WhoDat

It seems that around BnG these days, everyone's got their own Joe Horn thread, and two stat threads too. Well, I looked around and saw that while I have an abundance of Aaron Brooks threads to call my own, that type of talk is just plain outdated. I find myself behind the curve and in order to catch up, I thought I do what everyone else on this board seems to do - start my own thread not so much as a spin-off or extension of another topic, but really just as a repitition thereof.

How do you evaluate a player when deciding to keep him on a team? We could talk for hours, but I thought I'd just use Joe Horn as a real world example instead.

Stats:
Stats mean nothing. If you looked at the stats, you would think that Horn is a good, maybe even great WR in the league these days. That simply can't be true. He's old and slow and can't catch and can't run after the catch and is just generally poo. Nevermind the fact that stats measure performance - that little thing that all NFL teams pay their players to produce. Not important. Stats can be misleading, and Joe Horn is an example.

Talent:
Talent can also be misleading. Clearly, Joe Horn has none, so he isn't a good example here. A better example might be Ryan Leaf - or closer to home Jonathan Sullivan. Both are guys with tremendous physical gifts but who never made it in the NFL (don't hold your breath for Sully).

First, how do we know that they didn't make it? Well, they have bad stats - but as we've seen, stats are totally irrelevant. So then what? Well neither actually PLAY football, though one is still on a team. That tells you that they suck. So talent does make a guy a good football player either? Well, how can ou tell who is going to be good and who is going to be Ryan Leaf? Must be intangibles.

Intangibles:
Actually, forget that last statement. Leadership is overrated. The ability to inspire, to study film and learn the intricasies of the game, to demonstrate fight and fire and heart - those things don't mean anything either. Have INTANGIBLES gotten Manning to a Super Bowl? Do INTANGIBLES stop Favre from throwing INTS? Two years ago it wasn't INTANGIBLES that got Jake D to the Super Bowl, it was a good running game and a great defense! Duh! There is not such thing as intangibles and even if here were they wouldn't matter you idiots!

The Cap:
Let's face it, in today's NFL, everything comes down to the cap. Teams like the Patriots suceed b/c they can manage the cap. What's that you say? Few teams have managed the cap better than the Saints over the last four years but that hasn't kept the Saints from maintaining mediocrity? Nevermind all that. You're focusing on the wrong things.

In order for a player to be a good signing, he must be valuable to his team. That means that his cap figure must be less than his actual value to the team. How do you determine value? Well, as we've seen, stats, talent, and intangibles are all irrelevant. Age on the other hand, is of the utmost importance. Other than that, it really boils down to whomever I say is best.

If you learn nothing else from this, that's what you need to know. Find the youngest guy you can find - anyone under 15 is a major plus. Don't worry about stats or talent or intangibles. Just listen to what I say and never pay a guy more than a cheeseburger and fries per game. You may however, want to consider never changing the team in a meaningful way. Sure you won't get better, but you won't get worse either. Plus, if you can sell a kidney for an extra second round draft pick that you'll let a GM with zero talent evaluation skills blow on a guy that won't see the field - jump on that deal in a heartbeat. Sure, our heart might be beating a little slowly b/c you just gave up your kidney, but move fast. It doesn't matter that the GM can't evaluate talent - remember talent is worthless. Just like stats and intangibles.

I hope you all enjoyed this and learned a lot.