Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Outpost31

QB Cap Percentage and Super Bowl wins

Recommended Posts

On 4/11/2019 at 12:51 PM, Outpost31 said:

It's a team sport, there are 53 players on a team, and paying 13% of your cap to .02% of your roster has never seemed like a good idea to me. 

Math note; 1 of 53 is 1.8%.  .02% would be 500 players to a team

 

also I agree a lot of qbs are overpaid, not sure why so many teams throw elite $$ at average qbs

Edited by ConnPatFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 5:36 PM, SBLIII said:

so if Brady gets a contract extension this year which reduces his caphit to below 13% and the Patriots don't make any other roster moves than they would have done at 14.3 % they become SB favorites again?

 

This seems rather illogical.

What seems more illogical is why the Patriots would actively reduce cap hit one year and not take advantage of it. What would be the purpose of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away Brady as bringing less money to the table than his wife allows him to take below market deals. 

On 4/11/2019 at 12:51 PM, Outpost31 said:

I have been one of the only people on this site to frequently bring this up, but in NFL history, one QB has ever won a Super Bowl getting paid 13% of their team's cap.  That was Steve Young in a year where the 49ers were literally penalized for cheating the Salary Cap. 

Below are the cap percentages for quarterbacks sine 2001.  I could not find Brad Johnson's figures, and Aaron's win was in an uncapped year. 

Removing Aaron Rodgers and Brad Johnson, the average cap percentage paid to a QB who wins the Super Bowl has been 7.7% over the past 18 years. 

This is not some myth, this is a trend that has been repeated over and over again, and I'd like to know why teams think they can win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 13% of the cap.  It's a team sport, there are 53 players on a team, and paying 13% of your cap to .02% of your roster has never seemed like a good idea to me. 

2018 - Brady Patriots - 12.4%
2017 - Foles AND Wentz Eagles - 4.6%
2016 - Brady Patriots 8.9%
2015 - Manning Broncos - 12.2%
2014 - Brady Patriots - 11.1%
2013 - Wilson Seahawks - .6%
2012 - Flacco Ravens - 6.6%
2011 - Eli Manning Giants - 11.7%
2010 - Rodgers Packers - Uncapped year (Figured to be under 10%)
2009 - Brees - 8.7%
2008 - Roethlisberger - 10.7%
2007 - Eli - 9.2%
2006 - Peyton - 10.4%
2005 - Roethlisberger - 4.9%
2004 - Brady - 6.3%
2003 - Brady - 4.4%
2002 - Johnson - Can’t find.  
2001 - Brady - .5%

Quarterbacks who will NOT win the Super Bowl in 2019 if this trend continues: 

1. Tom Brady (over 14%)
2. Aaron Rodgers (over 14%)
3. Kirk Cousins (over 15%)
4. Matt Stafford (over 15%)
5. Andrew Luck (over 14%)
6. Russell Wilson (over 13%)

Put lots and lots of money on the Saints winning the Super Bowl this year. 

 

I would put more money on Brady than Brees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 5:51 PM, Outpost31 said:

This is not some myth, this is a trend that has been repeated over and over again, and I'd like to know why teams think they can win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 13% of the cap.  It's a team sport, there are 53 players on a team, and paying 13% of your cap to .02% of your roster has never seemed like a good idea to me.

And yet... it's not a team sport where all are created equal. An elite non-QB may help you win 1 or 2 more games a year. An elite QB will transform your entire team. The top tier QB's should probably be paid about 25-30% of the cap if we were equating their pay with team performance, arguably more. The 2017 49ers being a case in point:

wiwxy.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 12:51 PM, Outpost31 said:

I'd like to know why teams think they can win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 13% of the cap.

How many QBs make that much for the duration of their contract? Many of them sign for high % for the first year but with the expansion of the cap they quickly drop over like 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to see the stats of teams that have won a Super Bowl with a stain at QB. If you take Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer out of the equation then you’re going to be hard pressed to find a case where a non rookie contract QB wasn’t approaching top 5 money when the deal was negotiated. 

 

Starting QB’s continually get top 5 money deals. The only other option is rolling into a season betting on Fitzmagick and that still isn’t cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 12:51 PM, Outpost31 said:

.02% of your roster

It's not .02% of your roster, it's actually 1.88% of your roster. I know this is a nitpick but I'm weird like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sell Sell Sell on this trend.

Only ONE qb on a rookie contract has won a SB since the rookie wage scale was implemented post the Sam Bradford draft and yet the conventional wisdom suggests it's a near requirement for a competitive team. Even a uniform random distribution would have had a few more happen, given the amount of QBs on a rookie contract. Tom Brady has a 27M cap hit this year, are we crossing them off or making up a tale about a rich wife who lets him pay for free, instead of actually looking at the numbers?

The data correlating QB salary and team success is just NOT there to justify the amount this gets talked about. All I have I have ever seen are selective samples, arbitrary cutoffs, and disposal of data points that don't fit a narrative.

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 9:51 AM, Outpost31 said:

This is not some myth, this is a trend that has been repeated over and over again, and I'd like to know why teams think they can win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 13% of the cap.  It's a team sport, there are 53 players on a team, and paying 13% of your cap to .02% of your roster has never seemed like a good idea to me. 

You haven't established any trend. If you want to establish a trend that paying a QB more than 13% of the cap significantly reduces super bowl odds you need to:

1. Establish how many >13% cap QB seasons occured as a fraction of total team-seasons

2. Compare the fraction of those that won a super bowl to the overall fraction of team seasons that led to a super bowl (hint: the latter is 1/32)

3. Establish that fraction 1 is significantly smaller than fraction 2 AND that there are enough data points in the smaller sample group to establish a strong correlation coefficient (hint: there aren't)

 

Moving beyond the trends and just talking about the actual benefits of having cap space: it's better to have more available than less, but cap space is not a scare resource. We've literally seen a few teams with 9 figures of it. Any truly great player that a team wants to keep will stay on their team, the franchise tag ensures that. Also, the majority of players on every roster are on a rookie contract, so that's a huge chunk of the roster for which cap space doesn't matter. A team has been unable to afford a rookie contract exactly 0 times. So, what we are really talking about with that 13% charge, which is 5.3% more than your SB winning average is like a second tier starter FA. Is it better to have one of those, sure? Does it make a huge % difference from the 1/32 likelihood of a random team winning the SB? Nah. 

What exactly would you suggest one of those teams with those high cap QBs do (or hace done) of they had an extra 5.3% cap available this year that would drastically improve their super bowl odds? If you can't answer that then you can't prove it matters.

Edited by wackywabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×