NoSaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Small sample size yes, but not so small it's insignificant. The losing teams are below and you can see in the close games the QBs were mostly young. The old guys (like manning this year) got blown out twice, sort of underscoring the point of not being able to win with an old QB. It wasn't a fluke play that determined the outcome, like the Tyree catch. So even expanding it to all QBs for the past 11 SBs the trend generally holds true and may even underscore how it is a money issue. Only 2 QBs are over 30 who's teams even had a shot to win those games. One was Brady who gave money back in negotiations to help his team remain competitive was 33 and the other one was Warner, a guy playing on a discounted contract late in his career. SB Losers from last 11 years: 2014 - Manning - 37 2013 - Kapernick - 25 2012 - Brady - 33 2011 - Roth - 29 2010 - Manning - 32 2009 - Warner - 37 2008 - Brady - 28 2007 - Grossman - 27 2006 - Hasselback - 31 2005 - McNabb - 28 2004 - Delhomme - 29 5 of those 11 are over 30 though.... like i mention up thread, the goal of the salary cap is parity, and i think what we have at the table here is that while a vet QB keeps you close every year, it does take some luck and stars aligning for anyone to win the super bowl. id guess AGE has little to do with it and a more interesting cutoff would be rookie contracts, vs veteran contracts or qb as a percentage of cap for the point hes trying to make.
jletha Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Small sample size yes, but not so small it's insignificant. The losing teams are below and you can see in the close games the QBs were mostly young. The old guys (like manning this year) got blown out twice, sort of underscoring the point of not being able to win with an old QB. It wasn't a fluke play that determined the outcome, like the Tyree catch. So even expanding it to all QBs for the past 11 SBs the trend generally holds true and may even underscore how it is a money issue. Only 2 QBs are over 30 who's teams even had a shot to win those games. One was Brady who gave money back in negotiations to help his team remain competitive was 33 and the other one was Warner, a guy playing on a discounted contract late in his career. SB Losers from last 11 years: 2014 - Manning - 37 2013 - Kapernick - 25 2012 - Brady - 33 2011 - Roth - 29 2010 - Manning - 32 2009 - Warner - 37 2008 - Brady - 28 2007 - Grossman - 27 2006 - Hasselback - 31 2005 - McNabb - 28 2004 - Delhomme - 29 It seems like youre trying to make the data fit your idea too much. For the most part, if youre team is playing in the superbowl you have a shot to win, blaming a wide margin in a superbowl on the QBs age is a little crazy seeing as how often times the QB is pretty instrumental in getting you there. Just because Manning got blown out this year are you suggesting Denver goes and find someone younger because that team might lose by less of a margin? Do you really think a younger player would have gotten Denver to the Superbowl? You can argue that for the majority of QBs their prime is before theyre 30 so thats why there is more <30 year olds on the list. Its a stretch to imply that once a QB hits 30 you should ditch him and go looking. The majority of the QBs in the league in general are under 30 and most of them wont make the superbowl as a starter. Look at the data for total QBs under 30 starting for teams for a whole season, making low end money, over the same time frame and the number of them that make/win a superbowl. If having a low-salary QB under 30 got you to the superbowl then we would have been there, as would the Browns and every other team that has struggled to find a solid QB.
White Linen Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Please God let EJ put is in this terrible situation of having an over 30 QB we have to break the bank to keep.
SRQ_BillsFan Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Let's face it from where most of us sit they are all overpaid. But this is America and entertainers can make big bucks. Would love to go back to the days where they made less and tickets were much cheaper. If we keep paying more across the board, prices will keep going up. I don't see a league wide boycott anytime soon. I don't think that the QB's in the 5th to 10th spot are overpaid when you are looking from the bottom up instead of top down. Arguably the top 5 are underpaid, but there is only so much of a salary the cap can take before it doesn't work. I am sure they would tell you that they all gave a discount to win, even Payton. To back this up, look at what baseball players make where there is no Salary cap. 30 million a year to play a game? Even if there are few making 30 million there are many making 20 and many times that many making over 10 million. On an iPhone but looked quickly and in 2006 there were over 50 players making $10 million or more, 50 in 2006. Gotta be well over 100 today. If there were no cap in football, I could see Payton and Brady making well over $30 million a year. Obviously the cap couldn't stand that, but it pushes the argument that all of the top QB's left money on the table "for the good of the team". I can't speak for them, but I think I could give up on my Super Bowl dream to make an extra $70-$150 million or more in my "career". When the day comes if they are still eligible, I wonder how many of them will apply for their Social Security? In any case they will most likely feel underpaid based on what QBs will be making then. I do wonder what that will do to the "profits" of the teams? With the disparity of revenue between the haves and teams like Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburg etc. The only place some of these teams may make a profit may end up being the dollars that they can save under the salary cap. That will be interesting if one of these teams has a QB like Payton at the time. They may have no choice but to trade or "sell" them. Although teams are getting smarter and guaranteeing money over several years a career ending injury after a new contract will eventually cripple a team at these rates. But back on point as many have pointed out, the goal has to be to remain competitive and hope for a little luck. That's a lot easier to do with an elite QB than several elite players at other positions. While finding a few players at other positions is easier than finding the elite QB, it's obviously still a crapshoot for teams like the Bills. Edited March 24, 2014 by SRQ_BillsFan
billsfan89 Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Its true that having a QB with a huge cap number can compromise the rest of the team. But that being said QB is still such an important position that I would much rather pay one of the top QB's 20 million of my cap then sign 3 or 4 top defensive free agents for that money.
johnwalter Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 being an NFL GM is simply a unique form of investment (asset management) where the GM's assets under management are his available salary cap. if it is in fact the case that winning with an elite quarterback is overly difficult because of an oversized quarterback contracts, then this simply means that these quarterbacks are being overvalued. if this is the case, then economic forces ('the invisible hand') will slowly correct this over-valuation (a downward correction in quarterback salaries), in other words: the league will take notice of these observations and adjust the magnitude of elite quarterback contracts accordingly so that they better reflect the actual value of the quarterback. the teams that win do so in two ways: 1) by evaluating talent better than other teams 2) by being ahead-of-the-curve on the previously discussed trends, i.e. realizing that quarterbacks are over-valued and, say, corner-backs are under-valued before other teams make this realization, then acting on this realization by stocking up on undervalued cornerbacks (LOB) and acquiring a lower-tier quarterback (russell wilson) (of course other factors come in to play: how attractive is the teams location/current roster to free agents, hometown discounts, even luck, etc..)
Ramius Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 sounds like a guy that might not want to pay dalton and is laying the groundwork for tough negotiations. Dalton isnt going to be worth the money he commands. He's a decent QB, but not one i want on my team. His play can get you to the playoffs, but he's not the QB that can put you over the top.
NoSaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Dalton isnt going to be worth the money he commands. He's a decent QB, but not one i want on my team. His play can get you to the playoffs, but he's not the QB that can put you over the top. in my mind dalton would be the perfect candidate for a 10-12m a year type of contract that seemingly doesnt exist in the QB wage scale, outside of "backups that looked good for a couple weeks" in reality hes likely to see 18m because a franchise is scared to step back and take a decade to find another good one. though it sounds like brown is contemplating that. hes been the contract ive referenced being curious to see for a couple years now. theres simply no middle class any longer. either they are getting PAID, are on rookie contracts, or are complete busts outside of a very small number of guys. Edited March 24, 2014 by NoSaint
Recommended Posts