N. Suh: Should NFL Teams Sign Superstars for Very High Salaries?

Here's my perspective on what you're talking about Tannephins and why both casual fans and very astute analysts may be apt to consider it foolish.

I suspect that the kind of psychological motivations you're bringing up--if they exist in sufficient capacity such that they might be quantified at all in the environment of the NFL--do so amongst the high-order effects within our theories/models of how these systems actually behave. When you consider how hard it is to reach the level of "NFL Player" it is highly dubious to argue that an effect like social loafing is to appear with an appreciable order of magnitude that it rivals overall intelligence, size, strength, training, film-study, etc.

I'll preface by saying that I don't think we're talking about a chaotic system in which a small psychological change might manifest in a vastly different outcome had it not occurred. I think we're talking about cleaner, more simplistic and more deterministic systems that can be effectively modeled if we have a sufficient number of terms relating to the effects we are interested in or which appear to be of greatest consequence.

In a non-chaotic model, these hypothetical psycho-motivations you're suggesting are so far down the list of possible causes, they simply would not be likely to take precedent over any of more obvious physical and mental advantages we see players seek. It's undoubtedly not the type of thing you'd want to focus on when the low-order effects are so uncertain.

While no one will fault you for being cognizant of these questions, you cannot so blatant look to the high-order effects for explanations and begin to discuss them as if the overwhelming uncertainties at the heart of the system don't exist. And therein lies what I consider to be a foolish mistake. You're asking about the consequences of such a high-order term when the low-order terms, those which would explain the majority of the system's behavior, are still HIGHLY uncertain. I'm sorry to say, that would seem (at best) to appear out of a lack of perspective.

In a very basic sense what I'm saying is, we can't sufficiently predict the short-term success of players coming out of college. We can't sufficiently explain (quantitatively) the impact of offensive and defensive schemes on free agents. We can't quantify the effect of physically adding Suh or subtracting Odrick let alone the psychological effects involved.

If we don't understand such low-order effects how can be so bold as to ask about the high-order effects like social loafing?

If you want to develop a sufficiently robust theory/model on this topic, I don't think you have any business trying to incorporate the psychology of such matters as social loafing considering how much real work there is to do in just getting something more basic off the ground. I would advise you to ignore psychological factors until a more basic understanding of the system has been quantified and debates have evolved past the use of large generalizations (i.e. uncertainties).

If you want a theory/model to be robust you have to go about getting past those uncertainties first.

 

Detroit was tied for 8th in passing yards per play and was 1st in rushing yards per play as well as rushing yards per game, if that's not dominant, you have pretty high standards. Since drafting Suh in 2010 they've made the playoffs twice, that's 2 times in the last 5 seasons, which is as much as the Dolphins have in the last 14 years.

The Dolphins also had a better offense, statistically, than the Lions last season, ranking higher in total yards and rushing yards. So if you combine the positives of a better defense with Suh and the possibility of our offense improving even more (very plausible) you can definitely see how the Dolphins can be an even better overall team in 2015 than the Lions were last year.

 

We have a dominate DE, and the effect is minimal.

We had a dominate MLB & DE at the same time and the effect was good, but our defense took a hit when we didn't have really good DTs.

And not only that, but just from a logic standpoint, if the QB is that important, then the second most important guy is the one that gives you the best chance to stop the other QB and that would be a DT on Suh's level.

 

I'm just trying to guess at their logic. I personally agree with what they are doing though.

One of a GM's most important jobs is to figure out which positions he can get by at with good - intermediate players at, and which positions demand elite talent. With every team it's different.

I'm not saying it's definitely a terrible idea for Miami to sign Suh, I'm just not convinced it's the best allocation of resources.

 

Well.. all this is a relatively unimportant argument we're having, but let me just say this. I'd consider the effect of an in-prime Ray Lewis to be similar to that of Suh, and Lewis brings leadership Suh probably won't.

Also, if you look at the top salaries in the NFL, it's QB for most top spots, then DE, so I think coaches/managers value DE more than DT, just based on salary.

 

I don't know I have such a hard time communicating with you, but's frustrating as hell.

I am not talking about DT.

I am talking about DT manned by an all-world player like Suh. So all your salary analysis and arguments about DT as a position are pointless.

Any random average player at DT means little. An all world and rare talent is a different story and what i am specifically talking about. Argue that specifically or stop arguing with me.

 

Well, regardless of one's intuition, the problem is certainly amenable to experiment. One just needs to change the motivations to each individual in the group, in the experiment, and see if similar results hold. If they don't, then you already know not to generalize from the simple experiments described in that social loafing wiki article. If they do, then questions like whether this holds in highly competitive environments, either in business or science or wherever, can be asked. Maybe you can't do the desired controlled experiments at that point, but you would know what to look for, allowing you to test whether the hypothesis is valid under such conditions.

Point here is, no one has done those types of experiments to know how well the results generalize.

 

Communicating? Dude, read carefully before making such baseless statements. Check out post #40 and just the post you quoted. I specifically referenced comparing to Suh. You simply have a reading comprehension problem if you think I didn't address that. And Ray Lewis is NOT an all-world talent as his position?

Seriously, don't think you're going to win arguments just by acting like the other side is stupid (you seem to do this almost as a habit). People can see through it dude.

 

I didn't say you were stupid. I didn't imply it.

You can say Ray lewis. You can say Suh, but when you end your post with:

...where you are talking about all DTs across the league it shows me you aren't really addressing my point.

So, as I said I don't know why I have such a hard time communicating with you.

 

The first part of my post dealt directly with your assertions about dominant MLB and DE. The second part was a response to the last part of your post where you say "And not only that, but just from a logic standpoint, if the QB is that important, then the second most important guy is the one that gives you the best chance to stop the other QB and that would be a DT on Suh's level."

I was trying to insert some data to see what generally the 2nd most important guy is. Obviously, if on average the 2nd most important guy is the DE (which btw is a position that gives you the chance to stop the other QB), then one would expect the distributions to be such that the best DE would (possibly) be more important than the best DT at going after the other QB. I mean, statistically speaking you should get similar distributions. So, if you had an in-prime Julius Peppers or Bruce Smith, I'd expect their effect on the defense to be similar to Suh.

 

This. There's also the effect on the locker room of paying a newcomer more than your best players have been making.

 

Well, one way or another you're trying to get at the success of a given entity according to whatever metric you're applying, correct? Whether that entity is a group (global) or an individual (local, constituent) is not going to matter in getting around several key issues. What you've got here is a coupled system in which you can measure the constituents (players) or simply apply some metric at the global level (team/unit success).

For what it's worth, coupled models are undoubtedly the way of the future and so there is a great number of resources in the academic realm aimed at quantifying and reducing the uncertainties which arise within those type of cyclical systems (interface uncertainties, bias correction, etc.). It's not as if the genesis of your question doesn't have merit. I'm not saying that. I'm simply warning that you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

You've asked about the affect of at least one psycho-social mechanism which may influence success--and you're saying here that you're interested in applying the metric of success at the global level. That's perfectly fine, but again you're asking about a small-scale or high-order effect that arises from the coupling process, or more simply from the interaction of various players.

Measuring the success of a group or an individual within that group, I don't think matters. You are offering base-level psychological arguments about something which will be difficult to quantify in practice and which are very likely going to pale in comparison to the effects of much larger and more significant factors.

In addition, as cbrad pointed out, one huge issue is that lack of formal evidence to help us construct models that might allow for something beyond mere speculation and rather meaningless generalizations.

 

ftfy

 

Hmm...be careful. It's important you understand how general that statement is and how difficult it would be to do the work and to produce a defensible output.

Remember that the most important aspect in data analysis is the selection of a meaningful metric. That is simply because we must understand what the metric is telling us. When you're talking about measuring a quantitative statistic (which to my knowledge you haven't declared) and you're hoping to come away with firm conclusions about the psychological implications or causes of that statistic, I don't think you're on the right track. For one, I'm not sure there is sufficient data within the NFL to draw those kinds of comparisons, eliminate all other possible causes and say with good confidence that you have pinpointed something psychological.

You would be making the claim that there is a quantitative metric which speaks directly to a high-order system response. The odds of that being the case--and I'm guessing here--would be very low.

While I'd love to read something like that I wouldn't want to have to defend it.

 

I was terrified for Tannehill against the Lions. And Suh was a big part of that.

On the year, Detroit was 3rd in points allowed, 2nd in yards allowed, 6th in net yards per passing attempt allowed, 1st in rushing yards and rushing yards per carry allowed, and 4th in points per drive allowed. Pretty darn good defense. And one of the defenses better than them is arguably an all time great D (Seattle).

 

And the previous years?

I'm not doubting his ability that's for sure. I just, I think people are thinking OMG! Suh-perbowl!!! I think it's unrealistic, because we have so many more needs that are going to get neglected, or either need to be addressed by players in the draft that can contribute right away. Given our track records in that department, I'm not sure how much faith I have in that happening. This, to me is the equivalent of the old draft days of drafting a QB high before the rookie pay scale... He better be the impact player that you think, or you're really hurting your team's cap situation.

We probably need to win another 2-3 games per year to be a playoff team regularly. I'm not sure you can look at the addition of Suh and say... yup. That's the piece that's going to do it. You need to build around him, and you have to be almost perfect at it when you consider you're paying a QB big bucks soon, Suh big bucks, and Wallace big bucks (as it stands now). You start to put yourself in a cap position where you are restricting yourself a bit in other areas. Good thing though... is that we're at least paying the big bucks in the right positions. It's just a very risky decision, as much as I'd like to add him, I think you have to strongly consider what/who else you can get for that kind of cash to improve several area's of the team, rather than one position.

 

I understand that, but that hasn't been the case in all his time there.

I'm just saying, he's a piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle. and yes, I know that works both sides of the argument. I'm not trying to win any debate here, I'm just saying... I know the guy is good, we all know that. You'd be stupid to say he isnt. I'm just looking back... with Suh on that team, so they had a good defensive year last year, but in his other years there, lets not pretend they were the best defense, or team out there.

I'm convinced the guy is a great player, we all are. I'm just not convinced he's the best allocation of resources. He's not the only player this team needs to win 2 or 3 more games a year to make the playoffs regularly. He helps, for sure. That help though is goign to come at a cost to other area's on the team because of that salary.

 

We have a better line than they do outside of Suh. Suh is the missing gear that makes our defensive clock run on time.

 

Suh may or may not be the best use of resources, but one thing that would've given us 2-3 more wins is to simply not have those (sometimes embarrassing) defensive collapses at the end of the game, or in the 4th quarter. Do you remember that game against Denver? Denver just ran right through us in the 4th quarter. Tons of missed tackles, etc..

If there's one thing you don't see Suh doing, it's being out of gas, showing the inability to tackle, etc.. late in the game. Putting him on the defensive line means you can have a lot more confidence that line will hold up till the end of the game. And that just might be enough (even with the coaches we have) to put us past that playoffs threshold.

 

Now. Imagine Tom Brady on the receiving end of that suplex.

Now wipe off your keyboard, desk and chest and get back to work. Slacker.

 

That's a good point! That turf in Detroit is brutal on players, and it's probably the reason he wants out!


Sent from my  6+

 

It's hard to stop imagining it. I can do it without dirtying anything too. Oh, and the computer's doing the work right now (simulations galore!)

 

I think this can definitely be argued. Last season we lost three games by four points or less... if we had Suh there I'm pretty sure we'd have made the playoffs.

And you can also argue that his addition will make our team better next season...it doesn't look like we'll be getting much worse at other positions. We might not be getting better, but I don't think we'll get worse. It doesn't look like we'll have much turnover on either side of the ball, except for the WR unit. The only major contributors who will likely leave the team are Odrick, Finnegan, Hartline, Gibson, and maybe Wallace.

1) Suh will come in place of Odrick, so that's obviously a huge upgrade.
2) Finnegan played ok, when he played... that might be the only position that gets slightly downgraded, but we can still target someone as good as him in FA.
3) Hartline was below average last season, no reason to believe we can't find an upgrade over him... maybe even someone who's already on the team.
4) Gibson was ok... but there's no reason to think we can't find at least someone equal to him in FA or draft.
5) Wallace leaving might be the biggest blow, if that indeed happens.. but I think it's possible that even if he leaves, the offense will continue on its pace if we go WR high in the draft.

I'm not saying adding Suh will definitely help us, but there are certainly strong arguments for it, IMO.

 

Why post this twice in two different threads?

 

You are always going to have people who will over pay. Over payers are usually under achievers simply by default. They have to over pay in hopes of achieving. A perfect example is this team. We are actually considering spending 1/6th of the total salary cap on one guy..........future suicide in my opinion.

Great players play for all kinds of different reasons, other then money. For example a player might take a little less to live in sunny Florida then snow ravaged Buffalo NY.


Does it make sense?

Their trying to get rid of Wallace's and Ellerbee's contracts because of cost. Yet they are or have indicated they are interested in 20 mill a yr Suh...........makes no sense

 

yes but they are not telling anyone about the other 10 million in perks that are off the books

 

besides watt, Suh impacts the game more than any def end in the game.

 

Yeah, but Fin D was specifically referring to "best chance to stop the QB". I agree Suh impacts the defensive side of the game more than almost anyone, but he's not at the top of the list of "best chance to stop the QB".

 

hmm, I think maybe with cam wake on his side his presence has a chance to make the line the most potent in terms of pass rush pressures which would make the objective come from a team standpoint not a singular one..so Fin D might be right in this case if they objective is to disrupt the qb.

 

Well, Fin D and I were talking about a single position in that exchange, not multiple ones working together.