Proven Players vs. Potential Players
by Matt Conner on Mar 15, 2010 1:41 PM CDT
in 2010 Kansas City Chiefs Draft
Email
Print"This is a deep draft." "This is a shallow free agent market." Those two phrases together seem to lead to an obvious point: namely, that a team should hold onto every possible draft pick this offseason and avoid trades that aren't too good to be true or offer sheets that require high-round choices. Yet in the middle of the two above statements, I still find myself leaning toward the guy who's already been on an NFL field. And if that costs me a choice, then so be it.
Of course, what do I know? It's not that any of us have our doctorate in Running a Sports Team. And even if we did, it's obvious that half of those with proper credentials still don't have the faintest clue (i.e. anyone involved with franchises that rhyme with Roakland, Racksonville or Ruffalo and the like). While it's all guesswork to some extent, I will go on record and say that I'll take what's proven over what's potentially good every time.
Proven vs. Potential. That's the question for the Chiefs to answer this offseason (and every season). It's the question before every team -- real or fantasy. Draft the enticing rookie or go with Steady Freddy. That'll be the question before me in my fantasy baseball keeper league next week at our yearly meeting. And that's exactly what teams wonder this time of year. Do we sign the free agent that we know can at least play decently at the NFL level or do we hold our draft picks in hopes that we sign the next big thing as a young man.
I can see why people would lean toward the potential. It's exciting. It's the same reason why many of us fly to Vegas or such places every now and then to throw money straight into the casino's vault. It's also the same reason why numerous contestants would trade the known prize in front of them for what's behind Door #2 on Let's Make A Deal. We hope we'll strike it big. It's the lure of the unknown. And hardly anything can top it.
More commentary after the jump:
But it's odd to me that teams continue to avoid statistics that speak of busts in the draft. Peter King's fantastic question in today's Monday Morning Quarterback questioned why a team would want to hold onto a high draft pick to take Jimmy Clausen or Colt McCoy or Sam Bradford rather than try for Donovan McNabb. Sure he's older. But you also know what you're getting: a quality starting NFL quarterback, hardly something you can know about any of the big quarterbacks in this draft.
And fans fall for it, too. We'd rather our team hold onto the mid-round selection hoping that the small school offensive tackle or pass rusher will be able to Dumervil it up at the next level. Instead, more often than not, the guy ends up bouncing around on practice squads for a few years before a retirement that doesn't even require a press release to announce. Then you look back and realize that proven NFL performers were available at those same positions for that same mid-round selection on their offer sheets.
Look, I love the draft as much as anyone else. I love the possibilities every time the Chiefs are on the clock and, at this year's Combine, I was completely enamored with the thought of Kansas City picking up all kinds of players with varied levels of potential. At the same time, I also realize that it's all guesswork and that even in a shallow market, there are players to be had who have proven themselves to be at least serviceable on the NFL level. And sometimes that's a lot more than any of these potential guys will give you.
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ruh Row
"I've only been in love with a beer bottle and a mirror" - Sid Vicious.
by craig in calgary on Mar 15, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec
fits tooo
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Retroit.
On a side note… that guy in the pic looks like a retart.
Official member of the "Draft Eric Berry" fan club... But I'm not changing my picture, dammit!
by Red N Gold Beast on Mar 15, 2010 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I know...
Claussen is such a douche.
1. Suh will fall to us at 5
2. McClain will fall to us at 2a
3. The Chiefs will trade DJ and Dorsey
by I_Bleed_Red. on Mar 15, 2010 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Rashington...
Stay away from their women.
Official member of the "Draft Eric Berry" fan club... But I'm not changing my picture, dammit!
by Red N Gold Beast on Mar 15, 2010 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Rawesome :)
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Draft picks over Free Agents
Just as much risk involved with free agents when you are talking about bigger names if not more so because they usually demand bigger contracts. Success and production at one point in their career doesn’t guarantee success and production at another. When you sign a free agent, you are paying them for the same reason you are drafting a rookie, for their potential.
Yup.
And so far, as a Chief, Pioli hasn’t been afraid to trade a pick, but it looks to me like he always got 2 players for the one pick. Cassel and Vrabel, Ndukwe and Alleman…
I think the draft picks are important because they hold the possibility of seeing something you haven’t yet seen. Their potential up-side is unknown, whereas a Thomas Jones brings limited upside. You know what he isn’t going to do.
By the same token, if you make CHARACTER picks in FA, you also know you’re not going get PROBLEMS.
In ‘most everything Pioli’s done, so far, it’s shown attention to avoiding downside. Might not make ASTOUNDING progress with any one guy, but are less likely to incur a SETBACK. Was Goff a good signing? Yes. Did he pan out? Not really. But what did the organization LOSE? Same for Zach Thomas. And these two guys were great for setting professional standards in their position groups.
I lean toward potential
Because it’s a statistical fact that great teams are built primarily through the draft. You just have to have a front office that knows how to draft the right players & have the right coaches to teach them.
Predictions:
This year will be better
I think you're oversimplifying quite a bit
First off, a free agent isn’t necessarily proven when he switches to a different system, coach, scheme, or supporting cast. Some guys will excel in one place, and when they end up being traded or signing somewhere new, end up being a bust (think Moss in OAK, Nap Harris here, Cutler in CHI so far). There is a lot to be said about the weapons and support around a guy, and that is often a huge determinant in their success. We couldve signed Peppers to be an OLB here, but he would hardly be that known commodity because he would be new to an entire system. Also, with a free agent signing, you have to have the worry about what their performance will be after that payday. This doesnt apply to second contract guys so much because theyre still working towards a third contract. But when you talk about guys in their third contract, theyre pretty much done, that kills their motivation to sacrifice their lives to excel at their careers (see: Larry Johnson, trips to Las Vegas).
That said, there is a greater certainty in terms of the commodity you get w a free agent. But thats a double edged sword. Chances are that as much as you have a confidence interval about where their floor is, you also know what their ceiling is. The draft picks offer you no guaranteed bottom, but they offer you a potentially higher upside than an available FA at the same position. Before the draft in 2007, we couldve hypothetically traded a third round pick for a known RB commodity, but we wouldve lost out on JC. We rolled the dice and so far, it looks like we got ourselves a steal. With greater risk comes greater reward. Moreover, I think the success of a teams draft rests largely on the culture he walks into. More often than not, draft picks don’t make a team, teams make draft picks.
Finally, I think the best analogy is working for the man vs. starting your own business. There is a lot more risk with starting your own business: you trade the security of a regular paycheck and benefits for the potential to strike it rich. Most businesses fail, but the ones that make it find it both more rewarding spiritually and more reawrding financially. Such is the same with draft picks. I would rather win a SB with players I developed than buy them a la the Yankees. Plus, the building through the draft mentality leads towards longer term success as the core of guys have a longer playing window and a loyalty to the franchise that stuck their necks out for them.
For justice we must go to Don Pioli
by Sudden on Mar 15, 2010 1:59 PM CDT reply actions 7 recs
Very nice and rec
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Good read
You are correct. Actually your both correct.
You can’t win with all draft picks….like Herms Chiefs….and you can’t win with all FA…like Dan Snyders Redskins.
It takes a smart balance. It takes good depth. It takes excellent coaching. It takes strategy and timing.
Basically it takes a guy like Pioli who knows what a SB winning team smells and taste like.
"Its going to be a challenge, its going to feel like forever, and there will be difficulties. But we will emerge on the other side of it stronger than we were when we entered." ~ Sudden
by Matt_Grbac on Mar 15, 2010 2:35 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Excellent and wrecked
Like Matt_Grbac says, it’s all about balance.
Proven is subjective and is based on the PAST, Potential is untapped and based on the FUTURE.
Balancing VALUE with Proven players and VALUE with a draft picks Potential is the key to building a team for the FUTURE.
IMHO Pioli is trying to balance everything and get VALUE for both Proven and Potential talent – even in the coaching decisions (Potential=Haley, Proven=Weiss, Crennel)…
by KCFanatic on Mar 15, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point about the coaching staff being a mix of proven and potential
And you’re right about the proven being subjective and based on the past. Like they say in the investment world, “past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results.”
For justice we must go to Don Pioli
+10000
If I could rec’d from a mobile phone it would be a done deal!!!!
8-8 is possible in 2010 and it wont take breaking the bank on 2nd tear free agents getting lucrative contracts because the free agent pool is so weak this year!
by Chieffan_Toby on Mar 15, 2010 4:36 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Oh shut up. Or post your mesgs higher up, so I don't have to repeat most of what you say!!!
Nice, Sudden.
I think the current journeyman FAs KC’s bringing in might not be as frequent in years to come, but there’s likely to be a steady stream of such coming and going, every year. The turnover KC experienced last year showed ME that they’re not afraid to keep churning the roster, and are capable of developing people and getting the better player on the field.
Seemed to take too long LAST season, to ME, when they stubbornly kept starting LJ, who was easily kept bottled-up, but in hindsight, they kept the sure-handed and tough guy totin’ the rock, while they trained, coached, and evaluated numerous new faces on OL and WR. One of the standard techniques of testing one parameter in a large system is to hold other parameters constant, and I think LJ’s constancy was a big piece of their maddening insistence on keeping him on the field.
Lab Rat :)
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Hi Sudden. Let me disagree point by point. NO hard feelings.
Using Julius Peppers is not a good example. No one is suggesting we should spend much needed draft picks on a guy who is completely inexperienced in a 34 defense (Julius Peppers) and is ALSO old. Nope.
If a GM takes a chance on CONVERTING a player, thats a whole separate risk all unto itself. But its a no brainer that taking a veteran who KNOWS the schemes and systems of YOUR team is a lock, compared to an unknown out of college. So taking Boldin here in KC for example, just as an example, would make sense. He’s not the long term answer. He’s older, like Jones. He’s a plug , but a solid plug. And a plug that KNOWS the system he would be coming to. HE knows Haley. My God.
Your reply assumes that Matt is talking about giving up picks for players that have no idea how to play in the type of offense or defense your team is running. Like Julius. Taking him here at his age, never having played ina 34, would be stupid. By the time he learns it, he’ll be 65 years old. But taking a guy on offense or defense that comes from a simliar system as the one your team runs is a lock.
Look, I’ll say it again. If a guy has become an elite player on one team and then goes to another team and fails in their system, it’s not the player. Its the decision maker of the team that thought they could convert a players talents to fit their scheme. We already know the player can excel in a scheme like the one the team he came from runs, because he has DONE It.
If Larry Fitz went to Baltimore for example and sucked. Larry doesn’t suck. He just doesn’t fit their type of offense. But at least you KNOW he CAN be elite if you use him according to his proven talents.
But thats on the GM. Just trade picks for a player that currently plays or has excelled in the past, with a scheme like the one you run. Its way more solid than drafting a guy that played excellent ball against a bunch of other kids who have never played at the NFL level. Thats always a risk. With a college player you don’t even know if he can play in ANY scheme for ANY coach in ANY system and succeed. He’s never played at the NFL level period. But a FA that has proven his worth has PROVEN his worth already.
Secondly,
draft picks don’t make a team, teams make draft picksI use that argument to rebutt your argument. If that can prove true for a college rookie, then how much more so for a proven veteran. I mean you used Julius Peppers, I’ll use Sharper. You bring a proven veteran into a proven system that fits his talents, where you KNOW he will excel because he’s been doing it for years in a similiar system, and you bring him in and what do you get? The MOST interceptions of anyone in the leage and a SB ring. So that point is a pendulum, it swings both ways.
And lastly, if you start your own business, a business that is talent specific, like the NFL is. A business that pays big money for specific talents, like the NFL. You don’t hire inexperienced people. You hire people with a degree that fits your SPECIFIC needs. You don’t hire someone with experience as a plumber, to help you finish building the LHC. THe NFL is ALL about specific people with specific talents at specific strategic positions.
So if your starting your own business, in NFL terms that would be called an expansion team. Expansion teams are given all kinds of special concessions now a days to help them get experienced players at all positions.
How many highly skilled, talent and knowlege specific, big paying careers hire inexperienced people at those positions? Exactly, so if you start your own business you get the best experienced help you can get to help assure you succeed. Starting your own business is not like buying a lottery ticket, where you take huge risks hoping the reward is also as huge a reward. Its a calculated, well planned out strategy. Something you may research and plan for years prior to risking your own money investing in.
You would study the example of experienced, proven successful companies to role model your company after. Not unproven upstart companies with promise. You don’t ignore them either. But you get my point. Its not even a sure thing what any pick will ever turn out to be.
So if you can get some key players that you KNOW can do the job successfully and help your team, why wouldn’t you trade some picks?
Overall a solid rebuttal there Kray, but a few points I'd like to add:
You’re right that Julius Pepper was a poor example of a FA. He obviously would have an adjustment period to our system. But there are plenty examples of players going to similar systems as what they came from and not performing up to expectations. A lot has to do with your peers. Take Boldin. He might end up not being all that much in Baltimore because defenses don’t have Larry Fitz to worry about, because he doesn’t have Warner throwing him the ball, and he can’t handle cold weather well (dunno if thats true, but for arguments sake, lets suppose it is). The only point I make is that past performance is not a guarantee of future results. What Boldin did in Arizona is done. What he does in the next place he ends up is anyone’s guess, granted it can be an educated guess, but its a guess nonetheless. The college kid in the draft obviously comes with more risk, not even neceassarily because of the transition to the speed of the pro-game (although thats a part), but its mostly the transition to the maturity of becoming a professional athlete. It tests how a person responds. But if you watch the tape and interview the potential picks, you can get a pretty good idea of who might blossom in your culture.
And ultimately, its a value play. Take the example of the third round pick vs. Boldin. The third round pick could be DeJuan Morgan, who so far looks like he might not become much, or he could be Jamaal Charles. There’s the risk factor. Now look at what Jamaal Charles is making. The life of his contract is less than a year of Boldin. The hit rate is gonna be much less on the third round picks vs. the FA who comes here with several productive years under his belt, but when the hit pays off, it pays off exponentially (the reward for undertaking risk).
As for the starting your own business metaphor, obviously anyone starting a business does it with calculation and a well thought out strategy. Studying proven and successful organizations and trying to emulate them is exactly the way to approach a business. Heck, when you look at the NFL, the truly successful dynasties have done so with mostly home-grown talent from the draft (think Indy, NE, PITT) and the spend-happy teams like WASH have very little to show for it. And yes, some people with experience will have to be hired, the same way that the Chiefs have made a point of bringing in a mix of veterens like Mike Brown and Vrabel to inculcate the organization with a winning culture. But when starting a business, you also want to get some young, fresh-faced, recent grads who are eager to prove themselves, come cheaply in terms of salary and benies, and have more raw energy and less distractions to keep them away from professional focus. You may have found a great veteran comptroller, accountant, or sales agent to lead your company, but chances are that his successor is one of those fresh-faced grads who has an eye on that guys job and is going to bust his ass until he proves he’s worthy of it.
For justice we must go to Don Pioli
Sudden if I need a lawyer?
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Can we change the "R" to a "J"?
I like the sound of Joakland.
by whoadog on Mar 15, 2010 1:59 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Get that stupid face off the front page. :p
My long, drawn-out predictions that no one cares about, nor will bother to remember:
1. Todd Haley will still be the Chiefs Head Coach up to the 2011 season.
2. Clancy Pendergast won't make it to the 2010 season and was never intended to. Last-minute hire for a position that needed to be filled.
3. Todd Haley will not be the OC at the start of the 2010 season.
The guy in the pic looks like he just made dooty in his pants
Official member of the "Draft Eric Berry" fan club... But I'm not changing my picture, dammit!
by Red N Gold Beast on Mar 15, 2010 2:19 PM CDT reply actions
My biggest problem with the "potential"...
Is the price you have to pay for it these days. If you have a high draft pick…the kid is going to be rich before he steps foot on the practice field. And how many live up to what they get paid?
But the value you get in the second and third rounds vs a FA is well worth it
For justice we must go to Don Pioli
*cough* Jamarcus Russel *cough*
Official member of the "Draft Eric Berry" fan club... But I'm not changing my picture, dammit!
by Red N Gold Beast on Mar 15, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice read Matt
I have leaned toward trading a pick for some proven talent recently.
But I voted potential anyway :)
Gonna check my Lottery tickets now.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
Haha
He can shave his head and wear a bandana and cry to his woman like a little biatch!!
"Its going to be a challenge, its going to feel like forever, and there will be difficulties. But we will emerge on the other side of it stronger than we were when we entered." ~ Sudden
by Matt_Grbac on Mar 15, 2010 3:42 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Trading for Draft Picks
I dont like KCs past when it comes to trading for draft picks. Why take a proven pro bowler (ala Tony Gonzalez and Jarred Allen) and trade for some hopefulls? You have PROVEN talent, and you’re trading it for… might be a good player??? Doesnt seem like it pans out to me. I mean, what are your odds of actually getting back the caliber of player you are giving up? My guess is not so good.
Bryan W. Whitcraft
SSG MOARNG
by bryan.whitcraft on Mar 15, 2010 2:46 PM CDT reply actions
Seems
at some point you want to replace that player. ie TG
at others the player forces your hand. ie JA
I would agrre most of the time you wouldn’t want to unless you have a specific replacement in mind. Maybe why Alleman fits in Indy and Lilja would fit in KC.
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd also factor in the fact that this highly paid star was on one of the worst teams in the league.
They clearly needed to invest their wealth in something that brought WINs.
When players start to get old, it's not a bad move to get what you can
Tony is at the end of his career. Plus he was not going to be the feature of Haley’s offense like he’s been in KC his entire career. By the time the Chiefs were going to be competing for a title, he’d be retired. The second round pick they got for him however has the potential to be a big part of the Chiefs future.
Jared Allen was a risk because he was one more DUI from a year long suspension while wanting to be the highest paid player in the league. Even with the risk, was Allen worth resiging? I think so, but he didn’t even want to be in KC anymore so he was leaving regardless. At least the Chiefs got some fair compensation for him.
It wasn't that Jared didn't want to be in KC anymore...
He just didn’t want to work for Carl Peterson anymore.
Lets see when JA is an UFA if he loves KC
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
don't forget
“proven” can very quickly turn to “over the hill”
Blame my wife!
Waiting until August 2010
I resemble that comment
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Mar 15, 2010 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions
The catch is..
Every proven player was once just a player with potential. I’d rather have the player with potential through his career as he turns into a proven player, rather than have a proven player from another team come here only to fail in our system. The proven player demands proven player salaries and have a chance to bust on the new team, with new teammates, new coaches and new systems. A potential player, though still paid well, is NOT paid as much as a proven player. This player has nothing to offer but upside, and IF he is to bust, the money you are paying to that player is less than you would be paying to a FA who could possibly bust.
Of course, theres 2 ends of the spectrum. The pro’s and con’s for Proven vs Potential are virtually interchangeable. Both are capable of busting, both are capable of excelling. But the 1 thing they differ in is that the player with potential may take a couple years to really become a great player, where as, the proven player contributes immediately, but only a few years later, that player is pushing its age limit.
So the way I see it, Potential vs Proven have the exactly same pro’s and con’s. The only ones that arent the same are the age of the player and the money he demands and in that case, Potential is the better bargain. You get a player who could become great, paying less than you would a proven player, who has a longer career ahead of him, and no better or worse chance of busting than another FA.
Which is why I lean towards potential. BUT just because you need an upgrade doesnt always mean you need to groom your own. FA is definitely a good way to improve your team if you are SMART and bring in players who fit to what you want to do.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Video: Tim Tebow asked to Military Ball by Louisiana Airwoman
- We’ll see how Brandon Jacobs’ football skills translate to the squared circle
- Bill Belichick wore a hoodie to a golf tournament
- Eagles reportedly will franchise DeSean Jackson, but should they?
- Wife of Chargers tackle Tommie Harris dies at 29
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
