Draft, Free agency, Player Portfolio Mgt & Stephon Gilmore

[PlayoffsPlease]

There seems to be a lot of fallacies in much of the conventional wisdom that fans use apply to how successful teams use the draft and free agency. I am going to address one of them here:

1. The main benefit of trading down.

Some background first. Managing the player portfolio is not vastly different from managing a diverse business with 25 divisions. In this business analogy, a CEO is tasked with constructing a plan to maximize the value of the total enterprise. His only rules are each of the 25 divisions must be fully staffed, the combined payroll of the staff at 24 of the 25 divisions must be less or equal to $167 mm and all existing contracts must be honored. Beyond that he can deploy his companies resources as he see fit.

in the football world, the 25 divisions are 1) the coaching staff 2) the 22 starting positions 3) special teams and 4) bench

The GM has a separate budget for the coaching staff, and the $167 mm salary cap to deploy for the other assets. His budget goal target is 12 wins. The GM needs to figure out how much each of the 25 "divisions" is going to contribute to achieving the 12 win budget. Its complex, but every NFL player has measurable production that can be used to estimate how many "wins" that player contributes in a season. Players contributions can be positive or negative, just like a division can lose money as well as make money in a business. (Bankruptcy = zero wins in this analogy)

Now, life isn't fair. Coaching staffs are unequal. If we assume a rookie head coach with no experience contributes zero wins (known bad coaches contribute negative wins), and Bill Belichek is worth 2 full wins per season, that gives teams with a rookie head coach a deficit to start with.

As every NFL fan knows, QB is by far the most important position. It is also the least in control of a GM for the upcoming one season. This requires much future planning. But as benchmarks lets say Andy Dalton contributes a zero, Blaine Gabbert is a -3, and Tom Brady is a +2 wins. If we were to compare the niners and the Patriots, the niners coaching/QB combo is minus 3, and the Patriots Coaching QB combo is a plus four. With 8-8 as the average result in the league, if the entire rest of the of the niners and the entire rest of the patriots were made up of exactly average players, the expected result would be the niner's would finish 5-11 and the Patriots would finish 12-4. This doesn't seem to far off the mark (in truth I think the remainder of the niners lineup is below average, so five wins with Gabbert at QB would be successful).

The goal of the GM is to figure out how to get the greatest return on investment for the $167 budget. In the Bills case lets look at a couple of examples. Dareus' cap hit in 2017 is 16.4 million or just about 10% of the cap. The average defensive lineman in the league earns 2.6 million. If we subtract the average salary, Dareus cost above average is 16.4 - 2.6 = 13.8 million. 13.8 million is about 8% of the cap.

Assuming for arguments sake that average defensive lineman contribute zero wins per season, If the Bills are going to achieve 12 wins, then that 8% excess above average cost for Dareus means he has to contribute 1 win (8% x 12) more than being replaced by the $2.6 MM average lineman. Its all relative, if Tom Brady is worth plus 2, then to be worth plus 1, Dareus has to have 50% as much impact as Tom Brady does to justify his value. He doesn't. The return on investment for Dareus is below par. Doesn't mean he is a bad player. He is a very good player. He is just paid too much money at a position with below average impact on the results of NFL games. This exercise needs to be carried out for all 25 divisions. It is complicated. So is running a business with 25 divisions. While complicated it can be done.

With that background, lets go back to the draft. The main reason the Patriots trade down for more draft picks is not to take "more shots at players" or "third rounders are just as good as second rounders". Its plain and simple, the Patriot's want to have as many of the reserve positions filled with players under rookie contracts as possible. Rookie contracts are much cheaper than veteran contracts for similar role players. When the savings are multiplied across dozens of reserves, it adds up to meaningful dollars.

Now on to Stephon Gilmore. Gilmore is pretty much the exact same player today that he was in his rookie or sophomore seasons. He was an incredible value under his rookie contract. He is a terrible value at 8% of the cap. A replacement player from the draft may have only 1/2 of his expected win contribution, but he will potentially be 1/8 of the cost, making the replacement player a much better value. The Patriots management of Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins as the correct strategy regarding high quality players as they transition from modest rookie contracts to very expensive veteran contracts. The proper strategy is too know ahead of time whether or not you will be keeping those players, and if not, getting some value for them while they are still under contract. We didn't do that. The best remaining strategy is likely just letting him walk at this point.

[BillsMafiaEP]

gilmore is absolute fools gold...cant wait to see him get torched in chicago at the rate of 15 mil per year

[Elite Poster]

gilmore is absolute fools gold...cant wait to see him get torched in chicago at the rate of 15 mil per year

You need to watch more football.

 

I think you'll be in for a rude awakening when we get torched thru the air on a weekly basis, not three times a year...

 

How spoiled are we when year in year out guys like AB, AJ green, and OBJ are held in check.

[wilcoam]

Well stated but unfort you are preaching never signing any of your draft picks and sorry but that is also not a good way to build a winning football team

 

And our Bills agree, they certainly have been trying to re-sign Gilmore, just a much as they are walking away because the don;t see the value in overpaying even more than they were willing to do

 

I also think we will badly miss Gilmore, but the timing is right in terms of depth of this draft, if you make the right selection, and you are not chasing future QB's, whom adversely affect your ability to replace FA's, thus the reasonable argument of trading down to be able to use that extra pick...

 

jc

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

gilmore is absolute fools gold...cant wait to see him get torched in chicago at the rate of 15 mil per year

 

Wasn't Darby benched a few times for being torched? He'll be our #1 now but it will be ok he's not making 15M per year.

[The Frankish Reich]

OP - nicely done. Some good insights. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Bills roster as currently constructed, namely: there are very, very few players who bring a surplus value relative to their salaries. In fact, I'd say the list of surplus value players is:

 

1. Watkins. But only for one more year. Then he'll be paid at a free market rate, which is by definition no surplus value.

 

2. Incognito. But just barely above water. The Bills re-signed him for a bit less than a player of his age/performance would have received normally based on his history and the possibility (now disproved) that his 2015 comeback was a fluke.

 

3. Jerry Hughes. Again, probably just by a small margin. A free agent re-signing for a position which has a continued increasing value.

 

4. Darby. Getting a 3rd year player salary, whereas on the open market he'd probably get a middle of the road CB salary.

 

Anyone else? Maybe John Miller is a tiny bit into the positive. Shaq Lawson maybe, but remember: he was drafted in the 1st round. You could get what if you traded him right now? Maybe a low 2nd/high 3rd at best? This is mostly a testament to failed drafts, and it is a harbinger of decline, if not quite doom.

 

Compare: players with negative value. That is, players who you can't even trade for a 7th round pick without eating a big chunk of salary. Dareus is a huge negative. The upside? Even if he returns to 2014 form, he is at best a net zero. The downside? One of the worst contracts in the NFL if he doesn't. Clay is a significant negative. So is Glenn. So is Wood, especially post injury. Everyone else is probably a net zero.

 

Is there value somewhere else that I'm missing?

 

EDIT: I'll concede that Adolphus is probably slightly in the positive range.

Edited March 6, 2017 by The Frankish Reich

[PlayoffsPlease]

Well stated but unfort you are preaching never signing any of your draft picks and sorry but that is also not a good way to build a winning football team

 

And our Bills agree, they certainly have been trying to re-sign Gilmore, just a much as they are walking away because the don;t see the value in overpaying even more than they were willing to do

 

I also think we will badly miss Gilmore, but the timing is right in terms of depth of this draft, if you make the right selection, and you are not chasing future QB's, whom adversely affect your ability to replace FA's, thus the reasonable argument of trading down to be able to use that extra pick...

 

jc

over paying to retain your own draft picks is no more effective than over paying for free agents. It is particular true when there is a coaching change. From McDermott's perspective his roster will be 53 free agents.

OP - nicely done. Some good insights. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Bills roster as currently constructed, namely: there are very, very few players who bring a surplus value relative to their salaries. In fact, I'd say the list of surplus value players is:

 

1. Watkins. But only for one more year. Then he'll be paid at a free market rate, which is by definition no surplus value.

 

2. Incognito. But just barely above water. The Bills re-signed him for a bit less than a player of his age/performance would have received normally based on his history and the possibility (now disproved) that his 2015 comeback was a fluke.

 

3. Jerry Hughes. Again, probably just by a small margin. A free agent re-signing for a position which has a continued increasing value.

 

4. Darby. Getting a 3rd year player salary, whereas on the open market he'd probably get a middle of the road CB salary.

 

Anyone else? Maybe John Miller is a tiny bit into the positive. Shaq Lawson maybe, but remember: he was drafted in the 1st round. You could get what if you traded him right now? Maybe a low 2nd/high 3rd at best? This is mostly a testament to failed drafts, and it is a harbinger of decline, if not quite doom.

 

Compare: players with negative value. That is, players who you can't even trade for a 7th round pick without eating a big chunk of salary. Dareus is a huge negative. The upside? Even if he returns to 2014 form, he is at best a net zero. The downside? One of the worst contracts in the NFL if he doesn't. Clay is a significant negative. So is Glenn. So is Wood, especially post injury. Everyone else is probably a net zero.

 

Is there value somewhere else that I'm missing?

 

EDIT: I'll concede that Adolphus is probably slightly in the positive range.

You seem to have an accurate grasp of the situation for the Bills.

 

Properly managing a portfolio of $167 mm of annual expense is a major undertaking in any field. You need really smart people that understand asset management as well as football decisions. You need people that know both. You CANNOT have a "football guy" that doesn't understand asset management plus a "money guy" who doesn't understand football. That is if you want to win.

 

 

[Chosenone]

S.Gilmore is a good football player IMO! But he is too inconsistent to me and not worth the money he will be commanding/getting in FA. I think we will land a good CB in this years draft.

[Estro]

Great post. I bet no one at One Bills Drive has ever looked at the team this way. If we did, I'd be willing to ebt our team would be way more successful on the field.

 

This post goes in line with a major problem of the Bills that nobody talks about. This team has very few "good" contracts. By good I mean a player another team would love to have on their roster at their current contract aka a tradeable player. If you look at our roster we have very few players that other teams would love to trade for. It's why we will be forced to cut Tyrod......the Bills did a despicable job with that contract extension. Gave Tyrod a free $6.5M raise in '16 and then all the leverage in '17 with a massive $27.5M in cash due to continue the deal. If they gave him a free $6.5M in '16, the Bills are the ones that should be sitting in the driver seat this year with all the leverage, somehow they don't. Really bad deal on their part.