NFL team resource allocation decision

[albionmoonlight]

You have recently been named the GM of an NFL team. Your owner wants to win. Along those lines, your owner has indicated that they are willing to devote effectively infinite resources to one of the following areas of the team, and they are going to let you choose. The plan/goal would be to be one of the best teams in this area (to the extent resources helps with that, which is part of the question you need to answer). The other areas of the team will not be neglected, but they will have to operate under normal resource constraints--you can assume that they will be around average depending on luck, etc.

So what area do you choose?

Sports Science/Injury Prevention: NFL seasons rise and fall based on injury "luck." But what if it isn't all luck? Getting an edge over other teams in injury prevention, increased endurance, etc. would be huge. You'll get the most cutting-edge training techniques, recovery equipment, practice schedules, etc. all with an eye toward avoiding injuries and keeping bodies at peak physical performance.

Scouting: This isn't hard. The best teams have the best players. You will use the most advanced systems out there to try and get the next Josh Allen and avoid the next Baker Mayfield. And you will hire enough scouts so that if there's some DII tight end in Idaho that's gonna be the next Gronkowski, you'll know about him and grab him in the 4th round.

Player Development: Drafting the best players means nothing if you can't develop them. You will spare no expense and overpay for all of the best position coaches out there. You will do everything possible to get every guy on your team to turn his green bars into red.

Play calling/design: The best teams put their players in the best positions to succeed. The synergy of scheme and talent is beautiful to watch when it works. You will pay whatever it takes to get the best scheme designers in your building and keep them there. You will have guys on the road going to random high school games and talking to coaches and finding the next big trend in football and bringing it to the NFL before anyone else even knows it exists.

[NobodyHere]

Beer Tents

[sterlingice]

I view this an exercise in "which thing does the best do that much better than everyone else in" because everything else you're going to be "average" at.

I think that means you have to take scouting. Best players can overcome the other stuff. And I think if you're elite at scouting, you can find guys that even with average development will be better than other teams.

Player development feels like it's done more in college than the pros. Not that it doesn't happen at the pro level, but the difference between average development and elite development seems smaller. And without good scouting, you're going to end up with a bunch of 45/45 guys.

Play calling/design - I feel like it's much easier to make decent plays if you have better talent vs taking mediocre players and a wizard at play calls. I guess the counter example is that Andy Reid and Alex Smith won 11 or 12 games together so you have a much higher floor if this is your item you choose.

If there were some secret sauce to prevent injuries, this might be an underrated one. But if you're just preventing injury to mediocre players, then it's less useful. And I think this is also the one where the difference between elite and average is just not that great right now. Are there any teams known for keeping their players particularly healthy? I'm sure there is a lot of money invested in it in the NFL but we haven't cracked the code of how to prevent injuries when 300 lb elite athletes smash into each other at high speeds. Endurance might give you a nice 4th quarter edge that I'm underrating.

SI

[GrantDawg]

That is a good arguement SI, but I still think beer tents might have the edge.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Bobble]

SI said it pretty well and I'd go with the same choice.

However, being a Lions fan and seeing injuries take a team that was at least hopeful and drag it back down to atrocious, imagine a Sports Science department that prevents every concussion with a special new helmet; prevents every ACL and Achilles tear with no loss of speed nor agility by developing a leg brace apparatus; and every player comes back next week -- even on the short week -- at absolutely 100%. It would be interesting to see how much that's really worth in the NFL environment. Especially if you consider that all your opponents would still be dealing with ... well, reality.

If the question is around what can we actually do right now versus a fantasy technology, I don't think Sports Science today can move the needle enough.

edit: Great topic, BTW.

[Edward64]

I'd go with "coaching" which seems to be split between "player development" and "scheme design".

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Bobble

However, being a Lions fan and seeing injuries take a team that was at least hopeful and drag it back down to atrocious,

It was looking at the latest Saints injury report that inspired the poll.

If there is a sports science answer to injury reduction, then I think that it would give you a huge advantage over other teams. But Si's point about 300 lb. men smashing into each other is a good one. It just may be that other than the stuff every team is already doing (stretch well, stay hydrated, etc.), there isn't much value-add that sports science can give us yet. You can sleep in as many hyperbaric chambers as you want, but if your ankle gets caught under the pile, it's gonna get just as fucked up as anyone else's.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, I think this question is a lot different if it really is infinite resources and sci fi technology. I mean that's a lot more fun, actually - maybe I was being too limiting.

To make it fair, we'd have to apply that across the board.

You'd basically be giving the scouting department a crystal ball to pick whoever would be HOF caliber. But you'd also be giving that to the play calling team. Like they know exactly what you're going to do so they basically have that crystal ball, too. I might almost go that way then. Your talent is NFL average not high schoolers up against those HOFers.

You can see what the other team is going to do, both on offense and defense, which means you're closest to the results than anything. It means you should mostly be able to score at will - sure, they have some lockdown corners and a great pass rush, but you know you can get your guy in space because you know where the weakness is. And most of the times your guy can deliver it. That said, how many times can you stop an offensive line of Aaron Donalds from blowing up your guy or a random pick by every ball hawking CB out there. That said, the other team only has 1 1st round pick, 1 2nd round pick, etc - they're not getting all of the best players in the league, just a disproportionate one, especially after the first couple rounds.

However, stopping the other team might be close to impossible. You're up against an elite offensive line with Patrick Mahomes throwing to elite WRs. I mean, even if you know where it's going, can you stop them for 3 downs?

But I'd be curious to see it.

I'm not sure the other two: infinite injury prevention or infinite player development can keep up with those two.

SI

[BYU 14]

Quite honestly, from a coaching perspective player development.

Scouting, with the availability of film, combines, pro days and the ability to attend/see/analyze these things by all members of the staff and management, should result in an accurate consensus most of the time for everyone. The trouble teams get into here, is when they reach to fill needs.

Player development relates to the majority of things needed to win. Refining technique, not just showing players film, but teaching them how to break it down and implement technique that helps in those individual matchups. Coaching scheme IQ and the technique/nuances to fit the scheme. Let's be honest, most every scheme is effective if you build for it and develop to fit it's strengths.

[Izulde]

I have to go with sports science here. Injuries can quickly decimate a season, and, particularly for premium positions like quarterback, represent a major loss of investment. This would presumably also help prevent recurring injuries.

[JPhillips]

Seems to me that coaching is the only thing we can verify to make a big difference in terms of wins and losses. Nobody has consistently outperformed the league in regard to injuries, scouting, or player development, but the best coaches make a difference. I don't know that a team needs more money to find these coaches, but I'll gladly take the next Belichick over the seemingly remote possibility that money will measurably reduce injuries.

[stevew]

Ping pong tables

[stevew]

I think the correct answer is player development. Especially on the offensive line. If we can hit on picks after the 5th round that can play quality snaps, that frees up so much cap space and allows us to invest extra picks on stuff like elite pass rushers and defensive backs.

Also my analytical guys better have some super in depth scouting on the refs we face each week. We’re literally going to be holding like hell on every down. We need to know why and how often the refs call holding.

[bhlloy]

I disagree that certain teams haven’t been historically able to distinguish themselves in terms of scouting, but I also think the advent of technology has changed this somewhat. However if we expand that to include analytics I think that’s definitely my vote. Having the talent advantage at certain positions especially being able to take informed shots early (e.g. Mahomes, Jackson) at impact positions and then fill out other spots late in the draft or through UFA is absolutely key to building a contender. Especially with the rookie wage scale and the window you have while you have a great QB on a rookie deal.

I think the other area of differentiation is coaching and scheme, but it seems like this moves so fast these days that even the coaches who have previously been considered gurus aren’t able to do it without the players. I guess in this scenario we are assuming we are always able to stay ahead but I would still lean scouting/roster composition over coaching.

[Bobble]

Removing ping pong tables.

[flere-imsaho]

I think it's play calling/design. Presumably if this was the best possible, it would take into account any weaknesses you had in personnel due to average scouting & development, or unlucky injuries.

In addition, it feels like the % of HCs who both run optimal game plans (including an ability to change in-game when something isn't working) and don't have a tendency to make boneheaded decisions is never over 50% anyway, so this shores up a pretty big weakness.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it's play calling/design.

But it's play design, not execution, right? I mean, I feel like I see a ton of times where the play design had a back who was supposed to pick up the blitzer but he didn't, there's an option to the route but QB and WR didn't read it the same way, etc. I kinda feel like play design and audibles are at a level where they are supposed to account for most eventualities. It's just that execution isn't there.

If we're talking about eliminating, say, a goalline pass from the 1-yard line in the Superbowl when Beastmode is in your backfield, I just don't think there are enough of those playcalling mistakes to make this the best answer. We say they were mistakes because they didn't work but I don't know how many we can definitively say were wrong.

[BishopMVP]

Put me in the assistant coach/player development camp (though hopefully that trickles over to play design a bit). I'm a Patriots fan, we've had consistent success because we have depth, but that's not because we're an elite scouting team but we can take cast off guys and plug them into injury holes because we match the coaching to scheme to the players talents. And conversely how many guys like JC Jackson look bad immediately after leaving NE? The Ravens & the Steelers also come to mind as organizations that are able to consistently develop guys at key spots so they're not trapped into overpaying for every player entering FA.

[BishopMVP]

QB coaches get the press, but I'm not sure how much of that is real or just getting lucky with one guy. OL coaches are definitely the real deal though - I'd value a good OL coach pretty close to a good OC because it's very tough to succeed as the latter without the former.