Restating the obvious, Dorsey learned from Ted Thompson

[ct]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/03/packers-prefer-compensatory-picks-over-unrestricted-free-agents/


Packers General Manager Ted Thompson has a formula for building his team, and he’s sticking with it.

Thompson believes in building through the draft, not free agency, and that includes acquiring more draft picks by declining to sign unrestricted free agents. In the NFL, teams that lose more in free agency than they acquire get compensatory picks, and the Packers’ moves in free agency this year indicate that they’re already thinking about acquiring compensatory picks for next year. The NFL doesn’t public the precise formula used to determine compensatory picks, but the simple version is that if the unrestricted free agents you lose are better, higher-paid players than the unrestricted free agents you sign, then the NFL will compensate you the following year with compensatory picks.

As the Green Bay Press-Gazette points out, even the one big name the Packers have signed this offseason, Julius Peppers, was a free agent because he was released by the Bears, not because his previous contract expired. That means he won’t count as an unrestricted free agent addition for the Packers for the purpose of determining their compensatory picks next year.

Last year the Packers lost two key players, receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker Erik Walden, as unrestricted free agents. And the Packers didn’t sign any unrestricted free agents last year. As a result, this year they’re getting an extra third-round pick and an extra fifth-round pick as compensatory selections.

This year the Packers have again not signed away any players whose previous contract expired, but they have lost four players, center Evan Dietrich-Smith, receiver James Jones, defensive lineman C.J. Wilson and offensive lineman Marshall Newhouse. That means the Packers will almost certainly do well when the compensatory picks are passed out a year from now.

Building through the draft and declining to overspend in free agency would be a smart strategy even if the NFL didn’t have a compensatory pick system to reward frugal teams. But when compensatory picks are added to the equation, it’s easy to see why Thompson declines to go after free agents. The Packers have been successful this way. It’s surprising more teams haven’t copied them.


May not be popular here but Dorsey is doing exactly the same thing Thompson and Ozzie Newsome are doing, stockpile draft picks and let UFAs get overpaid elsewhere.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Something we can agree on, though from different angles.

I actually see it from both angles.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Boom goes the ****ing truth!

Truth? Well, maybe a very misleading version of it. It hides the truth as much as it shows any.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by el borracho

Alex Smith failed to throw a touchdown in 6 games in 2013 (almost 38% of the games!); the Chiefs record in these games was 5 and 1.

Alex Smith threw for less than 200 yards in 5 games in 2013; the Chiefs record in these games was 4 and 1.

The Chiefs defense allowed 23 or more points in 5 games in 2013; the Chiefs record in these games was 1 and 4.

How does anybody credit Alex Smith with the Chiefs win/loss record in 2013, outside of not turning the ball over?


The cost for Smith, by the way, is not just the two 2nd round picks- you need to factor in the opportunity cost of not spending a high draft pick on a QB in 2013; not spending a high draft pick on a QB in 2014; and, if Smith is given an extension, likely not spending a high draft pick on a QB until 2016 or 2017. Congratulations, Chiefs fans- all of your QBOTF hopes will now rest on low round picks and undrafted free-agent QBs.

The whole concept of trading for another team's backup QB is a disaster and I can't believe that Chiefs fans aren't universally outraged. Smith in particular is a disaster (23 touchdowns in a "career" year and 0 touchdown passes in 38% of the games). And the coming contract extension is yet another disaster. Chiefs fans had better hope that Dorsey either puts together an all-time defense or pulls another Aaron Rogers out of his ass, because Smith will never be a franchise QB.

While I agree with the basic sentiment of this post, I do have some disagreements with it.

Of those 6 games when he didnt throw a TD pass, we were comfortably ahead in each game and 5 of those 6 games were before the bye. I'm not sure that stat is really something we should hang our hat on to take Alex Smith down a notch or two. Of the 5 games with less than 200 yards passing, we won the game by multiple scores in all but 1 of them (the only game we didnt win was the Indy game where Andy Reid admitted he held back a full game plan in anticipation of meeting Indy in the playoffs...where Alex had a monster game)

The last 2 paragraphs are 100% spot on.

Good post.

[Baby Lee]

When our team needed Alex Smith to play it safe, he played it safe and went 9-0. When our team need Alex Smith to produce prodigiously, he produced prodigiously and the D shit the bed anyways.

Last year was a team where, if injuries didn't hit key D positions, we were solid the whole way through.

I don't buy the 'epically bad O, then epically bad D' for our opponents. A couple key injuries and everything falls apart, regardless of who we play.

Parity means a lot of things, and one of them is that the difference between 'epically bad,' and 'epically awesome' is slimmer than ever.

Houston gets to Manning .01s faster than his replacement 5-7 times a game and things look much different.

Thus endeth the story of 2013.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Houston gets to Manning .01s faster than his replacement 5-7 times a game and things look much different.

Houston and Hali both played in game 1 against Manning. Neither of them got any real pressure.

Not saying having Houston and Hali healthy down the stretch wouldn't have made a difference. I'm just saying that it likely wouldn't have changed the results against Denver. Our problems with Denver start and end with our DBs.

[Messier]

The problem I have with the, unless we draft our QB, we're wasting our time people, is you're assuming an awful lot.

It's pretty amazing how many high draft pick QBs turn into, not busts, but almost something worse, just a guy. I think Bradford is just a guy, I think Dalton is just a guy, I think Stafford is becoming just a guy.

Let's say we didn't trade for Smith, and instead signed one of the scrapheap QBs and drafted one. Geno, Manuel, or Glennon. How would you really feel right now? First I don't think we win as many games with Fitzpatrick and or one of the rookies starting. And now two of the teams that drafted QBs are hedging their bets. Do you envy the QB situation of the Jets, Bills, or Bucks? I don't. So, would you draft another QB high this year?

I'm sorry, this plan of attack is not appealing to me at all. And I don't think fans of these teams look at the Chiefs and feel they're doing it better than they are. I'm not against taking a QB high at all, but I think the team better be right, because more times than not, there is no franchise QB in the draft.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

The problem I have with the, unless we draft our QB, we're wasting our time people, is you're assuming an awful lot.

It's pretty amazing how many high draft pick QBs turn into, not busts, but almost something worse, just a guy. I think Bradford is just a guy, I think Dalton is just a guy, I think Stafford is becoming just a guy.

Let's say we didn't trade for Smith, and instead signed one of the scrapheap QBs and drafted one. Geno, Manuel, or Glennon. How would you really feel right now? First I don't think we win as many games with Fitzpatrick and or one of the rookies starting. And now two of the teams that drafted QBs are hedging their bets. Do you envy the QB situation of the Jets, Bills, or Bucks? I don't. So, would you draft another QB high this year?

I'm sorry, this plan of attack is not appealing to me at all. And I don't think fans of these teams look at the Chiefs and feel they're doing it better than they are. I'm not against taking a QB high at all, but I think the team better be right, because more times than not, there is no franchise QB in the draft.

The problem is that if you're not winning with a young QB on their first contract, probability says you're not winning a Super Bowl at all.

Once QBs hit their 2nd contracts and beyond, Super Bowl wins go way down.

That's not anything against Alex Smith, that's just reality. Winning a Super Bowl has become, in the salary cap era, literally the same as striking gold.

Ultimately, it becomes a choice for a team:

- do you want to be competitive, entertaining, and have a 5% chance of winning a Super Bowl?

or

- do you want to have a 15% chance of winning a Super Bowl but a 50% chance of being one of the worst teams in the league for a few years if your QB busts?

We both know which way is more financially rewarding for the team.

EDIT: And yes, those percentages are arbitrary and for illustrative purposes.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Messier

Why would that be the Hunt family policy? Doesn't seem to make sense.

They are the common denominator, not really hard to comprehend.

Are you aware of the comment Carl Peterson made one time about how Lamar had to sign off on trading a first round pick? The team hasn't used a first round pick on a QB since they missed on the greatest QB draft ever of 83, by taking Todd Blackledge.
The timing of the trade for Cassel and Smith is another indicator to me.

Originally Posted by Rausch

The problem is there's no such thing as Chiefs football.

Chiefs football is hiring a coach off a SB team and trying to copy that model of success.

We did it with Marty trying to copy the 49'ers. And we traded for their QB's.
We did it with DV and the Rams and traded for one of their QB's.
We did it with Pioli and traded for one of the Pats QB's.

We don't come up with our own strategies - we try to copy everyone else's...

Agreed, but one strategy has remained the same for over 30 years.

I imagine Lamar Hunt was rolling in his grave with laughter on the Jamarcus Russel bust for the Raiders.

When the Chiefs really sucked for almost two decades, they were trying to draft a QB. The stadium was never sold out and you could walk up on game day and buy great tickets.

When they started using recycled vets on a regular basis and achieving 10-6 records, Arrowhead rocked and the fans were happy.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The problem is that if you're not winning with a young QB on their first contract, probability says you're not winning a Super Bowl at all.

Once QBs hit their 2nd contracts and beyond, Super Bowl wins go way down.

That's not anything against Alex Smith, that's just reality. Winning a Super Bowl has become, in the salary cap era, literally the same as striking gold.

Ultimately, it becomes a choice for a team:

- do you want to be competitive, entertaining, and have a 5% chance of winning a Super Bowl?

or

- do you want to have a 15% chance of winning a Super Bowl but a 50% chance of being one of the worst teams in the league for a few years if your QB busts?

We both know which way is more financially rewarding for the team.

EDIT: And yes, those percentages are arbitrary and for illustrative purposes.

Brees, Rodgers, both Mannings and Roethlisberger show that there is no recent trend against 2nd contract (or later) QBs winning SBs. If anything, the opposite has been true of late. Also, Brady, while not actually winning a SB since his first deal, has been to 5 AFCCGs and 2 SBs in that time.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The problem is that if you're not winning with a young QB on their first contract, probability says you're not winning a Super Bowl at all.

Once QBs hit their 2nd contracts and beyond, Super Bowl wins go way down.

That's not anything against Alex Smith, that's just reality. Winning a Super Bowl has become, in the salary cap era, literally the same as striking gold.

Ultimately, it becomes a choice for a team:

- do you want to be competitive, entertaining, and have a 5% chance of winning a Super Bowl?

or

- do you want to have a 15% chance of winning a Super Bowl but a 50% chance of being one of the worst teams in the league for a few years if your QB busts?

We both know which way is more financially rewarding for the team.

EDIT: And yes, those percentages are arbitrary and for illustrative purposes.

In either case, the QB must have a good team around them. I think there's something to be said for having a QB that can at least win some games, and thats through making plays, and NOT making costly plays. I know some people think the attitude of, you have just make the playoffs to win the superbowl, and you have to win regular season games to make the playoffs, it like saying, this team is just satisfied making the playoffs! Which is ridiculous.

My bottom line is, I'd rather be where the Chiefs are QB wise, than any of the teams that drafted QBs high last year, and any team that will draft a QB high this year. I thought giving up 2 seconds last year was pretty steep, but I'm becoming more and more comfortable with it.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

They are the common denominator, not really hard to comprehend.

Are you aware of the comment Carl Peterson made one time about how Lamar had to sign off on trading a first round pick? The team hasn't used a first round pick on a QB since they missed on the greatest QB draft ever of 83, by taking Todd Blackledge.
The timing of the trade for Cassel and Smith is another indicator to me.

Agreed, but one strategy has remained the same for over 30 years.

I imagine Lamar Hunt was rolling in his grave with laughter on the Jamarcus Russel bust for the Raiders.

When the Chiefs really sucked for almost two decades, they were trying to draft a QB. The stadium was never sold out and you could walk up on game day and buy great tickets.

When they started using recycled vets on a regular basis and achieving 10-6 records, Arrowhead rocked and the fans were happy.

What do you mean the timing of Cassel and Smith? They traded for them in weak QB draft class years.

It is hard to comprehend, because it takes a huge conspiracy leap to go there. No GM prospect worth a lick, and as much as we hate him, Pioli was a blue chip GM prospect, so was Dorsey, neither one would take a job where they were handcuffed by ownership, especially concerning the most important position on the field.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BossChief

...The last 2 paragraphs are 100% spot on.

Good post.

The opportunity costs argument is a non-starter.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Messier

In either case, the QB must have a good team around them. I think there's something to be said for having a QB that can at least win some games, and thats through making plays, and NOT making costly plays. I know some people think the attitude of, you have just make the playoffs to win the superbowl, and you have to win regular season games to make the playoffs, it like saying, this team is just satisfied making the playoffs! Which is ridiculous.

My bottom line is, I'd rather be where the Chiefs are QB wise, than any of the teams that drafted QBs high last year, and any team that will draft a QB high this year. I thought giving up 2 seconds last year was pretty steep, but I'm becoming more and more comfortable with it.

I used to feel the same way. Give me more wins than losses, be competitive and not embarrassing and we are good!

Do you honestly think their first priority is to win a Super Bowl?

I still love to follow the team, but I have them in a comfortable place now that I am confident that I know what they are trying to do.

Keep the seats full, the fans happy, the fans wearing red and the banners out of the sky. A veteran QB has the greatest chance of accomplishing that.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I imagine Lamar Hunt was rolling in his grave with laughter on the Jamarcus Russel bust for the Raiders.

I can't speak for Lamar or anybody else, but now that we've gone two full decades without a playoff win, I have a hard time laughing at anybody else's failure.

[SDChiefs]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You think wrong.

I'm mad because he says he's building through the draft while trading away draft picks.

If you don't see those two things as contradictory, you're just being stubborn because they absolutely are.

You are wrong in so many ways it has become tiring. you CAN build through the draft and use other avenues to fill holes. building through the draft means the majority of your players are drafted and usually the core foundation is as well. it doesnt mean they refuse to make the team better via trade or free agency. Your one argument is Dorsey made 1 trade so hes not building through the draft even though he is stockpiling picks and not signing a lot of free agents. Thats lunacy.