rooting for Goliath

Still, they've had more to cheer about than the fans of 27 or 28 other teams in recent years. That's the success I was referring to.

Yeah, but dude get real. The Skins won a Super Bowl in 1991, and then in 1993 suffered one of the worst seasons in team history. Nobody in DC was saying "oh it's OK, we've had plenty to cheer about over the years." It doesn't work that way, you always want to win more. And the Eagles haven't even won one yet.

It's this last sentence that is the key here. The 1.1x and 0.9x makes the assumption that x = the salary cap limit. You're applying a salary constraint to a team that always has capacity, the Eagles don't ever take it up to that limit.

When ample salary capacity exists in your structure, there is no reason why you shouldn't go get the best player possible. Cost should not be an issue for you, you're not up against the cap constraint. So for the Eagles, whether Hutchinson is a bargain or not should not be an issue.

If we're talking about a team up against the salary cap, then player value relative to price has to enter the equation. But money should not be an object in this situation, yet the Eagles refuse to spend it, and it's easy to see why that would be frustrating.

I can understand the fans' frustration.

The best strategy for a team is to spend the payroll limit, but to spend it wisely...on players who might be worth more than their market value.

I have to say this is a sstupid thread. The Yankies do not have a cap so they can just spend and spend on any player they want. Yes we do go after alot of players in FA but its not that we go after them that makes the Skins look bad. Its the fact that we don't win with all the money and movement we do. When we win the SB people will start saying that our moves are paying off unlike the past and I think the will admire us more for making the moves. The cap gives the impression that every team has a level playing field so the Yankie thing just does not apply.

Still, they've had more to cheer about than the fans of 27 or 28 other teams in recent years. That's the success I was referring to.

I understand that, but the point of my post was to respond to your comment that: "With the on-field success the Eagles have enjoyed in recent years, their fans have no reason to be unhappy." I think, in fact, they do have a very good reason to be unhappy......and that is: they keep coming up just short of a championship, all the while not utilizing millions upon millions of dollars in available cap room. I would argue that in some respects (at least with regard to their owner and front office), they have more to complain about than us Skins fans.

I understand that, but the point of my post was to respond to your comment that: "With the on-field success the Eagles have enjoyed in recent years, their fans have no reason to be unhappy." I think, in fact, they do have a very good reason to be unhappy......and that is: they keep coming up just short of a championship, all the while not utilizing millions upon millions of dollars in available cap room. I would argue that in some respects (at least with regard to their owner and front office), they have more to complain about than us Skins fans.

Well, I was responding to your opening: "What success?"...as though there were none. So, we're talking past each other here.

Snyder, in the past, has been willing but not able to buy us a Super Bowl. The Philly organization has been able but not willing.

Well, I was responding to your opening: "What success?"...as though there were none. So, we're talking past each other here.

Snyder, in the past, has been willing but not able to buy us a Super Bowl. The Philly organization has been able but not willing.

I guess it depends our definition of "success" then, because to me if your goal is a championship and you fail to reach that goal, you haven't succeeded. In any event, I don't think we actually disagree on anything substantive here.

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4, and leaving 25mill unspent means you start at 0.75 instead of 1.00.

I think if the skins won a SB, they'd get slurped just like every other SB winner and danny would become a good owner (magically) and a lot of the bashing would turn into "that's just how he works" stuff. Winning fixes everything.

That Guy

you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4,

I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted

...and leaving 25mill unspent means you start at 0.75 instead of 1.00.

I said this: "The best strategy for a team is to spend the payroll limit, but to spend it wisely...on players who might be worth more than their market value."

I think that covers your point but in a different way.

Incidentally, I think this "bargain strategy" applies to the draft as well. One study I saw concluded that the best values in the draft happen between picks 25 to 75. I didn't look at their data but I can understand logically why their conclusion might be valid.

Quote:
you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4,

I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted

please point it out. I see you said its important to spend to the limit after someone else brought it up, but i definately didn't see anything about how talent at starting positions are more important even if it rubs against the price/performance thing a bit.


Incidentally, I think this "bargain strategy" applies to the draft as well. One study I saw concluded that the best values in the draft happen between picks 25 to 75. I didn't look at their data but I can understand logically why their conclusion might be valid.

if leinhart or bush bust, you're out at least 20million. if pick #30 busts,
you're out less than 5$mill. Starting LBs, RBs, #2/possible #1 CBs, OGs, Cs, FS/SSs, FBs, Ks, Ps, TEs, DTs can all be found easily in the 2nd round.

starting/#1 WRs, QBs, DEs, OTs (especially LTs), solid #1 CBs and stars at other positions are what can't be easily found outside round 1. These positions also tend to earn the most money. sometimes you get lucky and pull a QB in the 6th that turns into a HoF player, but its not that likely.