Jump to content

Dak, the QB of the future or not.


resilient part 2

Dak, the QB of the future or NOT  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Has Dak shown enough to make Dak our QB going forward, OR NOT!

    • definitely has shown enough promise to build around
    • NO he sucks and Dallas needs to find his replacement.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wwhickok said:

Fair enough. But may I argue that Ezekiel Elliot was a LARGE factor in those winning drives as well.

I’m sure you’ve done a very close analysis on every game winning drive?

Football is a team game. You need everyone. But Dak isn’t at the top of that list by random chance. His ability to keep us in games by not making stupid decisions and his ability to come through in the clutch is absolutely valuable and rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I’m sure you’ve done a very close analysis on every game winning drive?

Football is a team game. You need everyone. But Dak isn’t at the top of that list by random chance. His ability to keep us in games by not making stupid decisions and his ability to come through in the clutch is absolutely valuable and rare.

I think thats a fair statement. But i also dont see him as the difference between winning or not winning a SB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I’m sure you’ve done a very close analysis on every game winning drive?

Football is a team game. You need everyone. But Dak isn’t at the top of that list by random chance. His ability to keep us in games by not making stupid decisions and his ability to come through in the clutch is absolutely valuable and rare.

Dak has shown that he can come through in the clutch but there were a fair amount of games that were close because Dak failed to make plays I.e. the Saints game last year.

Can Dak continue to win games if he loses pieces around him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CAPJ said:

Dak has shown that he can come through in the clutch but there were a fair amount of games that were close because Dak failed to make plays I.e. the Saints game last year.

Can Dak continue to win games if he loses pieces around him?

How many pieces are we talking? If it’s just Zeke, sure he can. If you’re talking 3-4 others pieces, idk. Maybe. Depends on who the replacements are. The variables could take this a 100 different directions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/front-office/2018/05/29/does-a-high-salary-veteran-qb-hurt-your-super-bowl-chances/

I went back through the last 12 years to look at Super Bowl winning quarterback salaries and what percentage of the salary cap their salaries represented. Based on name and reputation, the list is pretty distinguished. Peyton ManningEli Manning and Tom Brady each won twice, plus appearances from Ben RoethlisbergerDrew BreesAaron RodgersJoe FlaccoRussell Wilson and Nick Foles

Using the numbers at Over The Cap, the highest percentage paid to a Super Bowl winning quarterback was 12.2% to Peyton Manning in 2015 with the Broncos. Everyone else was paid under 12% of the salary cap.

To further expand on those numbers, I looked at the quarterbacks in the conference championship games for those twelve years. Only 7 times (other than Peyton Manning in 2015) out of 48 did a team make it to the AFC or NFC championship game while paying more than 12% to the Quarterback.

 

 

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-quarterback-salaries-salary-cap-kirk-cousins-free-agency

I get it. The NFL is a quarterbacks league. You can’t win without a good one, and you can’t get a good one without paying A LOT of money for him. That’s why good-but-not-great quarterbacks like Matthew Stafford sign for record money and everybody celebrates the deal. That’s why the Redskins get ripped for refusing to give an above average quarterback the biggest contract in NFL history.

Here’s the problem with that sentiment: There is no proof that paying for a quarterback leads to winning. In fact, there is basically no correlation between a quarterback’s compensation and how many games he wins. We did the math.

For the following chart, we picked out every season since 2013 in which a quarterback started at least half of his team’s games. That gave us a sample of 158 individual seasons. We then plotted those seasons based on the quarterback’s winning percentage and cap hit percentage during that season. Here is the result.

screen-shot-2018-02-19-at-7-26-33-pm.jpg

We get a correlation coefficient of .038. If you’ve forgotten everything you learned in that statistics course you took back in college, that’s statistically meaningless. For a point of comparison, there is a stronger correlation (three times stronger, actually) between a team’s preseason winning percentage and their regular season winning percentage. There’s is no correlation between a quarterback’s salary and how many games he wins, so whatever benefit a team gets from paying the quarterback premium is not showing up on the scoreboard.

 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/2/18164980/nfl-playoffs-quarterbacks-salary-cap-kirk-cousins-patrick-mahomes

 

“Jay Cutler was the quintessential ‘fear of the unknown’ quarterback. I think as the cap continues to go up, the new Jay Cutlers of the world will benefit.” —Joel Corry, former agent

“Ryan Tannehill is the perfect example of it. He was paid as a top quarterback only because he was a starter,” Fitzgerald said of that wave of extensions. “There was nothing in his body of work that showed he should be a $19 million quarterback. Those teams put themselves at a disadvantage and you won’t find too many of them in the playoffs.” 

Joe Flacco’s contract extension in 2013, which paid him $52 million in guarantees despite his mediocrity, didn’t help matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s an interesting interpretation of the data. I might argue that it’s evidence that paying your quarterback a big contract does *not* hurt you the way many in this thread claim it does. 

Edit: just to clarify my point, literally nobody thinks paying your QB more is a competitive advantage. They think having a better QB is a competitive advantage, but at some point, you have to pay that player or you have to find another one.

Edited by Nextyearfordaboyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

That’s an interesting interpretation of the data. I might argue that it’s evidence that paying your quarterback a big contract does *not* hurt you the way many in this thread claim it does. 

Edit: just to clarify my point, literally nobody thinks paying your QB more is a competitive advantage. They think having a better QB is a competitive advantage, but at some point, you have to pay that player or you have to find another one.

"Using the numbers at Over The Cap, the highest percentage paid to a Super Bowl winning quarterback was 12.2% to Peyton Manning in 2015 with the Broncos. Everyone else was paid under 12% of the salary cap. To further expand on those numbers, I looked at the quarterbacks in the conference championship games for those twelve years. Only 7 times (other than Peyton Manning in 2015) out of 48 did a team make it to the AFC or NFC championship game while paying more than 12% to the Quarterback."

 

12% seems to be the magic number

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

"Using the numbers at Over The Cap, the highest percentage paid to a Super Bowl winning quarterback was 12.2% to Peyton Manning in 2015 with the Broncos. Everyone else was paid under 12% of the salary cap. To further expand on those numbers, I looked at the quarterbacks in the conference championship games for those twelve years. Only 7 times (other than Peyton Manning in 2015) out of 48 did a team make it to the AFC or NFC championship game while paying more than 12% to the Quarterback."

 

12% seems to be the magic number

so at $30m he will be at 12% in roughly 3-4 years, assuming he signs this year.

or he can just buck the trend. 

Edited by Matts4313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

so at $30m he will be at 12% in roughly 3-4 years, assuming he signs this year.

or he can just buck the trend. 

The other piece that is more difficult to compare, what other star players did those teams have to pay as well as their QB?

Did Denver lose good talent because of Manning or were they able to pay Manning because their other star players were on rookie deals?

I get it, it's not Daks fault we have other people to pay but still needs to be considered by the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...