clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Can Teams Spend Their Way To A Championship?

I noticed this article from Jack Bechta over at the National Football Post, and I was amused to read his findings. Teams that spend the most don't always win the most. As Bechta points out, only three of the top 5 spenders in 2010 were any good. That said, the Packers were one of them.

Follow the jump and I'll break down the article and offer my opinion on whether teams might be able to buy a championship or not.

(The numbers that follow come from Bechta's article.)

In 2010, the top 5 cash spenders were the Saints, Packers, Patriots, Lions, and Redskins. 3 of those 5 teams made the playoffs, and it doesn't take a genius to know which three teams.

In 2010, the bottom 5 cash spenders were the Cardinals, Bucs, Jaguars, Panthers, and Bengals. One of those teams very nearly made the playoffs (Bucs) and another came close (Jags).

2010 was an uncapped year, so it could be considered anomalous. Alright, let's look at 2009.

In 2009, the top 5 cash spenders were the Saints, Chargers, Raiders, Dolphins, and Giants. Saints won the SB, Chargers went one-and-done in the playoffs. The other three teams....not so much.

In 2009, the bottom 5 cash spenders were the Bengals, Seahawks, Browns, Bucs, and Chiefs. The Bengals actually made the playoffs in '09, but went one-and-done as well.

By looking at it, one could assume that the highest spenders generally do better than the smallest spenders, if only a little bit.

But of course, there's an exception to that rule, and it just so happens to be the Falcons. (And Titans, to a lesser extent.)

In the past 5 years, we've averaged in the bottom 7 of teams as far as spending goes, yet we have a good record (44-36) to show for it. That includes, of course, the toilet year-that-shall-not-be-numbered.

I think this is important to note because we always seem to make a big splash or two in free agency each year and, of course, there's always the desire by us fans to have Mr. Blank open his wallet up to acquire some good players.

However, some of the best teams (Steelers, Eagles, Ravens) aren't the biggest spenders. So what does it all mean?

It's coaching. Even in an uncapped year, there were still big spending teams that didn't do any good. The opposite could also be true. There were low spenders that did well, as well. Low spenders generally draft well. They have to, else they'd be spending more on talent coming in from other teams.

We don't have to have Mr. Blank open up his wallet to be successful. Would it help? One would think so, but it doesn't always guarantee success. Look at Albert Haynesworth, for instance.

This is just another example of why our organization is so good. They don't spend much money, and yet the coaching staff/GM know where to find talent and help it develop into a solid player.

I say this a lot, but we are so lucky to have the coaches and front office that we have. I firmly believe a Super Bowl is in our future, fellow Falcoholics. I think this is another way to give props to how great they really are.

Now, if this dang lockout would hurry up and be resolved already.