Trevor Lawrence has arrived

[Soko]

5 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

There’s two quarterbacks who can win the Super Bowl:

Tom Brady because he has taken team friendly deals his entire career…

Uncapped years (Aaron Rodgers).

And quarterbacks on their rookie contracts.

Someone go tell Patrick Mahomes he won’t win another super bowl…

[MacReady]

22 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Someone go tell Patrick Mahomes he won’t win another super bowl…

I mean I said this a while ago and people ripped into me.

He was twice the QB Brady was when they met in the bowl. Brady took little enough to get himself an offensive line and a defense, Mahomes got destroyed.

So it’s easy for you to say that, but if someone said it after Rodgers won his and had his 2011 season, you’d have laughed at them the same as me and how would that have gone for you?

It’s been 30 years since the salary cap was introduced. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady… Lots of great quarterbacks and yet none of them have won past that 12% threshold.

It’s almost like this is a team sport or something and that out of 22 starting players, you can’t dedicate 13% to one starter if you want to be able to win it all.

Especially considering elite tackles and EDGE are the next two most important and you’ve got to pay them around 10% if you have them.

I also don’t get the little jokes. 30 years of Super Bowl winners support my claim. 0 years of Super Bowl winners support yours.

So if you’re going to laugh, laugh at the theory that hasn’t proven to be possible, not the one that’s undefeated thirty consecutive years.

[Soko]

17 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It’s been 30 years since the salary cap was introduced. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady… Lots of great quarterbacks and yet none of them have won past that 12% threshold.

Brady did it in 2018. 

17 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

It’s almost like this is a team sport or something and that out of 22 starting players, you can’t dedicate 13% to one starter if you want to be able to win it all.

Hasn’t happened = / = can’t happen. “Can’t” being an important distinction here. No one’s ever walked into the league as a starter and thrown for 5,000 yards…until Mahomes did it. 

Basic math here, but if you can win when a QB is on a cheap deal and the rest of the team is of marketish value, then the reverse is true. You can win with a QB on a bigger deal while the rest of the team is on cheaper deals. 

But you won’t simply say “it’s hard to win a SB with a QB eating a bunch of the cap” because that’s not edgy enough. 

[MacReady]

8 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Brady did it in 2018. 

Hasn’t happened = / = can’t happen. “Can’t” being an important distinction here. No one’s ever walked into the league as a starter and thrown for 5,000 yards…until Mahomes did it. 

Basic math here, but if you can win when a QB is on a cheap deal and the rest of the team is of marketish value, then the reverse is true. You can win with a QB on a bigger deal while the rest of the team is on cheaper deals. 

But you won’t simply say “it’s hard to win a SB with a QB eating a bunch of the cap” because that’s not edgy enough. 

No he didn’t. 12% eclipsing into 13%.

So I guess poor word choice on my part.

 And yeah, it’s possible. It’s possible for a QB to win getting paid 20%.

But it hasn’t happened yet, so your arrogance over the whole issue is dumb, and I don’t understand it. Everybody has this holier than thou superior attitude when discussing this issue and I’m like…

But I’m right, and this hasn’t been proven wrong, and it’s been 30 years, so how are you poking fun of it when it’s stood for 30 years?

[Soko]

20 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

No he didn’t. 12% eclipsing into 13%.

So I guess poor word choice on my part.

 And yeah, it’s possible. It’s possible for a QB to win getting paid 20%.

But it hasn’t happened yet, so your arrogance over the whole issue is dumb, and I don’t understand it. Everybody has this holier than thou superior attitude when discussing this issue and I’m like…

But I’m right, and this hasn’t been proven wrong, and it’s been 30 years, so how are you poking fun of it when it’s stood for 30 years?

You’re right, everyone’s wrong, the “theory” (which completely changes when you remove the word “can’t”) is 100%…and everyone else is arrogant, lol. 

If you switch “teams with QBs making +12% of the salary cap cannot win a SB” with “teams with QBs making +12% of the salary cap have a difficult path to the SB”, you’d get no replies, because that’s the obvious. So you bastardize it, based on the leaky premise of “what has not happened, can not happen”, pick an arbitrary cutoff point of 13%, and then it turns into this. 

Is it impossible for a running back to rush for 297 yards in a game? Is it impossible for a QB to pass for for 555 yards, or 8 TDs? 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Yin-Yang

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Especially considering elite tackles and EDGE are the next two most important and you’ve got to pay them around 10% if you have them.

Between all offensive linemen and every defensive player in the league, there’s a total of 6 players making 10% or more of the cap this year.

Apparently, you don’t quite “got to” pay them that 10%. 

[MacReady]

23 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

You’re right, everyone’s wrong, the “theory” (which completely changes when you remove the word “can’t”) is 100%…and everyone else is arrogant, lol. 

If you switch “teams with QBs making +12% of the salary cap cannot win a SB” with “teams with QBs making +12% of the salary cap have a difficult path to the SB”, you’d get no replies, because that’s the obvious. So you bastardize it, based on the leaky premise of “what has not happened, can not happen”, pick an arbitrary cutoff point of 13%, and then it turns into this. 

Is it impossible for a running back to rush for 297 yards in a game? Is it impossible for a QB to pass for for 555 yards, or 8 TDs? 

You’re highly obnoxious and you started a whole thing. It’s not an arbitrary cutoff point, it’s the mark. That hasn’t been met. For 30 years. 

You win if it means you just stop.

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

Between all offensive linemen and every defensive player in the league, there’s a total of 6 players making 10% or more of the cap this year.

Apparently, you don’t quite “got to” pay them that 10%. 

It was a guess on their numbers and you’re just a **** at this point.

The current market for a top LT is 21 million.

The current market for a top EDGE is 28 million (Bosa), 24 million for Watt, 19 for Dupree.

~10%

Does that make you feel better?

[Soko]

4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You’re highly obnoxious and you started a whole thing. It’s not an arbitrary cutoff point, it’s the mark. That hasn’t been met. For 30 years. 

You win if it means you just stop.

So it’s physically impossible for a RB to rush for 297, right? Or rather, they just “can’t”?

You’ve already recanted and backtracked, so it is what it is. 

Just now, Outpost31 said:

It was a guess on their numbers and you’re just a **** at this point.

The current market for a top LT is 21 million.

The current market for a top EDGE is 28 million (Bosa), 24 million for Watt, 19 for Dupree.

~10%

Does that make you feel better?

Shrug, I’m trying to help you. You said no QBs have won “past the 12% threshold”, that was false, guys have done it over/at 12%. You said the going rate for OTs and edge rushers is 10% - that’s false, only one tackle and 4 DLmen hit that mark. You're premise of what hasn’t happened, can’t happen - that’s false too. 

Was it impossible for the Eagles to win the SB LII? That was more than 30 years! 

[MacReady]

6 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

So it’s physically impossible for a RB to rush for 297, right? Or rather, they just “can’t”?

That's an individual accomplishment, not a team accomplishment. The Super Bowl is the ultimate team accomplishment. There is not a single rule that interferes with a running back's ability to rush for 297 yards. The NFL Salary Cap was invented solely to prevent teams from being able to buy Super Bowl wins. It is there to prevent teams from giving the best players X amount of money so that it doesn't matter how much it's being paid. That's the difference. That's what makes this point invalid in the discussion.

Quote

You’ve already recanted and backtracked, so it is what it is. 

I haven't backtracked, I've clarified. I've never said it was impossible for a team to win a Super Bowl paying a QB more than 12-12.9 percent of the cap. The original discussion also noted specifically above 13%, you're just trying to back me into a corner on a certain amount because you decided to turn into a combative turd who has this pretentious need to be right. You're the one continuing this when I've already admitted that what you're arguing - the impossibility of it - was not my official stance. You're the one that has the insatiable need to impose your will on an internet football discussion board. Nothing you've pressed me on have I fought back on, you just don't like my opinion that a team will never win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 13, 14, 15, 16% of the cap. And that's what I've said. I said they won't. Not it's impossible, not the sky would have to part, God would have to block a game winning field goal... Just that they won't. You've become an impossible **** and I've tried getting out of this conversation not because of the lack of faith in my argument, but because I simply do not like you.

Quote

Shrug, I’m trying to help you.

Shrug, no you're not. You're being impossible or purposefully obtuse because you got a raging hard on when you got your first like digging into this point of mine, so you're trying to mine likes by acting like a pretentious PAB.

Quote

You said no QBs have won “past the 12% threshold”, that was false, guys have done it over/at 12%. You said the going rate for OTs and edge rushers is 10% - that’s false, only one tackle and 4 DLmen hit that mark. You're premise of what hasn’t happened, can’t happen - that’s false too. 

And I corrected this by stating it was a poor choice of words. And it's your, not you're. Should I use that against you in further discussions? When you respond, should I say, "You said you're instead of your you aren't even smart enough to type a word right?"

Instead of just accepting it when I addressed my error, corrected it, took ownership of it, you've doubled and tripled down on it because you are a little man who I've tried to get out of this conversation with because I don't like you.

Quote

Was it impossible for the Eagles to win the SB LII? That was more than 30 years! 

What's this? What even is this? What the hell does this have to do with the price of gold in China?

Since 2000, the average cap hit for a QB winning the Super Bowl has been 6.99%.

The median? 7.11%

Now how about the Super Bowl losers? 7.18% and 6.74%

And you keep using Tom Brady. Tom 7 Super Bowl wins Brady? That one? Oh, okay, that's all. Just be the best QB of all time and then you can do it. The only other QB to win one in the past 20 years above 12% has been some guy named Peyton Manning, so it can't be all that difficult.

12 of the last 21 have been under 8% of the cap. Only 6 have been over 10% of the cap.

So I'm just... You know, it's just a crazy fricking theory.

What even are you arguing? What the frick are you arguing? What is it you want me to say?

Yes, it is possible for a QB to get paid up to 100% of the salary cap to go on to win the Super Bowl.

What is it that you want me to say that will get you to stop responding to me? I'll say it. You want me to say I like morbidly obese women with armpit hair down to their knees? I'll say it. Tell me what you want me to say to get you to stop responding to me and I will say it.

[Soko]

26 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

What is it that you want me to say that will get you to stop responding to me? I'll say it. You want me to say I like morbidly obese women with armpit hair down to their knees? I'll say it. Tell me what you want me to say to get you to stop responding to me and I will say it.

[StatKing]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

No he didn’t. 12% eclipsing into 13%.

So I guess poor word choice on my part.

 And yeah, it’s possible. It’s possible for a QB to win getting paid 20%.

But it hasn’t happened yet, so your arrogance over the whole issue is dumb, and I don’t understand it. Everybody has this holier than thou superior attitude when discussing this issue and I’m like…

But I’m right, and this hasn’t been proven wrong, and it’s been 30 years, so how are you poking fun of it when it’s stood for 30 years?

Because it's an entirely arbitrary stat that doesn't take into account any sort of context whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure Rodgers was the highest paid guy in the league in 2014, did we not make the Super Bowl that year because he was making too much money or was it because Brandon Bostick didn't do his job on an onside kick?

That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more. I just don't see how you get around paying QBs in the modern NFL.

[MacReady]

20 minutes ago, StatKing said:

Because it's an entirely arbitrary stat that doesn't take into account any sort of context whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure Rodgers was the highest paid guy in the league in 2014, did we not make the Super Bowl that year because he was making too much money or was it because Brandon Bostick didn't do his job on an onside kick?

That's just one example I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more. I just don't see how you get around paying QBs in the modern NFL.

Until a QB breaks that barrier, that barrier is there.

And considering the barrier is 13% of the cap, when quarterbacks are getting 14, 15, 16, 17% of it, my entire point - you shouldn't pay your QB that much against the cap - is a good point.

The only people who argue against it are people who are fans of teams currently paying their QB 13, 14, 15, 16, 17% of the cap.

You're more than welcome to come back and tell me "I toad a so," as soon as a QB wins making that 13-17% against the cap, but until that happens...

I'd rather go with the odds and go all in on rookie QB contracts and remain hesitant to give out that big QB contract.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Outpost31

[Soko]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Interesting - had no idea on Rodgers. Not surprised, but once you consider his track record it actually makes sense what you’re saying.

One distinction with Rodgers however, is that Ted Thompson would hardly ever use it. Notorious for not utilizing free agency, I can’t imagine there were many times where Rodgers freeing up cap space would cause many ripples in the Packers’ roster. 
 

[NudeTayne]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

I like morbidly obese women with armpit hair down to their knees