skibrett15 Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 4 hours ago, Outpost31 said: Just your friendly reminder that even though I’m not as active here as I used to be, I’m still right. Pay your QB and your team isn’t good. I said this about Mahomes and nooooooobody believed me because Mahomes is Mahomes, but Rodgers was also Rodgers. You can sell tickets with a great QB, but you can’t win Super Bowls if you pay that great QB. And the Packers are alright with winning games, making money and always being good enough to feed the bottom line. The Packers don’t care about winning Super Bowls. Rams. Let's see with the rams. Paying 2 qbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 4 hours ago, Outpost31 said: You’re forgetting a couple things. First, the Chiefs are last in the NFL in points allowed. Second, the draft capital dilemma presents itself here. They’ve had low end first round picks in each of the last 3 years. Draft capital as it relates to Super Bowl wins is one thing nobody can argue with. The Buccaneers don’t win last year if they weren’t in position to get a franchise LT and Winfield. We went Love and Dillon. That was the difference. That, this year at least, has nothing to do with Mahomes contract, which was your statement. In fact one might argue their defence is ****e cos they have over invested in a few players on defence: Frank Clark 13.7% of cap, Honey Badger 10.5% of cap, Hitches 5.6% of cap and Jones 4.5% of cap. that 34% of cap on 4 defensive players. Maybe you statement should be "you ain't gonna win a Superbowl when you spend over 13% of the cap on above average edge rusher." Also the season is very early, I'd be shocked if they don't make the playoffs and have a decent run, who knows they might win it all as their QB does only account for 3.94% of the cap!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 Speaking of suckitude: Can you imagine being below .500 for more than a year ? The Giants haven't had a day over .500 in nearly 5 years Most Days Since Ending any NFL Regular Season Day over .500Team Days Giants 1,733 Falcons 1,369 Jets 1,111 Lions 718 Vikings 641 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, Shanedorf said: Speaking of suckitude: Can you imagine being below .500 for more than a year ? The Giants haven't had a day over .500 in nearly 5 years Most Days Since Ending any NFL Regular Season Day over .500Team Days Giants 1,733 Falcons 1,369 Jets 1,111 Lions 718 Vikings 641 I find it difficult to believe that the Vikings have not been over .500 in two years. I find it even more difficult to believe that the Falcons haven't been above .500 in about 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 10 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: I find it difficult to believe that the Vikings have not been over .500 in two years. I find it even more difficult to believe that the Falcons haven't been above .500 in about 4 years. The Falcons, shockingly, checks out. The Vikings one maybe technically correct, in that they finished the 2019 season over .500, were below .500 all last season and haven't been above .500 this season....because we're a month in, it makes it look like almost 2 yrs but it was only really 1 season were they had a losing record. Same with the Lions - they were 2-1-1 in wk 4 of the 2019 season. It would probably be more honest to say Minny hasn't been above .500 over the past 19 games, but that doesn't sound as significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 3 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said: The Falcons, shockingly, checks out. The Vikings one maybe technically correct, in that they finished the 2019 season over .500, were below .500 all last season and haven't been above .500 this season....because we're a month in, it makes it look like almost 2 yrs but it was only really 1 season were they had a losing record. Same with the Lions - they were 2-1-1 in wk 4 of the 2019 season. It would probably be more honest to say Minny hasn't been above .500 over the past 19 games, but that doesn't sound as significant. I wasn't questioning the numbers. I just feel like the Vikings and Falcons have been good rather recently, but they really haven't been. Feels like yesterday when the Falcons lost the Super Bowl, and Blair Walsh missed a 4 yard FG or whatever it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bad Example Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 5 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said: I wasn't questioning the numbers. I just feel like the Vikings and Falcons have been good rather recently, but they really haven't been. Feels like yesterday when the Falcons lost the Super Bowl, and Blair Walsh missed a 4 yard FG or whatever it was. You weren't, I was. The Falcons haven't been terrible, but oddly during their two 7-9 seasons in 18 and 19, they were never above .500, which just seems weird (they were at .500 in one of them); the Lions in 2019 were 3-12-1 and even THEY managed to be above .500 in week 4 (and at .500 after 7 games at 3-3-1). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 13 hours ago, Brit Pack said: That, this year at least, has nothing to do with Mahomes contract, which was your statement. In fact one might argue their defence is ****e cos they have over invested in a few players on defence: Frank Clark 13.7% of cap, Honey Badger 10.5% of cap, Hitches 5.6% of cap and Jones 4.5% of cap. that 34% of cap on 4 defensive players. Maybe you statement should be "you ain't gonna win a Superbowl when you spend over 13% of the cap on above average edge rusher." Also the season is very early, I'd be shocked if they don't make the playoffs and have a decent run, who knows they might win it all as their QB does only account for 3.94% of the cap!!! What? That has everything to do with his contract. If the Chiefs traded Mahomes instead of re-signed him, they'd be closer to their next Super Bowl than they are now. The act of extending him instead of trading him meant they went from their own top 10 pick to a top 5 pick they got in a trade plus three more first round picks and an elite player. You're right in that his cap hit isn't bad this year. Then you bring up those defensive contracts and you lose the narrative a little bit I think. Look at what the Packers did by pushing contracts out more. The Chiefs can't do that, so they have to front load contracts because they've backloaded the Mahomes contract. Mahomes is at 35, 46, 44, 46, 42, 59 million in cap hit over the next 6 years. So all of this very much does have to do with his contract in my opinion. They're flat out not good enough as a team to win another one, they won't have the draft capital to get better through the draft because Mahomes will keep them in the playoffs, and they won't have the cap space to get better because Mahomes is getting paid insane sums of money starting next year. This literally happened with Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Favre, every QB of the free agency era. Except with Brady. Why? Because Brady has always taken 2-6% less of the cap than he's been worth, and that has made all the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: What? That has everything to do with his contract. If the Chiefs traded Mahomes instead of re-signed him, they'd be closer to their next Super Bowl than they are now. The act of extending him instead of trading him meant they went from their own top 10 pick to a top 5 pick they got in a trade plus three more first round picks and an elite player. You're right in that his cap hit isn't bad this year. Then you bring up those defensive contracts and you lose the narrative a little bit I think. Look at what the Packers did by pushing contracts out more. The Chiefs can't do that, so they have to front load contracts because they've backloaded the Mahomes contract. Mahomes is at 35, 46, 44, 46, 42, 59 million in cap hit over the next 6 years. So all of this very much does have to do with his contract in my opinion. They're flat out not good enough as a team to win another one, they won't have the draft capital to get better through the draft because Mahomes will keep them in the playoffs, and they won't have the cap space to get better because Mahomes is getting paid insane sums of money starting next year. This literally happened with Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Favre, every QB of the free agency era. Except with Brady. Why? Because Brady has always taken 2-6% less of the cap than he's been worth, and that has made all the difference. Yup. Problem being finding a QB like Brady who does that or having an at least average qb with a lights out D and special teams. Both hard to do when a team doesn't suck for years and get enough "cheap" top draft choices to accomplish that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Outpost31 said: What? That has everything to do with his contract. If the Chiefs traded Mahomes instead of re-signed him, they'd be closer to their next Super Bowl than they are now. The act of extending him instead of trading him meant they went from their own top 10 pick to a top 5 pick they got in a trade plus three more first round picks and an elite player. You're right in that his cap hit isn't bad this year. Then you bring up those defensive contracts and you lose the narrative a little bit I think. Look at what the Packers did by pushing contracts out more. The Chiefs can't do that, so they have to front load contracts because they've backloaded the Mahomes contract. Mahomes is at 35, 46, 44, 46, 42, 59 million in cap hit over the next 6 years. So all of this very much does have to do with his contract in my opinion. They're flat out not good enough as a team to win another one, they won't have the draft capital to get better through the draft because Mahomes will keep them in the playoffs, and they won't have the cap space to get better because Mahomes is getting paid insane sums of money starting next year. This literally happened with Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Favre, every QB of the free agency era. Except with Brady. Why? Because Brady has always taken 2-6% less of the cap than he's been worth, and that has made all the difference. No. You can't make a rule out of an exception. Unless you can list the moves the Pats made with that 2-6% it remains in the category of 'damn lies and statistics'. Brady is the difference, not his salary. He is the exception not the rule. Edited October 1, 2021 by Dubz41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) Just now, Dubz41 said: No. You can't make a rule out of an exception. Unless you can list the moves the Pats made with that 2-6% it remains in the category of 'damn lies and statistics'. Brady is the difference, not his salary. He is the exception not the rule. Unless I can list moves the Pats made with that 2-6%... Not only can I do that with the Patriots, but I can also do that with the Buccaneers. We're talking about the most prolific QB in NFL history hitting free agency, instantly turning a team around from both a financial and competitive perspective, and he was the 15th highest paid QB last year and this year. So Buccaneers: Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski, Leonard Fournette. The Buccaneers were 4.2 million under the maximum cap in 2020. By comparison, the Packers were 4.0 under the maximum cap in 2020. The Packers added nobody in-season. And the 2-6% moves? That's literally an extra player each and every year. Even at 2%, that is an extra 3 million you can add to a contract for a free agent. At 6% you're looking at 11 million dollars. That is the entire yearly cap hit for an elite player at another position. If Tom Brady's cap hit went up by even 3%, that's Stephen Gilmore you are taking off your roster. Bottom line, I'm not sure you realize how far 2% goes on a roster of 53 players. Your point would be different if Brady wasn't absolutely terrible in Championship games. He is. He's as bad as or worse than Rodgers in Championship games. 262 yards per game. 21 touchdowns. 17 interceptions. You know how many points his defenses have allowed in Championship games? 23.6 points. You know how many points we've allowed in Championship games during Aaron's time here? 30.8 Edited October 1, 2021 by Outpost31 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: Unless I can list moves the Pats made with that 2-6%... Not only can I do that with the Patriots, but I can also do that with the Buccaneers. We're talking about the most prolific QB in NFL history hitting free agency, instantly turning a team around from both a financial and competitive perspective, and he was the 15th highest paid QB last year and this year. So Buccaneers: Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski, Leonard Fournette. The Buccaneers were 4.2 million under the maximum cap in 2020. By comparison, the Packers were 4.0 under the maximum cap in 2020. The Packers added nobody in-season. And the 2-6% moves? That's literally an extra player each and every year. Even at 2%, that is an extra 3 million you can add to a contract for a free agent. At 6% you're looking at 11 million dollars. That is the entire yearly cap hit for an elite player at another position. If Tom Brady's cap hit went up by even 3%, that's Stephen Gilmore you are taking off your roster. Bottom line, I'm not sure you realize how far 2% goes on a roster of 53 players. Bolded #1 - He's never been the most talented, he has been the biggest winner Super Bowl wise. But he has been paid his talent level. Bolded #2- The Bucs didn't win because of those additions. They won with a combination of defense and luck. I wonder if there is a way to uncover if the Super Bowl champs ever had a more fortuitous road of playing against two consecutive teams who lost their best OL at the crucial LT position? (KC lost both OTs) I understand your argument. It has valid points, BUT Brady is the exception. I still think we had the better team last year. The game was decided on two huge plays, the game was NOT decided by salary cap percentage of the starting QBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 5 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said: You weren't, I was. The Falcons haven't been terrible, but oddly during their two 7-9 seasons in 18 and 19, they were never above .500, which just seems weird (they were at .500 in one of them); the Lions in 2019 were 3-12-1 and even THEY managed to be above .500 in week 4 (and at .500 after 7 games at 3-3-1). It is crazy to think that the Falcons have started 0-2 for like 4 seasons in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted October 1, 2021 Author Share Posted October 1, 2021 26 minutes ago, Dubz41 said: I still think we had the better team last year. The game was decided on two huge plays, the game was NOT decided by salary cap percentage of the starting QBs. Which was the better overall team? Debatable. We didnt match up well with their defense - even with Bak IMO. Agree with the latter comment however. I think our failure to execute in critical moments made the difference - plus - their overall defensive unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: Unless I can list moves the Pats made with that 2-6%... Not only can I do that with the Patriots, but I can also do that with the Buccaneers. We're talking about the most prolific QB in NFL history hitting free agency, instantly turning a team around from both a financial and competitive perspective, and he was the 15th highest paid QB last year and this year. So Buccaneers: Antonio Brown, Rob Gronkowski, Leonard Fournette. The Buccaneers were 4.2 million under the maximum cap in 2020. By comparison, the Packers were 4.0 under the maximum cap in 2020. The Packers added nobody in-season. And the 2-6% moves? That's literally an extra player each and every year. Even at 2%, that is an extra 3 million you can add to a contract for a free agent. At 6% you're looking at 11 million dollars. That is the entire yearly cap hit for an elite player at another position. If Tom Brady's cap hit went up by even 3%, that's Stephen Gilmore you are taking off your roster. Bottom line, I'm not sure you realize how far 2% goes on a roster of 53 players. Your point would be different if Brady wasn't absolutely terrible in Championship games. He is. He's as bad as or worse than Rodgers in Championship games. 262 yards per game. 21 touchdowns. 17 interceptions. You know how many points his defenses have allowed in Championship games? 23.6 points. You know how many points we've allowed in Championship games during Aaron's time here? 30.8 mic drop 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.