|
|
Post by PatsRule on May 11, 2016 8:07:55 GMT -5
Great info. I wonder if we can use this to predict the number of TEs, WRs and RBs? From a personnel and cap perspective, the optimum allocation would be: 1. # of TEs = # of WRs 2. Cap for WRs and TEs would be approximately the same 3. Cap for RBs = ~15% for offensive skill positions Rule . . . it's an interesting question. A few thoughts. I think there will be more WRs than TEs for a few reasons: - Although the Pats don't use them much, four or five receiver personnel groupings are more likely to have a use than four or five TE groupings. It's relatively rare to use 4+ TEs, and when teams do, one of the TEs is usually an OL there to block. Teams with deep enough receiving corps may, however, put four or even five WRs on the field at once.
- There are a lot more types of WRs than TEs. With TEs, you've basically got versatile guys like Gronk, and then guys who lean more toward receivers and guys who lean more toward blockers. Two versatile TEs and a back-up will get you just about everything you'll ever need in a TE. With WRs, you've got guys with very different skill sets—compare an Edelman with a Calvin Johnson. They are just very different types of players. Having some variety in WR skill sets really helps diversify your offense
- Finally, most teams probably average 1.5 TEs on the field at any one time and 2.5 receivers at any one time—so you still are typically using about one more WR than TE
Cap cost is partly dictated by the market for the type of player, and the market is determined not so much by importance to the team but by supply and demand. (Importance increases demand, but supply is based on the rarity of the player's skill set). The supply-demand equation for elite WRs tends to make them expensive. I think a Gronk can command as much as any WR, but most TEs will be cheaper than WRs because the typical TE skill set is easier to find. Plus teams tend to need more WRs, so the demand is stronger from that perspective as well. Not sure on the ideal RB cap cost, but it's probably a lot lower only because backs seem to be a dime a dozen lately. A few rare talents—like AP—will command big dollars, but the typical NFL back has become a pretty replaceable part in most GM's opinions. Assuming no injuries, I think most game plans are going to call for about 4 different WRs, 2 TEs, and 2 backs. If you assume one back-up in each position, you can get by with 5 WRs, 3 TEs, and 3 backs, though you probably also reserve about 2 additional roster positions to be used for any of the three positions. Typically about 13 non-QB offensive "skill" players are about right. One additional note, adding a FB to the skill position mix is something I like—again because it gives you some diversity. But FB is a rarely used position nowadays. Sorry, I could not reply you sooner - darned iPad. I need a tactile feedback keyboard. I agree with your reasoning. I jumped the gun - actually, looking at your numbers, the proportions seem - One part RB
- 2 parts TE
- 4 parts WRs
This seems to make more sense for the cap allocation rather than the number of players. I was wrong earlier, there seems to be nothing to be derived for number of players in these positions. So to try again,
If total Cap space for these 3 positions is X, then,
Total Cap for RBs: 15% of X Total Cap for TEs: 30% of X Total Cap for WRs: 55% of X
Is it anywhere close to this? If so, you may have given us a clue to how BB is managing the finance.
|
|
|
|
Post by patslifer on May 11, 2016 9:28:20 GMT -5
The longer I watch football and the more the game evolves, the more I see the concept of "position" as increasingly irrelevant. By the rules, there are really only three offensive positions: ineligible linemen, eligible backs and ends, and a QB, who is either eligible or ineligible depending on where he lines up. If I'm designing an offense nowadays, I'm really looking at getting the right diversity of skills in my eligible backs and ends and then lining them up in whatever ways work best for the play and the defensive match-ups. So rather than looking at a specific number of TEs, WRs, RBs, and FBs, I'm just looking at finding about a dozen guys who together have all the skills I need in my eligibles, which are basically blocking (in-line, from the backfield, and downfield, both pass blocking and run blocking), receiving (variety of routes and skills), and running (variety of styles).
+1 I think you had the sentiment on the defense to a degree and how there is a lot of gray area between LB's and Safeties with teams going the smaller, quicker route as the passing offense evolves. I would agree with your analysis on the concept of position to a degree. I still believe (and it's played out starting in pee-wee football), that positions are necessary. I think they help coaches mold players, players work on the specific skills/requirements of that specific position to get better and improve. Where I think it's changing is how certain positions are being used and how that has changed over time, and, because of this use, it is changing to a degree the physical and mental requirements of the position itself, or, how a team uses certain positions based on who they have. As I say this, the ability to use a TE for example in a variety of roles is completely dependent on that player's ability, size, athleticism. I think it's a chicken & egg argument. We have seen an evolution to a degree of the TE position for example. From mainly an inline blocker/receiver to one that can line up all over the formation. To do that requires a different physical and mental makeup. TE's now have to be more athletic than years past because they are running different routes, etc. As I say this, not every TE can do this, so I think being able to use certain positons to do things "unposiiton like" is limited by the player's attributes. Because certain guys can catch & block doesn't make them a TE. Because certain guys can catch downfield doesn't make them a receiver. Take Dion Lewis for example. We all know he is a great pass catcher and can catch downfield. But, does he offer the same downfield catch ability as say Washington, Hogan or Edelman? In the end my opinion is that positions are necessary as each player needs to accumulate the skills & learn the responsibilities of their position which they have been slotted into based on physical and mental attributes. Then there exists this overlap of sorts where you can use certain guys in different ways because of these physical and mental attributes. This is how I think BB has generally built the roster. He has guys that are solid at their positions, then he has guys that are solid at their positions but because of their physical and mental attributes are asked to do more, play "out of position", extend their positions into different areas. Just my 2 cents..maybe I am agreeing here but it's nuanced. |
|
|
|
Post by prolate0spheroid on May 11, 2016 23:09:23 GMT -5
The longer I watch football and the more the game evolves, the more I see the concept of "position" as increasingly irrelevant. By the rules, there are really only three offensive positions: ineligible linemen, eligible backs and ends, and a QB, who is either eligible or ineligible depending on where he lines up. If I'm designing an offense nowadays, I'm really looking at getting the right diversity of skills in my eligible backs and ends and then lining them up in whatever ways work best for the play and the defensive match-ups. So rather than looking at a specific number of TEs, WRs, RBs, and FBs, I'm just looking at finding about a dozen guys who together have all the skills I need in my eligibles, which are basically blocking (in-line, from the backfield, and downfield, both pass blocking and run blocking), receiving (variety of routes and skills), and running (variety of styles).
+1 I think you had the sentiment on the defense to a degree and how there is a lot of gray area between LB's and Safeties with teams going the smaller, quicker route as the passing offense evolves. I would agree with your analysis on the concept of position to a degree. I still believe (and it's played out starting in pee-wee football), that positions are necessary. I think they help coaches mold players, players work on the specific skills/requirements of that specific position to get better and improve. Where I think it's changing is how certain positions are being used and how that has changed over time, and, because of this use, it is changing to a degree the physical and mental requirements of the position itself, or, how a team uses certain positions based on who they have. As I say this, the ability to use a TE for example in a variety of roles is completely dependent on that player's ability, size, athleticism. I think it's a chicken & egg argument. We have seen an evolution to a degree of the TE position for example. From mainly an inline blocker/receiver to one that can line up all over the formation. To do that requires a different physical and mental makeup. TE's now have to be more athletic than years past because they are running different routes, etc. As I say this, not every TE can do this, so I think being able to use certain positons to do things "unposiiton like" is limited by the player's attributes. Because certain guys can catch & block doesn't make them a TE. Because certain guys can catch downfield doesn't make them a receiver. Take Dion Lewis for example. We all know he is a great pass catcher and can catch downfield. But, does he offer the same downfield catch ability as say Washington, Hogan or Edelman? In the end my opinion is that positions are necessary as each player needs to accumulate the skills & learn the responsibilities of their position which they have been slotted into based on physical and mental attributes. Then there exists this overlap of sorts where you can use certain guys in different ways because of these physical and mental attributes. This is how I think BB has generally built the roster. He has guys that are solid at their positions, then he has guys that are solid at their positions but because of their physical and mental attributes are asked to do more, play "out of position", extend their positions into different areas. Just my 2 cents..maybe I am agreeing here but it's nuanced. Lifer, I agree with your nuances too. Not that I've ever coached or been coached at an NFL level, but teams still use position coaches, design plays with particular positions in mind, and teach techniques and plays with a position lens on. That said, a guy like BB, is always looking for versatile players and is known for having guys learn roles outside their position. That has two benefits. First, a TE (for instance) will know what the receivers are doing and how his role integrates with theirs. That means he'll have a better understanding of how he should run a route to help the WR get open. Second, because the TE knows the WR's routes, the TE could play WR in a pinch . . . or because it provides a great match up. As you say, positions in many ways correspond with skills. A guy who blocks defensive linemen well may not be the fastest guy on the field. So he's probably not a wideout. Nor would you want your small, fast wideout trying to stop a 270 lb defensive end. So you're not going to put just anyone in any role. But if you've got players who can do multiple things, it's great to be able to utilize them flexibly and not be constrained by traditional definitions of the roles of traditional positions. |
|
