The Green Bay Model & its Influence On John Schneider Part IV
First, if you haven't already, please go back and read parts one, two, and three. After you've done that, please stare at the attached chart for a minute or so. After you do that and get frustrated, I will walk you through what it means.
This spreadsheet shows a nameless, faceless 53-man roster. It is a pretty fair representation of the Green Bay model I've talked about in parts one-three. It is broken up by Draft Year or Years of accumulated experience in the NFL. A Year 1 player would be a 2011 NFL Rookie, Year 2 refers to the class of players that was a Drafted Rookie in 2010, Year 5 Players were Drafted and a Rookie in 2007. A Year 9+ Player would be any player drafted in 2003 or prior. (I have a Seahawks chart of this with real player names coming soon in a future article in this series).
In theory this model could work in any year - so I named it Year 1, Year 2 etc...
Some Key Numbers that will better explain this chart:
1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).
For Green Bay- Aaron Rodgers, AJ Hawk, Nick Collins and Tramon Williams would be Year 5-8 2nd Contract Type Players. Donald Driver, Chad Clifton, Ryan Pickett and Charles Woodson would be Legacy (3rd Contract) type players.
2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.
These are the Randall Cobbs, James Starks, and Jermichael Finley's of the roster. These are also the Frank Zombos and Vic So'otos.
13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year. Green Bay does not sign up outside free agents except in some small value cases (Erik Walden, Howard Green), so there are basically only two ways you will ever play with Aaron Rodgers -
(1) Get a phone call on draft day from Ted Thompson
(2) Get a phone call right after the draft from Ted Thompson as an Undrafted Rookie.
13 Again- If 13 players enter the system each year, then 13 players must exit the system each year. On an average team you draft seven players, maybe get lucky and one undrafted rookie sticks on your 53 man roster, and then sign another five free agents. Perhaps you lost two of your players, re-signed two of your players to their 2nd contract, and then signed three players from outside your team. (Again, think of the average life span of an NFL Player to be four years - 53 divided by 4 is close to 13.)
Typical Team would look like this:
7 Draft Picks
1 Undrafted Rookie
2 Re-signed Free Agents
3 Free Agents signed from Other Teams
13 Total
In Green Bay- since they rarely sign outside the house free agents the system works like this:
9 Draft Picks (you trade down)
4 Undrafted Rookies that stick on the 53 man Roster
13 Total
So, what does the yellow on the chart mean? Those are the players that are playing on your team that will lose their job by the end of training camp next year! Of those 13 rookies, only 10 will play in Year 2 and 3 will get cut. Of the 10 players in Year 2, by Year 3 competition from younger players will whittle that down to 7. By Year 4 only 5 players will remain.
If you are lucky enough to survive the first four years- only the top four players from your draft class will cross over into big money land. How do you make room (Green Bay is maxed out at the Cap) for those four newly minted paid players? You cut four of your older players- two legacy players per year and two others in the middle of their second contract. Why? Because age and injury has caused them to decline and they don't provide enough value for the contract they are on- and a younger cheaper player can do their job.
Think Nick Barnett and Daryn College.
1/5 (one-fifth)- The current NFL salary cap is a shade under $125M. Only $25M or 1/5th of the entire Green Bay Salary Cap is apportioned to the 35 players on their rookie contract. Think of it at about $500k per player plus bump up about 4 players who were drafted in Round 1 and you don't actually even get to $25M. But close enough. Where does the other $100M go?- it goes to the 18 "star" players on their 2nd or 3rd contract. The other 18 players can be paid on average over $5M per year.
25- The median age of your roster under this system- year after year after year. Your team stays "forever young" in perpetuity. Your team never gets old even though, of course, individual players do. The average age stays at 25.87. In this exercise I assumed the average rookie was EXACTLY 23 years old- we know in real life their ages vary and I am not considering the months either. But the point remains.
CULTURE IMPLICATIONS (LOYALTY and IDENTITY)
When you never go outside the house - you raise each player strictly in the culture that Green Bay wants to imprint on its team. Playing in Green Bay becomes special, because unless you were drafted or picked up right after the draft (or rookie waivers) in your first year, you will never have the privilege of playing in Green Bay.
John Schneider recently said, in an interview on Sirius radio: "If we put together a nice Draft this year, [add] a couple nice free agents, re-do some of our guys together, then yeah, we'll be on our way. [Next year, we'll] add another Draft to that and we'll be on our way to the motto we had at Green Bay, where we don't have to go outside the house."
"Things are positive right now, but we've got a long way to go. If we put two more solid Drafts together we'll be on our way to a team like that. I want us to get to the point where we're a consistent Championship-caliber team, where every year guys want our players."
The Draft becomes gigantic. Free Agency is only an exercise in paying your own players. By the way, the system doesn't work without picking the right players for the right fit, you have to draft very very well for this system to work, but if you can I can't think of a better model.
When all the players are "organic" you can really hammer in your culture and identity. After all, most of the players don't know anything else. Their whole NFL experience revolves around one team.
The class that started in Year 1 as 13 players has been filtered down to the 5 strongest in Year 4. Of those five, only the best four will receive that coveted 2nd contract and the other players will be free to walk.
Think 2007 2nd Round Pick RB Brandon Jackson.
Do you risk missing out on great talent available on other teams? Yes. But you also limit your risk, because the player you reward with a big money contract is a player you have gone to war with in your own family for four years. You know this players habits, character, injury history and measurables 100x better than any other team. Your risk of a bad free agent signing is much lower than going outside your house. You know that this player will play well in your system because he has already played well in your system for four years.
Think of the early season struggles of Nnamdi in Philly, same player, different system.
What is super fascinating about Sidney Rice, Tarvaris Jackson, Robert Gallery, and Zach Miller, is that the Seattle offense runs the same system that these players played under for 3-4 years. Cable at Oakland and Bevell at Minnesota. I don't think those Free Agent signings were a coincidence.
The Alan Branch success was helped by the fact that Pete Carroll knew exactly the kind of player he wanted next to Mebane, but Branch was in a totally different system in Arizona. He also did get a smaller deal that the other four free agents.
There is no loyalty in the NFL, and the one of the criticisms of the "Always Compete" Pete Carroll mantra is that it has no loyalty toward players. It does not have loyalty toward aging, declining and overpaid players. It does not have loyalty to a draft pick that was outperformed by an undrafted player or a 1st round pick being outplayed by a 4th round pick.
The Green Bay system is loyal in that, - if you played well for us for four years -, we will pay you, we will rarely pay big money to a player that has been making touchdowns and tackles for another NFL team.
There is a level of loyalty in this system.
WIN FOREVER and ALWAYS COMPETE
"Earn Everything", "It's all about the Ball", "Finish", "Protect the Team", "Competition Wednesday" and a host of other Pete Carroll phrases are thrown around every week.
However; the top two mantras are "Win Forever" and "Always Compete".
The Green Bay model dovetails perfectly with those two mantras. This is why John Schneider and Pete Carroll got so excited during their first meeting. Pete Carroll was dealing with younger college players and played freshman and sophomores. This fit perfectly with the Green Bay model. Pete Carroll recruited high school students and told them they would have a chance to compete and earn playing time.
Every year, Schneider is trying to haul in a ton of draft picks and another big batch of undrafted rookies.These are NOT training camp fodder, this whole class of rookies is given the chance to knock out 13 or so current players. Drafted players in Year 2 and 3 will lose their jobs every year to younger players that outperform them.
On Win Forever - your roster never gets old. If you keep drafting well every year and are willing to make hard decisions by moving on from good players - you can, in theory, "Win Forever". The roster stays at a magical average of 25-26 years old. Younger players are probably less injury prone and are, in general, faster. They may not be smarter and they may not be in their peak, but that's where coaching comes in.
More to come...
Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Follow @DavisHsuSeattle on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook
66 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Love this series
Can’t wait for the next one. I’m also a Green Bay fan so its nice comparing my favorite team (Hawks!) to them.
by FisteeFisterer on Jan 4, 2012 7:53 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Good Write Up
Can’t think of a better team than that to use as a template. I really love the fact that this team is going to stay young fast and talented..FOREVER! Props on the article. Been loving this series.
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
I think an important thing to take away from this series...
is that in order to follow his model, you must be a draft wizard. Recently I’ve come to appreciate the pedigree that JS comes from. He’s shown over the past 2 years that he can be the wizard we need. I love it.
Holy crap, AWESOME write up Davis
This re-energizes my excitement for our team every time I read your posts.
It’s coming! Possibly just 2 drafts from being in the position JS has in mind, wow- can’t wait.
Twitter- @GriffinNW
by GriffinNW on Jan 4, 2012 8:47 AM PST via Android app reply actions
This is brilliant.
You have solidified my confidence in this team and the plan in place. This FO’s choice of free agent signing also becomes a great deal more interesting and I can’t wait to see what they can do in the next draft.
It's interesting to see the non-draft FA they bring in, breaking off the GB mold a little..
But signing based on fit. Miller and Rice were great signings.
VERY excited to see Miller break out when the line develops more with time and hard work from Cable. HUGE weapon for whoever we have playing QB.
Twitter- @GriffinNW
by GriffinNW on Jan 4, 2012 9:49 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
Exactly. It seems like they are filling needs to develop the team into a position to implement the plan.
And I also love me some Miller. I think he was one of the more undervalued assets on the team especially with the huge amount of time he spent in the trenches. I still like the Rice signing as well. I think it’s important to have that veteran receiving presence for our QBOTF. There are really very few things this FO has done that I absolutely hate or even dislike.
by the other side on Jan 4, 2012 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
Veteran receiver? Isn't Rice like 25?
It’s crazy that BMW is our veteran receiver haha
Twitter- @GriffinNW
by GriffinNW on Jan 4, 2012 8:16 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
This is a great series, love this kind of front office analysis.
Thank you, davishsu, for all your hard work and time on this
You may have already mentioned this, but just because it's still fresh on my mind from my post yesterday....
Ted Thompson’s first draft pick was Aaron Rodgers. He came over to a Green Bay team that had Brett Favre and made a bold move from the onset (along with other bold moves like cutting veteran fan favorites like Darren Sharper and Mike Wahle.) The Packers go 4-12 (after going 10-6 the year before he got there) but he was setting the stage. All of the Win Forever or Forever Young model becomes a lot easier when you have a Hall of Fame QB and he’s backed up by the next QB star, which makes the maneuvering of replicating this model for Schneider more difficult until he is set at that position.
Sorry, I don’t know what I was going with this, but I found it very interesting that his first pick was Rodgers. A new GM comes into Green Bay and says “Hey fans, hey Brett Favre, guess what… I’m taking a QB.” Not only did he make bold moves but he made moves that had the team go 4-12 in his first year, but clearly he knew what he was doing. The Pack went 13-3 in Thompson’s 3rd year, so, your move Schneider.
follow @casetines
The Aaron Rodgers slide was one of the weirdest things
It’d be like if Barkley had declared, got picked number one, and Luck slid all the way down. Well, not THAT dramatic or crazy, but hey, Alex Smith.
Give Thompson credit for picking Rodgers when he already had Favre, many other QB needy teams passed him up, but still, even if i had Peyton Manning in his prime I’d have considered picking Aaron Rodgers that low. Sheesh
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 4, 2012 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
At the time, Favre was reportedly angry that they spent the draft capital on a QB
instead of surrounding him with better weapons. That lead to his annual threats of retirement and his eventual trade to the Jets.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
Fantastic Write-up, but
there’s still one hole. And he still needs to fill it for all of this, and anything else to matter. Schneider has acquired three quarterbacks in this system – two are awful and one is unproven. Carroll has never had a respectable quarterback at the pro level. I have tremendous respect for Schneider, and I hope he’s GM here for 30 years, but we still need the one guy we’re missing to make the wheel turn.
What happens now?
Matt Flynn.
football does not build character, it reveals character.
I'm not sure people quite understand that yet
Matt Flynn, backup QB for GB
Matt Flynn
Matt
Flynn
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 4, 2012 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
Really great series. Rec'd.
You’ve obviously put a lot of work into this and I think it’s very interesting.
The question I have, though, is whether we’re describing the “causes” or “correlations”. Is a “winning culture” a thing that leads to wins or merely the product of winning. Do the Steelers and Packers of the world value draft picks so much because it leads to winning or because they are a small-market team (and is the reverse true for the Cowboys and the Redskins)? I’m not really disagreeing with you, but I’m just wondering ‘How do we know if we’re right?’
I’ve been thinking a lot about franchise building and the nature of the “reference frame” off and on for a while. If we look at Ruskell’s Seahawks coming off the 2007 playoffs, we see a pretty competive team with a strong defense, productive passing game and clear identity (WCO, speedy Tampa 2) that dominated the NFC West for years. We’d planned for the future (Locklear to replace Walt, Mora to replace Holmgren, Unger to replace Spencer, a young TE to help a very productive Hasselbeck). A year or two later, the franchise was in shambles (whether because of injury luck or poor roster management). Where can we first identify the failings of the franchise? In 2007? 2008? 2009? 2005? Was the model actually wrong to begin with or was it just a string of bad luck? Was our success purely dependent on a healthy Matt?
Looking, now, at the Packers, Steelers and Patriots, we see strong, competitive franchises, but would we say the same if they lost their starting QB for an extended period? Do these teams hide the same kind of flaws that the Ruskell-era Seahawks (or the Polian-lead Colts) did?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 10:51 AM PST reply actions
I truely enjoyed the insight this series brings.
Its increadably important that you have the pieces in place before you go in house only. We could literally go this route right now, but the fact that JS thinks we need two more makes me feel like he thinks we are missing atleast two critcal parts.
Obviously from a fans point of view they are gonna say QB. JS clearly has the patience to wait for good players to fall to him, basically taking best player available. Am I reading too far into his thoughts by thinking he might think that QB is up to three years away?
Seeing this philosophy really explains why he liquidated so much mediocre and average talent in trades, and seems to get more back, atleast in the short term.
He is also not opposed to taking risks early on. It kind of reminds me of finacial planning. Take risks early on, then build on your investments over the years.
Not all of his risks have paid off. Lyndale white was a complete disaster from an attitude stand point.
Charlie White hurst was a bust.
And some might think Tarvaris is, but consider how our season would have been with Whitehurst as our starter…shudders
I feel many more positives have been added.
Um.. one thing is being seriously neglected in comparison to the Seahawks front office
Schneider himself has said that he is (and plans to be) more aggressive in free agency than his Green Bay counterparts. As I understand that, this also includes free agents from “out of house”.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 12:26 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I think the "aggression" to FA is due to the fact our roster was bare.
Keep in mind the onset for this year was that the lockout restricted many trades with draft picks, and this of course kills the Green Bay model of drafting. Thus, with nothing left on rookies and even fewer players that were in house, we had to turn to the only other source, which was FA.
I expect PC/JS to be less aggressive this year, instead trading away older players for more picks
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
I do not believe that those statements were due to circumstances of last year.
If I’m not mistaken, he made that statement shortly after his hiring.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 1:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don't think 'neglect' is the right word.
Davis hasn’t broached the Seahawks specifically in detail yet. Which he will do, in an ongoing series. Believe me, he’s aware of JS’s alleged stance towards free agency. That said, you can’t really ignore the quote from JS that’s in this piece either, something Schneider said only a few weeks ago-
“If we put together a nice Draft this year, [add] a couple nice free agents, re-do some of our guys together, then yeah, we’ll be on our way. [Next year, we’ll] add another Draft to that and we’ll be on our way to the motto we had at Green Bay, where we don’t have to go outside the house.”
The “we’ll be on our way” bit implies they’re not at the point yet where they can emulate this model. The theory is that in his model, the first few years he’ll venture into free agency more to set the foundation. No one is saying he’ll follow Green Bay’s version to a T.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 4, 2012 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What word do you believe is the right one?
He makes a considerable effort in describing Green Bay’s past and current approach of signing free agents without acknowledging John Schneider’s own admittance towards being aggressive in free agency.
And he has been very aggressive in his approach with players who came from other teams, turning over just about every rock he comes across, with players who were either active or inactive the past year or so.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't mean to come off dickish there, so if I did, apologies.
But I felt the need to defend Davis because I don’t think he failed to do what you’re saying he failed to do.
Part One: "John Schneider has referred to Ted Thompson as more of an “older brother” figure. The “father figure” to Schneider has been Ron Wolf. Yet, part of the appeal to Paul Allen, I assume, was that Schneider would bring to Seattle the Green Bay philosophy. In the end, we all know that Pete Carroll makes the final decisions, but I think Pete Carroll wants the Green Bay philosophy to bleed through. They will be more active in free agency than Green Bay, but I believe there is still a strong emphasis on the Draft."
Part Two: "A few more disclaimers: John Schneider is not Ted Thompson (from hereafter “TT”) and I do not think the Seahawks will implement the “pure” Green Bay system in Seattle. I say that for a few reasons: (1) John Schneider has said that he will be more aggressive in free agency and has demonstrated that in his time in Seattle, (2) Pete Carroll makes the final decisions anyway, (3) the roster Pete Carroll & John Schneider (from hereafter “PCJS”) took over in 2010 was in worse shape than the roster TT took over in Green Bay in 2005. The 2004 Green Bay Packers that TT inherited won their division at 10-6 and had a quarterback that threw for over 4000 yards and 30 touchdowns."
Part Three: “For this series, I’ve been paying close attention to how Ted Thompson structures his rosters in Green Bay because it’s plausible, maybe probable – based on interviews and a little bit of logic based on his history there, that John Schneider brings big parts of that model here to Seattle.” (ie, not a perfect match)
To say that he seriously neglected John Schneider’s free agency aggressiveness or failed to acknowledge it is a bit of an overstatement (or, just false), considering he did make it a point to bring it up in parts one-three then included an actual quote from JS himself on the stance he has towards FA and getting closer to the In-house model down the road in this piece.
You didn't come off dickish.
I was really asking what word you would choose. So, really, what word would you choose?
I have read the first two. I am aware of what he wrote in the first two. However, Davis doesn’t acknowledge Schneider’s own approach with outsourcing free agents here and marries it into the Green Bay philosophy of emphatic in-house free agency in this part. Maybe that’s to come in the next part, but I think it’s important to resolve the two differing approaches.
While I agree that Schneider may be working towards a similar model of primarily signing free agents in-house with the emphasis on strong drafting, I do not believe that he will discontinue being aggressive in outsourcing free agents. Schneider’s statements on that, and his signings these past couple of offseasons were very telling to me.
Personally, I think the Seahawks are working towards a model more comparable to the Patriots’ model of roster construction, which is basically: Trade down in the draft, draft versatile and and cut ties with overpaid, aging, declining or players who still have trade value before they begin to age and decline and lose trade value, keep their own players that they value, and lastly, emphasize outsourcing higher end talent at bargain prices.
The differences are subtle, but enough to distinguish from Green Bay’s model, because Green Bay doesn’t often outsource higher end talent like the Patriots do (again, at bargain prices). The Seahawks, on the other hand, have.
That said, perhaps Schneider will work his way to the point where it is closer to the Green Bay model, re-signing his players, while his aggressiveness in outsourcing free agents declines considerably.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 5, 2012 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, totally fair assessment of which model they may use, and you could be right.
I don’t know what word I would use, but I guess I just disagree with you in that he fails to acknowledge it because he does in fact acknowledge it, as I pointed about above, several times. You said Schneider’s tendencies have been seriously neglected in comparison and I would maybe say ‘they haven’t been yet fully broken down’.
He hasn’t yet gone IN DEPTH on how Schneider has used this model he’s describing in Seattle, that is true. I do know he has plans to tie things back to the Seahawks and I’m confident that he will attempt to resolve the differences in approach that Ted Thompson has and John Schneider has. I think i just got caught up in the semantics of what you pointed out, and should just note this series is not over. I think Davis will address your concerns.
Fair enough.
By the way, I just want to say that you (and everyone else) have been doing an excellent job writing for this community. Which includes Davis too. His writing is very insightful.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 6, 2012 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
This is still an unknown
The “in house only” template requires having that talent there before you can re-sign them. In order to keep this team competitive the last 2 years a talent infusion was needed but they still only brought in players familiar with their systems. I’d bet that after the next couple drafts when we have an even more complete core that we will see a lot fewer FA signings coming from other teams.
Even if JS stated that he has been more aggressive in FA he has also stated that he is working towards the “in-house” model. We really won’t know how closely he will follow the GB template for at least another year.
by CMoney87 on Jan 4, 2012 1:42 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If JS Bring In many FAs
My money on them is being on the south side of 28 years old.
The free agents that were picked up this last season were all young players off their rookie contracts.
Rice and Miller were both under 26 when signed, along with Alan Branch who just turned 27.
They will probably sign someone, but youth will be served on those moves.
In House is the best way to go, because it simply maximizes your “bang for your buck”
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
That's highly plausible.
However, one thing that Green Bay the advantage of having, is that franchise type of quarterback to build their roster around. Seattle doesn’t have one yet. If your hypothesis is correct, I’d be willing to bet that it is only after that that Schneider fully implements the in-house template if that is what he is indeed working towards.
Until then, based on his dealings in the past, I’m inclined to believe he will be going and continue after players who came from other teams, whether active or inactive players.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
13 players
Just curious name the 13 players on the Seahawks roster they will move on from?
by Southhill Seahawk on Jan 4, 2012 1:30 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
I can guess:
Whitehurst, Forsett, Carlson, Trufant maybe?
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
BMW and Butler will likely see some competition in camp
Brock’s getting old and there are a lot of fringe players in the front 7 (like the backup interior pass-rushers and the ST LBs).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
I also didnt think about it but really you have to let more then 13 go because you have starters that are in IR that are going to take roster spots. We have about 9 players in IR that we’ll bring back. So really you need to release 22 players. Some though decisions
by Southhill Seahawk on Jan 4, 2012 2:54 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
And, right on time, here's an ominous tweet from the Heater:
School taught me to read, but experiences taught me to read between the lines!
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
Think he has been told he won't be back?
Twitter- @GriffinNW
by GriffinNW on Jan 4, 2012 8:34 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Who knows
It could be about football or it could have something to do with his personal life.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
He must've heard the divorce lawyers for men commercials
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 4, 2012 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
Curry had a little freak-out on twitter
around the time he renegotiated his contract or was told he was getting traded. On the other hand, Baldwin tweeted something about how he didn’t like the “business” a few weeks ago and wasn’t because of any roster changes.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 9:41 PM PST up reply actions
Well, that woudn't be "reading between the lines".
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Pete Carroll mentioned Carlson as a re-signing priority.
I believe him, if not only to serve as trade fodder.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 10:48 PM PST up reply actions
Sign-and-trades are pretty rare in the NFL
If we sign JC, I think he’ll stick around for a bit.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't speaking of a sign-n-trade.
I personally am inclined to believe that Carroll sincerely wants him on the team. But if he has to part with him, better to get something in return.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 4, 2012 11:53 PM PST up reply actions
He wants him cause he's a starting-caliber pass-catching TE
Who is also able to block. he’d allow them to move on from cinder block handed McCoy.
Great article as always Davis.
However, as good as this scheme sounds, what are the drawbacks and disadvantages? Will you be making a part on how it is potentially flawed?
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
Disadvantages and flaws
This would seem pretty self evident, but I believe the answer here is that a poor draft will derail your plans far more in this system than in some other systems. The always compete mantra only works if you bring in the talent to cause that competition. Even one year in which the majority of your draft doesn’t pan out means your plan is no longer sustainable.
Being a public owned team my first thought would be along the "too many cooks" school.
Goes to show you they take football seriously in Green Bay.
The "shareholders" don't really have much say in anything
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 4, 2012 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
But they can fleece their fans for hundreds of dollars apiece by offering phony stock with "voting privileges".
What a sham.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
people are more than happy to give that money to the organization to ensure that it can remain financially viable in the modern NFL
football does not build character, it reveals character.
As long as we call it what it is: a "gift".
I assure you, the Green Bay Packers are not on the verge of bankruptcy.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
it's funding a renovation to the stadium
which would you prefer, a stock sale which allows the people who really care to own a piece of the team, have voting rights, and go to the shareholders meeting while funding the stadium upgrade. Or a tax increase that forces everyone in the state/county to fund it, even if they don’t care one bit about the Packers (which is how most teams get new stadiums/improve their current ones) ?
Which of those is more of a sham?
football does not build character, it reveals character.
Ha! Way to work in my name, that was clever. But I didn't say it was a "sham".
My problem is with the phrase “own a piece of the team”. The “stock” sold carries no ownership rights, as I understand it, despite being branded with pretty ink just like stock. It just feels a little dishonest to me, but I do take your point about not passing the costs on to the municipality. If it were the Giants or some other team I wouldn’t care, but it’s because I drink the social-contract kool-aid when it comes to your team that I hold them to such a high standard. And I personally feel that under the social contract, if you take hundreds of dollars from somebody (in this economy especially) you should return something with substantial value in return.
I had this argument with several friends and none of them agreed with me. “If Green Bay wanted to sell cigarette lighters with Packer helmets on them for $400, would that be ok with you too?” I asked them. “Sure, if people are willing to pay it,” was the universal reply. Such is the power of faith in markets: I stop now only because Field Gulls is actually quite strict when it comes to discussion of politics. (Seriously, it’s like Establishment Clause jurisprudence around here…and that’s a good thing.)
I respect the hell out of your team, and I wish other cities could have what you guys have going on, both with the diffuse ownership structure, the relationship of team to community, and the product you put on the field. I bet it’s fun being a fan— enjoy it.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
It boils down to how much value it has to the person buying it
from your point of view, it’s just a piece of paper. From a Packer fan’s point of view it’s much more than that. And like you agreed, it’s better than forcing everyone in the city/county to pay for it.
I honestly didn’t even realize I was working your name in there though, for some reason I thought you called it a sham in your post. I might be lysdexic.
football does not build character, it reveals character.
I'm skeptical about the 13 players turnover number for the Seahawks.
I’ll believe it when I see it consistently. It seems plausible right now with a rebuilding team, but not down the road.
If the GB system is to keep players in-house, it should be that much harder for new players to unseat 2nd-3rd year guys. The only way around this is picking up guys who are perfect for the system (which suggests the system is inflexible, or that the front office is passing up talent) or who are a dramatic talent upgrade (which suggests college talent is getting better every year, or the scouting is just awesome).
Another way to look at it...
is that the talent level coming in is financially cheaper than the talent already on the roster at years 4 to 5 with a negligible drop off in talent level. In some cases, talent is essentially interchangable but at a reduced cost thereby allowing highest level talent to be retained and paid the big money.
What this article highlights is a constant roster churn to maintain costs, talent and player age within a tight band to maintain a young, cheap and talented team that all buys into the system and is all aligned with the goals of the team without anyone explicitly having to state “this is who we are”.
Great series by the way.
I don't know that the costs of those vet depth players is really that much greater than bringing in a bunch of new guys.
Seems that the tiny savings advantage is more than offset by at least a downgrade in execution from a bunch of rookies.
These articles are brilliant analysis, and serious PCJS koolaid
THANK YOU SIR! MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!!
by Crominator56 on Jan 4, 2012 10:25 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I would love to see our roster put into that chart and see how close we are from it
Even better would be the last three years plugged in to see if we can see our roster morphing into that model. By the start of next season it will become really obvious I think.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Couldn't help but notice during the article...
First off, awesome articles! I can’t wait for more! Exclamation points! Rec’d!
We have a mantra at my corporate job of “bar raising” every year, with the concept of essentially replacing our bottom 10% with new hires. That’s right, an exact percentage. It actually doesn’t matter whether or not that makes sense, that’s the quota.
Anyway, I couldn’t help but notice the numbers align very nicely with 13 rookie players down to 5 by Year 4 (a retention of a little more than 70% year over year). I’d love to see if that is the cheap roster altogether, or if they do it more on a position to position basis.
I suppose that's legal in "right to work" WA but still, having a 10% quota seems silly and counterproductive.
Microsoft had a famous adage: “Prune the laggards”. I lagged as much as anyone, but stayed for four years and left on my own terms.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Yeah, I agree that it seems silly and counterproductive...
on the surface. However it’s to make sure managers are actually doing their job by trying to build the best team possible. From that angle I think it makes sense too, although forcing a percentage is a real pain when you don’t have a 10% you want to get rid of, or in worst case scenarios where you can’t afford or won’t be able to replace that person. I have heard of horror stories before.
Anyway, I suspect a similar principle applies here as well although they get the benefit of actually seeing the “new hires” ahead of dropping the vets.
It's completely contrary to concepts of partnership, knowledge sharing and team building.
In my humble opinion. :)
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."



































