Introducing the MHR Positional Stability Index -- First Up, Quarterbacks

how much more interesting the other positions are than QB. Frankly, despite a lot of arbitrariness to the contrary, the QB position is relatively simple to break down from a roster stability point of view.

Jamarcus Russell. If your team has holes to fill across the board, a high drafted QB won’t do anything for you.

Sanchez, Flacco, and Ryan have played in “vanilla” offenses compared to the one in Denver. It’s been discussed many times already that Tom Brady’s been quoted in saying that it takes 2 years to learn this spread offense. Orton had NFL experience as a starter, far exceeding anything any rookie QB could bring to the table – hence his earning the starting QB slot in 2009. And based on his performance, he’s earned himself the starting spot for at least another year.

Had those guys you mention been drafted by Denver or New England, they would have been holding a clipboard in their rookie seasons.

As far as having a “shot at contending,” as you say, that will largely depend upon giving Orton the protection he needs and providing the proper blocking for the running backs that they need in order for the offense to win games.

my argument against drafting a QB with the intention of starting him (which seems to be the draft choice you are implying) isn’t that I don’t think they can come in and be productive (I think they can, and that 2010 will be no different), its that roster moves need to be made within a positional, and wholeteam, framework. That is the whole point of the PSI, to make that a clearer issue by making it perceptually self-evident.

I call the choice to invest heavily in a starting QB in the draft “self-defeating”, not wrong, or impossible, though in the right context either might (and likely will) apply. An analogy might help explain this.

Replacing Orton with a top rookie QB is similar to a gambler who loses a bet doubling down on his next bet. Where the gambler, and many fans, make their mistake, is in thinking that the problem is that they were wrong on their bet (i.e. that Orton was the wrong choice). The REAL problem is that the gambler doesn’t know how to handle risk and probability. Doubling down exposes him to twice as much risk as he faced before, and he is still out his original loss. In the player analogy, you throw your investment in Orton away, and invest (at least) twice as heavily in another player, all based on the erroneous assumption that the most important thing you are doing is choosing the “right” player (or bet). If this sounds like a good strategy, then you are probably a Shanahan fan, because this is EXACTLY his roster development strategy. His focus was on particular players, as opposed to a particular grouping of players. And when he was wrong, he tried to make up for it by going even bigger next time. For Shanny, his coaching excellence (and near genius level of intelligence) were his bankroll, but even the largest bankroll will run dry without some kind of overarching risk-management ability.

I hope this analogy is somewhat useful, as we are getting away from what I was aiming for with this article about the PSI. My goal was to find a perspective on roster moves that allowed us to relegate the more arbitrary elements of roster analysis (i.e. I like this guy, but I don’t like this other guy) to different discussions. The choice to replace Orton with a new rookie is the same as a choice to go all in, cashing in the opportunities that his and Simms signing have earned us, without even seeing our hand yet. This team needs to get significantly worse before the suggested QB upgrade becomes an option that doesn’t waste more than it gains.

I don’t disagree that there will be a market for Orton, even if he is a tendered RFA. To some degree, his decision will be affected by whether he feels he could be successful going somewhere else, which makes me hopeful that he wouldn’t take just any deal to part from a great situation for himself in Denver, but overall, low tenders will have some risk associated with them.

I advocated above the $2.521 million salary if we have too, over twice what he makes now, though still ever so slightly less than what Simms makes (a moot point if Simms gets cut, since the cap hit of cutting him is pretty unpredictable, but likely negligible). The max tender (1st and 3rd) will let Orton cash in on $3.168million, a tidy sum that would be a reflection of Denver’s belief that he will continue to improve and be worth that kind of money next year.

Franchising him is a whole ‘nother ball of wax, and would be probably in the $15 million dollar range, which is a LOT of denero, even for a high maintenance neckbeard like Orton is sportin’. If they hit him with this, I would have to believe that their intention was to move him, and the compensation would almost certainly involve a QB, whether it was in trade or in the draft. This seems highly risky and I don’t think it leaves any reasonable contingencies if it doesn’t go down according to plan. Count me as one who would feel that such a move would be incredibly foolish.

Transition tags are a little less expensive, but still suffer from the same problem, and can thus be ruled out as well, IMO.

One thing I forgot to mention, when talking about targeting a UFA vet QB to replace Simms and push Orton, is that if we were successful, it would drive up demand for Orton. This indicates to me that Denver wouldn’t try to be one of the first to sign a UFA QB, they woudl wait, adn let the market develop, while keeping a close grip on Orton, and then, if things fell into place, they would make a later move (but still pre-draft) to grab somebody up. Like I said above, I expect them to be looking close at veteran QBs to make Simms expendable, but they will be ready and willing to just walk away and focus on Orton and the draft.

A storyline for 2010 is going to be players getting the short end of the stick, especially with a lockout looming, and with Cutler getting his extension in Chicago, Denver might be best served from an internal harmony standpoint by elevating Orton to the highest rate, despite the lack of concrete evidence that it would be necessary. At heart, I am a suppOrton, but I think even those with substantial questions about him would take under consideration that he was underpaid for 2009.

I’ve highlighted the person who has the edge in each catergorie

2006
9 Tom Brady NE QB 319 516 61.8 32.2 3,529 6.8 220.6 24 12 176 34.1 62T 46 8 26 87.9

2009
14 Kyle Orton DEN QB 336 541 62.1 33.8 3,802 7.0 237.6 21 12 185 34.2 87T 43 9 29 86.9

Orton has the upperhand in completion percentage, yards, average, yards/game, 1st downs, 1st down percentage, had more sacks against him, and loses in rating (by 1 point) and TDs.

Tell me again that he doesn’t deserve a second look.

And as far as a sound money policy goes, a 4 year deal is almost the best option. I also like the vote of confidence it shows in Orton, and I love the thought of reading about how he is coming into camp focused with a respectable contract and the goodwill between player and team that that engenders. I would not be averse to this situation at all.

But, my feeling is that the Broncos have an opportunity to leave options on the table by tendering Orton for a single year, and that they are too savvy too pass up those kinds of opportunities when they present. In fact, a case could be made that this decision has already been made since they didn’t extend Orton already.

The things being weighed against eachother in this scenario are the value of the goodwill a new contract would create Vs. the value of contingencies if something were to happen to Orton. For those not comfortable with Orton as a starter, that “something” is that Orton might actually suck. But whether you are a suppOrton or not, we all must acknowledge the very real possibility of injury. A tender offers Denver a chance at roster protection in the event that Orton were to get injured. Teams covet that kind of roster building flexibility.

That said, there may be reason to highly value a goodwill contract for Orton. Perhaps they might feel that it would help address lockerroom issues (kind of a “we pay our leaders” thing, or something). Or maybe they are absolutely convinced that Orton is the best man for the job, not just next year, but for the years to come after that. If true, roster options in the event of his injury become less important, and investment in a highly capable backup become a new focus.

I lean one way, but I can see why someone might lean the other…

we do not want to prorate the signing bonus over the next four years. Take the accounting hit in 2010 when the cash goes out. No reason to carry the costs in to future years and let them be a burden later.

but something similar might be a franchise or transition tag next year, after a top tender this year. Very expensive though…

would have him coming into FA again when Brandstater does, most likely (need a new CBA to know for sure) which would be a bit unusual. IF you front end load the contract, ala Dawkins, you are in a position to get either a good deal on your starter in year three, or the option to cut him and start Brandstater. But you would have to resign TomB to do that….

I think Hoop’s suggestion above of 4 years for a contract is likely a little more solid, and his payout is similar per year to what you are envisioning.

Also, planning to use Orton as bait in the pursuit of the draft compensation that could offset the taking of an early rookie QB, could have some negative repercussions if it didn’t work out. Tendering him at the low salary isn’t guaranteed to get a bite, and if they ended up keeping him, with a negligible raise, it will be pretty clear that they aren’t in it with him for the long haul. That could have a distinct effect on the lockerroom, and even on the QB they draft if they continue down that road (similar to Plummer’s teammates not being 100% on board with Cutler initially). All the more reason to doubt that it happens.

I doubt there will be much disagreement when it comes to where to tender Orton, or whether to target a top rookie QB. Like I mentioned above, QB is pretty straightforward this year. Interesting, but straightforward.

Now, G/C on the other hand….

Secondly, in response to this statement:

the NFL is a quarterbacks league and if you don’t have a great one you ain’t going nowhere.

The NFL is a “team” league. The franchise with the best “team” on the field, will win.

Orton, might take us to a superbowl. Who knows? With some more pieces, it could happen. Simms, you’re right. He probably won’t. Brandstater hasn’t played a down in the NFL. So, how can you judge him, at this point?

All McDaniels had to do when he took over was basically keep Shanahan’s offense in tact and work on the defense.

Why? That offense was 16th in scoring. It was just average. All those yards we racked up on our way to a redzone turnover really influenced people’s bias, in 2008.

You say we need an elite QB and that Shanny knows this and therefore will draft a QB in the first round…..that is a big assumption that there is an elite QB in the first round. I suspect if McD truly feels there is an elite QB in the 1st round when we are drafting, he will pick him. However, I don’t think there is an elite QB in the draft this year…

Cutler/George was not the answer. Have you forgot his inability to score? Many more reasons.
The worst thing (of many) that Shanahan did on that draft day was to cut the heart out of Plummer and not fill the big need of defense.

First, I’d say holding Shanahan up as a judge of QB talent is a little off — after all, Shanahan was the man who passed over Chad Pennington to later take Brian Griese as his QB to develop. In fact, of all the QBs Shanahan drafted, only one is still playing…

Second, if Shanahan drafts a QB, it won’t be because

he knows Jason Campbell is the same kind of qb as Orton- an average qb

You get the first key piece of data, which is contract value over time, a relatively objective consideration, while the second key data is where those contracts are related in terms of roster hierarchy (i.e., where are they stacked), which is somewhat subjective (but hopefully an informed decision).

A risky player, if signed correctly, should represent little actual “weight” in a PSI. So lets say that Matt Millen did the signing, and Nate Webster just got a 4 year deal. Would the PSI reflect how poor the decision was?

Initially it might not. If everyone assumed Nate was up to the task, they might put him at the foundation, as a productive starter. The four years is pretty solid. But we would also need to constantly evaluate whether he belonged at the bottom, or whether he wasn’t an important piece of the puzzle. Other players would be moved below him, for better or worse, which drives the “weight” of his contract further up the stack until it is untenable. A great example of this was Shanny’s signing of Boss Bailey. When a player isn’t even on the field to have his production judged, his status will get driven up the stack pretty quickly. When McXander’s took the reins, they lopped that off the top right away.

Something else you mentioned, about Orton, involves us setting up the roster with the idea that he would eventually slip into a backup role. I think it would be a mistake to plan around this. He is young, and a fiery competitor. Even if TomB managed to develop quickly enough to beat Orton out, there is no way that Orton would be content as a backup. He would leave at the first opportunity he had, or could create.

Why do you think that a FA vet would be at a disadvantage competing with Brandstater? I can see how he might be, but I don’t think it would clearly be the case. If I had to guess, a vet might actually be MORE likely to have the advantage, since there is no substitute for in game experience, regardless of system. At worst I think the situation may be a tossup.

I want to take a second and use the PSI to evaluate having a John Skelton, TomB and Orton on the roster next year. Skelton could possibly be signed as a CFA to a short contract, but I will assume he is only here if we draft him and sign him to at least 3-4 year deal. TomB will be in year 2 of a 4 year deal. Orton will either be on a one year deal, or probably a 4 year deal, so we will look at both:

On a one year tender, with the assumption that Brandstater is more suited to the #2, we end up with an unstable, but not terrible structure. This is explained by the fact that having two heavy contracts, both ticking off at the same time, but neither producing isn’t desirable. From a structural point of view, both Skelton and Brandstater would be relatively redundant. Sometimes this can be desirable, such as with our starting RB situation, but at backup QB it probably isn’t. A case could be made for it, I admit, and it would be a decent argument. Essentially one could say that Skelton and TOmB are redundant, but that when one steps ahead of the other and starts, that the other could be traded or cut and then replaced. Obviously that isn’t good if it happens soon, due to the weight of the contract, but it can’t happen later either, because Orton will be long gone, and a different solution will have to have presented itself by then. This structure is ok, and if Orton was hurt, and either TomB or Skelton could produce, the structure gets very strong quickly (by moving Orton to the top of the stack where he would be easily replaceable. If you were a gambling man, this would be a terrific high stakes bet.

Additionally we might end up with Orton signed to a longer term deal. As you cna see this would be VERY solid, but that is a lot of contract years tied up all at one position. There is almost no flexibility at the position for the next 3 years, and if a player has a setback or injury, there is no room to maneuver. A good general structure to target is a pyramid, with productive players signed long term, and players with diminishing returns in a more flexible position. As noted above however, sometimes a Cantilever, such as a 4 year Brandstater contract, makes sense, since it takes time for some positions to develop. But if you can, a productive pyramid is still a superior option.

Just as a thought experiment, one could ask what the ideal QB structure would look like according to the PSI… in one possibility, to start with, your starter would be signed long term, and he would be productive. That is your foundation. Directly on top of him would be a talented young player on a long term contract, within a year’s length, longer or shorter, than the starter. If the starter got injured, this player would step in and replace him, but he question of what to do with either of them at contract time would not occur in the same year. On top of them would be a short, one or two year contract on an emergency-emergency backup, the last line of defense, so to speak. THis could be a league minimum vet who didn’t trip on his own shoelaces, or a PS player or CFA developmental type player. By nature he would be interchangeable, so it wouldn’t matter that he was signed long term, and he wouldn’t be so “heavy” as to be either a redundant contract or in danger of toppling the structure below him as time passed.

But it is to be remembered that, just like in nature, the natural tendency of the structure will be towards entropy. If a GM stands by and does nothing, or acts randomly, the structure will trend towards collapse. In an interesting twist of fate (architects will appreciate this) the BETTER you are at creating a balanced structure, the more severe the results of imbalance are if they are allowed to occur (imagine building a shanty out of leaned together pieces of tin. If it starts to collapse on itself it is hardly noticeable. But if you build Fallingwater, the slightest decay can be a critical failure if not addressed. This why the better job a GM does, the harder it is to stay at the top. At a certain level of achievement, there is no room for error….

when you look at the playoff teams, the teams that were able to be successful down the stretch, they were teams that have depth and relied on it. Occasionally a team will get lucky, like the 05 Broncos, and not suffer any injury (or other) setbacks in the personnel department, but it is better to design a team that is strong and financially sound. Then talking about superbowls and postseason success can be something you do all the time, not just on “lucky” years.

I would also add that with the CBA unrest that is coming, the product that is fielded after 2010 will be different from what we are seeing now, in that it will involve cheaper players, and more leaguewide focus on properly built teams.

It will be interesting to watch.

I used my son’s Junior NFL GM Kit™ to illustrate my idea. This first image show the current state of affairs, with Orton as blue, Simms as red, and Brandstater as white. The height of the block is approximately $1M, and two nubs (what is the technical turn for the thingies on top a Lego block?) is one year.

Next year, if the broncos extend Orton for only a year, and dump Simms for a competent back-up with a 2-year contract (green), the stack is still over balanced:

However, give Orton a 2-year contract, and everything is stable, both with Simms (shudder):

or with an expensive 1st to 2nd rounder (in yellow):

Kidding aside, in any of the scenarios I think it is easier to see the relative impact of the contract terms in both time and money if you add the third dimension. In the third and especially the fourth image, it is clearer the light impact Brandstater’s low-round pick contract has on the overall structure.