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

[jrry32]

55 minutes ago, Hukos said:

You're misunderstanding me. It doesn't matter what you or I think success is defined as. That's irrelevant. To the average person, success is defined by Super Bowl Championships. Head coaches, General Managers, etc. all get fired for failing to meet these expectations. Coaches have gotten fired because of the narrative that they were wasting a great QB's career before. I'm talking about general perception that if you're not first, you're last.

It does matter what you or I think. That's what we're discussing. I don't care what the average person thinks.

[Hukos]

Who you or I think doesn't get people hired/fired though. Even if narratives surrounding a team's lack of success are dumb, they will get a coach fired. If you are perceived to be wasting the prime of a great player, your ability to coach/manage a team will come into question, even if it's not really your fault.

When a great player retires who didn't get a ring, what do you think people say about him? Their organization wasted him and now they're trash for not getting him a ring. It wasn't "it's a shame they didn't have the luck to win a title," - even though that's much closer to the truth. It's really hard to win a super bowl and requires a lot of things going right, but the thing is, to the average person - they don't care that it's hard. Results are the only thing that matters to them. I mean, you have Patriots fans who grew up in the Brady era (not all Pats fans obviously) that are convinced that the regular season is irrelevant. That alone has 2nd and 3rd order impacts upon how other fans perceive their franchises with respect to the Patriots (ie, if we're not getting the kind of success they are, then we're just trash, so the playoffs aren't good enough).

Why do you think Steelers/Patriots/Cowboys/etc. fans of franchises with a bunch of championships get to routinely trash franchises that don't have rings? It's not for no reason, even though the reason is kind of stupid.

The average NFL fan is really stupid, but the average NFL fan also has 100000x the weight you or I do when lobbying to get a guy fired for not meeting absurd expectations - thus the idea of getting to the playoffs being good enough is kind of absurd.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Hukos

[RandyMossIsBoss]

21 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

Obviously not, but it might be in Mahomes best interest to take a pay cut. Though I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t.

It really would be IMO. Even if say it's only $5M/year off market value (which will be $40ish per?) on a 5 year deal, every bit helps. We'd be talking a $25M paycut in this hypothetical, which is obviously a lot... but that'd be Increasing your odds of a SB---> better odds at HOF, better odds of being relevant when you are retired = could potentially more than makes up for the $25M. Of course that involves betting on yourself, betting on your organization, hardly would blame a guy for taking the guaranteed cash he has earned, but I think it deserves serious consideration, yet I doubt it ever does since agents obviously want that record breaking contract for their cut.

[Kirill]

Mahomes contract might not handcuff the Chiefs that much even if it's the biggest of all time. Chiefs have the most cap space in the league right now to roll over into next year. They could give him a massive signing bonus with that cap room and then lock him in right before the CBA kicks in and the cap goes up.

[drew39k]

I'd like to see the QB contract percentages for the AFC NFC championship games over the past decade as opposed to just the superbowl winner.

I feel like enough of those games wind up as coin flips in term of who makes the superbowl anyway, and getting a larger sample size would be incredibly helpful.

[3rivers]

34 minutes ago, Kirill said:

Mahomes contract might not handcuff the Chiefs that much even if it's the biggest of all time. Chiefs have the most cap space in the league right now to roll over into next year. They could give him a massive signing bonus with that cap room and then lock him in right before the CBA kicks in and the cap goes up.

it appears they have $21M, and if they remove watkins  they will have more.  They will make him the highest paid, but will it affect them 4 years from now? 

spotrac

Adjusted Salary Cap									$222,426,001
All Contracts		$118,269,682	$45,731,837	$21,348,030	-	$2,901,500	$4,705,416	-	$192,956,465
Top 51 Contracts		$118,269,682	$45,731,837	$21,348,030	-	$2,901,500	$4,705,416	-	$192,956,465
Dead Money		-	$8,174,041	-	-	-	-	-	$8,174,041
Total (All)		$118,269,682	$53,905,878	$21,348,030	-	$2,901,500	$4,705,416	-	$201,130,506
Total (w/Top 51)		$118,269,682	$53,905,878	$21,348,030	-	$2,901,500	$4,705,416	-	$201,130,506
Cap Space (w/All)									$21,295,495
Cap Space (w/Top 51)									$21,295,495

 

 

[SkippyX]

This theory is incredibly flawed. It counts on Tom Brady taking a discount to make the theory work on any level.

I score the last 12 years as 4 PASS 5 FAIL and 3 BRADY

 

Use this calculator to figure out yearly cash spent and cap hit of the QBs in the Super Bowl.

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2007/

 

In 2007 Eli was 2nd in cash and 4th in cap hit.  FAIL

In 2008 the Steelers gave Big Ben 27 1/2 million dollars but had the cap hit low for year 1 of the deal  FAIL

• 1st in cash and 11th in cap hit

In 2009 Brees was 14th in cap hit and 12th in cash PASS

In 2010 Rodgers was like 21 in cap hit and 19 in cash PASS

In 2011 Eli was 5th in cap hit and tied for 13th in cash FAIL

In 2012 Flacco was 17th cap hit and 22nd in cash PASS

In 2013 Wilson was a 2nd year player and 3rd round draft pick  PASS

In 2014 Brady was 12th in cap hit.   BRADY

• His cash was only 2 million so they must have been doing a crazy signing bonus somewhere.

In 2015 Manning was 6th highest in cap and cash  FAIL

In 2016 Brady was 18th but Ryan was up 28-3 in that game at the 3rd highest cap hit until Brady saved this theory for that year. BRADY

• Brady was 4th in cash that year at 28.7 million

In 2017  The Eagles spent about 20 million in cap on QBs   FAIL

• They finished paying off Bradford at 5.5 million
• They paid Chase Daniel a 6.1 cap hit to go away so Foles could take the backup job
• They paid Wentz just over 6 million of the 2017 cap
• Foles did only take 1.6 of the 2017 cap but it was a contract with a 9.4 million spread over 2018 and 2019 (with all of 2019 as dead cap like Brees)
• Add in the insane draft capital for Wentz and the Eagles paid in every possible way for QBs in 2017 

In 2018 Brady was 11th in cap hit  BRADY

• He was 19th in cash

Note: Jimmy G was #1 in cap hit in #3 in cash in 2018

• In 2019 he went down to 15th in both because of the massive 2018 balloon payment.
• No one can say the 49ers did not pay Jimmy G

Mahomes would support this theory for 2019 while Jimmy G would crush it again

[JAF-N72EX]

Could you imagine if KC wins the SB this year and then they decide to put Mahomes on the trade block this off-season? Man screw the internet, this would blow up the world.

Edited January 21, 2020 by JustAnotherFan

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

My response to this topic is always the same. If one was hypothetically good enough to consistently evaluate and be in the position to draft high end QBs (good enough to win a Super Bowl), then they should be equally skilled to evaluate all the other positions on the field and field a dominate roster even with a big QB contract. In a hypothetical world you'd draft 4-5 pro-bowl talents every year and virtually never have to pay anyone. Short of this miraculous talent evaluation (no even College coaches are perfect at it), what you see much more often is that these rookie led teams tend to be very short lived and unsustainable, where as you see the highly paid QBs fall short because they generally are carrying more mediocre rosters further than they would otherwise go.

Even though you're username is very bothersome. This is a very good point. 

[Pugger]

On 1/19/2020 at 10:34 PM, Classic said:

This has be more of correlation than a causation. Plenty of teams with high paid QBs come close and it comes down to coaching. Your telling me bad QB with a low cap hit should beat out the good QB with high cap hit?

 

This is what he espouses on the Packers forum.  He wanted us to trade Rodgers before last season.

[Pugger]

20 hours ago, ET80 said:

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).

But if you do as the OP suggests and trade a good QB away because he costs too much that could cost you your job even quicker.

[Bolts223]

21 hours ago, Hukos said:

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.

I think you're being a bit extreme with this.

By no means are the Falcons an overall successful franchise.

But I think it's a huge stretch to say they are one of the worst franchises in American sports. The Bengals, Arizona Cardinals, Jaguars, Titans/Oilers, Padres, Mariners, Rangers, and probably a handful on NBA/NHL franchises are worse. (I don't follow those leagues close enough to really comment on specific teams)

But yes I agree the ultimate goal should always be to end a championship.

[ET80]

4 hours ago, Pugger said:

This is what he espouses on the Packers forum.  He wanted us to trade Rodgers before last season.

I'm always willing to listen to a new viewpoint, but this one is asking to blow up in your face. Going from Favre to Rodgers is not the norm - the odds are more likely a franchise will go from Jim Kelly to Josh Allen (after nearly two decades) or from John Elway to Peyton Manning (after a Tebow era we all want to forget) or from Dan Marino to... TBA, I guess?

Finding a franchise QB is arguably the hardest thing to do in football - maybe even in all of sports. Some years, you'll have a Mahomes and Watson, but you'll have a Trubisky. Other years, you'll have Lamar Jackson after swings on Josh Rosen, Sam Darnold and Baker Mayfield. You'll even have years with Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, years where NOBODY wins. 

If you're a GM and could guarentee they QB you land is a franchise QB every five years, you're the richest man in football by a large margin - you're the equivalent of a golden goose in the NFL, owners would pay you QB money to find their guy.

[VigilantZombie]

The narrative should be, dont pay bad QBs.

[BStanRamFan]

I'm still waiting for the one franchise to trade a QB on the last year of his rookie deal and flip it for 1 st round pick before he gets paid. I thought McVay could do it with Goff or Dallas would consider it with Dak.

If ONE team does it successfully by trading a QB to a bottom 5 team and then drafts a rookie QB and doesn't skip a beat, it will become a trend. Incredible amount of risk and jobs on the line the following year, but could be revolutionary.