So this article is a bit sophomoric. Yes, all of the things they are pointing out are true and honest. Yes, these issues arise when we look past the 1 year of the tank into the 3 year window of the rebuild, and each is a legitimate concern.
But, there are two pieces that are being left out--a time frame longer than 3 years, and success.
1. Time frame beyond 3 years.
When you look at how these FA contracts are structured, it's quite easy to structure them as 1, 2, or 3 year contracts with team-options for years 4 and 5. It's very easy to front-load these contracts to reward the player in case of regime change. The NFL understands regime change, and doesn't really hold that against the player. Sure, the player needs to uproot his family again, and that's no small consideration, but really, we're not going to have to pay a huge premium to get the FA's we want.
Why? Because a rebuilding team like us shouldn't be going after instant difference makers, otherwise known as "A-List Free Agents." We're not going after the homerun swings like WR Mike Wallace or DT Ndamakong Suh … and I believe this ownership realizes the foolishness of contracts like that anyway. We'll be going after B-List and C-List free agents--guys who are young veterans with strong work ethics who can lead by example in the position room and in the locker rooms. Guys who will help the young players not only understand HOW to learn, but also teach them the finer points and show them WHAT to learn. Show t hem how to be professionals. These B and C-List FA's are looking for a home, and if they do their jobs in the locker room, they'll be securing their usefulness to this team and every other NFL team, ensuring the longevity of their careers in this league. So yes, we will be able to attract the FA's we want, and no, we will not need to pay too high of a premium.
2. Success.
The whole rationale behind tanking is much like going on a diet--foregoing current pleasure for future benefit. Or if you prefer, much like working out--enduring pain in the short term for gain in the future. Whichever model you ascribe to it, the function is the same … we're BAD now to become much BETTER than we normally would be in the future. This future dramatically improves with the 2020 and 2021 drafts, where we've assembled 3.5 year's of draft assets over 2 years. That means any player who joins us in 2020, gets in on the ground floor of about 6 years of dominant collection of talent--regardless of how good a team or coaching staff we have.
Imagine you were among a group of 100 basketball players picking for pick-up teams, and one team had two picks each round … THAT'S the team you would want to be selected by, because they'd have better talent! They'd have fewer holes! You would be surrounded by a better supporting cast. Players understand that, and their entire lives have been this situation. What high school talent does NOT want to be recruited by the teams with the best talent? What Basketball player steers away from Kentucky and Duke because he fears they have too much recruiting power? What football recruit refuses a recruiting visit from Alabama and Clemson because they want to only consider teams of average talent? And while at these schools, they understand the value of being surrounded with the best talent … and that talent changes literally every year.
These kids grow up constantly vying to be on the team with the best choice of draft picks, the guys who pick first and the guys who have the largest collection of their peers whom they view as stars. So yeah, in 2019 WHILE we are tanking, people may not want to come here, but the guys we have also realize this is their best chance to start. But NEXT YEAR, in 2020, when we become the destination of the most and best of their talented peers, every young draftee will be super excited about making this turnaround. And by 2021, when that boatload of precocious young talent starts to make sparks of greatness and show glimmers of glory, every young veteran will prioritize us as a destination, because once that success starts--and we have an unfair advantage in talent selection--we'll become the new favorite landing spot for all FA's and draftees.
This article is not wrong … but it is shortsighted. Simply extending the frame of reference beyond 3 years, or considering the possibility that the rebuild succeeds, flips all of their logic on its head.
