Spending Big In Free Agency?

[Fullrock]

Good read from Peter King on how spending big in free agency is often fools gold and doesn't work out.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/03/18/odell-beckham-trade-browns-nfl-free-agency-fmia-peter-king/#free-agency-fools-gold

[*ochocincos*]

The Patriots should be the model. They don't get a bunch of high profile FAs, but they get 1-2 really good players and fill the rest of the spots with rotational guys. The Bengals have typically followed the latter part of this strategy, not so much the former.

[HarleyDog]

Exactly why many of us did not get too excited.

[fredtoast]

I have not read the article yet, but teams pay to keep their best players. The guys that hit free agency are very rarely the cream of the crop. And they often get paid based on the number of guys available at their position instead of how good they really are.

[sandwedge]

(03-19-2019, 10:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have not read the article yet, but teams pay to keep their best players.  The guys that hit free agency are very rarely the cream of the crop.  And they often get paid based on the number of guys available at their position instead of how good they really are.

Reps!

[*bengalfan74*]

It's very true that teams, and there's been several through the years, that have tried to buy teams spending giant money in free agency and failed.

But it's also just as true that teams through the years have benefited greatly from a couple smart free agent pick ups. The key is knowing who, when, and where to plug them in.

It's also true that the Bengals have swung and missed on bottom of the barrel free agents as well. The best philosophy is probably somewhere in the middle.

[XenoMorph]

(03-19-2019, 09:58 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The Patriots should be the model. They don't get a bunch of high profile FAs, but they get 1-2 really good players and fill the rest of the spots with rotational guys. The Bengals have typically followed the latter part of this strategy, not so much the former.

difference is Patriots can get those Vets on a discount cause they are going to NE to get that ring.

[BengalChris]

(03-19-2019, 09:58 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The Patriots should be the model. They don't get a bunch of high profile FAs, but they get 1-2 really good players and fill the rest of the spots with rotational guys. The Bengals have typically followed the latter part of this strategy, not so much the former.

Yep, NE went out and got Trent Brown for a 5th round pick. Bengals signed Giant's reject Hart. Trent Brown played great and now NE will get a 3rd round comp pick for him next season. Hart played poorly at best and Bengals re-sign him for $21M. LOL

Good decisions in the off season versus bad decisions in the off season. One wins, one doesn't.

 

[THE PISTONS]

We can look at teams that spend a lot in free agency vs teams that don't. But one thing is clear, whatever model we follow has not yielded a single playoff win in 27+ years.

[Fullrock]

(03-19-2019, 02:29 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: We can look at teams that spend a lot in free agency vs teams that don't. But one thing is clear, whatever model we follow has not yielded a single playoff win in 27+ years.

I think that model is called Brown family ownership. 

[GodFather]

(03-19-2019, 09:58 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The Patriots should be the model. They don't get a bunch of high profile FAs, but they get 1-2 really good players and fill the rest of the spots with rotational guys. The Bengals have typically followed the latter part of this strategy, not so much the former.

Other teams also don't have Bill B. Big difference there and make the Patriots anomaly from the rest of the NFL teams.

[NKURyan]

(03-19-2019, 02:28 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Yep, NE went out and got Trent Brown for a 5th round pick. Bengals signed Giant's reject Hart. Trent Brown played great and now NE will get a 3rd round comp pick for him next season. Hart played poorly at best and Bengals re-sign him for $21M. LOL

Good decisions in the off season versus bad decisions in the off season. One wins, one doesn't.

 

Breaking news: good players may prefer playing for good teams.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2019, 03:47 PM)Fullrock Wrote: I think that model is called Brown family ownership. 

Agree.  Not so much the model as the execution.

[BengalChris]

(03-19-2019, 03:59 PM)NKURyan Wrote: Breaking news: good players may prefer playing for good teams.

Exactly! Which is why I've been saying players want a premium to come to or stay in Cincinnati this year.

 

[Shake n Blake]

Without even reading it, I'm going to guess he uses the classic argument of showing all the bad teams that use free agency. The problem with that logic, is that bad teams typically have more money to spend on free agents...because they don't have good players of their own to extend. So it's not that free agency makes teams bad...it's that bad teams have more $$$ to spend, so they're more likely to use it.

Also, you're not going to fix a bad 53 man roster or bad coaching overnight just because you added 2-3 free agents. Big splashes have the biggest impact on teams that (a) have a big need that is holding them back from the playoffs or (b) playoff teams that need to get over the hump.

Unfortunately, most playoff-caliber teams typically don't have a ton of space to make big splashes like that, so it's a very strategic thing. Our team would be smart to look at how the Rams, Eagles and Patriots have used free agency in recent years, and emulate that.

TL/DR: Free agency gets a bad rap because bad teams typically have more money to spend, and free agency isn't a cure-all.

[McC]

(03-19-2019, 07:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agree.  Not so much the model as the execution.

The word execution so often reminds me of John McKay, coaching Tampa By, in 1976.  He was asked what he thought of his team's execution and replied, "I'm in favor of it."  Never fails to make me chuckle.  IMO, it's right up there with don't call me Shirley.

Sorry for the interlude.  As you were.

[McC]

(03-19-2019, 10:21 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Without even reading it, I'm going to guess he uses the classic argument of showing all the bad teams that use free agency. The problem with that logic, is that bad teams typically have more money to spend on free agents...because they don't have good players of their own to extend. So it's not that free agency makes teams bad...it's that bad teams have more $$$ to spend, so they're more likely to use it.

Also, you're not going to fix a bad 53 man roster or bad coaching overnight just because you added 2-3 free agents. Big splashes have the biggest impact on teams that (a) have a big need that is holding them back from the playoffs or (b) playoff teams that need to get over the hump.

Unfortunately, most playoff-caliber teams typically don't have a ton of space to make big splashes like that, so it's a very strategic thing. Our team would be smart to look at how the Rams, Eagles and Patriots have used free agency in recent years, and emulate that.

TL/DR: Free agency gets a bad rap because bad teams typically have more money to spend, and free agency isn't a cure-all.

Rams, Eagles and Patriots have also used trades very well too.

[Shake n Blake]

(03-19-2019, 10:29 PM)McC Wrote: Rams, Eagles and Patriots have also used trades very well too.

That too. They just seem so busy compared to the Bengals.

[XenoMorph]

(03-19-2019, 10:29 PM)McC Wrote: Rams, Eagles and Patriots have also used trades very well too.

they are also losing guys of playing caliber faster than we are.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-20-2019, 10:01 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: they are also losing guys of playing caliber faster than we are.

So? They all made or won a Super Bowl in the past two years. Still better than the Bengals' approach.