Matts4313 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 32 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: You are 100% correct. The better research would be to answer the question how many SB winning QBs were being paid top 5 $ the year they won the SB. My guess is very few. Thats a stupid question because of restructures. Why would anyone ever ask that question with any concept of how a contract works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Thats a stupid question because of restructures. Why would anyone ever ask that question with any concept of how a contract works? You don’t get restructures and net money. First, all you would have to do is look at net money the QBs receive... inclusive of salary and bonuses. That will account for any restructuring. Romo is the perfect example. While he would restructure his contract every year to free up cap space... his yearly net never changed. They simply pushed money down the road against futures caps. Hence when romo retired we had fairly big dead money accounted to him. But his net never changed. You pay home $18M and call it base salary or $18M and call $5M base salary and $13M signing bonus...it’s still nets $18M. Over the cap.com actually has a table for both cap value and total year income. https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2019/ Guess what... paying a QB a ton of money wasn’t particularly helpful last year. Edited May 9, 2020 by The_Slamman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 So if paying a QB is a bad thing...why don't the franchises that win Super Bowls just let their guy go and draft a replacement after his rookie contract? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 1 minute ago, The_Slamman said: You don’t get restructures and net money. First, all you would have to do is look at net money the QBs receive... inclusive of salary and bonuses. That will account for any restructuring. Romo is the perfect example. While he would restructure his contract every year to free up cap space... his yearly net never changed. They simply pushed money down the road against futures caps. Hence when romo retired we had fairly big dead money accounted to him. Over the cap.com actually has a table for both cap value and total year income. https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2019/ Guess what... paying a QB a ton of money wasn’t particularly helpful last year. Cmon man. You know how this all works. The bottom line is the majority of QBs that played in conference champs as well as the superbowl were on second contracts. A lot of those QBs were the highest paid QB in NFL history, even if by cap hit they werent in that given year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGame316 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, D82 said: So if paying a QB is a bad thing...why don't the franchises that win Super Bowls just let their guy go and draft a replacement after his rookie contract? Well, one could argue that the analytics haven't flushed that out yet Seattle hasn't been a real threat since they paid Wilson, Hindsight tells you teams all shouldn't have (Flacco, Ryan, Goff, erc) with the exception of Brady, but he's always been a value contract In reality, GM's and coaches just want to keep their jobs. A good QB will keep you in the playoffs, winning record, etc. But you lose the massive advantage that other teams have when they are rolling out their version of Mahomes or Wilson. You fall to that second tier of teams that keep you employed, but also keep you out of the big game Edited May 9, 2020 by TheGame316 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, TheGame316 said: Well, one could argue that the analytics haven't flushed that out yet Seattle hasn't been a real threat since they paid Wilson, Hindsight tells you they all shouldn't have, with the exception of Brady, but he's always been a value contract In reality, GM's and coaches just want to keep their jobs. A good QB will keep you in the playoffs, winning record, etc. But you lose the massive advantage that other teams have when they are rolling out their version of Mahomes or Wilson. You fall to that second tier of teams that keep you employed, but also keep you out of the big game Essential this!!! This is what we know... the Seahawks were a BETTER football team when they they had a stacked defense AND Wilson. Having only Wilson makes them a fringe playoff contender. The Lions are only in a free fall after paying Stafford. What we are saying is that there is a give and a take when it comes to paying QBs top dollar. And, as of right now... I don’t feel that Daks play justifies the take. The Rams had a really good team in 2018. They were stacked at a lot of positions. Now they paid their QB and you see them dumping players and making crazy trades. Are the Rams better off paying Goff? I don’t think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddy_z34 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 15 minutes ago, D82 said: So if paying a QB is a bad thing...why don't the franchises that win Super Bowls just let their guy go and draft a replacement after his rookie contract? It's a business man. Save money on the QB and risk half the casual fanbase from getting pissed off thinking the team isnt trying or overpay him and keep the fans happy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: Essential this!!! This is what we know... the Seahawks were a BETTER football team when they they had a stacked defense AND Wilson. Having only Wilson makes them a fringe playoff contender. The Lions are only in a free fall after paying Stafford. What we are saying is that there is a give and a take when it comes to paying QBs top dollar. And, as of right now... I don’t feel that Daks play justifies the take. The Rams had a really good team in 2018. They were stacked at a lot of positions. Now they paid their QB and you see them dumping players and making crazy trades. Are the Rams better off paying Goff? I don’t think so. One (bad) Example!!!! And that team has been competitive every ear since. Edited May 9, 2020 by Matts4313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGame316 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 Just now, buddy_z34 said: It's a business man. Save money on the QB and risk half the casual fanbase from getting pissed off thinking the team isnt trying or overpay him and keep the fans happy?? It's like people haven't learned from Belichick letting guys go when it was time to pay them. Brady was the highest paid guy once, and that was for a very short time and he was in his prime(also during that stretch where they didn't win any SB's). The only thing that kept him there (besides being the GOAT) was his willingness to accept an under market contract and Robert Kraft 6 Superbowls and 9 appearances doing it Bills way - Never being the one to set the market 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGame316 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: One (bad) Example!!!! And that team has been competitive every ear since. OOOhhhhh "Competitive" When's the parade for competitive? Do they make a T-Shirt or a Hat I can buy for that? What do they call the "Competitive" trophy?, I know the Superbowl is called the Lombardi Edited May 9, 2020 by TheGame316 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 11 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: Essential this!!! This is what we know... the Seahawks were a BETTER football team when they they had a stacked defense AND Wilson. Having only Wilson makes them a fringe playoff contender. That - Or the NFL is built on parity and being in the playoffs regularly should be considered good. 11 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: The Lions are only in a free fall after paying Stafford. Was Matt Stafford signed in like 1967? 11 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: What we are saying is that there is a give and a take when it comes to paying QBs top dollar. And, as of right now... I don’t feel that Daks play justifies the take. Thats because coaching. Ive heard thats new excuse. Dak has only had one of the best 4 year starts (individually) in NFL history. But, with better coaching, he would have also won 4 straight MVP/Superbowls. 11 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: The Rams had a really good team in 2018. They were stacked at a lot of positions. Now they paid their QB and you see them dumping players and making crazy trades. Are the Rams better off paying Goff? I don’t think so. Goffs contract just kicked in (for big money)..... So it has nothing to do with their 2019 season. Try again. (real answers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardHawk Posted May 9, 2020 Author Share Posted May 9, 2020 8 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: Essential this!!! This is what we know... the Seahawks were a BETTER football team when they they had a stacked defense AND Wilson. Having only Wilson makes them a fringe playoff contender. The Lions are only in a free fall after paying Stafford. What we are saying is that there is a give and a take when it comes to paying QBs top dollar. And, as of right now... I don’t feel that Daks play justifies the take. The Rams had a really good team in 2018. They were stacked at a lot of positions. Now they paid their QB and you see them dumping players and making crazy trades. Are the Rams better off paying Goff? I don’t think so. LOLOLOL.....Come on Slam. Gonna have to do better than the Lions. The Rams roster is still in very good shape, they''re under the cap and have $40+ next year with Ramsey as their only big FA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 1 minute ago, WizardHawk said: LOLOLOL.....Come on Slam. Gonna have to do better than the Lions. The Rams roster is still in very good shape, they''re under the cap and have $40+ next year with Ramsey as their only big FA The Rams were in good shape this year. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northland Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 24 minutes ago, TheGame316 said: OOOhhhhh "Competitive" When's the parade for competitive? Do they make a T-Shirt or a Hat I can buy for that? What do they call the "Competitive" trophy?, I know the Superbowl is called the Lombardi You're a Cowboys fan. You should be thrilled with being competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_OutLaw7 Posted May 9, 2020 Share Posted May 9, 2020 14 minutes ago, Northland said: You're a Cowboys fan. I honestly doubt it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts