Jump to content
Outpost31

Want To Win A Super Bowl? Don't Pay Your QB.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, 3rivers said:

that's alright dude, the peace sign is on the house todayB|

lol. Edit: Apparently I'm out of footballs....

29 minutes ago, Forge said:

Excuse me, but he made a ton of handoffs without botching one or getting a cramp. And he did while being very pretty. He's worth every penny! 

I know you're only joking around here. But in all seriousness, he sold the play-action as good as you will see from any QB in the league which opened up the run game more than people realize. I mean, he sold it so well that even the cameraman/men were tricked on a few PA rollout plays, and this shouldn't go unnoticed, nor underappreciated IMO. The ability to be able to truly sell a PA is not as easy as it may look on TV.

And let it be known, I'm saying this as someone who is doesn't necessarily hold JG in the highest regards either. But do I call it as I see it.

Edited by JustAnotherFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Lets all just ignore that there are teams out there that have huge amounts of money to spend every offseason, yet still somehow suck every year.

Also ignore that the vast majority of SB QBs over the last 2 decades, especially SB winning QBs, have been franchise QBs.

No, lets just pretend that signing a QB to a big contract ruins a teams chances.    

Lets not talk about how hard it is to make it to a SB in general, or factor in how things like coaching, regression and team building through the draft can affect a team year after year.  

No....just never pay a QB, and keep drafting a new QB every 5 years or so.   Thats obviously the recipe for success.   After all, we know that there are 5 or so franchise talents in every single draft, so there will always be an abundance of talent to choose from.

Cant believe teams havent figured this out yet.      Steelers were much better off this year after Ben went down, thats for sure....

 

 

Pretty much sums up the Stupidity behind this Idea! FQB grow on Trees!! Just pluck one every 5th year!👌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see a team do this and end up drafting a Trubisky and having the entire city wanting to raze the Front Office to the ground.

"Why didn't you just pay the QB? God you're so stupid!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Hukos said:

I want to see a team do this and end up drafting a Trubisky and having the entire city wanting to raze the Front Office to the ground.

"Why didn't you just pay the QB? God you're so stupid!!!"

Bingo, because every year - like clockwork - one of these names doesn't pan out. If you end up drafting a Trubisky, a Jose Rosen, a Paxton Lynch or a Marcus Mariota? You're not making it to your next QB. The next guy now has a framework to go for their own Kyler Murray, but you as a GM? You're out the door because you made one mistake instead of sticking with your own guy (who was actually working out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

If the only acceptable goal is the Super Bowl, you don't understand the NFL very well. The Patriots under Brady, Steelers under Bradshaw, 49ers under Montana, etc. are the exceptions, not the norm.

If I could frame a comment and put it on the wall of this forum, this would be that comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

If the only acceptable goal is the Super Bowl, you don't understand the NFL very well. The Patriots under Brady, Steelers under Bradshaw, 49ers under Montana, etc. are the exceptions, not the norm. You're blessed if your team makes a Super Bowl every ten years and is in the playoff hunt 8 out of those 10 years.

I sort of agree/sort of disagree with this. Winning the super bowl is incredibly difficult because the playoffs have so much variance to them.

However, if you think getting to the playoffs and bowing out is a successful season... I don't know what to say to that, because that sounds ridiculous. Now, it can be a stepping stone to better seasons and can be viewed positively through that lens and I don't see anything wrong with that. It can also be comparatively better than what other teams are going through, but there's a reason that franchises that haven't won any championships are considered garbage/trash franchises.

An example would be my Falcons - they have made the Super Bowl in 2 of the last 3 decades and on average, get to the playoffs once every two seasons and usually max out at the second round when they do make the playoffs. That's good, right? Well, they're considered one of the worst franchises in the history of American professional sports, and not for no reason. There's a reason their name is a joke to most people. And they'll never, ever, change that perception without some hardware. It's not "fair", in a vacuum, but that's how it is. If you don't win a title, you're viewed as a failure, as trash. That's the nature of the beast.

So, does that mean not being trash requires you to be insanely lucky, due to the variance of the NFL post-season? Basically. It's definitely not a fair expectation, but don't tell me that kind of pressure doesn't come into consideration when dudes get hired/fired. Why do you think the "x player is being wasted" narratives pop up? It's not for no reason at all. There are dudes who grew up watching football in the 80's/90's who still think Marino was trash because he never won a title - or that John Elway was a gutless choker who needed an elite team to carry him. Those narratives are stupid, yes, but they're real and they do matter in the grand scheme of things.

Edited by Hukos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only lesson one can take from this stat is this:

Don't pay your QB if he sucks.

Otherwise, there's not that much to read into.

Just what we already know,  meaning teams should go for it when their young star QB is in his rookie contract, but that isn't exactly news, and certainly doesn't come from this specific stat or the analysis of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this again about contract structure?

If your QB is elite and has 2-3 years left on a rookie deal, you front load the contracts of the better players you have no so they make less when your QB is due for a payday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Lol, yeah.  Of course not.  I'm suggesting they trade him.  Can you imagine what you would get if you traded Mahomes right now? 

I'm fully prepared for a veritable avalanche of hate for this opinion, but the Rams paid Goff, the Eagles paid Wentz, the Packers paid Rodgers, the Seahawks paid Wilson, the Steelers paid Roethlisberger..

Trading Mahomes would be the worst trade any NFL team has ever made in the history of the league.  

Mahomes is the sole reason why Kansas City is even in the Super Bowl.  They didn't have near the chance of getting to the Super Bowl  before Mahomes got there.  

That move actually wouldn't benefit anybody.   The team that would trade for him will lose a tremendous amount of money, so they can't beef up their team at any other position.  

And, Kansas City would have to start all over again to find another talent at QB like that.  

9 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

 

Up to 2007 it made sense.  Now?  It doesn't.  Quarterbacks are busting at a lesser and lesser rate.  Hell, the BROWNS have a franchise QB right now.  The BILLS have a franchise QB.  The RAVENS have a franchise QB. 

This is no longer pre-2007 where finding a franchise QB is impossible. 

All of those guys may or may not be the long term franchises for their teams.  Jackson is a safe bet, but Josh Allen and Baker Mayfield are questionable.  

But, none of them play at the level of Mahomes.  None of them.  

To make that kind of comparison is ridiculous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Jimmy Garroppolo just beat Aaron Rodgers by attempting less than a dozen passes when Rodgers had his best Championship game of his career.  If you pay your QB less, you can pay the rest of your team more. 

San Francisco has the best defense in the league, and Shanahan is afraid to use Garroppolo too much.  

They're not trying to find an excuse to pay Garroppolo less money.  

How do you even use this example to make an assumption like this?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Forge said:

I feel like people don't appreciate the variance that comes with single elimination tournaments such as the NFL playoffs. A lot of stuff can happen. Have to have those winning records to have a chance. After that, it's a matter of winning 3 games (I'd say 4, but it's just so rare that it happens, your chances are kind of shot if you don't have that bye week) 

You can't go to the dance (Super Bowl) if you don't buy a ticket (playoffs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Or Dalton for that matter.

He was benched on his birthday. Hasn't he been through enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the percentage of salary cap by position for the rest of those teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SmittyBacall said:

He was benched on his birthday. Hasn't he been through enough?

No.

214.jpg

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



×