Page 1 of 1

TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 6:38 am
by HKPackFan
This was a fun article to go back and review those decisions. I pretty much agreed with all the moves, only TWO were painful for me.

Losing Mike Wahle and Rivera at the same time, it gutted our Oline and we sucked in '06. I agreed with letting Rivera go he was older a bit more beat up and I felt not as good as Wahle. Wahle was only 27, but I think TT was trying to fix our cap after Sherman was GM for too long (can't recall exactly).

The other name that hurt was Cullen Jenkins. Ouch, it hurt to lose him, I think we never replaced him, finally Daniels is starting to make some noise on the Dline. Cullen's departure left a big hole, yet it was a rich contract. Man that for me is the toughest one.

Rest I pretty much agreed with.

http://allgbp.com/2015/05/13/ted-thomps ... anagement/

Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson has told reporters that he doesn’t play moneyball when building and turning over his roster.

Translation: Ted Thompson most definitely plays moneyball.

We all know it because he’s not afraid to let players walk away if the contracts don’t add up to his perceived value to the team. He’d rather replace that production with younger and cheaper players who have their best days in front of them.

Many Packers fans bemoan the loss of productive, yet aging, players in free agency to other teams who had no problem dishing out the large contracts that Thompson simply wouldn’t. Was Thompson simply cheap? Or was he genius in hindsight?

Signing high-priced free agents is a double-edged sword. There’s the old adage that a general manager should do whatever it takes to bring in a player he covets, whether through overpaying with draft picks or with big contracts. However, overpaying a player on the decline can have devastating effects on the salary cap, especially if a player under-performs the contract and is released early, resulting in dead money.

Let’s take a look at some highly notable free agents that Thompson let walk and evaluate if it was a good or bad decision. Hindsight is always fun, isn’t it?

2005 Signing Period

Mike Wahle, Guard.
The Carolina Panthers signed the 27 year old guard for 5 years/$25 million. Back in 2005, that was a pretty large contract for a non-left tackle. Wahle was released after three seasons in a cost-cutting measure amid reports that he wasn’t playing very well.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Wahle was overpaid and he under-performed, and he was unceremoniously shown the door. The Packers did make the NFC Championship Game in 2007, and they didn’t lose because of their guard play.

Marco Rivera, Guard. Similarly to Wahle, Thompson let Rivera walk after the 2004 season for a richer contract elsewhere. Dallas had no problem signing the then-32 year old Rivera to 5 years/$20 million contract. This contract was called one of the worst ever by the Cowboys because Rivera was released after an unspectacular two seasons plagued by chronic back issues.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Rivera was overpaid and he under-performed, and he was unceremoniously shown the door. The Packers did make the NFC Championship Game in 2007, and they didn’t lose because of their guard play.

2007 Signing Period

Ahman Green, Running Back. Despite his fumbles, Green was beloved by Packers fans and became the franchise’s all-time leading rusher. However, Thompson chose to not re-sign the 30 year old running back, which is very old for the position. A desperate Houston had no problem offering him a 4 year/$23 million contract. Green was released after only two seasons, but he was interestingly brought back to Green Bay in another move of desperation.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Despite being paid big money to be the featured back in Houston, Green only managed to rush for 554 yards in two seasons plagued by injuries. In today’s NFL, teams are better off drafting a young running back and getting fresh production that way.

2009 Signing Period

Colin Cole, Defensive Tackle. The Seattle Seahawks gave Cole a 5 year/$21.4 million contract to be an anchor on their defensive line. He lasted only two seasons before being released.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. In his two years in Seattle, he only managed 65 solo tackles and one quarterback sack. Somehow, he’s still in the league. Good for him.

2010 Signing Period

Aaron Kampman, Linebacker/Defensive End. The case of Kampman is different from other players being discussed here because he suffered a severe knee injury during 2009. Also, due the switch from a 4-3 to a 3-4 defense, Kampman moved from his more natural defensive end position to a rush outside linebacker. Jacksonville still had no problem giving the 30 year old Kampman a 4 year/$24 million contract to play a 4-3 defensive end.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Not only was Kampman not a good fit for the 3-4 defense in Green Bay, he only lasted a half of a season in Jacksonville before injuries forced him to retire from the game altogether. In his eight games there, he managed 4 sacks and 16 solo tackles. Even at his native defensive end, he wasn’t effective at all.

2011 Signing Period

Brandon Jackson, Running Back. After helping win a Super Bowl, Thompson decided to not re-sign the part-time running back. Cleveland had no problem giving him a 2 year/$4.5 contract that he never lived up to. In his two years in Cleveland, Jackson was injury plagued and managed only 54 total rushing yards.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Signing running backs to second contracts is risky business in the modern NFL, and Jackson was quickly out of the league.

Daryn Colledge, Guard. Similarly to Jackson, Colledge helped the Packers win a Super Bowl but was not returned the favor with a lucrative contract. He used his Super Bowl success to leverage Arizona into giving him a 5 year/$27.5 million contract. He did go on to have a productive stint in Arizona, but was released from his contract after three seasons. After one season in Miami, he announced his retirement just four years removed from leaving Green Bay for greener pastures.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Yes, Colledge did have a good stretch in Arizona and may have very well lived up to expectations out there, although he was released before he could finish the contract, suggesting he under-performed. Also, in his absence, T.J. Lang was allowed to develop and flourish, and he’s still in the league today while Colledge is at home enjoying his retired life. Had Colledge stuck around, we might not have T.J. currently owning the right guard position this season going forward.

Jason Spitz, Center/Guard. Spitz was a starter for the Packers early in his career before being replaced full-time by Scott Wells during the 2009 season. Jacksonville opened their wallets to this backup in the hopes he’d anchor their line at the tune of 3 years/$5.25 million. He only played one season in Jacksonville and started no games before being lost to injury.

Verdict: Thompson may have been correct. Spitz did nothing for the Jaguars, so they definitely overpaid and got nothing in return. Scott Wells was the next center for the Packers, but he left in 2012 (see below), and they had musical chairs at the center position for the next two seasons. It’s hard to tell if having Spitz around would have given them depth and production during a few turbulent years, even if it meant overpaying for him. Seeing as he couldn’t even win a starting job in Jacksonville, I’m inclined to believe Thompson was right.

Cullen Jenkins, Defensive End. For many fans, this loss still haunts. He was no doubt a key cog in the Super Bowl defense, but Thompson opted to not re-sign the aging defensive end. Philadelphia signed him to 5 years/$25 million. He lasted only two years in Philadelphia, and that is even after he restructured his contract after his first season there. Despite this appearance of massive production by Packers fans, he managed only 9.5 sacks in his two years for the Eagles before being released.

Verdict: Thompson may have been correct. Those 9.5 sacks would have come in handy during 2011-2012, but his overall production didn’t match his contract, which is evidenced by only playing two of the five years on it. He was 30 years old when leaving Green Bay, so he was definitely a player on the decline.

2012 Signing Period

Greg Jennings, Wide Receiver. Jennings was a very productive receiver, and the Vikings signed him to a 5 year/$47.5 million contract to be their number 1 receiver. After two mediocre seasons, he never matched his Green Bay productivity and he was released. In those two seasons, he caught 127 balls for 1546 yards and 10 touchdowns. Those aren’t horrible numbers, but they aren’t worthy of premier wide receiver dollars.

Verdict: Thompson was absolutely correct. Jennings left Green Bay as a screaming brat and then never lived up to the hype. The money saved by not signing Jennings undoubtedly went towards locking up Jordy Nelson and/or Randall Cobb long-term. There’s no way Thompson would carry three receivers on the roster averaging $9-10 million per season, and I think Nelson and Cobb are the better players at this point.

Scott Wells, Center. Wells was a decent center, but never quite spectacular in Green Bay. At age 31, St. Louis lured him away with a 4 year/$24 million contract. That’s rich for a center who wasn’t even the best lineman on the Packers’ roster. Wells lasted three seasons in St. Louis before being released. His play was decent, but certainly not worthy of $6 million a season.

Verdict: Probably a push. Wells would have come in handy during 2012 when the Packers had an unmitigated disaster at the center position. However, as time shows, his best days were behind him and he’s currently looking for a team this off season after a disastrous season where Pro Football Focus (paid site, so no link) rated him as one of the worst centers in the league.

2013 Signing Period

Erik Walden, Linebacker. Despite showing some flash, he also showed complete ineptitude against mobile quarterbacks and zone read attacks. Still, Indianapolis seemed desperate when they offered him a 4 year/$16 million contract. That’s not a huge contract by today’s standards, but when you consider he’s managed only 51 solo tackles and 9 sacks at the premier outside linebacker position, he’s grossly overpaid. He’s still in Indianapolis, but he’ll be fighting for a job during this training camp.

Verdict: Thompson was absolutely correct. Walden is overpaid and under-performs. As bad as Nick Perry seems at times, he’s still better than Walden. He frequently looks out of place and still hasn’t solved the mobile quarterback and zone read attacks.

2014 Signing Period

James Jones, Wide Receiver. Jones was a productive number 2 and 3 receiver while in Green Bay. He had a monster 2012 campaign when he caught 14 touchdowns, but he never managed more than 817 yards in a season. With Nelson and Cobb on the roster, the 30 year old Jones was destined to be the number 3 in Green Bay, but Oakland gave him a chance to be the number 1 or 2 with a 3 year/$10 million contract. After one mediocre year, he was just released by Oakland.

Verdict: Thompson was correct. Jones never lived up to the hype or contract, and he’s currently looking for a new team. Interestingly, Rotoworld posted they wouldn’t be surprised if he never plays a down of football again because he was that bad.

——————

What does this all mean?

Based on the examples above, it means that Ted Thompson is good at reading the tea leaves. He’s good at not overpaying players on the decline or players that will never justify the big contracts that desperate teams will shell out. Almost every example above shows that players Thompson passed on didn’t go on to be superstars or All Pros. They didn’t live out their contracts, which means they didn’t play to the value they were signed to or injuries caught up with them.

Sure, no one can predict injury, but players that spend their careers banged up are often one play away from the the career-ending shot, such as Rivera and Kampman. Thompson likes to invest in young players on the rise and not players breaking down on their decent into middle age.

By letting players walk out of town to larger contracts, he’s able to build a core around young players like Randall Cobb, Mike Daniels, Sam Shields, and many others.

When the contracts above speak for themselves, I think many of you will agree that Thompson made the right calls. Other teams are responsible for all the dead money from these failed deals, and that has helped keep the Packers’ cap clean for years.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 12:36 pm
by crkone
Not to mention the compensatory draft picks the Pack pick up with each signing.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:30 pm
by Newz
GOAT GM.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:55 pm
by zmanishere11
crkone wrote:Not to mention the compensatory draft picks the Pack pick up with each signing.


Notable guys who were comp picks:

Josh Sitton
Marshall Newhouse
Davon House (who will get us a pick next year)
Mike Danies

If you go back a little further:

Scott Wells
Tyrone Williams
Keith Mckenzie
Marco Rivera
Matt Hassellbeck

But then you also have to consider how comp picks have helped with trades up - like with Hundley this year. Real easy to give up picks to move up when you have comp picks.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 3:39 pm
by askdavescat
zmanishere11 wrote:
crkone wrote:Not to mention the compensatory draft picks the Pack pick up with each signing.


Notable guys who were comp picks:

Josh Sitton
Marshall Newhouse
Davon House (who will get us a pick next year)
Mike Danies

If you go back a little further:

Scott Wells
Tyrone Williams
Keith Mckenzie
Marco Rivera
Matt Hassellbeck

But then you also have to consider how comp picks have helped with trades up - like with Hundley this year. Real easy to give up picks to move up when you have comp picks.


Exactly.

If it wasn't for the comp picks, GB wouldn't have Clay Matthews. All the media was shocked the year when Ted traded up for Matthews, but if you looked at the situation, it was easy to see coming. IIRC, GB had three relatively high comp picks, like in the 4th and 5th round. It basically came down to a situation where for every pick Ted traded away to move up, he had a comp pick within the same relative range to make up for it.

Without those comp picks, I don't think there was any chance that Ted would have moved up to pick Matthews.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:03 pm
by humanrefutation
I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions. The performances by players on different teams after they left Green Bay does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't have performed well on our own.

Jennings and Jones are great examples. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to be consistent and valuable performers on in our WR corp had they been re-signed.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:35 pm
by crkone
humanrefutation wrote:I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions. The performances by players on different teams after they left Green Bay does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't have performed well on our own.

Jennings and Jones are great examples. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to be consistent and valuable performers on in our WR corp had they been re-signed.


It would have also lead to deficiencies elsewhere like no Shields, Cobb, Bulaga, Peppers.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 8:22 pm
by msiris
TT job is a lot easier when you have a QB like ARod. Shields was a bad signing, but it doesn't matter.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 9:09 pm
by Iheartfootball
msiris wrote:TT job is a lot easier when you have a QB like ARod. Shields was a bad signing, but it doesn't matter.


Who he picked.

If the Shield's signing was bad but doesn't matter then how was it bad?

You're trolling, right?

Re: Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 1:48 am
by HKPackFan
humanrefutation wrote:I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions. The performances by players on different teams after they left Green Bay does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't have performed well on our own.

Jennings and Jones are great examples. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to be consistent and valuable performers on in our WR corp had they been re-signed.


The question is then are jennings and jones worth the contracts they got WITH the packers. They are consistent and valuable but very well paid no hometown discount.

In order to keep them in GB we would have had to give them the money MN and OAK threw at them.

That's where i say no. They are not worth that much. And we have to now cut elsewhere on the roster with 2 overpaid WRs and we have to let jordy or cobb go coz not all 4 wrs can be highly paid.

Most of the FAs on the list would be productive if they stayed. ....the real question is...are they worth the big contract other teams are throwing at them.

Often the answer is no, the numbers dont add up.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 2:33 am
by eagle13
good article. add to that the performance of guys he did sign from other teams - this list is far from complete - starts with performance grade

D- Klemm - signed cheap to replace LG Walhe - he was the 2nd worst G in football for one year then was cut
F McDyer - signed cheap to replace RG Rivera - he was the worst G in football and didn't finish his 1st season w/ Pack
F Safety - cannot recall his name but he was cheap and sucked and was cut.
A+ Woodson - HOF - good deal for fairly sizeable dolars
B Pickett - super steady starter - bargain
B- LB - cannot recall his name but he was decent and played w/ us for 3 yrs - fair deal as he played out his contract
F Center - Indy guy signed cheap to replace Wells - sucked - lost starter job b4 season ended was cut
A Peppers - HOF
B+ Guion - very good starter - a steal at nearly minimum

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sat May 16, 2015 5:16 am
by El Duderino
Ted is a good GM, but i don't see the Moneyball comparison.

Billy Beane does what he does because of financial limitations due to small market economics in baseball. Ted doesn't face any financial limitations. In fact, not only is there much higher levels of revenue sharing in football, the Packers overall financial situation is one of the best in the league.

Plus, what Moneyball was all about is Beane using analytics to find market inefficiencies at a time in baseball when a lot of other teams were either ignoring the more advanced analytics or were only using them to a lesser degree. This helped allow Beane to regularly field quality teams on payrolls at a fraction of the larger market teams.

The NFL has shown to me that there just isn't any one philosophy which a team/GM has to follow to become a good team and remain a good team outside of the obvious of needing a quality QB to be a consistent winner.

Ted rarely ever uses trades and free agency in building his rosters. It works for him.

Belichick is the complete opposite, much more like say Ron Wolf. Belichick consistently uses trades and free agency to add veterans to his rosters.

Seattle also used trades/free agency much more than Ted in building these last two very good teams.

Baltimore under Newsome has been more like the Packers, but he has used free agency more than Ted.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head, but it shows there are a variety of ways to remain a quality team for an extended stretch so long as you also have a QB. More than some sort of set philosophy, a GM mainly just has to be smart and a good overall judge of talent in how players fit your schemes given money and/or market size doesn't matter much in the NFL.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 11:34 am
by msiris
Iheartfootball wrote:
msiris wrote:TT job is a lot easier when you have a QB like ARod. Shields was a bad signing, but it doesn't matter.


Who he picked.

If the Shield's signing was bad but doesn't matter then how was it bad?

You're trolling, right?
No matter what Green Bay will always be competitive with ARod. When he got hurt we were not that good. With the way TT does things just means less superbowls. NE last year signed a couple big name FAs just for a one year run and it worked.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 1:38 pm
by chuckleslove
msiris wrote:
Iheartfootball wrote:
msiris wrote:TT job is a lot easier when you have a QB like ARod. Shields was a bad signing, but it doesn't matter.


Who he picked.

If the Shield's signing was bad but doesn't matter then how was it bad?

You're trolling, right?
No matter what Green Bay will always be competitive with ARod. When he got hurt we were not that good. With the way TT does things just means less superbowls. NE last year signed a couple big name FAs just for a one year run and it worked.



Yet before that year they hadn't won one since 2004 with that same approach. Since TT took over as GM we have the exact same number of Super Bowls as New England. The only teams with more Super Bowls since Ted took over as GM are Pittsburgh and the Giants who have each won 2. Your data set is not large enough to draw the conclusion you have made.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 5:16 pm
by midranger
TT's problem isn't letting guys walk at the correct time, it has too often been replacing them with reasonable players (outside of the WRs, of course [and CBs to a slightly lesser extent]) during a time when we've had a window every year due to Rodgers' dominance. We've had glaring weaknesses at OL, DL, ILB, OLB, S, RB, TE, and backup QB at different times the past few years that seemingly were not filled. Would some of those guys above have helped? Maybe. Maybe not.

I tend to think we probably win the Superbowl the 15-1 season had we kept Cullen Jenkins around, but there's obviously no way to know that.

I have a VERY good feeling about next year though.

EDIT: I realize not every unit can be a strength. No need to mention that. I'm talking about true black hole positions like S a couple years ago, ILB the past couple, back up QB when we brought Young in on the eve of the season, or C in the Saturaday year.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:12 pm
by trwi7
I agree for the most part mid but I can't believe people still bring up backup QB. Backup QB's for the most part are ****. The team is screwed if Rodgers gets hurt just like the Pats are screwed now for 4 games with Garroppolo or whatever his name is will be starting at QB. Just like the Colts were screwed when Manning got hurt which led them to Luck. Just like the Cardinals were screwed last year when Palmer got hurt.

QB isn't like other positions where a guy could be a starter somewhere else but he's just blocked by other good players. If you're a good starting QB, you're starting somewhere. Everyone else is just a backup and if your starter gets hurt, your team is ****.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 4:09 pm
by humanrefutation
trwi7 wrote:I agree for the most part mid but I can't believe people still bring up backup QB. Backup QB's for the most part are ****. The team is screwed if Rodgers gets hurt just like the Pats are screwed now for 4 games with Garroppolo or whatever his name is will be starting at QB. Just like the Colts were screwed when Manning got hurt which led them to Luck. Just like the Cardinals were screwed last year when Palmer got hurt.

QB isn't like other positions where a guy could be a starter somewhere else but he's just blocked by other good players. If you're a good starting QB, you're starting somewhere. Everyone else is just a backup and if your starter gets hurt, your team is ****.


Well, I don't think NE is going 0-4 with Garoppolo, and they managed an 11-5 season with Matt Cassel. The Cards made the playoffs with **** at QB for 3/4ths of the season. The Packers made the playoffs with Flynn/Tolzien/Wallace at QB for 8 games.

That doesn't even mention the relatively recent examples of Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, and Tom Brady, backups who won Super Bowls after replacing injured or ineffective starters.

That all happened, in part, because they all have good teams around them, and in part, because the QB didn't completely destroy them. So, it does matter who the backup is. Of course, you're not going to get the same from a backup as you will from Rodgers, but if you need someone to hold the season together for a few games if/when Aaron gets banged up, it makes a huge difference whether you have a competent guy on the bench.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Mon May 18, 2015 9:30 pm
by trwi7
The only one that works is Cassel to me. The Cards went 6-0 with Palmer starting and 5-5 with the **** show they had while averaging only 15.5 points per game. 5-6 if you include the playoffs. We went 2-5-1 with Flynn and Tolzien when Rodgers was out and 6-2 with Rodgers. The only reason we made the playoffs that year is because the Bears and especially the Lions choked.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 6:53 pm
by SpursNBucks
humanrefutation wrote:I don't know if I agree with all of your conclusions. The performances by players on different teams after they left Green Bay does not necessarily mean that they wouldn't have performed well on our own.

Jennings and Jones are great examples. I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't have continued to be consistent and valuable performers on in our WR corp had they been re-signed.


I disagree with keeping those two based on two things - first their age. Unlike Cobb who is still young they were nearing 30. Jennings was not worth what Vikes paid, and Jones was easily replaced (and upgraded IMO) with a young Adams.

Re: TT Using Money Ball Approach to Own FAs

Posted: Sat May 30, 2015 7:42 pm
by SpursNBucks
midranger wrote:TT's problem isn't letting guys walk at the correct time, it has too often been replacing them with reasonable players (outside of the WRs, of course [and CBs to a slightly lesser extent]) during a time when we've had a window every year due to Rodgers' dominance. We've had glaring weaknesses at OL, DL, ILB, OLB, S, RB, TE, and backup QB at different times the past few years that seemingly were not filled. Would some of those guys above have helped? Maybe. Maybe not.

I tend to think we probably win the Superbowl the 15-1 season had we kept Cullen Jenkins around, but there's obviously no way to know that.

I have a VERY good feeling about next year though.

EDIT: I realize not every unit can be a strength. No need to mention that. I'm talking about true black hole positions like S a couple years ago, ILB the past couple, back up QB when we brought Young in on the eve of the season, or C in the Saturday year.


I strongly agree with this, in fact I have stated pretty much same thing before with little agreement from the board. Every year the Rodgers window gets a little smaller. I'm not talking go "all-in", but don't try to get everything in the Draft. The few times they have gone to free agency it has worked amazingly - Woodson, Pickett, and Peppers. Past front office people have talked about how trades and FA ideas were sacked by TT. Schneider and TT couldn't be more different GMs. Schneider had less to work with (only 2 players remain from what he inherited in 2010) then TT did when he arrived in GB, yet has a better track record. I think TT is an excellent GM, but there is room for improvement.

I think he should have added Moss-look what he ended up doing with Pats. I think they should have traded for Lynch - instead used the pick to take Alex Green. Ted wears the "I build through the draft" thing to a fault. Would be nice to see him use FA a little more. Even if it's just upgrading one or two positions each year.

BTW Scheider did it again trading for Graham. The Seahawks gave up Max Unger-29 year old C (2k9 2nd round)- coming off an injury last year. Saints used Pick #31 on Stephone Anthony LB. Seahawks also received a 4th back - used on a Guard.