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


Return to Football Talk

Questions about Javon Walker....

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:47 am

1- no one is suggesting the value of a franchise is 100% based on the value of the players on the team, so your conjecture that MIN wais worth more than NO because they had two elite players isnt valid - and no one ever tried to make that point from the beginning.

2 - You have to ask - how much is Vick worth. Im shocked you dont think the ATL organization would make less money if Vick retired tomorow. You said that the entire NFL would be hurt by that - but you truly dont believe ATL would get the worst of it? Were gonna have to disagree about that one.

3 - If Vick is worth $50 million to his team. How much is Culpepper worth to MIN? $48 million? What about Marvin Harrison? is he worth less to INDY than Peyton? And if so - what kind of value would you put on Reggie Wayne? The point is, yes, players add value to their organizations - and each player's value CAN be measured - whether its through ticket or jearsey sales or direct contributions to W-L records.

To suggest that all players are valueless - as I think you are trying to imply - is really a flimsy argument. Basically you say that since the majority of money comes from revenue sharing, then a teams W-L record, namebrand, merchandise sales, ticketsales, and stadium are worthless - why bother. You cant see the flaws in that logic?
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 1:33 pm

Cornbread said:
2 - You have to ask - how much is Vick worth. Im shocked you dont think the ATL organization would make less money if Vick retired tomorow. You said that the entire NFL would be hurt by that - but you truly dont believe ATL would get the worst of it? Were gonna have to disagree about that one.


I did say in my last post:
Atlanta would make less money without Michael Vick, that is certain.


Also, I agree Atlanta would get the worst of it. I never said they wouldn't. They would sell less jerseys and merchandise relating to Vick, but they would also sell more stuff relating to other players, so the loss is offset. If a Falcons fan wanted to buy a Falcons jersey, but Vick was retired, chances are good that he will still buy a Falcons jersey, just not one with #7 on the back of it.

Cornbread said:
To suggest that all players are valueless - as I think you are trying to imply - is really a flimsy argument. Basically you say that since the majority of money comes from revenue sharing, then a teams W-L record, namebrand, merchandise sales, ticketsales, and stadium are worthless - why bother. You cant see the flaws in that logic?


I am not trying to say that players are valueless. I agree that the statement is nonsense. I am saying that the incremental monetary value of an individual player is not material to the franchise he plays for. Vick and a few others may be an exception to this, but I don't think so. I am speaking in degrees of importance, while you are twisting what I say into absolutes.

Players are valuable because there are enough of them to play this sport and people like to watch this sport. If Michael Vick existed as a gifted athlete without the NFL and the other players that played the game, he would not make as much money as he does. Michael Vick as an individual needs the NFL more than the NFL needs him. And if that is true for the most marketable player in the NFL, why wouldn't it be true for a 4th year receiver that has had one good year?

To put it another way, think of a world in which the best football players in the world are those that currently play in NFL Europe. Assume the Vicks, Mannings, Mosses, and McNabbs never existed. Now put NFL Europe players into the NFL. Would fans stop attending because they think the game should/could be played better (keep in mind these are the best football players in the world)? Would they not buy jerseys to support their favorite players? You need players to have an NFL, but exactly who those players are and the overall talent level is not very important as long as they are the best players available.
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 TheRawDAWG » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:55 pm

Cornbread, I agree losing Vick, McNabb, Peyton, Culpepper and whoever else you said would be a huge blow to not just their teams but to the league. These guys are the biggest names in the league. They have the most recognizable faces and make the league the most money. And to their teams they are the #1 guys on their teams and the QBS. QBs are far more important than WRs. And would be far more likely to cause a ripple in the financial well being of their respective teams. But come on, this is Javon Walker we are talking about here. He's still barely on the radar of a casual fan outside of Green Bay. This isn't Brett Favre, JAVON WALKER. He is a great player (well at least he was for 1 year), but he's not the be all and end all of the Green Bay Packers. If Driver goes in and has a great game next week everyone will have forgotten about walker.

Here's the thing everyone doesn't mention when talking about players deserving this or that, If Javon Walker had sucked really bad would he have given his bonus back? And seriously, I don't think people have paid enough attention to what I posted about Robert Smith. Coming from a players perspective he blamed Walker and his agent for signing a stupid contract.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:10 pm

onnestabe wrote:Also, I agree Atlanta would get the worst of it. I never said they wouldn't. They would sell less jerseys and merchandise relating to Vick, but they would also sell more stuff relating to other players, so the loss is offset. If a Falcons fan wanted to buy a Falcons jersey, but Vick was retired, chances are good that he will still buy a Falcons jersey, just not one with #7 on the back of it.


I disagree there too. I really wish we had actual numbers to go by here because I promise you that ATL sells more total jerseys now than what they did prior to Vick (even though they recently went to the superbowl). Losing Vick would directly affect total jearsy sales - it would not end up a nonfactor. There are lots of fans of players that buy jerseys and are loyal to their favorite players - not just teams. There are also fans of teams that like a certain player for their team enough to go out and buy his jersey whereas without that player then that fan may not have gotten the urge to buy the jersey.


onnestabe wrote:Players are valuable because there are enough of them to play this sport and people like to watch this sport. If Michael Vick existed as a gifted athlete without the NFL and the other players that played the game, he would not make as much money as he does. Michael Vick as an individual needs the NFL more than the NFL needs him. And if that is true for the most marketable player in the NFL, why wouldn't it be true for a 4th year receiver that has had one good year?

To put it another way, think of a world in which the best football players in the world are those that currently play in NFL Europe. Assume the Vicks, Mannings, Mosses, and McNabbs never existed. Now put NFL Europe players into the NFL. Would fans stop attending because they think the game should/could be played better (keep in mind these are the best football players in the world)? Would they not buy jerseys to support their favorite players? You need players to have an NFL, but exactly who those players are and the overall talent level is not very important as long as they are the best players available.


The talent level of the players and coaches is absolutely a factor in how popular and successful the NFL is. Fans are not fooled. Attendance dropped drastically when there was an NFL lockout. Using your NFL Europe example, if the greatest QB in the NFL was a guy about as talented as you or I, would there be a demand to watch the NFL as much as there is now? The NFL has already proven it cannot stand alone with inferior talent. Your suggestion that the NFL could succeed without the best players is faulty - as is the notion that there is plenty of viable players that should play in the NFL. Only the elite should play in the elite league - and if non-elite players played in it, it would no longer be elite - further - there is a limited number of elite players. Any player that demonstrates he is one of the better players in a league of elite players - like Walker had done - then logically he should be paid more.
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 Cornbread Maxwell » Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:15 pm

TheRawDAWG wrote:Cornbread, I agree losing Vick, McNabb, Peyton, Culpepper and whoever else you said would be a huge blow to not just their teams but to the league. These guys are the biggest names in the league. They have the most recognizable faces and make the league the most money. And to their teams they are the #1 guys on their teams and the QBS. QBs are far more important than WRs. And would be far more likely to cause a ripple in the financial well being of their respective teams. But come on, this is Javon Walker we are talking about here. He's still barely on the radar of a casual fan outside of Green Bay. This isn't Brett Favre, JAVON WALKER. He is a great player (well at least he was for 1 year), but he's not the be all and end all of the Green Bay Packers. If Driver goes in and has a great game next week everyone will have forgotten about walker.


You kinda fell into my trap there Raw - the argument was just the premise that players are valuable to their teams. Of course the truly elite are exponentially more valuable than others - but that then concedes the fact that players themselves hold value - and if thats true, then all players hold value - not just the biggest names. That was my point about naming Manning, Harrison and Wayne - if Manning is worth $50 mil, and Harrison is worht say - $10 mil - then logically Wayne also has value to his organization. The point is you cannot say only the most well known players hold value with their organization.
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 2:40 pm

Losing Vick would directly affect total jearsy sales - it would not end up a nonfactor.


I am sorry. I was unclear in my original post on this matter. Total jersey sales would decrease, but I should have said the the decrease would have been offset somewhat due to fans that wanted a jersey, not necessarily a Vick jersey. The Falcons would lose money without Vick, but the roster still holds 53 men, and the guy that replaced Vick would bring in money as well.

if the greatest QB in the NFL was a guy about as talented as you or I, would there be a demand to watch the NFL as much as there is now?


I thank you for the vote of confidence, but in truth, I don't have much arm strength, speed, or stamina. Also, I have never seen you play football, so you may be as good as the top QB in NFL Europe, but if that was the case, I doubt you would be spending your days here on the Cafe since you would be busy practicing in Frankfurt or Barcelona.

Attendance dropped drastically when there was an NFL lockout.


This fact does not hinder my argument, it merely enhances it. Replacement players are not the best in the world, and everyone knows it. That's why attendence went down. The fact that anyone attended at all shows how much the sport and not the players themselves mean to people.
Also, in an earlier post, I said:
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.


Cornbread said:
Your suggestion that the NFL could succeed without the best players is faulty - as is the notion that there is plenty of viable players that should play in the NFL.


If I had suggested any of this I would agree that it is faulty. But I actually said to imagine a world where the NFL Europe players are the best football players. This means that the players you are watching on Sunday aren't as good as Vick, Manning, etc., but they are the best you have ever seen because you have never heard of Vick, Manning, etc.

To put it yet another way, this country loves football. If people like the NFL because the players are the best, why does anyone care about college, high school, or pee-wee football? Do you only go to high school football games to scout for the pros 5 years down the road? Do you only watch college football to find out what guy you want the Lions to take this year? People love football for the drama and the excitement and the entertainment value of it.
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 TheRawDAWG » Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:17 pm

Cornbread Maxwell wrote:
TheRawDAWG wrote:Cornbread, I agree losing Vick, McNabb, Peyton, Culpepper and whoever else you said would be a huge blow to not just their teams but to the league. These guys are the biggest names in the league. They have the most recognizable faces and make the league the most money. And to their teams they are the #1 guys on their teams and the QBS. QBs are far more important than WRs. And would be far more likely to cause a ripple in the financial well being of their respective teams. But come on, this is Javon Walker we are talking about here. He's still barely on the radar of a casual fan outside of Green Bay. This isn't Brett Favre, JAVON WALKER. He is a great player (well at least he was for 1 year), but he's not the be all and end all of the Green Bay Packers. If Driver goes in and has a great game next week everyone will have forgotten about walker.


You kinda fell into my trap there Raw - the argument was just the premise that players are valuable to their teams. Of course the truly elite are exponentially more valuable than others - but that then concedes the fact that players themselves hold value - and if thats true, then all players hold value - not just the biggest names. That was my point about naming Manning, Harrison and Wayne - if Manning is worth $50 mil, and Harrison is worht say - $10 mil - then logically Wayne also has value to his organization. The point is you cannot say only the most well known players hold value with their organization.


Corn, I understand what you are saying and I totally agree with you. Players do have value....each and every player has value. My point was you can't really argue Manning's, Vick's or McNabb's value alongside Walker's. Manning or Vick would cause a definate ripple in the financial well being of the league and teams. People all over the world buy these Jerseys. I'm not so sure people all over the world buy Walker's Jersey. My point is Walker's injury will barely cause a tiny ripple in the water of what is the NFL financial statements.

Also, I don't think Green Bay is/was good enough to win many games this year anyway. They will probably still beat the teams they would ahve beat and lose to the teams they would have lost to finishing a very bad season at 6-10...At best.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby moochman » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:27 pm

onnestabe which one of your statements are you suggesting you believe?
Atlanta would make less money without Michael Vick, that is certain

The loss of Vick would adversely affect the profitability of ALL NFL teams


So you're suggesting that marquee players have not only value to their team, but also the league itself. That's correct. But why then do you then go on to say;

Individual players by themselves don't siginificantly impact the size of the "pie".


You so directly contradict yourself in the length of one post that your post lacks credibility.

I also love how all those who argue that Walker has no value to the team, because others will replace or he isn't a superstar, go on to say how the Packers weren't going to have a great season anyway.
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 7:42 pm

Javon Walker is not:

Vick
Favre
Harrison
Irvin
Manning
or any of a dozen other marquee players

He is a WR with ONE good year under his belt. Therefore to say that he has any SIGNIFICANT (key word) affect on the financial gains of the Packers is ridiculous. Yes they might sell more jerseys with Walker's name on them than Driver's for instance, but I think we can all agree that the number of jerseys they would have to sell to make his "paltry" salary up is probably a lot higher than the difference between the two...

CB - you quote studies all you want bud, there is nothing you can say to convince me that the NBA and MLB are better products because of their guaranteed contracts - way too many players in both leagues that just show up to collect the coin, or don't even show up at all and collect the coin anyway...

As I said - best way to have this work would be to have guaranteed but substantially lower (60-75% cut) salaries with performance based incentives that could bring the $$$ value back around the level of the current deals... That way the players get paid for the length of their contracts and the team doesn't get too f***ked by guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith... But we all know the players will never go for something like this so it's a moot argument...
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 onnestabe » Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:05 pm

moochman wrote:onnestabe which one of your statements are you suggesting you believe?
Atlanta would make less money without Michael Vick, that is certain

The loss of Vick would adversely affect the profitability of ALL NFL teams


So you're suggesting that marquee players have not only value to their team, but also the league itself. That's correct. But why then do you then go on to say;

Individual players by themselves don't siginificantly impact the size of the "pie".


You so directly contradict yourself in the length of one post that your post lacks credibility.


I don't see that I am contradicting myself. ONE player does not make or break a team financially, nor does he make or break the NFL. A league with no Vick would make less money than a league with Vick, but the difference would be miniscule. We would still play fantasy football without Vick, and almost every fan of the sport would still watch just as much football and buy just as much merchandise as they do now.

The NFL is selling a product. That product is not the players. The prodcut is the event - the drama, the excitement, the pageantry, and the escape from your normal life for a couple days a week (and the total takeover of your life in the case of fantasy football). The fans will pay money for that event no matter who the players are, so long as the fans think they are the best. Why else would there be 50 bagillion year waiting list for season tickets at Lambeau? If the fans really cared who the players were, wouldn't they wait to see what the roster will look like in the year 2050 before putting their name on the list to buy tickets in 2050?

You are trying to say that I contradict myself. The fact is that I am still speaking in degrees of importance. Vick is important to the league because he makes the league lots of money. At the same time, the league can afford to lose a Michael Vick because they can always hype someone else. There are 32 teams, each with a 53 man roster, not to mention all of the free agents itching to get their shot. There will always be players, so there will always be an event, so there will always be money.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that Green Bay is going to make significantly less money this year without Walker than they would have with Walker. People find my hypothetical statements hard to believe, but that's the statement that Cornbread and moochman are representing.
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 5:41 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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