Packers Getting What They Pay For

Bill Barnwell has broken down how much each team spent at each position group in '09. The Packers lead in one area and are dead last in another. Not surprisingly, it is reflected on the field.

Interesting analysis from Bill Barnwell of Football Outsiders over on ESPN.com (sorry, sub required) breaking down how much money teams spent per position group in 2009.

The results, as it pertains to the Packers, are hardly surprising. The Packers spent the most of any team in the NFL, $25,887,380 to be exact, at the wide receiver position. The Greg Jennings extension put them over the top.

There was, however, an area where the Packers spent the least - pretty much proving the old axiom that "You get what you pay for". Especially when you pay $856,960 total on special teams.

Green Bay spent nothing on special teams, and it had the league's worst special teams DVOA. It won't spend much in 2010, but it has dumped the awful Jeremy Kapinos, a step forward by itself.

A step forward indeed.

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

0 points
 

Comments (23)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Steph01's picture

July 01, 2010 at 09:43 am

The problem isn't what they pay for special teams; the problem is not knowing what a good punter looks like. There were plenty of cheap punters available last off-season and Ted and Mike decided that Kapinos and Brooks were good enough. A year later and both guys are out of the league. At least they learned from their mistakes and brought in a proven punter...nevermind.

0 points
0
0
Jersey Al's picture

July 01, 2010 at 10:56 am

Oy, we have a punter, mate!

Don't get me started on punters...

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 11:55 am

@Anybody -

Packers special teams ranking (recent years):

05' - ranked 32nd
06' - ranked 32nd
07' - tied 7th
08' - ranked 26th
09' - ranked 31st

90'-04' - Never finished worse than 25th, in the top 10 seven times.

Our financial investment was no better in 07', what went right and what's different now??? I sincerely haven't taken a deep look at it.

Thanks,

C

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 12:31 pm

Tracy White

0 points
0
0
Franklin Hillside's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:43 pm

Nodding my head and clapping loudly....

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 05:05 pm

I'm sorry I posted it before you. I know indulging Tracy White is your "thing", as is Jennings for IronMan (and Alex), but I just had to...

0 points
0
0
Ron LC's picture

July 01, 2010 at 12:55 pm

It proves the old adage, even a broken Clock is right twice a day.

0 points
0
0
nerdmann's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:01 pm

We paid Jarrett Bush $1 mil, did we not?

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:06 pm

He got a $1 mil signing bonus and a $1 mil base. But I think they are only counting specialists.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:24 pm

Jarrett Bush shouldn't be counted against the 80 man roster...

0 points
0
0
nerdmann's picture

July 01, 2010 at 04:05 pm

LOL. He's "special" all right.

0 points
0
0
IronMan's picture

July 01, 2010 at 07:04 pm

Jarrett Bush is a penalty specialist.

0 points
0
0
CHHQ's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:25 pm

It certainly is a step forward. Now all they have to do is replace him with someone who can actually kick.

0 points
0
0
holly's picture

July 01, 2010 at 01:40 pm

Eh, I don't care how much or little the Packers spend on special teams as long as they're spending it smartly. I'm hopeful that Bell and Martin (assuming both make the 53-man roster) -- and whoever else -- can improve this year, but my hope isn't based on money at all.

Just because we pay a man well doesn't mean he's worth his paycheck.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 02:14 pm

That article on ESPN insider wasn't helpful at all. I agree with Aaron sentiment about what the Packers end product on special teams vs. what they're paying for it, but is there really a correlation in general between special teams unit investment and outcome?

The article lists the Raiders as the highest paid to the tune of $8 million plus for a ranking of 17 out of 32 teams. Crap investment, huh?

Top three DVOA special teams: #1 Cleveland, #2 Philadelphia, #3 Chicago. I would be curious to find out what these three teams actually spent on special teams.

0 points
0
0
Buckslayernyc's picture

July 01, 2010 at 02:23 pm

I don't think it correlates $ to ranking on special teams. You don't put your best players on special teams...unless you are the Steelers. You pay your best players the most ergo....the least paid players play special teams. Relatively speaking what's the difference therefore of a couple of Million on special teams? Probably not much. What is lacking is a committed front office to special teams and a head coach willing to execute that commitment. Either the guys we got on special teams are too small or too big, they are never just right....which is odd, right?

I would ascribe the ranking more to roster turn over than anything else. The lowest guys on the roster play special teams, we turn over the bottom of our roster every year through RFA and the Draft....which explains why we are consistently the youngest team in the league. Inexperienced guys on Special Teams is a recipe for failure, you need some leadership and some veterans..... So with no Tracy Whites and William Henderson's you are going to have problems...but you just don't have to pay much for those same problems!

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 02:49 pm

I agree there's probably little correlation.

That being said, I remember the a portion of the logic or the 'sales pitch' of transitioning to the 3-4 defense being: You round out your roster with more athletic, slightly smaller guys that are capable of playing special teams and excelling on special teams. I realize 'rounding out' the roster to reflect the 3-4 depth the Packers desire will take a good 3 years.

Should we adhere to their philosophy/premise we should see a bump in rankings closer to the middle in coverage and returns.

So goes the logic, here's to hoping......

0 points
0
0
bomdad's picture

July 01, 2010 at 02:59 pm

Cant read the article, insider. How do they categorize Hester's salary? DeSean Jackson? Josh Cribbs?

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

July 01, 2010 at 03:05 pm

It's a crappy article. All they reference is 'most' (Raiders at just over $8 million) and least being the Packers. They don't get specific about the accounting and skip the financials of all 30 teams in-between. In the body of the 5 sentance piece on special teams the reference punter and kicker only.

Also remember, Cribbs was making squat last year.

0 points
0
0
davyjones's picture

July 01, 2010 at 02:59 pm

The $'s they're talking about seem to be just for specialists as Aaron pointed out earlier.
The "they put the least paid players on special teams" theme seems meaningless here.

0 points
0
0
aussiepacker's picture

July 01, 2010 at 05:42 pm

I'm hopeing that an Australian punter will fix all our special team problems.
GO AUSSIE!

0 points
0
0
Ruppert's picture

July 01, 2010 at 09:14 pm

I think any blog post focusing on the Packers special teams is particularly apropos one day after we were all discussing the Schein Super Bowl pick. I'll call that Yin and raise you a Yang.

0 points
0
0
some_dude's picture

July 02, 2010 at 06:40 am

We suck at special teams because our depth has only recently been built for it. I'm sure Ted would be the first to admit that special teams was something he's only laterally seen as an important area (and I'm sure he's still beating his head against the wall about Jon Ryan).

0 points
0
0