Questions about Javon Walker.... - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Questions about Javon Walker....

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby moochman » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:30 am

lmcjaho wrote:BTW - nice to see nobody has a response to my earlier post asking for proof that Javon made the Packers owners significantly richer or commenting on my assertion that the rest of the team will step up to fill in the gap made by his departure...


I'm reasonably certain that no one responded because it is so evident how he would impact the value of the franchise. I'll keep it simple.

Pretend that you drafted Walker for your FF team. You gave him a certain value based on performance expectations ascertained from past performances, and how his anticipated performances would help you win games. That's his value to you.

Now he is gone, is the person you replace him with equal in value? Very unlikely, even less likely for the Packers. Will "the rest of your team step up to fill in the gap made by his departure"? No. And the Packers won't be able to fill his shoes either. They'll just do the best they can, as would your FF team.

End results is that your team, just like the Packers, is now a less valueable franchise in the one measurement that counts: it's ability to win football games.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Postby lmcjaho » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:52 am

moochman wrote:I'm reasonably certain that no one responded because it is so evident how he would impact the value of the franchise. I'll keep it simple.

Pretend that you drafted Walker for your FF team. You gave him a certain value based on performance expectations ascertained from past performances, and how his anticipated performances would help you win games. That's his value to you.

Now he is gone, is the person you replace him with equal in value? Very unlikely, even less likely for the Packers. Will "the rest of your team step up to fill in the gap made by his departure"? No. And the Packers won't be able to fill his shoes either. They'll just do the best they can, as would your FF team.

End results is that your team, just like the Packers, is now a less valueable franchise in the one measurement that counts: it's ability to win football games.


<buzzer> WRONG!

1- The Packers have every possibility of somebody else stepping up to replace him - history has shown that the Packers don't need elite talent at WR to do well. See Freeman, Schroeder et al from the years before Javon joined the team...

2- The bottom line financially has little to do with the short-term ability to win football games for the Pack - they have true fans that will still come to the game, still buy jerseys, still do all the other stuff that allows the team to make boatloads of cash, and Walker on the sidelines (or in a different jersey for that matter) will have little to no impact on the team FINANCIALLY, which is what I asked about because Cornbread was going on again about how unfair it is for the owners to cash in on Javon and not give him fair value for what his presence brings to them financially.

3. As I mentioned in the original post it is unfortunate that the Pack had so many other problems offensively already compared to last year because had they not had those problems it would be very easy to compare the team WITH Javon versus WITHOUT so I could prove my point about him being more expendable than you seem to think he is - as it is I find it hard to do though... A quick look at last year's stats though tells me Favre had a great year with 4000 yards and 30 TDs - with the O-line problems and Green's fumblitis I think it is fair to project a decrease in that number even with Javon in - say 3500/28? If you agree that this is a fair number I would challenge you that Favre's numbers will still be around that with whatever WRs they throw in there now that Javon is out - maybe it will be more spread out but the overall stats should be about the same...
Image
Sig courtesy of Soty - muchos gracias amigo!
lmcjaho
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3441
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Montreal

Postby moochman » Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:39 am

lmcjaho wrote:

1- The Packers have every possibility of somebody else stepping up to replace him - history has shown that the Packers don't need elite talent at WR to do well. See Freeman, Schroeder et al from the years before Javon joined the team...

2- The bottom line financially has little to do with the short-term ability to win football games for the Pack - they have true fans that will still come to the game, still buy jerseys, still do all the other stuff that allows the team to make boatloads of cash, and Walker on the sidelines (or in a different jersey for that matter) will have little to no impact on the team FINANCIALLY, which is what I asked about because Cornbread was going on again about how unfair it is for the owners to cash in on Javon and not give him fair value for what his presence brings to them financially.

3. As I mentioned in the original post it is unfortunate that the Pack had so many other problems offensively already compared to last year because had they not had those problems it would be very easy to compare the team WITH Javon versus WITHOUT so I could prove my point about him being more expendable than you seem to think he is - as it is I find it hard to do though... A quick look at last year's stats though tells me Favre had a great year with 4000 yards and 30 TDs - with the O-line problems and Green's fumblitis I think it is fair to project a decrease in that number even with Javon in - say 3500/28? If you agree that this is a fair number I would challenge you that Favre's numbers will still be around that with whatever WRs they throw in there now that Javon is out - maybe it will be more spread out but the overall stats should be about the same...


Do you have any concept of football, both the game and the business? The inpact that a player has isn't just reflected in the numbers that they produce. That's the surface. Do you think that Walker's value to the team is only reflective in Favre's passing statistics? And your examples of previous less than memorable WRs doing well meaning that Walker's presence will be filled by whoever they choose to put on a uni is weak. Those other WRs weren't back-ups.

The NFL is a cashcow, no doubt about that. But franchises still want to maximize their value. This is done by fielding teams that are competitve. Losing your All-pro WR can't help. So if your team isn't as competitive then it is less valueable. If it is less valueable, it becomes less marketable. Less marketable means less sales. Less sales equals less revenue.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Postby Mercer Boy » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:00 am

The NFL is a cashcow, no doubt about that. But franchises still want to maximize their value. This is done by fielding teams that are competitve. Losing your All-pro WR can't help. So if your team isn't as competitive then it is less valueable. If it is less valueable, it becomes less marketable. Less marketable means less sales. Less sales equals less revenue.


Eh...only thing I don't like about this is that we're talking about the Packers. Even if they stink, the fans will love them. They own the dang team (or is it the stadium...one of the two)! Sure, it'll take the more casual fans out of the equation, but I think they will still sell out Lambeau for every game even if Walker isn't playing.

If Larry Fitzgerald was/is putting butts in the seats in Phoenix, was getting underpaid, and he went down...then we're definitely talking problems.
The One, the Only, the Incomparable Mercer Boy.
My My YouTube.
Mercer Boy
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 12045
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: New Castle, PA

Postby lmcjaho » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:10 am

moochman wrote:Do you have any concept of football, both the game and the business? The inpact that a player has isn't just reflected in the numbers that they produce. That's the surface. Do you think that Walker's value to the team is only reflective in Favre's passing statistics? And your examples of previous less than memorable WRs doing well meaning that Walker's presence will be filled by whoever they choose to put on a uni is weak. Those other WRs weren't back-ups.

The NFL is a cashcow, no doubt about that. But franchises still want to maximize their value. This is done by fielding teams that are competitve. Losing your All-pro WR can't help. So if your team isn't as competitive then it is less valueable. If it is less valueable, it becomes less marketable. Less marketable means less sales. Less sales equals less revenue.


When was the last time the Eagles won a SuperBowl? Does that long drought make them a less profitable team than say the Ravens, who won in 2001? I doubt it... My point is twofold:

A) One player (especially one WR!!!) does not make or break a team's ability to make money - therefore it would be wrong to expect a team to pay any one player more than they are obligated to under the terms of an existing contract just because the team is getting rich during the tenure of said player.

B) After one season of outstanding play Walker has yet to prove he is the cause and not the effect. That he is a ProBowl receiver based purely on his own talent and not just a product of a good system and a great QB - I still say Driver/Fergie/Murphy can keep Favre's stats in the same range as Javon/Driver/Fergie (with a decrease due to the rest of the team sucking) and yes, to me that does mean that they can contribute the same "value" to the team - how else would you measure it? Image
Image
Sig courtesy of Soty - muchos gracias amigo!
lmcjaho
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 3441
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Montreal

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:07 am

lmcjaho wrote:A) One player (especially one WR!!!) does not make or break a team's ability to make money - therefore it would be wrong to expect a team to pay any one player more than they are obligated to under the terms of an existing contract just because the team is getting rich during the tenure of said player.


Thats not rational. Clearly players are marketed. The more a player is adored by the fans the more tickets are sold and jearseys are purchased. Obviously GB is in a unique situation - but let me ask this - once Farve retires, is GB likely to make more or less money? What about Vick in ATL? McNabb in PHI? When Pudge signed in DET 2 years ago, the amount of season tickets and jearseys sales skyrocketed. To argue that individual players do not impact a teams financial success is simply wrong.

Also - could you please prove to me that players play better when they are in a contract yr vs. when they are in guaranteed money? Study after study has been done disproving that misconception, but clearly you still disagree and think extremely wealthy players somehow hold back when they arent in line for a raise. Dont give anecdotal evidence - I want a fact based study that shows the exact different result that these other fact based studies have already established. The contract yr theory is a myth. Giving players guaranteed contracts wouldnt change the competitiveness of the NFL - thats ridiculous. Since the current system has the players making the majority of guaranteed money when they sign on the dotted line, with your reasoning its suprising anyone suits up at all for the games - they've already been paid.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby onnestabe » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:18 am

As far as the financial side of the NFL goes, it is hard to say that the loss of any one player will significantly impact a team's financial outlook.

The league uses revenue sharing, and that shared revenue is the largest revenue source for any franchise by far - not ticket sales, not local media contracts, and not jersey or merchandise sales. So any financial loss associated with losing one player (and his marketability) for the year is spread out over 32 teams and doesn't significantly impact any single franchise financially.

The loss of Javon Walker for the season will impact Green Bay's ability to win, but not their profitability. The fact is that fans across the country, if not the world, are rabid for NFL football, so the amount of shared revenue (made up by tv contracts and licensing fees for things like the Madden games) each franchise receives far outweighs all player salaries and other expenses. Therefore, an NFL team that sells no tickets or merchandise (Cardinals, anyone?) and pays the maximum amount to players will still be profitable because there are so many other teams sharing profits with them.

The only issues that could significantly affect the profitability of an NFL franchise would be a league-wide issue such as labor strikes or widespread cheating (steroids). The NFL is too large for the actions of one player to affect it, so stop talking about franchise profitability and the amount of money Walker "made" for Green Bay.

Note>> This is not me saying that Walker had no right to threaten a holdout. It is possible to holdout, so he can do it as far as I am concerned. But Green Bay has a right not to give him more money. Sure it sucks that he got hurt, but it also sucks that a hurricane just destroyed the city I lived in and loved. It was a risk that everyone knew about, yet they lived there anyway. Just like he knew there was a risk of injury, yet he played anyway. He must have decided at some point that it was worth it to play.
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:33 am

so onnestabe - let me get this correct - you are saying that ATL would make exactly the same amount of revenue with or without Mike Vick?

I know what revenue sharing is - and yes, it is the largest piece of the pie - but to suggest that the players themselves dont also contribute to the size of the pie - I cant believe rational thinking men suggest that all teams make exactly the same whether they win or lose or whether they play with star players or not.
Cornbread Maxwell
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 5924
Joined: 7 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby moochman » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:22 am

Mercer Boy wrote:
The NFL is a cashcow, no doubt about that. But franchises still want to maximize their value. This is done by fielding teams that are competitve. Losing your All-pro WR can't help. So if your team isn't as competitive then it is less valueable. If it is less valueable, it becomes less marketable. Less marketable means less sales. Less sales equals less revenue.


Eh...only thing I don't like about this is that we're talking about the Packers. Even if they stink, the fans will love them. They own the dang team (or is it the stadium...one of the two)! Sure, it'll take the more casual fans out of the equation, but I think they will still sell out Lambeau for every game even if Walker isn't playing.

If Larry Fitzgerald was/is putting butts in the seats in Phoenix, was getting underpaid, and he went down...then we're definitely talking problems.


The NFL is in a very unique world. It's a league that almost always fills stadiums every week. But ticket sales aren't the sole revenue producer, and income isn't the sole indicator of the value of a franchise. A lot of income is generated based on how a team is viewed.
And teams are viewed on how often they win, and the style of play. WRs like Walker help make a team exciting, in addition to winning. The loss of such a talent hurts the marketability of the team, and so it's value.


onnestabe and lmcjaho, explain to me about the Dallas Cowboys when they were considered America's team? That team was driven by style of play and star power. If you take away Irvin and replace him with Crayton (the equivalent of Chatman for Walker, or close). Do you mean to tell me that the team would not only win as much, but would also be as valueable?

You can't. Look at history. We see America's team losing it's star, stud players and now it isn't the same. It isn't as marketable. Nor does it win as often.

They still sell tickets, but you can't say that they are as valueable a franchise as they once were. Because they aren't.
Image


I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSurvival Of The Fittest WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16300
(Past Year: 80)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows

Postby onnestabe » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:29 am

so onnestabe - let me get this correct - you are saying that ATL would make exactly the same amount of revenue with or without Mike Vick?


Atlanta would make less money without Michael Vick, that is certain. Every team in the NFL would make less money without Michael Vick. But owning the Falcons would not suddenly become a bad business decision. They will still sell tickets and jerseys and will still get an unthinkable amount of money from the other teams in the league.

The loss of Vick would adversely affect the profitability of ALL NFL teams, not just the Falcons. But Javon Walker is no Michael Vick when it comes to marketability. Vick has been hyped (and deservedly so, IMO) since his Virginia Tech days, and Walker was virtually unknown until last year to the casual fan.

The owner of the Saints said he was offered $1 billion to sell the team. I think the Vikings were sold for around $700 million. That would imply that Aaron Brooks, Joe Horn, and Deuce MacAllister (don't forget the Saints' whopping one career playoff victory) are more marketable and make more money for the franchise than Culpepper and Moss (and their almost guaranteed yearly playoff spot). I don't see that as a reasonable assumption to make, so that means that teams must derive value from things other than the players (stadium deals, opportunities to move the team, etc).

but to suggest that the players themselves dont also contribute to the size of the pie - I cant believe rational thinking men suggest that all teams make exactly the same whether they win or lose or whether they play with star players or not.


Individual players by themselves don't siginificantly impact the size of the "pie". The league as a whole is what makes the pie so big. If there was no Michael Vick, McNabb would be the "amazing scrambling QB" just like McNair was before Vick showed up. If there was no Vick, there would still be millions of fans lining up to pay for game tickets and tuning in on Sundays because we love football.

But since you brought up Vick, is there any imaginable scenario where Vick (throw Peyton, Favre, McNabb, LT, Priest, and Ray Lewis in there, too) wouldn't get paid if he were to hold out? of course not.

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

I love debates, they are so much fun!!
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 2:06 hours
(and 38 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact