I always appreciate your insight Andrew, especially being a Packers fan and hearing some behind the scenes things that went on when you were there.
I was just curious regarding the Woodson signing, which I agree has worked out perfectly from a free agency perspective. Did you and the other Packer management take a gamble with that signing or was there something that stood out about him that made people very firm in their convictions that he would pan out well. If so, what was it? There seemed to be a lot of question marks about him at the time, so it certainly didn't seem like a slam dunk that he would come in and play as well as he did.
That said, Oakland seems like a place where even the best of players go and their play declines. Perhaps that should be an NFL strategy. Just sign Oakland free agents knowing that their performance is certain to go up.
Great post as always Andrew. As a Packer i am pleased to hear you mention Charles Woodson who has been fenomenal. Also Brandon Chillar will have more time to show his value now and i think he was a good addition especially since we didn´t overpay for him (i think). Many people criticize T Thompson, but with your stats about free agents success rate he might be doing the best thing in building by the draft and pay our own prospects.
Cheers!
Yes, Charles has worked out well. That was certainly a tough sell, as he had reservations about coming to Green Bay and we were coming off a 4-12 season and had no decision yet from Brett Favre. He was on the market a while, however, and we probably would not have rushed out of the gate to sign him. When he was sitting there after a couple of weeks of free agency, though, we made our move.
Andrew
I agree for the most part, but there have been other times over the past couple of years where free agency has made a significant difference, namely in the AFC East. Few would argue that Randy Moss was a poor signing last year for the Patriots, and I as a Jets fan am quite happy with Kris Jenkins, Calvin Pace, and Alan Faneca. And I don't know how I feel about Brett Favre (especially compared with the potential performance of Chad Pennington had he remained, considering his performance in Miami this season), but I cannot argue with the fact that he has energized the franchise. Either way, it's got its pluses and minuses, and the Jets are going to have some issues after this year seeing as so many key positions are so old, but for now there's been some success.
Well, either way, there's no substitute for having coaches that can teach and improve their players, whatever their age.
Kevin:
Your logic is flawed. The Patriots and Jets traded for Moss and Favre respectively.
Kevin,
Few would argue that Randy Moss was a Free Agent, he was acquired via trade. As was Favre and Jenkins.
But I won't argue with you, it's your team.
I think Kevin is lumping free agency and trades together because of their similarities. Trades are even riskier because you are giving up picks (for the most part) which could be used to build in the future. So trades can be a double whammy - give up a first day pick for a guy who doesn't produce.
Yes, there are going to be some successes. And Randy Moss was essentially a free agent, as the chance of Oakland keeping him at 9.75M that year was nonexistent. Overall, it has not proven to be a cost-effective way to improve one's player product.
Andrew
Thanks as usual for the good article.
I agree to a certain extent, but there's always home runs, too.
8 of the first 15 signed lead, or were a part of leading their teams to the SB.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80852164
Thanks for the link. These are a few of the good ones over 15 years, but they are a distinct minority..
Andrew
| powered by TheSeats.com |
Looking back on an unconventional,...
Andrew and Sid discuss Ricky Williams,...
Also, Gruden’s extension, Adams’...
Andrew Brandt and Sid Rosenberg...
Still looming: How many will lose...
Nov 20, 2008
11:53 AM
Great read Andrew. Good teams are built through the draft not free agency. The Raiders are active in free agency year after year because of their poor drafts. Unfortunately, they haven't made very good decisions with free agents either which leaves them in their current state.......a team whose overall talent level is quite poor. Clearly, their personnel department is in need of an overhaul. Do you have any insight as to what the Raiders personnel structure is? How does it compare to other teams in terms of number of people and decision rights?