Quote:Winning in free agency means losing on the football field.

<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>By Warren Sharp
</div>
</div>
</div>
--------------------------------------------

 

I didn't paste the article, but it pretty much sums my thoughts of spending crazy money in Free Agency and then expecting a win when a team only had 4 wins on average for the last 3 years under Head Coach Gus Bradley.  I can understand the argument of spending big in Free Agency and being very aggressive when you had a season of maybe 8 wins or more but couldn't get the Super Bowl win.. say you only need this one position & this guy is the best at it then sure... but usually it only generates excitement from the fan base in order to sell tickets.

 

I am not saying it is a horrible thing if done right, sure GM Dave Caldwell has had a few misses in Free Agency in the last three years but at least he is getting young guys only 4 or 5 years into their career or signing players on prove it one year contracts especially if health concerns are a problem...

 

------------------------

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...yth-030316

 

Some of the most mismanaged, unintelligent teams reside in Q4, including the Titans, Browns, Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers, Redskins, Dolphins, Falcons, Jets and Bears.  These 10 teams have averaged records the last 3 years of 16-32, or a .333 record.  These 10 teams are in the top 13 for spending the most in free agency.

</div>

 

The problem with this article (as well as pretty much any politically or agenda driven article these days), is that they conflate correlation and causation.  One of the first rules you learn in statistics is that correlation does not equal the causation.  The most logical conclusion to be drawn from that article is that the teams that spend in free agency tend to be bad teams.  That doesn't mean that free agency by itself causes them to be bad.  

 

It's far more likely that teams that need to improve are more likely to explore free agency as an option to improve their roster.  Good teams will be less likely to spend because they don't need to improve their roster.  Now, I am not saying the author is inherently wrong in his conclusion.  I am just saying the data could be interpreted differently.  

 

I think it's safe to say that teams that habitually spend big in free agency have a bad front office.  The Jags and other rebuilding teams can't be included in that group as of yet, imo.  

---