Learning from the Steelers

[spiketex]

One of the basic business principles is to identify best practice and then standardize.
In looking at the Pittsburgh Steelers roster, I was surprised to see so few big name players who were recruited from other teams. There are a few like James Farrior who came from the Jets in 2001, old Charlie Batch who came from the Lions as a backup QB and Fernando Bryant. But my general point is that they appear to have a formula of deliberately avoiding expensive big name free agents and developing from within. This is in marked contrast to New England and basically every other team.
Pittsburgh's approach is dependent on instilling their culture on everyone who enters the team and having the patience to develop them. I understand that Super Bowl MVP James Harrison spent two years on the practice squad and his opportunity really came when they didn't pay Joey Porter the big bucks and he joined Miami.
I applaud the Trifecta's strategy to be selective in getting a few key free agents and to focus more heavily on the draft. But it is interesting that the reigning Super Bowl victors appear to have developed a totally different formula to everywhere else. Maybe we should consider a similar approach. I welcome your thoughts...

 

[Pinkboy]

The Steelers had 18 to 19 of their 22 starters drafted by the team on their 2 super bowl teams in this decade. (this includes guys like Willie Parker and James Harrison who were signed as undrafted free agents by the Steelers).

The last time the Patriots won a super bowl, they had 18 of their 22 starters drafted by the team.

When the Colts won it all, they had a ridiculous number like 42 of their 45 man roster drafted by the team.

The Giants also had a very high number of starters drafted by the team when they won the SB recently, 18 of their 22 starters.

Yeah, the precedence has been set. And it's no secret how to build a champion.... Champions are built through the draft and developing young players properly.

 

[Smith21]

i would like to see a list of all the superbowl teams in the last 10 years... and see how there teams were built..

Raiders in 02 didnt draft alot of there players i dont think..
but they also didnt win

 

[HughC]

Building a team through the draft is no secret. I think almost all the teams that consistently field competitive teams follow that same philosophy - the Steelers, Colts, and Giants all come to mind. By drafting and developing quality players they are able to put together a roster with players who have team-favorable salaries (the rookie's first contract) which gives them more cap money to spend elsewhere as needed. And by consistently fielding a winning team they don't draft so high that they get saddled with the big contract of a top-ten draft pick.

New England is more willing to trade for a player (Moss, Welker) and certainly picks up a lot of free agents (many of their RB, WR, and DB this decade.) However, the difference between them and other teams is that they don't really spend a lot on free agents the way teams like Washington or Oakland do. Adalius Thomas is about their only big dollar free agent signing I can think of; most of the free agents they sign are for vet minimum salaries, or not much more than that.

What all these teams do is identify a key group of three or four players and pay them enough to keep them. After that, what may be the most important thing they do - or don't do - is they don't overpay for mid-level talent. Teams that go for the quick-fix in free agency tend to do that, and that is why those teams are in a constant cycle of salary cap hell - dumping players - rebuilding - looking for missing pieces - repeat.

The talent evaluation, finding a player that will fit your team's scheme, and assigning that player a value are basically the same whether it is a rookie prospect or a free agent. The teams that can do that will win; the teams that don't will not - regardless of how many free agents they sign.

So why do teams get away from this philosophy? Owners demand winners now to increase ticket sales. Fans and the media lack patience, and negativity sells more newspapers and gets higher ratings on the radio. Head coaches and general managers have short contracts and feel more pressure to 'win now' rather than developing a winning franchise. And thanks to the quick one-season turnarounds in 2008 of the Dolphins, Falcons and Ravens, going forward fan, media and owners will expect every new HC and GM to be able to do the same thing.

And besides, as long as the ownership of the Jets, Raiders and Redskins remain intact, then there will be at least three teams that believe they are 'one or two players away' - and will not build their team through the draft.

 

[HughC]

i would like to see a list of all the superbowl teams in the last 10 years... and see how there teams were built..

Raiders in 02 didnt draft alot of there players i dont think..
but they also didnt win

Ravens in 2000 were built for a one-year run for the Super Bowl with guys like Sam Adams, but I think they're the exception to the rule.

The other thing is, how many starters/key players are homegrown on an average team? To say the Steelers, Colts annd Giants have a certain amount doesn't really mean anything if there is nothing to compare that number to.

 

[Smith21]

Ravens in 2000 were built for a one-year run for the Super Bowl with guys like Sam Adams, but I think they're the exception to the rule.

The other thing is, how many starters/key players are homegrown on an average team? To say the Steelers, Colts annd Giants have a certain amount doesn't really mean anything if there is nothing to compare that number to.

compare the team who won the superbowl to the team that lost.
the ravens had an amazing team that year i forgot about them...

not that the numbers would mean anything, it would just be a cool stat to see

 

[spiketex]

Building a team through the draft is no secret. I think almost all the teams that consistently field competitive teams follow that same philosophy - the Steelers, Colts, and Giants all come to mind. By drafting and developing quality players they are able to put together a roster with players who have team-favorable salaries (the rookie's first contract) which gives them more cap money to spend elsewhere as needed. And by consistently fielding a winning team they don't draft so high that they get saddled with the big contract of a top-ten draft pick.

New England is more willing to trade for a player (Moss, Welker) and certainly picks up a lot of free agents (many of their RB, WR, and DB this decade.) However, the difference between them and other teams is that they don't really spend a lot on free agents the way teams like Washington or Oakland do. Adalius Thomas is about their only big dollar free agent signing I can think of; most of the free agents they sign are for vet minimum salaries, or not much more than that.

What all these teams do is identify a key group of three or four players and pay them enough to keep them. After that, what may be the most important thing they do - or don't do - is they don't overpay for mid-level talent. Teams that go for the quick-fix in free agency tend to do that, and that is why those teams are in a constant cycle of salary cap hell - dumping players - rebuilding - looking for missing pieces - repeat.

The talent evaluation, finding a player that will fit your team's scheme, and assigning that player a value are basically the same whether it is a rookie prospect or a free agent. The teams that can do that will win; the teams that don't will not - regardless of how many free agents they sign.

So why do teams get away from this philosophy? Owners demand winners now to increase ticket sales. Fans and the media lack patience, and negativity sells more newspapers and gets higher ratings on the radio. Head coaches and general managers have short contracts and feel more pressure to 'win now' rather than developing a winning franchise. And thanks to the quick one-season turnarounds in 2008 of the Dolphins, Falcons and Ravens, going forward fan, media and owners will expect every new HC and GM to be able to do the same thing.

And besides, as long as the ownership of the Jets, Raiders and Redskins remain intact, then there will be at least three teams that believe they are 'one or two players away' - and will not build their team through the draft.

Thanks for your considered response.
You quote 3 Patriot players Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, but they have loaded up again with Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Leigh Bodden, Joey Galloway in just this off season. The point I was trying to make is that Pittsburgh are doing it differently - they seem to avoid buying name players from other teams.

 

[Heinegrabber]

The Steelers are among the hand full of teams that grow their players the Colts are another.

 

[Smith21]

Thanks for your considered response.
You quote 3 Patriot players Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, Wes Welker, but they have loaded up again with Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, Leigh Bodden, Joey Galloway in just this off season. The point I was trying to make is that Pittsburgh are doing it differently - they seem to avoid buying name players from other teams.

he stated that the patriots get away with it because they get players who want to play for more than just money.. and take minimum contract salaries