In the offseason, it’s easy for me simply to post updates and editorialize a little bit while leaving the debates to the comment section. I’d like to think I can do more than that, and I wanted to address something that’s come up a few times when I complain about a particular player being signed to the Vikings (and in the future, a player that may be drafted).
This isn’t meant to call anyone out or attack them; I just wrote a headline that best captures my feelings: many of us excuse a front office whenever they make a questionable signing by arguing that it’s “only for depth,” that they will “get cut in camp,” or that it’s “low-risk.”
While in the case of players like Derek Cox and Vladimir Ducasse, there’s reason to believe there’s potential for high-reward, I think that the Vikings (or any team) can do better when they make low-risk signings.
There are two finite resources that are of primary concern when it comes to talent acquisition in the NFL: money and space. Specifically, the salary cap and the roster limit both prevent teams from signing every available player and holding a massive competition every year in camp. That means, despite the fact that the use of those resources isn’t necessarily always expensive, it’s still a cost.
In some cases, there is an additional cost (a draft pick) associated with it, which increases the importance of making sure that a team maximizes its available resources.
Put simply: would you be OK if the Vikings drafted quarterback Cody Green from Tulsa with a seventh-round pick? It’s a low-risk pick, and he has some fairly significant upside. It doesn’t cost a lot, and he’ll likely be cut in camp anyway.
You probably wouldn’t, because there were better players to use those resources on (a draft pick, roster spot and cap space). So, with better potential players on the market to compete for a spot, why would you be OK with a low-risk signing who also happened to be bad?
To put the (alleged) Vladimir Ducasse signing in context, there were better guards on the market who were also “low-risk” (a term that should really mean low-cost, because I do not care about the other things put at risk, like a GM’s reputation): Daryn College, Harvey Dahl, Uche Nwaneri and Travelle Wharton are still looking for teams, and they have all looked better than Ducasse.
I don’t know everything about how the market looks; perhaps the Vikings were put out of discussions for all of those players and Ducasse was a potential signing that would have happened in a dried-up market because that’s how the Vikings were functionally operating. Even so, there are a number of marginal guards on the market (Garrett Reynolds, Geoff Hangartner, Rich Ohrnberger?) that could have been had.
But there’s another side to “low-risk,” which is that because something is still being put at risk there must necessarily be a reward to potentially gain, and the higher the potential reward, the better. Just because a player has immense athletic capability does not mean he has “high upside,” at some point, there is a low degree of uncertainty surrounding a player’s ceiling, and that there are other things that can limit them from reaching that potential. For example, Tori Gurley is probably on his last stop with the Cleveland Browns despite immense athletic capability; he’s been with six teams prior.
Jaymar Johnson and Troy Williamson are other examples that hit closer to home; despite potential, they weren’t entertained by too many teams after their initial stop with the Vikings.
That’s because there wasn’t a lot of uncertainty surrounding their talents. In theory, they both had excellent potential as players. In practice, NFL front offices knew the chances of reaching that potential were slim to none.
There is a significantly lower chance that the offensive line coaching that produced Nick Mangold, D’Brickashaw Ferguson, Matt Slauson and somehow turned Wayne Hunter’s career around are not wrong about Ducasse. They replaced him with a rookie that needed a lot of seasoning and stuck with him despite the fact that he was actually performing worse. The reason they stuck with that rookie is because his future hasn’t been written. While Ducasse’s future isn’t necessarily written in stone, there’s certainly a higher probability that he’s bad than Brian Winters is.
Low-cost doesn’t mean no-cost, and that salary cap space (and roster spot), could be better spent on a player who has a good chance of developing instead of a very poor one. For example, I don’t think that there’s a good chance that likely undrafted free agent Zach Fulton from Tennessee will develop into an NFL-level player as a starter or a backup, but I do think the chances he does so are higher than Ducasse, who, as it currently stands, has not shown he’s been good enough even to be a backup.
Often, backups are players who can perform at a below-average level for short periods of time while the starter is dealing with injury. Often, these backups are developmental players who are currently below average (or even bad) that can become good or very good. But players like Ducasse are not merely bad, they are abysmal. Just because someone started for a time does not mean that they are a viable backup (although I do think that we too often dismiss the potential for bad starters to be good depth).
Admittedly, this is a more difficult issue with guards and quarterbacks, where there is very poor depth in the league but the larger point remains.
So, when we dismiss a poor signing because he’s “depth” or “low-risk,” we should really ask who the 91st player on the roster would have been, and if he had a better chance to compete for a spot.
Good NFL teams will find ways to grab as many good players (or even just “OK” players) at the margins. Often, because it is difficult to tell who that will be, that means taking as many chances as possible with fringe players who will probably be cut, because it’s always a good thing when one of them wrests a spot away from someone who otherwise would have been secure. Even if every one of those players only has a one percent chance of developing into a valuable contribution, consistently eschewing that chance lowers your odds of building a good roster, and that’s not good football.
I don’t think the Vikings have had a poor offseason. In fact, I think it’s been great! But that doesn’t mean I’ll be OK with questionable signings merely because they’re camp bodies. Low-cost isn’t no-cost.
View Comments
Agree, managing opportunity costs essential in competitiion. Size&NFL camp experience has value in practice situation. Bad reps in practice while a true rookie tries to figure out drills, tempo, and assignment has costs for entire line group. Some players are better at practice and give better controlled situation looks for starters to practice against and are then cut with little cost. I agree with you in this case. Vikes guard situation is far from settled unless you consider Baca and C Johnson sure answers. They need players with a chance to improve this position on game days. Vikes need a guy with a chance to start at guard - not Ducasse.
I hear ya Arif. It's kind of like stockpiling 7th round draft picks.
Since this is considered a deep draft will that lead to a lot of players not selected in the draft to be brought in .
Coincidentally, "Low Risk" was the code name opposing DC's assigned to Jeff Dugan.
Ole,
My favorite was when Dugan introduced himself to the ref during the Steelers game.
Good old Jeff Dugan!
Yeah, this is good. Share your skepticism of the Cox signing too (Cook is probably better, maybe he actually did annoy Zimmer with that little twitter spat).
FWIW Ducasse probably replaces JMWebb (also bad), and projects to RT not LG in MN.
"Daryn College, Harvey Dahl, Uche Nwaneri and Travelle Wharton" = Ages: 32, 32, 30, 32. Ducasse is 26.
They've kept some older vets in the mix with resignings (Johnson, Berger, Simpson, Evans, even Brinkley), but they're mostly aiming for younger guys. Munnerlyn, Wootton and Griffen are 26. Joseph is only 25 (younger than several guys in the draft this year).
Thanks for the commen,t Krauser.
It's true, I also projected Ducasse to RT (and then OG swingman). But I don't think the point changes all that much, especially when you consider the number of UDFA's I could have used to replace those four names at either OT or OG.
I get that Ducasse is younger and that it fits a particular philosophy of the Vikings, but I think in this case I'd rather violate the philosophy and get a guy that can only help out for a few seasons than Ducasse, who I strongly believe can help out for 0 seasons.
They come and they go
I completely understand what your saying Arif, but I would have agreed with you more before the Vikings choose Zimmer as the new HC. Part of his intrigue as a DC everywhere he has been is taking guys who have flamed out elsewhere and turning them into key parts of a great unit by placing focus on what they do best. As a HC, it isn't surprising that he would try to expand this philosophy to the offensive side of the ball as well. If they are planning to do this, bringing in guys with elite athletic skills isn't a bad way to go. I'm also a bit of a believer that the point of camp isn't to bring in the best 90 guys, it's to bring in the right 90. I believe in your own article you pointed out that Ducasse is by all accounts a good teammate and a guy who puts the work in at practice...to me that sounds like the kind of guy who might push a player who does make the roster to be at his very best every day, and that makes both him and the guys he's going against better. Obvioulsy we'ld hope any player the team brings in would put their best effort out there, but that isn't always the case. The money on these bottom of the roster deals really doesn't matter..it's a cost of doing business, if the owner doesn't look at it that way he shouldn't own an NFL franchise. Teams should always bring in the best players they can, but its the best player according to what the team thinks it needs. For all we know, the teams plan for any of these guys may just be to replicate a certain look in camp to help other guys get better. If that guy surprises you along the way and turns into one of your final 53, that's a bonus.
Thanks for the comment and different take.
I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one. I don't think the Vikings will be looking for an example to be set by a third-string player likely to be cut, and I'm not sure that Ducasse is the kind of player that really fits the "not the best individual 90 players, but the best whole 90" because ta;ent is still a significant part of that equation, even once you accept that the best group of 90 isn't always the best individual 90 players--that group still must be very, very talented.
The question is what added value a player brings to make up for the fact that he may not be the next-most talented player that could have been on the camp roster. If it is that Ducasse works hard and has a great attiude, I'm just not sure. There are plenty of 26-year-old NFL players with more talent that share these qualities and many that are younger.
Chemistry is important, but I don't think it's so important that players who are very, very likely not to grwo should be preferenced above those who can grow and still share many of the same intangible qualities. If that were the case, Tebow would still be on a roster.
As for money on the bottom of the roster... yes, it matters! It affects rollover space for next year and your ablity to sign a vet to fill his spot instead of a UDFA! I'd rather have Zachary Bowman, who had a great attitude and good intel on the bears than a Vlad Ducasse. And with the Vikings carefully managing cap space, that might be the cost. With a limited cap, ALL MONEY MATTERs. Ducasse will count towards the Top 51, which means he affects cap space, which in turn creates opportunity costs. Three of these low-risk, low-reward deals and suddenly you're out of the running for a mid-tier vet.
That money is going to be spent either way. So why not spend it on a low-risk high-reward vet or a low-risk high-reward UDFA?
I should clarify what I mean on the money. You are correct, even at a vet minimum Ducasse as a 5th year player will likely count on the top 51 for cap purposes. My point was more that with little or no guarantee's, you can cut the guy the day after you sign him if a better player is available and it isn't going to hurt you (the guarantee would be the cost of doing business money out of the owners pocket and would hit the cap). I also do not expect the Vikes to be close enough to the cap where his salary would make a significant difference. His roster spot is actually more important than the money they spent on him. By that I mean that you could almost fit two minimum wage rookie FA's contracts for the same cost of Ducasse's deal, but subtracting Ducasse from the roster itself still only leaves one available spot. As far as the carryover space that isn't going to apply unless he actually makes the team, and that isn't going to happen if he isn't the best guy for the job.
One other sidenote on this we haven't factored in is comp picks. Signing guys like Brinkley and Cox came with the added value of them being released by their former teams, so they don't count in our comp pick formula for next year. I think a team is always wise to check out younger players that were cut for this very fact. Ducasse is the flip side of that coin, if he makes the team he will zero out one of our FA losses this year which could have turned into a 6th round pick that claimed the next Tom Brady...or Joe Webb who was also the 199th player taken in the draft. Anyway, I think everyone is right to an extent on this. Every roster spot is extremely important and the team needs to treat it as such, that's the main point your trying to make and I agree whole heartedly.
Purple Charlie, Dugan threw down the ref and sprung Percy Harvin for a game winning TD on that play. Who do the Vikings have on the current roster who would even attempt that Back Judge blow out move perfected by Dugan? No one.
Third team all ACC honorable mention when he dominated at Maryland
If you think there are better OL's than Ducasse, then the question isn't money or who gets cut later or any of this other stuff. It's talent evaluation. Why did the Viking choose Ducasse over the guys you feel are better? Is your talent eval or theirs the one that's in error? We must wait to find out. Which may never happen because all of the low rent OL's out there could end up out of football in short order, including Ducasse. Normal NFL job hazard applies.
Frankly, it's obvious that picking players for one's NFL team is a crapshoot to some degree.
I don't think there's any question that Ducasse has played poorly with New York. I am confident everyone would agree that turning on his games would lead people to the same conclusion. He has been obviously bad. The question is whether or not his upside is worth it, and that is where the Vikings and I disagree for the reasons I outlined above (in that I think he has had ample time to show even a little bit of growth and hasn't).
While I'll always hold out a little bit of hope that I am wrong, my bigger issue is with folks who do not think a questionable signing is worth skepticism because it is only depth--not that the Vikings made a decision.
I don't accept "low-risk" as the only explanation. I think a more fruitful line of argumentation is along the lines yours (that the coaches see something I don't) instead of "well, he'll just get cut in camp anyway, so no reason to worry."
I'm willing to accept that the Vikings have a different view of things than I do. I just dislike the attitude that says "well, it's not going to matter anyway," when I have reason to criticize a move.
Arif, I think your reasoning is sound. But we have no idea why the Vikings picked Ducasse. Maybe they have some scouting metric which he possesses more of than the other low-rent free agent O linemen. Or maybe for the same reason they thought Christian Ponder was the answer, i.e. it's just a mistake plain and simple.
No NFL g.m. hits the target every time but certain hits count a lot more than others. So if Ducasse is a fail, it's not nearly as bad as a fail at say, overall pick #12, or #8. Which is why I don't think the team is taking a qb this year unless Bridgewater falls to 8. But that's another topic.