Rotoworld ranks the NFL's best owners; Ross 29th

Yes, they were very lucky to get Rodgers.

Either way, that isn't the best way to look at it. The best way to look at it would be to look at the Packers draft record, and determine how A) successful it has been compared to others; and B) determine the level of consistency they've had drafting. The evidence shows that most successful teams in this league have one or two great acquisitions, but overall they regress to the mean.

 

I get arguments that maybe Ross is ranked too low when compared to others. And there are many different factors to consider when ranking owners, some of them not easily quantifiable. But for anyone saying you can't look at all the owners in the NFL and clearly see that there are some that are much worse than others, well you're just not paying attention. The owner is at the top of the food chain. They create an organizational structure that the people they hire will follow. They create a culture. If they do a poor job of that, the team is much less likely to achieve success. Sure there is collusion amongst owners, but don't think for one second winning isn't important to them. At least to the good owners anyway. Even with salary cap, parity, etc. you still see teams that are perennial playoff teams and teams that are perennial disappointment. When you look at the differences between those teams, it can be traced back to ownership.

 

Again based on your belief that football is more about luck than skill, great coaching, outstanding personnel decisions and solid ownership. The Dolphins and their fans must be some of the unluckiest people in the entire NFL based on the past decade.

 

The outcome of games is based mostly on the talent on the field. There is a lot of evidence that suggests talent acquisition is based on luck. So yes, I think the outcomes of NFL games are based mostly on luck.

 

Why? They've been an average team.

 

Is it luck they've kept him or good management smart enough to keep him?

Nope the Browns. 15 years. Have they exhibited any modicum of success? 15 years is a long time to go without any luck.

Steelers have been winning games and Supebowls for a long time. In this day and age when many are fired too quickly, the Steelers haven't even when the Steelers haven't had the greatest defensive year. There is absolutely nothing you can point to, that will eliminate good decision making from the success formula.

Sticking with Brady instead of letting the grizzled vet back in? Taking Tom Brady in the first place, even though it was the 6th round. and lest you think that success was all Belichick and Brady, their success started with Parcells and Kraft in the mid-90s. They got to the Super Bowl in '96 without Brady, and '97 won the AFC East with Pete Carroll. Here are a few names during the Parcells era, Curtis Martin, Ben Coates, Tedy Bruschi, Terry Glenn, Willie McGinest, Drew Bledsoe, Shawn Jefferson, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Troy Brown and Adam Vinatieri. Does Tom win the SB in 2001 without these guys? Tom 18 Touchdown Brady?

 

While I agree most successful franchises do eventually regress for a year or two from time to time. They also recover from their down years more rapidly than the mediocre teams on average. Mediocre teams with mediocre owners and head coaches tend to remain mediocre or bad ,far longer than the teams with solid ownership and knowledgeable GM's and great head coaches.

 

Personally I hate average and I don't think any true Dolphin fans is happy with average. If you okay with average, that is on you.

 

I'm glad you brought this up.

You just listed off a lot of great players that the Patriots had. Why haven't they been able to replace them? They've had the same owner. Why hasn't Kraft been able to reproduce such great talent acquisition?

 

You yourself agree that the outcome of the game is based on talent. Even if your second statement is completely true, you can't say talent acquisition is luck, therefore, the outcome of NFL games is luck. The logic doesn't work like that.

 

WTF does that have to do with the discussion here?

 

Also, just for argument's sake...did the Patriots win three SBs because of the talent on their team, or because they cheated?

 

Yeah you're right. The Patriots being the AFC east cellar dweller this past decade completely proves your point. Players like Aaron Hernandez pre-murder, Rob Gronkowski, Wes Welker, Randy Moss, Stevan Ridley (despite his fumblitis), Corey Dillon, Vince Wilfork, Vereen (when healthy) etc. etc.

 

Because 2007 almost perfect season insanely impossible catch away from 19-0 happened before they got caught, right?

Follow up question.

Did the Packers get lucky in their Super Bowl win with Brett Favre, or the one with Aaron Rodgers?

 

Gronkowski and Wilfork are really the only ones worth mentioning.

The fact that guys like Wes Welker and Aaron Hernandez are on here shows what type of system exists, and furthers my point. Wes Welker wasn't a case of successful talent evaluation. He was a case of successful manipulation of league rules. Aaron Hernandez wasn't a case of successful talent evaluation. He was a case of the team willing to take the inherent risk. The New England Patriots didn't assess Randy Moss' talent better than the other teams, they were just willing to take the risk and mitigate it with whatever unscrupulous activities they participate in.

 

They were lucky to have both players.

Again, the Packers are really a counterproductive example for you. They are publicly owned. There literally is almost no common thread between them signing Favre and Rodgers. Who exactly are you attributing their success to? Is there something in the air or the water there? You're proving my point here.

 

And when we are discussing the NFL when the Patriots were winning championships, keep in mind the NFL is much more different now. The league has made a concerted effort to take away a lot of the skill involved with the latest CBA, just like they did with the previous CBA. Its in the league's best interest to make success on the field as random as possible.

 

Scouting and signing Welker to a poison pill wasn't a case of successful talent evaluation. What?????? They just threw a dart at the wall and it happen to hit Welker's name?

Dig that hole any deeper and you're about to hit China. You seem to be narrowing down what it means to run a team by the way. Trading a 4th for Randy Moss was brilliant. You're looking for (or changing the argument to) HOF players selected in the draft. We're talking key cogs in the machine that is a football team. Corey Dillon was discarded in Cinci and he came there for one brilliant year and helped them win a super bowl.

 

The Green Bay board and their selection of the executive committee. This is too easy.

 

LOL. Right the GB board possesses the mystical football powers.

Seriously, make a Monte Carlo simulation and see how what that tells you. Acquiring talent in the NFL is about as skillful as the mutual fund market. There are plenty of studies that have reached this conclusion, while I haven't seen one that identifies the skill behind it.

 

Everyone knew how good Welker was.

Hall of famers are the common theme among the teams that win consistently. Brady, Manning, Ray Lewis, Aardon Rodgers, etc. If this were a skill, then it would be repeatable.

 

Here is a good start on identifying how much skill is truly behind drafting:

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-certain-teams-better-at-drafting-than-others/

The AJ example is a good one. Completely forgot about him.

 

So, then would it make sense to say that the only way to be a good GM is to get as many picks as possible at as high as possible?

 

Well the more picks you have the more players you'll end up with. But every team has the same number of picks. So in order to get more picks, you're usually giving up something.

Either way, if there is any type of advantage to be gained, its going to be from gaining an edge through the economics of the game. Even then, I don't think the edges that can be gained are all that great.

I think in terms of drafting, we have reached the point where its become so highly publicized that the wisdom of crowds will prevail.

 

Stats for determining draft picks..lol

 

The methodology isn't biased, and shouldn't really be a point of discussion here. There may be better ways to determine draft results (personally I think using value of second contracts is ideal), but it doesn't really affect the results in this case.

 

Tell chip Kelly that who spends all kinds of time at the campuses of his targeted draft picks interviewing everyone from the janitor to the lunch lady..

This is a ridiculous argument, of course it is a talent, of course it is who has the better instinct,the better eye,the better projector of human biomechanics, the better projector of leadership, intangibles..

Please give me a bottom line on your argument?, stop showing all the fluff, stop pimping stats on successes and failures, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

Just tell me how you would do it without human beings being able to evaluate players talent, bodies and their intangibles?

 

absolutely the opposite, the more picks you have the better advantage you have of building your team quicker than the other guys.

 

I think your problem is you are too young to have been around during the extended glory years of the Dolphins. You expect mediocrity from the Dolphins and therefore you are satisfied with the fact the team is basically average, year after year.

Perhaps because I was a season ticket ticket holder throughout the entire time Shula was the head coach of the Dolphins, I have higher expectations for my football team than merely being average. While the Dolphins had a few down years during the Shula regime, the fans at least went into every season expecting the Dolphins to be a playoff team and hopefully make it to the SB.

Now it appears some fans are content with the Dolphins finishing the season with an 8-8 record and this is somehow acceptable for these fans. I guess the Dolphins LUCK of over two decades must have run out when Shula left the organization.

We had a great owner, decent GM's for most of the Shula era and a great head coach, as well as very good assistant coaches for most of Shula's coaching tenure in Miami. That wasn't luck, it was a great organization from the top down. Now with Ross as the owner, the team is weak from the top down and that is why they remain a very average football team.

 

What you said is not the opposite of what I said. In fact, its exactly the same thing.

 

The bottom line of my argument is that nobody has separated themselves as a superior "talent evaluator". Everyone is average.

 

Do what? Draft players? I would just take the top 50 draft sites and take the averages of their rankings. Maybe even throw in the top 50 rankings from forum posters. Try to get as many opinions as possible, then average them out.

 

This is ridiculous and rude.

No one on this site is content with mediocrity. No one is happy that we finished 8-8.

 

Are you posting in the wrong thread? What in the world does my expectations have to do with evaluating these things? Don Shula worked for Miami in a different generation. The NFL is a completely different game now.

 

They make the right decisions and get rid of the wrong ones. Like hiriing Mike Sherman as GM to replace Ron Wolf and then firing him as GM, even though he was relatively successful, and hiring Ted Thompson. Thompson then made the decision to fire Mike Sherman completely.

Notice they exhibit stability when the executive is good (Wolf, Thompson), and a quick trigger when they're not (Mike Sherman). Former President Tom Harlan says his biggest regret was naming Sherman GM and coach. Someone like Ross, or the Fords, might give Sherman a few more years because of the good record they had recently. No, the President and board made the right decision.

Again, you're not going to hit on all of your choices.

Lol at Monte Carlo. The now ridiculed financial model simulator? The one millions of near-retirees relied up on to plan their nest egg investments and then oops, 2008 happen and now your account is at 60-80% of its previous value? That's what you base your opinion on? Monte Carlo is garbage. Fantasy world stuff.

 

Yes that's why NOBODY tried to sign him except the Patriots. With a 2nd round tender and only $1.35m in salary the Patriots were the only ones to sign him.A future HOF'er and NOBODY else signed him but the Patriots. That's what you're saying?

So you're saying these teams that win constantly have a few HOF's on their team? Jeez, they're so lucky!

You have yet to explain the consistency with the Steelers running almost 3.5 decades now. According to you, they're just lucky compared to the lions.

Tell me, without laughing, the only thing separating the Steelers from the Lions is luck. How unlucky the Lions were, when they kept Matt Millen on so long. Go ahead, just lay it on us.

 

LOL if I pick the right side of a coin flight, am I right or lucky? You're essentially saying that because some people succeed, their success is based on skill. The game inherently requires an equal number of successes as failures. Is Stephen Ross skillful because he fired Mike Sherman, or is just lucky or was it just a random decision?

Ted Thompson is another great example here. He had great draft results early in his tenure, and not-so-great results lately. Its very likely that he just happened to be lucky enough to have his great drafts early enough to build up his reputation, before the odds catch up with him. His draft record comes back to average as the years progress.

No, you won't hit all your choices. But if you are skilled, you will hit at a successful rate consistently. There are dozens of possible tests available to test consistency. Whenever they've been applied to drafting in the NFL, they indicate that there is no consistency in year to year draft results. By all means, someone post some evidence to the contrary.

You seem to be thinking of one application of a pretty widely accepted computational algorithm. Its use goes way beyond any financial applications. But you can replace Monte Carlo method with Markov Chain, uniform distribution tests, or plenty of other tests to identify any consistency in talent acquisition results.

 

Why didn't we see more poison pills more often then? Serious question. It was a pretty easy strategy that had obvious advantages. But nobody used it. Seemed like a pretty dick move by the Patriots.

If you give someone 15 drafts, they'll probably end up with a HOF. The reality is that no GM is going to draft his on his 15th draft. If he doesn't find one early, he'll be gone. If he finds one early, then he's perceived as a god, when reality is he was lucky enough to get his HOFer early in his career.

Its a simple matter of probability. There are 32 teams. One team having consistency isn't anything unreasonable.

EDIT: and have you seen PITs recent drafts? Did they lose their skill?

 

Pretty interesting stuff and pretty consistent with my own views. I do think some people are better than others, but the differences are pretty small and IMO is about decision-making more than its about scouting ability.