Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1369
I think guys often overlook the amount of turnover on NFL rosters. Here is a part of a post I made on a discussion on roster building a year or two ago:
This can be an argument for why a rookie QB doesn’t make sense as well I suppose. But to me it just highlights how fleeting the build an “entire roster” idea some are suggesting is. It simply can not stay together in the modern NFL. The only consistent way to win big is with a top level QB. To find one you usually have to either be bad, willing to pay (draft picks), or ridiculously lucky. We know Ballard doesn’t plan on the first one. I’m hoping they aren’t going with the last option. Would be a shame to waste a lot of the talent he has accumulated.
|
There is merit in that. There is also merit in looking at the reason for roster turnover, and I freely admit that this is speculation, I am looking up no data.
Of the, roughly, 19 roster spots that can be expected to change hands in a four year period, given that your data is consistent with all teams and for other sets of years, how many of those are lost to free agency? My guess it that it's higher on the good teams, like NE, Pitts, and GB than on middle and lower tier teams, because it's probably fair to say that those teams have deeper rosters, and a wider array of above average players. But let's say that the loss of two players a year, purely through FA is a good average. Over four years, that's eight starters. The other eleven? Retirement. Better players coming in through the draft and FA (not every player, even on the top teams, is Pro Bowl quality, and a good GM is constantly looking for upgrades). And there are also younger players who improve enough to move from backup to starter. So, while "Build an entire roster" as a philosophy might seem pointless in a system where there is so much turnover, it is a great goal if you realize that more than half of those lost are probably replaced by a better, or at least comparable player.
At least when a team has a good GM.
And when the baseline before turnover is high, then the replacements who come in and take those jobs must be higher quality.
This is all conjecture, rn1369, and my wife and kids will tell you that most of the time I have no idea what I'm talking about. But it seems to me that if you start with high quality and only replace with equal or better parts (except when you are priced out and lose a quality guy to FA), then the whole roster philosophy holds water.