Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Keep Pettine if the D doesn't improve?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 878720"><p>While I appreciate the viewpoint I would take issue with a few things.</p><p></p><p>Whether we're talking about football players or something else, a determination of "value" at the time of acquistion is ultimately a projection of what a thing (or player) will bring you in the future, whether you measure that in tangibles or intangibles, either granularly or as something you see as a part that will make the whole greater beyond any granular statistical metric.</p><p></p><p>Assuming Martinez was not categorically opposed to returning to the Packers regardless of what they offered, what the Giants paid him is absolutely relevant. The Packers had a choice, Martinez or Kirksey, made on a projection of value between two players. Kirksey is less expensive but is a greater injury risk based on relative histories. In the end he was perceived as the better projection of value, the injury risk being monetarily offset.</p><p></p><p>If all you are saying it's water under the bridge now, with actual value to be determined in retrospect, then OK. But relative value projections were absolutely relevant in the decision making process.</p><p></p><p>I'm mystified by your last paragraph. We don't like which roster move? If we're not likely to see much difference on the field with the new guy, why wouldn't we like the roster move since the new guy is less expensive?</p><p></p><p>As an aside, however this fits into a projection of value, you've assumed Martinez was always a good teammate That does not appear to be the case in the "do your job" equation. He became a public excuse-maker. Early last season, with public criticism mounting about his play, he made a public statement that playing ILB is very hard in balancing run vs. pass defense, as plays develop I would presume to be his meaning. It's bad enough to respond to public criticism when the focus should be what your coaches think, but then whining about how hard your job is makes it even worse. Then, after the playoff loss, he was critical of his DC, saying his instructions were to just play off of Z. and Jones, the implication being they were given free reign to freelance while he had not specific assignments. I don't doubt that was the case, but again we have public excuse-making for having some UDFA yourneyman run roughshod. Besides, many teams allow players up front to freelance. If you want $10 mil per year you should be ready to handle that, and if it sometimes makes you look bad through no fault of your own, you're getting paid to suck it up.</p><p></p><p>My brute force NFL economics under a hard cap says the following. If you project that you will get $30 million in value from a $30 million player and that is exactly what you get, however you measure value, and the same calculation comes out all the way down the roster to the minimum salary rookies, you will be an 8-8 team.</p><p></p><p>Where you are most likely to find excess value over cost is in the rookie contracts where the salary scale is independent for free market value. Another kind of place to find excess value is with a player like Kirksey. If he stays healthy you just might get a $10 mil player for $6 mil, and that adds incrementally to the win column.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 878720"] While I appreciate the viewpoint I would take issue with a few things. Whether we're talking about football players or something else, a determination of "value" at the time of acquistion is ultimately a projection of what a thing (or player) will bring you in the future, whether you measure that in tangibles or intangibles, either granularly or as something you see as a part that will make the whole greater beyond any granular statistical metric. Assuming Martinez was not categorically opposed to returning to the Packers regardless of what they offered, what the Giants paid him is absolutely relevant. The Packers had a choice, Martinez or Kirksey, made on a projection of value between two players. Kirksey is less expensive but is a greater injury risk based on relative histories. In the end he was perceived as the better projection of value, the injury risk being monetarily offset. If all you are saying it's water under the bridge now, with actual value to be determined in retrospect, then OK. But relative value projections were absolutely relevant in the decision making process. I'm mystified by your last paragraph. We don't like which roster move? If we're not likely to see much difference on the field with the new guy, why wouldn't we like the roster move since the new guy is less expensive? As an aside, however this fits into a projection of value, you've assumed Martinez was always a good teammate That does not appear to be the case in the "do your job" equation. He became a public excuse-maker. Early last season, with public criticism mounting about his play, he made a public statement that playing ILB is very hard in balancing run vs. pass defense, as plays develop I would presume to be his meaning. It's bad enough to respond to public criticism when the focus should be what your coaches think, but then whining about how hard your job is makes it even worse. Then, after the playoff loss, he was critical of his DC, saying his instructions were to just play off of Z. and Jones, the implication being they were given free reign to freelance while he had not specific assignments. I don't doubt that was the case, but again we have public excuse-making for having some UDFA yourneyman run roughshod. Besides, many teams allow players up front to freelance. If you want $10 mil per year you should be ready to handle that, and if it sometimes makes you look bad through no fault of your own, you're getting paid to suck it up. My brute force NFL economics under a hard cap says the following. If you project that you will get $30 million in value from a $30 million player and that is exactly what you get, however you measure value, and the same calculation comes out all the way down the roster to the minimum salary rookies, you will be an 8-8 team. Where you are most likely to find excess value over cost is in the rookie contracts where the salary scale is independent for free market value. Another kind of place to find excess value is with a player like Kirksey. If he stays healthy you just might get a $10 mil player for $6 mil, and that adds incrementally to the win column. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
Latest: GreenBaySlacker
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 9:27 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 8:45 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 WR room
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 6:56 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: weeds
Yesterday at 6:47 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Keep Pettine if the D doesn't improve?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Prior to Training Camp - Predicting the 53 Man Roster
