Jordan Love Was The Right Pick In Theory
Let me preface this with NFL assets are ALWAYS risks. You need evaluate such in a probabilistic perspective, and that includes looking at every outcome to generate an expectation.
The Love pick has a positive expected value (likely, without personally computing such), and teams should always pursue positive expected values for the QB position. Furthermore, this is the right strategy, even if it does not pay off for the Packers.
The pick for Jordan love is very much the right type of strategy for a team to follow in finding a succession plan for a franchise QB. The worst position for a team to find a QB is stuck in the 15-30 range of draft position, never being able to grab a top 3 QB in a draft. Instead, the Packers chose to take a riskier prospect, give themselves time to develop and further project this player, and they have a chance to move on and consider an alternative route if he does not work out. The availability of an inconsistent prospect with elite highlights is akin to the Ravens drafting the 5th QB out of a draft, a future MVP. I am not trying to pave a path for Love to emulate Jackson, nor make those comparisons, but once a prospect is available at good value, and matches the team's situation, a team should always consider it. Ravens, in a similar position, frankly had too good of a QB to allow them to draft another one in the top 10, needing to take a swing on a project. The Ravens also traded up to draft Jackson, another similarity of these situations. I reiterate, I am not claiming Love will be Jackson, I am showing how this situation has worked before, and likely what the Packers envision.
Whether this individual was the right pick depends on how good one considers him a prospect. It is important to remind here that even if he busts, one cannot claim that it was necessarily the wrong pick. Development of any player is frankly mostly out of the control of their coaches. Even when the best General Managers draft for the best coaches, they still cannot insulate against busts. Retroactively analyzing draft picks must always only compare the comparability of prospects for a team at a time, never comparing how the careers unfold unless there is clear negligence on the part of the drafter.
Is Love the right guy?
I am not qualified to tell how good a prospect like Love is. I know he had a much better 2018 season, and lost his coach with nine starters on offense for the 2019 season. He responded by being very inconsistent with occasionally poor decision making. I cannot project this player, but it is very clear he has the highlights of a top QB prospect. Further analysis provided here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOG1qvCbqsc&feature=emb_title
For further clarification about what the Packers likely think of Jordan Love, watch the next link. They see a unique and elite talent hidden in a player that needs development to unlock it. I think the Packers recognize they likely have the best situation for Love to develop, with a good offensive line, strong run game, and no pressure to start immediately with a simplified playbook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dvaVmqYBo
What did it cost?
What is cost the Packers was a 30th overall pick and a late 4th round pick. I cannot emphasize this enough: the 4th round pick is mostly irrelevant. It is nice to have one, but the expected value of a 4th round pick is around a veteran minimum player. If Love works out, the pick will be very distant memory. I doubt the Ravens are questioning sending their middle of the draft pick to trade up for Jackson. The upside of Love is high enough that it was likely the right strategy anyhow, regardless of whether Love busts or not (assuming Love is an adequate prospect).
When someone is playing a board game, it the outcome of a dice roll does not impact whether or not it was the correct move to take the risk. Spending a very late 1st round and a late 4th was still work the risk for Love, regardless of the outcome.
People often overrate the value of first round picks, especially late ones. People assume a draft pick will play up to their potential yielding the highest return on investment of any asset in the league -- cheap elite talent. The reality is at least a third of all first round picks do not approach their potential, and half of them become average starters. The opportunity cost of not drafting a receiver is not what it seems, especially considering most receivers have a rookie learning curve to become an impact player. The opportunity cost of not drafting impact players in the first round is not what it seems either, since many teams have succeed despite poor success in the first. Competitive teams are built on depth through the draft, and FA to fill needs, especially teams drafting at the bottom of the first where day 1 impact players are uncommon.
More to read here: https://www.pff.com/news/draft-why-nfl-teams-should-sign-for-need-and-draft-for-value
Two short examples,
Pats first round picks since 2013:
Dominique Easley
Malcolm Brown
Isaiah Wynn
Sony Michelle
N'Keal Harry
Chiefs 1st round picks since 2018 (after drafting Mahomes):
nothing
https://twitter.com/AndyHermanNFL/status/1253756054770520067?s=20
I understand this is not substantial evidence, but nailing a first round pick is often an afterthought for building a contending roster. The primary focus is always having the right QB.
Winning now or investing in the future:
During Ted Thompson's tenure of General Manager, Packers fans were notably disappointed at his lack of free agency activity, save for a few splash signings. The team continually lacked depth, and the draft and develop strategy the Packers employed was insufficient at supplying such depth. Brian Gutekunst builds off this strategy by incorporating the free agency to insulate against the draft. He and I agree that the best way to prepare a team for immediate success in roster additions is by adding veterans in immediate needs -- filling needs that former draft picks have failed to do so. This diversifies the risk of invested assets, and allows a team to commit to moving on from assets that do not yield a sufficient return, and opening the draft up to the highest expected value players. He sees the draft as an investment into the future, and not something a team can wisely rely on in the immediate. This has particular merit when a team is drafting with a lower draft position, something the Packers have been regularly for a long time. Players found late cannot be relied to carry a position group, and would be unfair to them to rush them into play time before they can develop their talents to an NFL level. Pair that with the fact that even the best evaluators still select busts, and you have a wise strategy for not relying solely on fresh picks to play in key roles.
This strategy becomes controversial when a team does yield some success, but seems to be stuck in a limbo of good team but not good enough to win a championship. Over the last decade plus, it seem the Packers are the poster boy for this phenomenon, playing in several NFCCGs but unable to seal the deal. Similar teams are the Steelers and Seahawks, ever present in the playoffs but unable to win an additional title. The Saints, Bengals, and Vikings could be considered part of this category to a degree, having longer periods of success than average in getting to the playoffs. Sometimes teams seemingly come from poverty to riches in the playoffs, like the Eagles, Chiefs, Broncos, or Ravens, having short periods of being good, winning one title, and reverting back to average teams. Considering teams that make playoff runs, but do not win a Super Bowl has even more of these one hit wonders: Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, and Rams make their way to championships, only to lose and revert without a trophy. This is evidence to some that the correct way to reach a championship is to assemble the foundation of a team slowly, then invest their assets into maximizing short term team strength when the time is right, and it is well worth the two or three season long recoil period with exhausted assets. I feel this strategy is a bit of an illusion.
Simply because the Packers, Steelers, and Seahawks have been unable to convert their investment into a Superbowl, should not hide the fact that they have been stopped (at least the latter two) by a team that has accomplished this philosophy: the Patriots. Not only have they had a franchise QB under contract the entire time, and repeatedly invested a poorer draft position into their future, it has yielded them 6 Super Bowl titles, and an additional 3 AFCCGs. If the Packers did win two of their lost NFCCGs, they would have had to face the Patriots in the playoffs as well. Also worth noting, that the Patriots once went 10 years between Super Bowl wins, something overlooked because they quickly won several after their drought ended. It is unfair to look at teams who went 10 years of playoff wins without a title, and hold them to some higher standard than the Patriots by cherry picking the short periods where the Patriots were successful in converting their investment into multiple titles.
Furthermore, people use confirmation bias when citing teams of the long term investment plans, without recognizing that the playoffs are filled with teams that make an appearance and quickly disappear, reverting back to mediocrity. It is unfair to look at a single team with 5 or so playoff appearances in a 7 year period, and wonder why they did not win a Super Bowl. The reality is a Super Bowl is incredibly difficult to obtain, and relies on more luck than most people will admit. This is even truer when you consider how many teams won from good defensive performances, when the shelf like of a good defense is only two or three years, and the shelf life of an elite defense is seldom more than two. It is a waste of assets to spend a year or two of a franchise QB's career in a recoil period.
If a team has a particular probability of winning Super Bowl in each of two years, a strategy with the same expected number of Super Bowls is to double their probability in one of those two years, and miss the playoffs altogether in the other (probability of zero). If a team has 20% chance one year, 10% the next, and 0% the following, their likelihood of winning over that period is the same as three years of 10%, but investing to achieve that 20% more often nets a team closer to 18%, thus making the former strategy worse than the latter -- doubling one's Super Bowl chances is easier said than done. Super Bowl probability is asymptotic, and very likely practically capped around no more than 25%. Because of this, adding future assets onto an already contending roster hits diminishing returns quickly, investing valuable future chances at a title in the current. This can be especially more dangerous when considering how a few injuries can completely derail a season, or at the very least, drop someone out of a top seed.
For this reason, there is some merit to a lot of team strategies where they invest heavily in the twilight of a franchise QB, knowing it is an uphill battle finding the next. Keeping the future open risks not finding a competent QB after as a Super Bowl capable one retires, and wastes future assets that are worthless to a team since they cannot compete anyway. If a team does pile future assets onto a current roster with a short period before their QB retires, they will likely be a worse team after said QB retires, and lets them compete for a higher draft position anyhow. Hence, the controversy over the Packers either investing in what they have in Rodgers, or investing into the long term future (hopefully a decade and more of the next franchise QB).
The Packers have stuck with their original strategy, and invested into the next QB, rather than going all in with QB they have. Whether this is correct depends on a multitude of projections and probabilities, but the tipping point between one or the other can be quite slim. To contrast the Saints' strategy, Rodgers has been significantly more volatile than Brees, and has a more extensive injury history, not just collarbone fractures, but an MCL sprain, and several hamstrings and concussions. On top of that, the diminishing returns on increasing Super Bowl probability suggests Rodgers playing at his best is less of a benefit than Rodgers playing at his worst is a detriment.
Another consideration about whether this is the right strategy for the Packers is the supporting team situation. The Saints have a long tenured coach with a history of success, and several recent consecutive playoff appearances. The Packers have a single recent playoff appearances with a first year head coach. Projecting future playoff success with this Saints team is easier than with the Packers who could very well be one of the previously mentioned NFC teams that can't repeat one year of success. The history of the year after a team loses a championship is very bleak.
Draft capital as a risky asset anyway:
The reality is every pick is a risk. It is fair, but disingenuous to say that the Packers are taking a risk on this prospect. They take a risk drafting any prospect. If they wanted to minimize all risks, they would just trade their picks for known players, but that also assumes some amount of risk for compatibility, individual regression, and talent evaluation. Roster management is basically teams acquiring assets in the form of picks and cap space, trade them for riskier assets in the form of players, and keep churning through asset conversion in the attempt to find the highest returns. This pick is a risk with a higher range of outcomes than something like a wide receiver, but people fallaciously equate that as a "riskier" investment in the sense it is less likely to succeed, even if it has a higher expected value.
Should they have traded up at all? It is very unlikely any remaining team in the first round was considering Love, although the Colts and Patriots had early second round picks and both need a long term solution at QB. Whether they were willing to trade for him will never be known, but a 4th round pick is an insignificant cost to secure a potential franchise QB.
The Packers' Situation:
The Packers are in fact in a good situation to draft Love now. They have a contract out after the 2021 season, allowing them to cut or trade Aaron Rodgers with only $17 million dead cap over the following two, potentially three years of Love on a rookie contract. This move would save them almost $23 million.
More to read here: https://twitter.com/KenIngalls/status/1253688575440441360?s=20
Analyzing the cost of dead cap is mostly pointless since it is entirely a sunk cost. The reality is that the Packers already paid Rodgers that money, he just didn't get it in the mail yet. The only things worth considering are the cap situation with Rodgers and without. They either get Rodgers for two years in 2022 and 2023, or Love for three years and an additional $23 million.
It is also worth considering that the cap raises every year, especially with a new looming CBA that will greatly raise the cap. $17 million is mostly insignificant to a team with a rookie QB. For example, the Ravens decided on a $16 million total dead cap cost for Flacco, and it hardly prevented them from being the first seed in the playoffs. After the $17 million is spent, the Packers get ideally a rookie QB for rookie cap hits for two years, the most valuable asset in the league.
https://ravenswire.usatoday.com/2019/02/13/joe-flacco-trade-broncos-ravens-2019-salary-cap-update/
This wasn't just the best strategy for the Packers...
There are several teams that I will argue should have seriously considered either Love or this strategy in general. Ironically, one team is the Colts, who previously pulled off a successful succession plan for Payton Manning. They had the luxury of Manning missing a year to draft their replacement, something few teams with a franchise QB can afford. Whether they wasted Luck's career with poor management, or injuries forced Luck to retire early, is irrelevant to whether it was correct to move on from Manning, and I wager it was. Luck was a fantastic prospect that realized his potential, and Manning had many looming uncertainties the Colts were hedging against. Even if Manning had a historic year for the Broncos, that was a small opportunity cost for a potential decade of a Super Bowl capable franchise QB.
Now the Colts are in a position where they have no reliable future after Philip Rivers takes them outside the top 20 of draft position and will promptly retire. Their future will be digging through the wreckage of failed QB draft picks in free agency, or tanking to find the next QB and hope other teams don't out-tank them to the top of the draft. Even if they do draft a quality prospect, they are missing an opportunity for him to develop under Rivers. This intellectual capital is very valuable for a position dependent on experience and mental processing like QB. It is not the determining factor for QBs, but for the development projects available at the bottom of the first round, it can be particularly important.
Another team seemingly with no plan is the Saints. Drew Brees cannot be expected to play more than one more year, and they have a Super Bowl competitive roster potentially to waste when Brees retires. I would argue that the Saints made a mistake not drafting Love (assuming Love is a first round QB prospect like some believe he is). I would be very excited, if I were a Saints fan, for Love to develop under Brees for a year and inherit a contending roster. This is especially true since Love's best asset is his ability to improvise plays with his athleticism, something Brees cannot do at this age. Instead Brees likely takes them to the playoffs again, and retires leaving them with almost nothing in terms of QB assets. Maybe they will pay Taysom Hill, who is 30 years old and never started at QB. Maybe they should have forced Brees to retire last offseason and resigned Bridgewater, who won five games for them, setting them up for potentially a 2nd seed.
The Steelers are in a similar position, but since Roethlisberger has bigger lingering questions about his ability to perform after missing a year to injury, they could potentially be too ineffective of a team to even make the playoffs, while likely still being too far out of reach of the top QB prospects. If they do reach only mediocrity this season, possibly they can work their way into the top of the draft, but likely spending significant draft capital to do so. If they are stuck drafting the 3rd QB prospect or worse, they will either land the technically proficient, unathletic breed of quarterback like Herbert, or the inconsistent development project like Love, making one wonder if the Steelers should have not traded for Minkah Fitzpatrick with their first round pick, and instead used in on Love, or at least drafted a QB earlier. I think they could offer another good spot for Big Ben to contend for a year or two, and seamlessly transition to Love without taking chances with FA QBs with lower upside, and squander a competitive roster, or tank and take risks on less than the best available prospects a year or two too late.
The Patriots are a team that has the coaching staff and roster to contend for a championship, but could not secure a succession plan for Brady. Ironically they have a history of churning through capable backup QBs, including Garoppolo who led another team to several playoff wins. He was in a prime position to replace Brady several years ago, and leave them with a significantly more productive quarterback on a much cheaper deal. They even have invested the development time into him, building his intellectual capital and chemistry with the coaching staff, only to stick with Brady too long at his expense, and are now stuck with a competitive roster that would be very unlikely to land a top QB prospect before falling apart.
What are the potential ranges of outcomes, and associated probabilities?
Some things to keep in mind are the availability and efficiency of Rodgers. To be blunt, he has been inconsistent and unavailable in recent years. He struggled significantly in 2015 and early 2016. Even if partly due to a failing and injured roster, with a struggling coach, did a top QB contract provide a good return on investment then? He missed the majority of a season in 2017 and the Packers were unable to contend despite participating in an NFCCG the previous season. That was a stark contrast to the Saints this year -- a team unable to compete against average teams with poor QB play, versus a team that went undefeated with their backup QB. Even the Steelers, with very poor QB play, almost made the playoffs. They likely would have loved to have Love available for a few games. In 2018, Rodgers, significantly injured again, struggled mightily and missed the playoffs. Even if a poor group of receivers and poor offensive strategy was to blame, he was not consistently performing in the ways and at the level he was historically known for. The likelihood Rodgers misses at least some amount of time over the next two seasons is fairly high, and over the next four is very high, especially with pressure to bench him if an excuse arises, and motive to maintain his health for a possible playoff push. A possible reality is that Rodgers is no longer one of the elites capable of consistently saving a team from close losses, or overcoming steep competition in the playoffs. I will defend that he did such in several games during the 2019 season, but after his last three NFCCGs ended terribly, one has to wonder if he is capable of finishing a playoff run. This is not dissimilar to people needing to replace Favre with another great QB to see what ways Favre either contributed to playoff losses, or failed to contribute to potential playoff wins.
Over the next 4 years, are we more likely to get the Rodgers from 2015, early 2016, 2017, and 2018? Or will we see more Rodgers from later 2016 and 2019?
Love is not good, Rodgers still is, and the Packers realize it early:
If this is the case, then the Packers are able to decline Rodgers' contractual out, and keep his services for an additional two years: through the 2023 season. In this situation, they can proceed with other succession plans as if they never drafted Love. The only downside is they lost out on the value of a first round pick, something that is pretty minor in the scope of contending over a 4 year period. A potential upside here is Love winning several games, keeping the Packers in contention, should they need him in relief for Rodgers. An even better upside is the Packers could recuperate some of their losses by trading Love, granted he showcases enough for a potential buyer. Josh Rosen, playing very poorly most of a season and being immediately replaced, and with no veteran's guidance other than Sam Bradford, still fetched a 2nd round pick. It is hard to imagine that if Love has several strong games showcasing the talent he is capable of, something guys like Rosen does not, he couldn't at least fetch a 3rd round pick with three years left on a rookie deal.
Likelihood: Low. It is unlikely they realize Love is not good AND Rodgers still is, and commit to Rodgers. A possible third year for Rodgers could be in play.
+/- Value: Small negative. Only loss is opportunity cost of average draft capital, something that has a positive return 2/3rds of the time anyhow. Potential to recoup some of that draft capital.
Love is not good, but Packers do not realize early enough:
In this situation, the Packers would move on from Rodgers in two seasons, and give the reins to Love.
Should Rodgers remain competent enough to contend, then the Packers opportunity cost is two seasons with a franchise QB, while they start the hunt for the next QB early. Should Rodgers decline too far to be relied on regardless, then nothing was lost except the opportunity cost of drafting a different position with the picks spent on Love, something almost worthless without a franchise QB anyway.
Unfortunately, if the Packers are able to trade Rodgers for significant draft capital, it probably wouldn't be spent on investing in a new QB and wouldn't pay off unless a new QB is found.
Likelihood: Moderate. If Love had a high chance of turning out well on his own, he probably would have been drafted higher. Love may certainly benefit from a somewhat unique circumstance, but his likeliest outcome is in range of other QBs drafted past the middle of the first round.
+/- Value: Negative. They would risk losing two years of a franchise QB, to shift assets (cap savings, potential draft capital) to positions that do not matter without a franchise QB. If Rodgers turns out to have declined too far by this point, what they would have lost was the capital and time invested into Love that should have been cut sooner, however long it takes.
Love is good, as is Rodgers, and Packers keep both:
What good means is the value of Love with the extra capital from moving on from Rodgers is roughly the same value to the team as having Rodgers, or higher, but the Packers elect to keep Rodgers for three or four years. This makes it much riskier to invest into Love after Rodgers moves on, since his time playing will be limited to one or two years, and potentially some time as a relief for Rodgers. The franchise tag will likely be an option, allowing the team an additional year or two to see if Love is capable enough for a contract. If Love is, then the Packers found a competent QB under a second contract, and seamlessly replaced their franchise QB as intended. The only real cost is squandering the most valuable asset: a good QB on a rookie deal, but that is only an opportunity cost, and not an actual cost of capital. If Love is not capable of a second contract, then Packers move on and seek to find a new QB as they would have needed to whether they drafted Love or not, with the only opportunity cost being what the meager draft capital could have been spent on.
Likelihood: Low. If Love is good, it may be difficult for the franchise to have confidence in him enough to move on from Rodgers after only two years, but certainly is within their intent. How likely this is, is mostly derived from how likely it is that Love turns out good.
+/- Value: Positive. Packers find their guy eventually, and the only thing they lost is the opportunity cost of the capital of moving on from Rodgers sooner and a year or two a rookie QB contract.
Love turns out good, but Packers fail to recognize it:
In this scenario, the Packers fail to pursue Love, potentially trading or cutting him, and move on with other plans to replace Rodgers.
There is no real cost to this scenario, just an opportunity cost of not following through with a good QB on a rookie deal. They would have the potential to recoup some draft capital, which will only pay out if they do have a competent QB, whether a replacement, or Rodgers for two more years.
Likelihood: Very Low.
+/- Value: Neutral. This is the same value as if Love is not good, but a higher chance of better draft capital reimbursement.
Love turns out great, and the Packers recognize it:
If Love can be good enough to make the Packers a contender, this is the ideal scenario, and what the Packers are risking it for. This is the outcome that should make Packers fans ecstatic. The Packers not only found their future franchise guy, but have secured him on a rookie deal. Whether they move on from Rodgers after two years, or their hand is forced and get Love earlier, they found what they were looking for: a succession plan to keep their roster competitive and allow them to focus their capital on supporting positions. Not only do they get the most valuable asset in all of football, some potential exists for acquiring draft capital from trading Rodgers too.
Likelihood: Very Low. Any QB turning out great is slim, especially one drafted so late. In this situation, most of Love's talents are realized, and his 2019 college season was mostly an anomaly. Whatever development he received behind Rodgers was either redundant or did help.
+/- Value: Very High. They found the most valuable asset, and have contention for years to come.
Conclusion:
My central argument, is this is a positive expected value situation (again, assuming Love is worth his draft position). Not only should a franchise always pursue positive EV decisions for QBs, the Packers are actually in a great position to minimize their risk with making smart decisions. They will not be forced to move on from Rodgers if they are not ready, yet have the freedom to do so if it is valuable to. All that remains after this point is evaluating how Love progresses, how Rodgers progresses, and if the Packers can make wise enough decisions regarding both assets.
Note, I did not actually calculate values for my EV estimation, but PFF did. They took into consideration the range of outcomes for Love given his college career, and the range of outcomes for the draft capital spent on him, and determined the EV to be positive. I doubt this considered that the Packers are in an adequate position to shift assets away from Rodgers into buying into a better roster for Love, which would make the move even more beneficial if it could come to that. Also noted is some investigation on QB value versus cap investment.
https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1253526362410934273?s=20
https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1234887782377586689?s=20
The Love pick has a positive expected value (likely, without personally computing such), and teams should always pursue positive expected values for the QB position. Furthermore, this is the right strategy, even if it does not pay off for the Packers.
The pick for Jordan love is very much the right type of strategy for a team to follow in finding a succession plan for a franchise QB. The worst position for a team to find a QB is stuck in the 15-30 range of draft position, never being able to grab a top 3 QB in a draft. Instead, the Packers chose to take a riskier prospect, give themselves time to develop and further project this player, and they have a chance to move on and consider an alternative route if he does not work out. The availability of an inconsistent prospect with elite highlights is akin to the Ravens drafting the 5th QB out of a draft, a future MVP. I am not trying to pave a path for Love to emulate Jackson, nor make those comparisons, but once a prospect is available at good value, and matches the team's situation, a team should always consider it. Ravens, in a similar position, frankly had too good of a QB to allow them to draft another one in the top 10, needing to take a swing on a project. The Ravens also traded up to draft Jackson, another similarity of these situations. I reiterate, I am not claiming Love will be Jackson, I am showing how this situation has worked before, and likely what the Packers envision.
Whether this individual was the right pick depends on how good one considers him a prospect. It is important to remind here that even if he busts, one cannot claim that it was necessarily the wrong pick. Development of any player is frankly mostly out of the control of their coaches. Even when the best General Managers draft for the best coaches, they still cannot insulate against busts. Retroactively analyzing draft picks must always only compare the comparability of prospects for a team at a time, never comparing how the careers unfold unless there is clear negligence on the part of the drafter.
Is Love the right guy?
I am not qualified to tell how good a prospect like Love is. I know he had a much better 2018 season, and lost his coach with nine starters on offense for the 2019 season. He responded by being very inconsistent with occasionally poor decision making. I cannot project this player, but it is very clear he has the highlights of a top QB prospect. Further analysis provided here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOG1qvCbqsc&feature=emb_title
For further clarification about what the Packers likely think of Jordan Love, watch the next link. They see a unique and elite talent hidden in a player that needs development to unlock it. I think the Packers recognize they likely have the best situation for Love to develop, with a good offensive line, strong run game, and no pressure to start immediately with a simplified playbook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dvaVmqYBo
What did it cost?
What is cost the Packers was a 30th overall pick and a late 4th round pick. I cannot emphasize this enough: the 4th round pick is mostly irrelevant. It is nice to have one, but the expected value of a 4th round pick is around a veteran minimum player. If Love works out, the pick will be very distant memory. I doubt the Ravens are questioning sending their middle of the draft pick to trade up for Jackson. The upside of Love is high enough that it was likely the right strategy anyhow, regardless of whether Love busts or not (assuming Love is an adequate prospect).
When someone is playing a board game, it the outcome of a dice roll does not impact whether or not it was the correct move to take the risk. Spending a very late 1st round and a late 4th was still work the risk for Love, regardless of the outcome.
People often overrate the value of first round picks, especially late ones. People assume a draft pick will play up to their potential yielding the highest return on investment of any asset in the league -- cheap elite talent. The reality is at least a third of all first round picks do not approach their potential, and half of them become average starters. The opportunity cost of not drafting a receiver is not what it seems, especially considering most receivers have a rookie learning curve to become an impact player. The opportunity cost of not drafting impact players in the first round is not what it seems either, since many teams have succeed despite poor success in the first. Competitive teams are built on depth through the draft, and FA to fill needs, especially teams drafting at the bottom of the first where day 1 impact players are uncommon.
More to read here: https://www.pff.com/news/draft-why-nfl-teams-should-sign-for-need-and-draft-for-value
Two short examples,
Pats first round picks since 2013:
Dominique Easley
Malcolm Brown
Isaiah Wynn
Sony Michelle
N'Keal Harry
Chiefs 1st round picks since 2018 (after drafting Mahomes):
nothing
https://twitter.com/AndyHermanNFL/status/1253756054770520067?s=20
I understand this is not substantial evidence, but nailing a first round pick is often an afterthought for building a contending roster. The primary focus is always having the right QB.
Winning now or investing in the future:
During Ted Thompson's tenure of General Manager, Packers fans were notably disappointed at his lack of free agency activity, save for a few splash signings. The team continually lacked depth, and the draft and develop strategy the Packers employed was insufficient at supplying such depth. Brian Gutekunst builds off this strategy by incorporating the free agency to insulate against the draft. He and I agree that the best way to prepare a team for immediate success in roster additions is by adding veterans in immediate needs -- filling needs that former draft picks have failed to do so. This diversifies the risk of invested assets, and allows a team to commit to moving on from assets that do not yield a sufficient return, and opening the draft up to the highest expected value players. He sees the draft as an investment into the future, and not something a team can wisely rely on in the immediate. This has particular merit when a team is drafting with a lower draft position, something the Packers have been regularly for a long time. Players found late cannot be relied to carry a position group, and would be unfair to them to rush them into play time before they can develop their talents to an NFL level. Pair that with the fact that even the best evaluators still select busts, and you have a wise strategy for not relying solely on fresh picks to play in key roles.
This strategy becomes controversial when a team does yield some success, but seems to be stuck in a limbo of good team but not good enough to win a championship. Over the last decade plus, it seem the Packers are the poster boy for this phenomenon, playing in several NFCCGs but unable to seal the deal. Similar teams are the Steelers and Seahawks, ever present in the playoffs but unable to win an additional title. The Saints, Bengals, and Vikings could be considered part of this category to a degree, having longer periods of success than average in getting to the playoffs. Sometimes teams seemingly come from poverty to riches in the playoffs, like the Eagles, Chiefs, Broncos, or Ravens, having short periods of being good, winning one title, and reverting back to average teams. Considering teams that make playoff runs, but do not win a Super Bowl has even more of these one hit wonders: Falcons, Panthers, 49ers, and Rams make their way to championships, only to lose and revert without a trophy. This is evidence to some that the correct way to reach a championship is to assemble the foundation of a team slowly, then invest their assets into maximizing short term team strength when the time is right, and it is well worth the two or three season long recoil period with exhausted assets. I feel this strategy is a bit of an illusion.
Simply because the Packers, Steelers, and Seahawks have been unable to convert their investment into a Superbowl, should not hide the fact that they have been stopped (at least the latter two) by a team that has accomplished this philosophy: the Patriots. Not only have they had a franchise QB under contract the entire time, and repeatedly invested a poorer draft position into their future, it has yielded them 6 Super Bowl titles, and an additional 3 AFCCGs. If the Packers did win two of their lost NFCCGs, they would have had to face the Patriots in the playoffs as well. Also worth noting, that the Patriots once went 10 years between Super Bowl wins, something overlooked because they quickly won several after their drought ended. It is unfair to look at teams who went 10 years of playoff wins without a title, and hold them to some higher standard than the Patriots by cherry picking the short periods where the Patriots were successful in converting their investment into multiple titles.
Furthermore, people use confirmation bias when citing teams of the long term investment plans, without recognizing that the playoffs are filled with teams that make an appearance and quickly disappear, reverting back to mediocrity. It is unfair to look at a single team with 5 or so playoff appearances in a 7 year period, and wonder why they did not win a Super Bowl. The reality is a Super Bowl is incredibly difficult to obtain, and relies on more luck than most people will admit. This is even truer when you consider how many teams won from good defensive performances, when the shelf like of a good defense is only two or three years, and the shelf life of an elite defense is seldom more than two. It is a waste of assets to spend a year or two of a franchise QB's career in a recoil period.
If a team has a particular probability of winning Super Bowl in each of two years, a strategy with the same expected number of Super Bowls is to double their probability in one of those two years, and miss the playoffs altogether in the other (probability of zero). If a team has 20% chance one year, 10% the next, and 0% the following, their likelihood of winning over that period is the same as three years of 10%, but investing to achieve that 20% more often nets a team closer to 18%, thus making the former strategy worse than the latter -- doubling one's Super Bowl chances is easier said than done. Super Bowl probability is asymptotic, and very likely practically capped around no more than 25%. Because of this, adding future assets onto an already contending roster hits diminishing returns quickly, investing valuable future chances at a title in the current. This can be especially more dangerous when considering how a few injuries can completely derail a season, or at the very least, drop someone out of a top seed.
For this reason, there is some merit to a lot of team strategies where they invest heavily in the twilight of a franchise QB, knowing it is an uphill battle finding the next. Keeping the future open risks not finding a competent QB after as a Super Bowl capable one retires, and wastes future assets that are worthless to a team since they cannot compete anyway. If a team does pile future assets onto a current roster with a short period before their QB retires, they will likely be a worse team after said QB retires, and lets them compete for a higher draft position anyhow. Hence, the controversy over the Packers either investing in what they have in Rodgers, or investing into the long term future (hopefully a decade and more of the next franchise QB).
The Packers have stuck with their original strategy, and invested into the next QB, rather than going all in with QB they have. Whether this is correct depends on a multitude of projections and probabilities, but the tipping point between one or the other can be quite slim. To contrast the Saints' strategy, Rodgers has been significantly more volatile than Brees, and has a more extensive injury history, not just collarbone fractures, but an MCL sprain, and several hamstrings and concussions. On top of that, the diminishing returns on increasing Super Bowl probability suggests Rodgers playing at his best is less of a benefit than Rodgers playing at his worst is a detriment.
Another consideration about whether this is the right strategy for the Packers is the supporting team situation. The Saints have a long tenured coach with a history of success, and several recent consecutive playoff appearances. The Packers have a single recent playoff appearances with a first year head coach. Projecting future playoff success with this Saints team is easier than with the Packers who could very well be one of the previously mentioned NFC teams that can't repeat one year of success. The history of the year after a team loses a championship is very bleak.
Draft capital as a risky asset anyway:
The reality is every pick is a risk. It is fair, but disingenuous to say that the Packers are taking a risk on this prospect. They take a risk drafting any prospect. If they wanted to minimize all risks, they would just trade their picks for known players, but that also assumes some amount of risk for compatibility, individual regression, and talent evaluation. Roster management is basically teams acquiring assets in the form of picks and cap space, trade them for riskier assets in the form of players, and keep churning through asset conversion in the attempt to find the highest returns. This pick is a risk with a higher range of outcomes than something like a wide receiver, but people fallaciously equate that as a "riskier" investment in the sense it is less likely to succeed, even if it has a higher expected value.
Should they have traded up at all? It is very unlikely any remaining team in the first round was considering Love, although the Colts and Patriots had early second round picks and both need a long term solution at QB. Whether they were willing to trade for him will never be known, but a 4th round pick is an insignificant cost to secure a potential franchise QB.
The Packers' Situation:
The Packers are in fact in a good situation to draft Love now. They have a contract out after the 2021 season, allowing them to cut or trade Aaron Rodgers with only $17 million dead cap over the following two, potentially three years of Love on a rookie contract. This move would save them almost $23 million.
More to read here: https://twitter.com/KenIngalls/status/1253688575440441360?s=20
Analyzing the cost of dead cap is mostly pointless since it is entirely a sunk cost. The reality is that the Packers already paid Rodgers that money, he just didn't get it in the mail yet. The only things worth considering are the cap situation with Rodgers and without. They either get Rodgers for two years in 2022 and 2023, or Love for three years and an additional $23 million.
It is also worth considering that the cap raises every year, especially with a new looming CBA that will greatly raise the cap. $17 million is mostly insignificant to a team with a rookie QB. For example, the Ravens decided on a $16 million total dead cap cost for Flacco, and it hardly prevented them from being the first seed in the playoffs. After the $17 million is spent, the Packers get ideally a rookie QB for rookie cap hits for two years, the most valuable asset in the league.
https://ravenswire.usatoday.com/2019/02/13/joe-flacco-trade-broncos-ravens-2019-salary-cap-update/
This wasn't just the best strategy for the Packers...
There are several teams that I will argue should have seriously considered either Love or this strategy in general. Ironically, one team is the Colts, who previously pulled off a successful succession plan for Payton Manning. They had the luxury of Manning missing a year to draft their replacement, something few teams with a franchise QB can afford. Whether they wasted Luck's career with poor management, or injuries forced Luck to retire early, is irrelevant to whether it was correct to move on from Manning, and I wager it was. Luck was a fantastic prospect that realized his potential, and Manning had many looming uncertainties the Colts were hedging against. Even if Manning had a historic year for the Broncos, that was a small opportunity cost for a potential decade of a Super Bowl capable franchise QB.
Now the Colts are in a position where they have no reliable future after Philip Rivers takes them outside the top 20 of draft position and will promptly retire. Their future will be digging through the wreckage of failed QB draft picks in free agency, or tanking to find the next QB and hope other teams don't out-tank them to the top of the draft. Even if they do draft a quality prospect, they are missing an opportunity for him to develop under Rivers. This intellectual capital is very valuable for a position dependent on experience and mental processing like QB. It is not the determining factor for QBs, but for the development projects available at the bottom of the first round, it can be particularly important.
Another team seemingly with no plan is the Saints. Drew Brees cannot be expected to play more than one more year, and they have a Super Bowl competitive roster potentially to waste when Brees retires. I would argue that the Saints made a mistake not drafting Love (assuming Love is a first round QB prospect like some believe he is). I would be very excited, if I were a Saints fan, for Love to develop under Brees for a year and inherit a contending roster. This is especially true since Love's best asset is his ability to improvise plays with his athleticism, something Brees cannot do at this age. Instead Brees likely takes them to the playoffs again, and retires leaving them with almost nothing in terms of QB assets. Maybe they will pay Taysom Hill, who is 30 years old and never started at QB. Maybe they should have forced Brees to retire last offseason and resigned Bridgewater, who won five games for them, setting them up for potentially a 2nd seed.
The Steelers are in a similar position, but since Roethlisberger has bigger lingering questions about his ability to perform after missing a year to injury, they could potentially be too ineffective of a team to even make the playoffs, while likely still being too far out of reach of the top QB prospects. If they do reach only mediocrity this season, possibly they can work their way into the top of the draft, but likely spending significant draft capital to do so. If they are stuck drafting the 3rd QB prospect or worse, they will either land the technically proficient, unathletic breed of quarterback like Herbert, or the inconsistent development project like Love, making one wonder if the Steelers should have not traded for Minkah Fitzpatrick with their first round pick, and instead used in on Love, or at least drafted a QB earlier. I think they could offer another good spot for Big Ben to contend for a year or two, and seamlessly transition to Love without taking chances with FA QBs with lower upside, and squander a competitive roster, or tank and take risks on less than the best available prospects a year or two too late.
The Patriots are a team that has the coaching staff and roster to contend for a championship, but could not secure a succession plan for Brady. Ironically they have a history of churning through capable backup QBs, including Garoppolo who led another team to several playoff wins. He was in a prime position to replace Brady several years ago, and leave them with a significantly more productive quarterback on a much cheaper deal. They even have invested the development time into him, building his intellectual capital and chemistry with the coaching staff, only to stick with Brady too long at his expense, and are now stuck with a competitive roster that would be very unlikely to land a top QB prospect before falling apart.
What are the potential ranges of outcomes, and associated probabilities?
Some things to keep in mind are the availability and efficiency of Rodgers. To be blunt, he has been inconsistent and unavailable in recent years. He struggled significantly in 2015 and early 2016. Even if partly due to a failing and injured roster, with a struggling coach, did a top QB contract provide a good return on investment then? He missed the majority of a season in 2017 and the Packers were unable to contend despite participating in an NFCCG the previous season. That was a stark contrast to the Saints this year -- a team unable to compete against average teams with poor QB play, versus a team that went undefeated with their backup QB. Even the Steelers, with very poor QB play, almost made the playoffs. They likely would have loved to have Love available for a few games. In 2018, Rodgers, significantly injured again, struggled mightily and missed the playoffs. Even if a poor group of receivers and poor offensive strategy was to blame, he was not consistently performing in the ways and at the level he was historically known for. The likelihood Rodgers misses at least some amount of time over the next two seasons is fairly high, and over the next four is very high, especially with pressure to bench him if an excuse arises, and motive to maintain his health for a possible playoff push. A possible reality is that Rodgers is no longer one of the elites capable of consistently saving a team from close losses, or overcoming steep competition in the playoffs. I will defend that he did such in several games during the 2019 season, but after his last three NFCCGs ended terribly, one has to wonder if he is capable of finishing a playoff run. This is not dissimilar to people needing to replace Favre with another great QB to see what ways Favre either contributed to playoff losses, or failed to contribute to potential playoff wins.
Over the next 4 years, are we more likely to get the Rodgers from 2015, early 2016, 2017, and 2018? Or will we see more Rodgers from later 2016 and 2019?
Love is not good, Rodgers still is, and the Packers realize it early:
If this is the case, then the Packers are able to decline Rodgers' contractual out, and keep his services for an additional two years: through the 2023 season. In this situation, they can proceed with other succession plans as if they never drafted Love. The only downside is they lost out on the value of a first round pick, something that is pretty minor in the scope of contending over a 4 year period. A potential upside here is Love winning several games, keeping the Packers in contention, should they need him in relief for Rodgers. An even better upside is the Packers could recuperate some of their losses by trading Love, granted he showcases enough for a potential buyer. Josh Rosen, playing very poorly most of a season and being immediately replaced, and with no veteran's guidance other than Sam Bradford, still fetched a 2nd round pick. It is hard to imagine that if Love has several strong games showcasing the talent he is capable of, something guys like Rosen does not, he couldn't at least fetch a 3rd round pick with three years left on a rookie deal.
Likelihood: Low. It is unlikely they realize Love is not good AND Rodgers still is, and commit to Rodgers. A possible third year for Rodgers could be in play.
+/- Value: Small negative. Only loss is opportunity cost of average draft capital, something that has a positive return 2/3rds of the time anyhow. Potential to recoup some of that draft capital.
Love is not good, but Packers do not realize early enough:
In this situation, the Packers would move on from Rodgers in two seasons, and give the reins to Love.
Should Rodgers remain competent enough to contend, then the Packers opportunity cost is two seasons with a franchise QB, while they start the hunt for the next QB early. Should Rodgers decline too far to be relied on regardless, then nothing was lost except the opportunity cost of drafting a different position with the picks spent on Love, something almost worthless without a franchise QB anyway.
Unfortunately, if the Packers are able to trade Rodgers for significant draft capital, it probably wouldn't be spent on investing in a new QB and wouldn't pay off unless a new QB is found.
Likelihood: Moderate. If Love had a high chance of turning out well on his own, he probably would have been drafted higher. Love may certainly benefit from a somewhat unique circumstance, but his likeliest outcome is in range of other QBs drafted past the middle of the first round.
+/- Value: Negative. They would risk losing two years of a franchise QB, to shift assets (cap savings, potential draft capital) to positions that do not matter without a franchise QB. If Rodgers turns out to have declined too far by this point, what they would have lost was the capital and time invested into Love that should have been cut sooner, however long it takes.
Love is good, as is Rodgers, and Packers keep both:
What good means is the value of Love with the extra capital from moving on from Rodgers is roughly the same value to the team as having Rodgers, or higher, but the Packers elect to keep Rodgers for three or four years. This makes it much riskier to invest into Love after Rodgers moves on, since his time playing will be limited to one or two years, and potentially some time as a relief for Rodgers. The franchise tag will likely be an option, allowing the team an additional year or two to see if Love is capable enough for a contract. If Love is, then the Packers found a competent QB under a second contract, and seamlessly replaced their franchise QB as intended. The only real cost is squandering the most valuable asset: a good QB on a rookie deal, but that is only an opportunity cost, and not an actual cost of capital. If Love is not capable of a second contract, then Packers move on and seek to find a new QB as they would have needed to whether they drafted Love or not, with the only opportunity cost being what the meager draft capital could have been spent on.
Likelihood: Low. If Love is good, it may be difficult for the franchise to have confidence in him enough to move on from Rodgers after only two years, but certainly is within their intent. How likely this is, is mostly derived from how likely it is that Love turns out good.
+/- Value: Positive. Packers find their guy eventually, and the only thing they lost is the opportunity cost of the capital of moving on from Rodgers sooner and a year or two a rookie QB contract.
Love turns out good, but Packers fail to recognize it:
In this scenario, the Packers fail to pursue Love, potentially trading or cutting him, and move on with other plans to replace Rodgers.
There is no real cost to this scenario, just an opportunity cost of not following through with a good QB on a rookie deal. They would have the potential to recoup some draft capital, which will only pay out if they do have a competent QB, whether a replacement, or Rodgers for two more years.
Likelihood: Very Low.
+/- Value: Neutral. This is the same value as if Love is not good, but a higher chance of better draft capital reimbursement.
Love turns out great, and the Packers recognize it:
If Love can be good enough to make the Packers a contender, this is the ideal scenario, and what the Packers are risking it for. This is the outcome that should make Packers fans ecstatic. The Packers not only found their future franchise guy, but have secured him on a rookie deal. Whether they move on from Rodgers after two years, or their hand is forced and get Love earlier, they found what they were looking for: a succession plan to keep their roster competitive and allow them to focus their capital on supporting positions. Not only do they get the most valuable asset in all of football, some potential exists for acquiring draft capital from trading Rodgers too.
Likelihood: Very Low. Any QB turning out great is slim, especially one drafted so late. In this situation, most of Love's talents are realized, and his 2019 college season was mostly an anomaly. Whatever development he received behind Rodgers was either redundant or did help.
+/- Value: Very High. They found the most valuable asset, and have contention for years to come.
Conclusion:
My central argument, is this is a positive expected value situation (again, assuming Love is worth his draft position). Not only should a franchise always pursue positive EV decisions for QBs, the Packers are actually in a great position to minimize their risk with making smart decisions. They will not be forced to move on from Rodgers if they are not ready, yet have the freedom to do so if it is valuable to. All that remains after this point is evaluating how Love progresses, how Rodgers progresses, and if the Packers can make wise enough decisions regarding both assets.
Note, I did not actually calculate values for my EV estimation, but PFF did. They took into consideration the range of outcomes for Love given his college career, and the range of outcomes for the draft capital spent on him, and determined the EV to be positive. I doubt this considered that the Packers are in an adequate position to shift assets away from Rodgers into buying into a better roster for Love, which would make the move even more beneficial if it could come to that. Also noted is some investigation on QB value versus cap investment.
https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1253526362410934273?s=20
https://twitter.com/PFF_Moo/status/1234887782377586689?s=20
Comments
Post a Comment