopping in here...

 

The reason I personally don't accept the studies shown above is because, IMO, they overstate the importance of salary as it relates to drafted players. In the NFL, the better player is always more valuable, especially at critical positions. That's true, even if there's a significant pay disparity between two players.

 

The better player is more likely to be a playmaker/difference maker, he'll reach greater heights, and he'll probably help your team for a longer period of time. Roster quality is more important than cap distribution, and even though this analysis compares drafted players to replacement level players, I don't think it's truly possible to quantify the difference between a playmaker and a replacement level player.

 

For instance, I'd rather have Aaron Rodgers than Kirk Cousins, even though Rodgers makes $6m/year more, and a statistical analysis of their production vs pay in 2018 would probably say that Cousins is as valuable or maybe more valuable than Rodgers. Still, in real life, we know which player is more valuable, which player is better, and which player is a true franchise level player.

 

And I think a case-by-case analysis would reveal a deep flaw in this logic that claims that pay differential primarily makes the 64th pick more valuable than the 4th pick. Especially when we analyze the statistical likelihood of players at different points in the draft becoming high level players (Pro Bowls, All Pros, HOFers, statistical league leaders, etc.), and sustaining that level of performance.

 

I do think this kind of analysis can be valuable at certain positions. For instance, TEs tend to be devalued in the draft, so while you will probably find good TEs later in the draft, it might make sense to strike on a high quality TE prospect in the mid-to-late first round, where other teams won't take them. You might be getting a top ten player at #25. When you identify a discrepancy like that, it makes sense to adjust draft strategy. I haven't done any kind of deep analysis, but I also believe there's a discrepancy at WR in recent years; I think WR is overvalued in the first round, especially elite athletes. But this analysis has nothing to do with the salary discrepancy.

 

TL;DR, I think these studies are overly reliant on the discrepancy in salary between high draft picks and later draft picks in establishing "value," although I think it's possible for certain positions to be overvalued early in the draft, or undervalued later in the draft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...