MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, KingOfTheNorth said: We have all learned that stats tell an incomplete tale. Also, I resent this statement. I am literally the only one bringing more than, "Lol, you're crazy," to the discussion. I was literally called an idiot when I'm literally the only one bringing up an abundance of cold hard facts. It is a fact that the majority of Super Bowl wins (by at LEAST a 5/1 ratio) have not been by the best QB in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: How well have the Seahawks done since they've paid Wilson? How well have the Ravens done since they've paid Flacco? Is it a coincidence that Brady and Eli Manning have been paid low salaries relative to what they're worth and are the only two quarterbacks to win multiple Super Bowls in the last 11 years? I'm not opposed to keeping Rodgers. I'm opposed to giving Rodgers a contract that will cripple our ability to put a team around him good enough to win a Super Bowl. It's not about the QB in this league, and anyone who thinks otherwise is flat wrong. If it was all about QB, Peyton Manning would have won a Super Bowl without sucking in the playoffs. He never won a Super Bowl without a horrible postseason. Ever. If it was about the QB, Brady and Rodgers would have won each of the last X amount of Super Bowls. Rodgers has been there once. It's about maximizing value. It's not just about the QB contract. It's very difficult to build a "great" defense without having phenomenal draft classes for a number of years. Much harder to do that when you're not picking in the top 10 for a number of years. Having that standout QB prevents your from getting in those slots. In that sense you could argue that good is the enemy of great. The problem is that trying to reload by jettisoning a QB will have bad results more times than it does great ones. Just looking at the careerAV of those top 5 picks doesn't paint a pretty picture of what you're attempting to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, KingOfTheNorth said: Your opinion is not fact. It is only an opinion, and we have just as much right to one as you do. I'm using FACTS to support my OPINION. It's not my fault if you can't separate the two. And you're absolutely right. It's just that everyone here seems to avoid using facts and instead they state general opinions (it's better to have the best QB) without using any facts to support that fact. Show me a list of times the best QB in the league won the Super Bowl. Better yet, show me a list of times the highest paid QB wins the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: The problem is that trying to reload by jettisoning a QB will have bad results more times than it does great ones. Just looking at the careerAV of those top 5 picks doesn't paint a pretty picture of what you're attempting to do. The bottom line is that I believe starting over with a massive haul of draft picks and the healthiest cap in the NFL gives us a better chance at winning Super Bowls than having an unhealthy cap thanks to paying Rodgers 15% of the cap. Like I've said, I'll be the happiest person here if Rodgers signs for 32 million a year without his contract being tied to a salary cap percentage. If it's tied to a cap percentage, we won't have the money to add defenders in free agency, and we won't get the draft capital to build it through the draft. Thus, we won't win another Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said: The bottom line is that I believe starting over with a massive haul of draft picks and the healthiest cap in the NFL gives us a better chance at winning Super Bowls than having an unhealthy cap thanks to paying Rodgers 15% of the cap. Like I've said, I'll be the happiest person here if Rodgers signs for 32 million a year without his contract being tied to a salary cap percentage. If it's tied to a cap percentage, we won't have the money to add defenders in free agency, and we won't get the draft capital to build it through the draft. Thus, we won't win another Super Bowl. I think you're overly pessimistic. This team isn't capped out nor is it as far away from a super bowl as it seems you believe. With a healthy Rodgers this team is right in it given a league average defense, and I think we can do that with the pieces in house. This team will have cap space in the next few years. Mediocre drafting 4+ years ago guarantees it even with Rodgers signing a mammoth deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: With a healthy Rodgers this team is right in it given a league average defense, and I think we can do that with the pieces in house. What do Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady have in common? None of them have ever won a Super Bowl without having a top five scoring defense. What does every QB since the merger have in common? Not one of them has won a Super Bowl while allowing more than an average of 21 points a game in the playoffs. If we can get that, fantastic. If we can't, we're better off winning without Rodgers and with the draft haul he'd give us. No QB transcends the tried and true adage of Defense Wins Championships. If I was so crazy for saying it, if I was an idiot, people would be able to point to NFL facts, Super Bowl facts and a trend that has gone on for 50 years to disprove my theory. Not saying my theory is absolute fact, but there's more evidence to suggest I'm right (that defense is more important than QB) than evidence to suggest the contrary. Rodgers and a top 5 defense wins the Super Bowl 9/10 years. The question is whether or not we can get that top 5 defense while paying Rodgers 15 or more percent of the cap every single year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, KingOfTheNorth said: You pity us, and we laugh at your arrogance. Also, look back through the last two pages and pick one person other than AG who actually tried to discuss the issue rather than post memes, gifs, insults or mockery of my opinion rather than a compelling attempt to disprove my opinion's validity. Like I've said, if my opinion was so absurd, facts and trends could be used to disprove it as easily as it is to laugh at it. Yet nobody has done it. With Favre, the counter arguments were "Favre is a Hall of Fame QB who hasn't had a good team around him." People pointed to his crippling interceptions. What happened with his last game as a Packer? His last play as a Jet? His last play as a Viking (in the playoffs)? Rodgers is the best QB in the league. No QB is good enough to win Super Bowls without good defenses. The question is whether or not we can build a good defense while paying Rodgers 15% and not having high draft capital. It's about the next 15 years for me, not the next 5. Rodgers isn't making it another 6 years. He's not shown any ability to do what is required of players who play into their 40s at the position. I could go on, but it doesn't matter because everybody will be wearing their Rodgers goggles for another 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 52 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: Also, I resent this statement. I am literally the only one bringing more than, "Lol, you're crazy," to the discussion. I was literally called an idiot when I'm literally the only one bringing up an abundance of cold hard facts. It is a fact that the majority of Super Bowl wins (by at LEAST a 5/1 ratio) have not been by the best QB in the league. You can resent it all you want, but its the truth. Stats do not give the complete story. I enjoy your stats and in depth analysis. But once again you forget that the stats only tell half the story. I have no doubt your fact is legit, but it leaves out the variables that happened during those seasons. Lets use last season for example. Brady lost to Foles and FOles is obviously much worse than Brady. In that game though the exact opposite happened. Foles was the better player. Does Philly win that SB without Foles? Does the Philly Special ever get called? None of these can be answered with an absolute yes or no. The game of football is too chaotic for it to be that simple. I think AG hit it on the head with this statement. 1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said: It's about maximizing value. It's not just about the QB contract. It's very difficult to build a "great" defense without having phenomenal draft classes for a number of years. Much harder to do that when you're not picking in the top 10 for a number of years. Having that standout QB prevents your from getting in those slots. In that sense you could argue that good is the enemy of great. The problem is that trying to reload by jettisoning a QB will have bad results more times than it does great ones. Just looking at the careerAV of those top 5 picks doesn't paint a pretty picture of what you're attempting to do. One QB can make a far greater impact on the offense, than 1 player on defense. If you can get your QB spot set, then the rest of your team becomes easier to assemble. Without that QB every player you draft/acquire will need to make a larger impact than on a team with a Franchise QB. I agree with your premise about overpaying for a QB 99.9% of the time. Any contract that hits 15% of the cap hinders that team. But, Rodgers is that good I believe he makes up for the difference. Every Offensive player becomes better with Rodgers at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 I believe if Rodgers was good enough to make up that 15%, we would have been in at least one more Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said: I believe if Rodgers was good enough to make up that 15%, we would have been in at least one more Super Bowl. He didn't do a good enough job in the Seattle game with the field position he was given, but that loss is as much on the 4th quarter defense collapse as him. Other years I think the 49ers were clearly the better team, and then the Atlanta game....oof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingOfTheNorth Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 I feel like you are underestimating how difficult it is to get to a Super Bowl. I may also be overestimating Rodgers ability. I think it is safe to say the truth probably is somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyecatcher Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said: It is a fact that the majority of Super Bowl wins (by at LEAST a 5/1 ratio) have not been by the best QB in the league. 21 of the last 25 Super Bowls have been won by Hall of Fame QBs. That's a 5:1 ratio too that negates your 5:1 ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said: What do Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady have in common? None of them have ever won a Super Bowl without having a top five scoring defense. What does every QB since the merger have in common? Not one of them has won a Super Bowl while allowing more than an average of 21 points a game in the playoffs. If we can get that, fantastic. If we can't, we're better off winning without Rodgers and with the draft haul he'd give us. No QB transcends the tried and true adage of Defense Wins Championships. If I was so crazy for saying it, if I was an idiot, people would be able to point to NFL facts, Super Bowl facts and a trend that has gone on for 50 years to disprove my theory. Not saying my theory is absolute fact, but there's more evidence to suggest I'm right (that defense is more important than QB) than evidence to suggest the contrary. Rodgers and a top 5 defense wins the Super Bowl 9/10 years. The question is whether or not we can get that top 5 defense while paying Rodgers 15 or more percent of the cap every single year. You're talking about extremely small sample sizes looking at only Superbowl winning teams. You also have to make the jump in sample size that the defense has to be good in the playoffs for 3/4 games because there have been super bowl winning defenses that have been mediocre/bad in the regular season. Bad defenses have strung 4 good weeks together in a row. "Defense Wins Championships" is just as bad an philosophy to build off of as "Offense Wins Championships". Most studies on the subject have Offensive production work about a 52% correlation to winning, defense at about 46% and Specials at about 2%. You're better off with a great offense and terrible defense than the alternative. Ultimately though, both are pointless because if you don't have competent units on both sides you're going to have problems. Net scoring differential or even Net DVOA are better predictive indicators than points allowed per drive/points scored per drive. I don't think anyone is saying that QB is more important than defense, you're talking about an entire unit as opposed to one player. A QB does have more impact on a team than any defensive player and you could probably make the case that he's more impactful than any two defensive players. One bad defensive player doesn't destroy a team, a bad QB does. The solution really isn't to save on the defense to get a QB. Nor is the solution to save on the QB to build the defense. Purely in an academic sense, teams should be saving on non-QB offensive players, particularly backs and receivers (looking at you Randall Cobb). That's not always feasible. The real solution is in drafting at least two defensive difference makers in a 5 year time frame so that you have playmakers available cheap. Do we have a difference maker on a rookie contract on this team? Maybe Kenny Clark, but the rest of the group is either unrealized potential, or not moving the needle. If we drafted a top tier pass rusher or CB in the last 4 years, we've probably won a super bowl in that time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 31 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said: He didn't do a good enough job in the Seattle game with the field position he was given, but that loss is as much on the 4th quarter defense collapse as him. Other years I think the 49ers were clearly the better team, and then the Atlanta game....oof That loss was on the offense, blame it on the entire unit including coaching, but the offense and the defense do not share equal blame in that loss. Hell, put a fair helping on the Special Teams plate as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 12 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: The bottom line is that I believe starting over with a massive haul of draft picks and the healthiest cap in the NFL gives us a better chance at winning Super Bowls than having an unhealthy cap thanks to paying Rodgers 15% of the cap. Like I've said, I'll be the happiest person here if Rodgers signs for 32 million a year without his contract being tied to a salary cap percentage. If it's tied to a cap percentage, we won't have the money to add defenders in free agency, and we won't get the draft capital to build it through the draft. Thus, we won't win another Super Bowl. Makes no sense HtoZ. If Rodgers were to earn 15% of the cap this year, that is $26.58m, which you are vehemently against. You are ok with him getting $32m pa though. Lets do the math. The 2015 cap was $143. In 2016 it was $155. In 2017 it was $167, and in 2018 it is $177 (note that smaller rise, in 2018). This year the cap was a $10m rise (over last year), so let us project that into the future, with Rodgers earning 15% of the cap each year, and a $10m cap increase pa. In 2018 Rodgers gets $26.6m. In 2019 $28.5m. In 2020 $29.5m. In 2021 $31m Four seasonss down the road............... and Rodgers STILL hasn't got up to the $32m pa that you are ok with. You could go into a 5th and 6th year of that contract, and it would STILL be less overall, than a flat $32m pa contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.