I’m very excited about this.

First, everyone rec this.

Now, here are my attempts to “tear apart” what you said “in a friendly way”.

1. Bad contracts don’t have to linger with a team. If you cut someone, his signing bonus money accelerates into the cap the year you cut him. This is money you already paid him (at the time of signing the deal), so you have to account for it at some point in time, it just happens sooner after the cut. If you take the June 1 rule in to account, you can cut a guy after June 1 and spread that cap hit over 2 years.

Non-signing bonus money/money NOT already paid does not count against the cap after the player is cut. A player’s “base salary” is money you have not yet paid him (and will not pay him after cutting him), so you do not have to account for that on the cap. This is an immediate cap savings.

That said, consistently signing players to bad contracts, and then NOT cutting them can cripple a team cap-wise. The Raiders actually made a smart move by cutting Wilson, as he is probably no longer on their cap. If you sign a player that is too good to cut, but you sign him to a bad contract, that’s a problem. I don’t see it being the case that this is the limiting factor for consistently bad teams, though, and I am not sure if it is possible at all.

Who are the players that the Lions have who are too good to cut? Megatron and…Julian Peterson? Couldn’t you honestly cut just about any other player and expect to replace his production (or exceed it) within 2 years via the draft or FA? I don’t think they could potentially overpay Calvin right now, and even if they could, Calvin’s contract would not be the limiting factor in the development of the Lions.

Similarly, I don’t think we could overpay Joe Thomas right now. Even if we signed him to a “bad” contract, the cap room that Corey Williams and Donte Stallworth are eating up would still trump Thomas’ enormous contract as wasted cap space. The fact that guys like Williams and Stallworth are eating up our cap room isn’t killing us right now (we would cut them if it were), our lack of talent is. We will have the room to sign our #7 pick. We have the room to sign good FAs.

Sure, the Raiders have been handing out awful contracts for years, but the fact that they have still had the room to throw record-breaking money at people year after year and to consistently sign their top-10 picks says something. They still have the cap room to do that. The problem is that the guys they put on the roster suck.

2. The Colts do count. I actually think they have designed their team very well, considering their position. Of course their strategy will not work for anyone else because no one else has Peyton Manning. That said, their team design is incredibly intelligent. They know they have one of the best QBs of all time, and they are building the team around him:
Sacrifice size/strength for agility and pass protection on the line. Find backs who can contribute in the passing game. Find a way to run with those backs and that line. Get a TE who can help in that running game and who is also a great receiver. Put the pressure on other teams to score by scoring yourself, and have your defense be built around defending teams who are trying to catch up.

Not many other teams can follow that specific plan, but I think there are conceptual lessons to be learned from the Colts.

3. I really don’t understand what you are saying about coaching. My own personal philosophy has been that it can completely destroy a team’s hope, but can’t really increase it’s “upside”. A bad coach doesn’t motivate his players, can’t inspire them, and can limit their success. A good coach can put players in good position to win, but can’t win anything for his team. A coach won’t be able to turn 53 failures into super bowl contenders, but he will get his players to reach their potential, which often means getting a lot more production than we’d expect.

I look forward to this.

As far as the Colts go, I think Manning is probably the best QB of the last 10 years but as of tonight has only been able to give the Colts one Super Bowl, and the Colts have been so good year in and year out that the only way to measure and judge their success is through Super Bowls. The only problem I see with the way the Colts have done things is that if he goes down, there is no one on this earth who can take his place, and that’s, even with his healthiness, is a huge risk that they take every Sunday of every year.

Also I’m taking the Saints on Sunday.

It was eating at me. Every year a handful of teams can be counted on as being in the playoff race. Colts, Pats,Steelers, Eagles and Ravens. e

What I think these teams have is a consistent organization philosophy that does not include sucking (see Lions, Millen). These teams have found what works for them and they start every season (Feb.) assessing what they can do better their team within in their established framework and seek out what little tweaks they can make to their teams to maintain their competitive advantage.

My examples would be the way that the Colts are able to shuffle through WRs and RBs and still remain successful and how the Steelers and Ravens know their bread and butter is in defense and mistake free offense (although i think the steelers forgot this this year, which led to their poor showing, coupled with the fact that we exposed them to be soft!).

The Eagles I think are on the verge of actually doing more than just making the playoffs and losing because of their talented young receivers and they too have a consistent philosophy. The only problem i see with the Eagles is that they seem to tilted towards trying to outpass and outscore other teams.

HAHA Good ol’ GB Wilson. He used to ride with me to football practice. But that stopped after I blew my ACL and MCL.

I like the nature of your post, your trying to have fun with a difficult concept.
And I see that you may have some seniority for being on this site for years.
We all have our theories of how we could improve the franchise.
Your points make sense to a degree, but I would argue that it is difficult to coach down a great athlete. I think they make way too much allowance for coaching and game planning to being the culprit for bad performance. While I do realize that a defensive player that is out of position due to schematics, and that a receiver that can´t modify his routes is predictable, it is hard to make great players look bad.
Bad contracts, while pertinent, are also not an excuse for bad drafting, signing and performance, when confronted with badness I have no moral excuse to add more badness, that´s the low road. And while it can be frustrating individually when players compare their salaries, this is not the player´s problem. You are right, the organization and the coaches have to give it their damndest, so the players can concentrate on playing.
Luck seeks fertile ground. You have to try to make your own luck by influencing the odds for luck happening.
What you´re talking about overall is controllable factors, you are seeking the recipe for success and there are several.
For starters, I submit that we need to cook up a new Browns recipe for success. We´ll get extra points for creativity and originality. I know everybody is on 2.0, 3.0, ect…we need our own 1.0.

I tend to believe as well that bad contracts are team killers, I am excited to see what you have found in this.

The thing with Peyton Manning and the Colts, is that they got Tony Dungy. Dungy came in, taught Peyton the importance of playing complimentary football (sound familiar?), and Peyton’s been getting better ever since.

In his autiobiography, Dungy says that ever since he taught Manning the importance of complimentary football, Manning took less risks because he no longer felt like he had to carry the team by himself (just the offense). As a result, his turnovers dropped as the defense steadily improved.

I don’t know how you can include the Eagles in your list of continuous successes, but have the Chargers as an example to avoid. Their situations over the last 10 years seems very similar to me. Also, the Ravens don’t really belong on this, in my opinion. I’d add the Chargers to your list, take away the Ravens.

The problem you have with Manning and the Colts seems to be a problem with this type of exercise in general. Individuals (coaches and players) are unique. Though I am interested to see how this plays out.

It seems by “bad coaching” you really mean “bad hiring of coaches”. Instead of critiquing the schemes or styles of the coaches, you are discussing the more macro- idea that owners/front offices need to make better decisions in picking the coaches. Is this what you are saying? Also, to what extent are you allowing coaches to grow or change? Once they are deemed a “bad coach” are they always a bad coach?

I would broaden “bad contracts” to bad team building. It is bigger than making a guy or two too rich. As rufio pointed out, the Browns have some terrible contracts on the books, but the Browns still have plenty of room to sign top draft picks and free agents. And thsoe bad contracts do belong to some decent players. Evened out, perhaps by the good players who are making pennies. Bottom line, it is my understanding that the salary cap is so high these days, and all teams are so good at managing their cap number, that it is rarely a deciding factor in making personnel moves. Also, with the CBA uncertainty, this analysis could change drastically in the next few months.

Instead, I would focus on talent and team building. Adding very talented players is a big part of it. But building a team for a system is a huge factor. Corey Williams is a good 4-3 player. I’m pretty sure of that. He is a bad 3-4 player. That’s a pretty simplistic example, but the Colts and Steelers have created such a solid foundation that they are playing a different game than the rest of the NFL. They are looking for pieces that fit into their team and scheme. We are looking for any talent, regardless of how it may be used.

Are you going to reference “The Loser’s Curse” study by Thaler and Massey when you examine the NFL Draft? In this day and age with a salary cap, their findings reveal a lot about the role the draft plays.

And, drafting has always been, and will continue to be, a core part of success. Before free agency, the draft was the only way to acquire talent. Now, the draft is the only way to get low cost talent in their playing prime. The overall Value/Price ratio falls substantially when players reach free agency. This is not to say that free agency is not useful, just that it comes with greater risk in terms of how far the ratio can fall.

You point out 1999 as a watershed season. A lot has been written recently about how little importance the running game has become since the rule changes of 1978 and later made it easier for QBs and WRs. The Rams just happened to be the culmination of all of these changes.

I might go further back to include the Vikings, the run-and-gun (Warren Moon again) for the discussion. However, it was not until 2001 and the Patriots that the evolution was complete. (Remember, the Ravens and JLewis would still win in 2000).

Hey, anyone else having a weird problem with the right column of the website show up under the rest of the page?

Coaching in the NFL is more important than any other sport, to ignore it is stupid. Coaches in this league are worth their weight in gold.

Not sure I agree with this at all. I see coaching in the NFL like a standard density curve; a few poor coaches, a few special coaches, and a large number of replaceable ones.

I agree with what a lot of you are saying.

Switching the “bad coaching” to “bad leadership”. This includes GM/Presidents and in some really bad situations Owners (Washington).

We were including bad decision makers in the bad contracts section, but a good decision maker can make a poor decision. Hence the switch.

Cool post. I look forward to seeing what stuff you’ve found out. I can’t contribute much since I don’t know enough to do so, haha.