My last thread on this did not generate the discussion I was looking for. To revisit the premise I was evaluating, Joe Schoen, indicated that they were going to be looking at the roster and upcoming contracts according to position value, and I was wondering what position values would look like (as in dollar value). Most responses were in the form of tiers and not dollars. I went looking for more of a formula, and after looking at a few articles (by the way there is not a lot of material out there on this) I settled on a formula for a value range at position using the average of the top ten salaries by position. I then separated out value across the board for 4 years of rookie/minimum salary players (figuring 8 players x 4 equaling 32 players); thus the value ranges below are for the top 19 players on the team broken out by position.
QB $40,000,000 - $32,538,000
OL $39,600,000 - $32,000,000
WR $23,000,000 - $18,709,000
ER $22,000,000 - $17,896,000
DT $18,100,000 - $14,724,000
CB $17,300,000 - $14,073,000
S $14,400.000 - $11,714,000
TE $12,600,000 - $10,250,000
RB $12,300,000 - $10,005,000
LB $12,000,000 - $ 9,761,000
ST $10,629,000 - $ 8,646,000
Some Notes:
OL and ST represents multiple players - OL 2 max salaries - ST 4 max salaries K/P/LS/FB.
Obviously if you pay a player at the level of the first column or above, you have to subtract that from other positions somewhere; and conversely if you pay lower than the second column you have more dollars to use in other categories. Baring feedback from some of you cap/salary experts, I have developed a comfort level with these as target ranges for positions.
When viewing Leonard Williams Salary Cap number, if you look at ER/DT combined, with the rest of the staff on rookie or minimum salary, it falls into line. Obviously if you pay Lawrence, this will create an imbalance, unless you renegotiate/reallocate William’s cap number.
Also in delving into this, Golladay must be cut in order to rebalance the WR position value to account for new talent in that area.
I'd love to hear feedback and may adjust some of these numbers presumptions based on what you guys contribute. This chart is a first attempt so it is not static. Just trying to view how the FO is examining this as they assign position values through this weekend.
Can you please re-explain what column 2 is? Some representation of a salary floor? Is this for rookies and or vets? Is it the cost for 4 years of a single player or the entire position group? What does 2 of 5 OL mean? Does it depend on what round players are drafted?
I love your posts and appreciate the work you put in to your analysis but maybe I just need a remedial class in column 2. Thanks in advance.
Also the original Chart I started with broke out LT, RT, G and C - I thought it skewed the numbers to have the average max salaries for all 4, so I made it two positions at max average salary (average of the top 10 at the position).
Special Teams I just lumped the positions all together - because individually they also seemed to screw the numbers
OK, but no team has top players at every position, right? So how you will allocate your resources will depend on your specific players, or players you might be making an offer to. Your numbers might by guides as to how much to offer a player at different positions, but I can't see using it to allocate resources overall among positions. I don't thik there is a formula for that.
And the idea that because the Giants will have a bunch of dead money on Golladay, dshould mean they should stint the WR position in the name of some ideal balance seems looney to me. That is water under the bridge, and if they want a good veteral WR, they'll have to allocate resources. And whether to draft, say an ILB and go for a veteran WR or vice versa surely should depend on the players they can get rather than the fact that they wildly overpaid the underperforming Golladay and are paying minimal salaries to their underperforming ILB.
I apologize but still don't understand. What do you mean you took an equal percentage? What does 32 other players represent? Maybe give an example, walk us through a calculation or two?
Never mind. I see you’re talking about total value for the position group as an entity within the team.
Everyone seems to focus on winning with a QB on a rookie deal. Wouldnt it makes sense to apply the same philosophy to WRs? Why pay $20 mil to vets when there are more and more solid ones coming out of college every year. Much easier to find than QBs, OL or even edge rushers.
Quote:
Huge difference (per OTC) between top ten at LT vs other spots on OL. I think that has to be factored.
Never mind. I see you’re talking about total value for the position group as an entity within the team.
I think it's for 2 OL not entire position group.
And I believe ST is for all 4 positions?
I have to think about this - but in that chart above $39 million is the entire oline
yes you are probably right about this
3 QBS, 10 OL, 6 WRS, 3 RBS, 3 TES. Does it make more sense to first look at how much you allocate to the entire group, then allocate by starters and backups?
That would be 25 of your 53 man roster, so allocate roughly 47% of the total cap (less dead money) to offense and go from there. Then, prioritize how many starter level players you want or need and are worth paying more for. Is it more important to have better more expensive sixth or seventh OL or 3rd or 4th WR?
you said a mouthful there MOOPs -- I've been wrestling with this for days now and while I think I'm closer to the baseline then when I started, there is no real slam dunk m=numbers here. At best all I think I can get is conceptual approximations - but folks above have been poking at flaws in the calculations really easily
Is it not easier to just talk about what Leonard Williams deal is and what is more comparable $ for his positional value?
Golladay has no value going forward on the field therefore that one is easy.
Are there other players are you trying to fit within this modeled concept?
Agreed. Maybe he meant simply to use premium draft picks at the expensive positions, WR, CB and Edge to minimize expensive free agent signings at those positions. And use any free agency $ to sign better players at less expensive positions like ILB, IOL or TE?
In his presser he also emphasized his preference for resigning his own free agents who have proven themselves in our system, and are known commodities in terms of smart, tough and dependable, and locker room leaders.
I trust Joe and Brian will make the right choices. I am more curious to see what they will do than having a strong opinion as to what thry should do.
Not apples to apples but you might be able to see how much each position takes up percentage wise of the salary cap.
Quote:
I just take it to mean using assets on impact positions, more akin to the tiers that we’re talked about in your earlier thread. Yes, it’s good to know how much to budget for a given segment, but that varies with rookie contract investments,etc.
Agreed. Maybe he meant simply to use premium draft picks at the expensive positions, WR, CB and Edge to minimize expensive free agent signings at those positions. And use any free agency $ to sign better players at less expensive positions like ILB, IOL or TE?
In his presser he also emphasized his preference for resigning his own free agents who have proven themselves in our system, and are known commodities in terms of smart, tough and dependable, and locker room leaders.
I trust Joe and Brian will make the right choices. I am more curious to see what they will do than having a strong opinion as to what thry should do.
You brought up 2 good points. Try and draft high at the spots that have the biggest 2nd contracts that are also needs. WR, Pass Rush, OT (already have the OTs unless they plan on moving Neal inside), QB (already have the QB) maybe CB. Also resigning our own core guys that have proven themselves for continuity for the team.
Since they don't even have one WR right now making substantial money pending the cutting of Golladay, I could see them bringing in a WR1 for bma decent sized contract too. The vet ILB could also be a lower number in FA so they may go that route as well.