deathstar Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, Norm said: I don't agree with what he's saying but that's not hindsight. He's speaking to the idea that he was off many teams boards likely. I understand that. If you substitute Mariota's name in there it doesn't help his case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fl0nkerton Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, Norm said: I don't agree with what he's saying but that's not hindsight. He's speaking to the idea that he was off many teams boards likely. hindsight is 50 /50 though 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 22 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said: hindsight is 50 /50 though Lol so true 26 minutes ago, deathstar said: I understand that. If you substitute Mariota's name in there it doesn't help his case. Fair point. I thought maybe you were saying we know he isn't very good now so that's why they wouldn't draft him. My fault 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 The whole no team has won a Super Bowl with a QB over 13% of the cap sounds great until you actually look at the QB's whose cap hit was over that by year. The problem is having a bad/average QB take up the cap space. Here are the QBs over a 13% cap hit since 2013 (oldest I could go in spotrac without going team by team). 2013: (3) - Eli/Stafford/Brees 2014: (5) - Eli/Bradford/Cutler/Big Ben/Brees 2015: (3) - Brees/Rivers/Ryan 2016: (6) - Ryan/Big Ben/Eli/Flacco/Romo/Stafford 2017: (6) - Ryan/Big Ben/Eli/Flacco/Romo/Stafford 2018: (5) - Flacco/Stafford/Brees/Carr/Wilson Ryan should've won the Super Bowl at over 14% and Brees was a missed PI call away from the Super Bowl this year. Paying the Eli, Flacco and Staffords of the world over 13% of your cap space is obviously a terrible idea. Saying that there's no way you can win without examining who was actually taking up that much cap space leaves out half of the argument. Good teams are typically good at creating team friendly deals or extending the contract to open up space (which is what happened in 2015 with Manning). The fact that no team has won a Super Bowl with a QB taking up 13% of their cap has a lot more to do with the QB's play than how big their cap hit is. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 Telling me I can't use hindsight when you literally use hindsight? @deathstar, please explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 hours ago, TheBitzMan said: The fact that no team has won a Super Bowl with a QB taking up 13% of their cap has a lot more to do with the QB's play than how big their cap hit is. It's almost like quarterbacks play better when the team has cap space to pay other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 hours ago, TheBitzMan said: The whole no team has won a Super Bowl with a QB over 13% of the cap sounds great...... Then it appears history will be made this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 5 hours ago, Arthur Penske said: Per usual, forum broskis got every league GM out smarted. Impressive. There's more that goes into a GMs decision than the pure football product that none of us give two schits about though. So that significantly impacts reality vs armchair GMing. Logic absolutely dictates that there is a value for a QB in a trade that makes it worthwhile. Didn't the sports analytics rate Oakland moving from Mack as the best sports move in 2018? Pure logic/numbers/results differ from reality due to "soft" considerations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: Telling me I can't use hindsight when you literally use hindsight? @deathstar, please explain. I'm confused as to how you anticipate getting value from trading a player like Russell Wilson equal to a player like Russell Wilson. Your strategy is dependent on utilizing top picks every 4-5 years on a new quarterback. But if your options for that quarterback are players like Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, Teddy Bridgewater, EJ Manuel - all of the first round quarterbacks taken in a 3 year stretch from 2013-2015 - then how the hell is this strategy going to work? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 8 minutes ago, deathstar said: I'm confused as to how you anticipate getting value from trading a player like Russell Wilson equal to a player like Russell Wilson. Your strategy is dependent on utilizing top picks every 4-5 years on a new quarterback. But if your options for that quarterback are players like Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, Teddy Bridgewater, EJ Manuel - all of the first round quarterbacks taken in a 3 year stretch from 2013-2015 - then how the hell is this strategy going to work? If you're a crap talent evaluator it won't work. If you're impatient for a QB it won't work. If you're a good talent evaluator who is patient, it will. It doesn't always take a first round QB. Sometimes - and Wilson is evidence of this - it takes the right QB on the right team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 Peter King: As I thought, 4 prime-time games for the NFL’s 2019 darlings, the Browns ... including 3 in the first 5 weeks. Plus, 3 more games that could be chosen as CBS Sunday doubleheader games. The NFL is all-in on Cleveland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 And then they do the most Browns thing possible and start 0-6. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, HighCalebR said: And then they do the most Browns thing possible and start 0-6. No the most Browns thing ever would be to start 7-0. Then--in Week 8-- Mayfield tears every CL in both knees and OBJ loses a fight with a goalpost that sends him to IR. THEN... the Browns go 0-9 and miss the playoffs by a single game, AND also need a new franchise QB in the 2020 Draft cause Baker hangs 'em up due to injury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cakeshoppe Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 5 minutes ago, Cadmus said: No the most Browns thing ever would be to start 7-0. Then--in Week 8-- Mayfield tears every CL in both knees and OBJ loses a fight with a goalpost that sends him to IR. THEN... the Browns go 0-9 and miss the playoffs by a single game, AND also need a new franchise QB in the 2020 Draft cause Baker hangs 'em up due to injury. then the team moves to London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 21 minutes ago, Cakeshoppe said: then the team moves to London London, Ontario 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.