Week 14 Discussion

[ericanadian]

All of these arm-chair GMs are hilarious.

You literally have a handful of true, game-changing QBs in the league.
Then you have some great QBs who can occasionally make the game-changing plays.
Then you have the good QBs that are elevated by the supporting cast around them.
Then you have the average or subpar QBs who just can't get it done barring an elite team around them.

The vast majority of NFL quarterbacks fall into category 3 - including Dak.
The problem with going with an unproven or rookie QB - your odds of ending up with a category 4 QB are insanely high and that is why, even the category 3 QBs like Dak are so valuable to teams and get paid.

Just ask teams that have been looking for quarterbacks forever. It's why scrubs like Nick Foles get the contracts they do, because teams try so hard to get that quarterback.

QB is the one position that have the ability to single-handedly take over a game for you - or lose the game for you.

The "vast majority" can't be above average, which is essentially what you have said. That in itself is mathematically impossible.

Here is the way I see it. The ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. That is what everyone is trying to achieve correct? Well mathematically, the contract for a QB to lead his team to a Super Bowl is less than 13% of the total cap. Only 1 QB in the salary cap era won a Super Bowl with a salary cap above 13% and that was an all time great in Peyton Manning, and he was only at 13.3% of the cap.

Statistically speaking you aren't winning a Super Bowl if your QB takes up more than 13%. Peyton was the one outlier and I would consider him an outlier at the position in general for the success he achieved. Let's assume the 2020 cap is 200 million (which would be a 12 million increase, which would be on par with previous seasons). 13% is 26 million. If you sign Dak for anything more than that the math says you aren't winning a Super Bowl. Take your feelings out of it and look at the data.

The cap goes up every year. Many contracts that start over that number end up well below that number. In any case, Tom Brady’s impact on that small sample size makes any assumptions based on that data highly questionable.

[Blueboy]

QB is the one position that have the ability to single-handedly take over a game for you - or lose the game for you.

Fully agree. The mid-tier QBs of the league, your Alex Smiths, Andy Daltons, Jacoby Brissetts etc., are all extremely valuable to NFL teams. We've also seen time and again that with the right roster around those guys, they can do enough to win a Super Bowl or MVP. There's a strong argument to be made for that demanding cap space to just be used elsewhere.

When are all these times we've seen this? Flacco and Foles going on historic runs to the SB with excellent supporting casts are the only examples since the introduction of the rookie wage scale. Every other SB has been won by a future HOF QB (Ben, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Eli, Brady, Wilson) and all the favorites this year have an MVP or HOF caliber QB except for SF, and they have an unbelievable defense which Peyton (in Denver) and Wilson also did if you want to argue against them being elite QBs at the time of winning those SBs.

I dunno that every other SB has been won by a future HOF. I don't think that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson get in, for instance. Eli Manning probably will, and I love the guy, but I'd consider him closer to the Dalton-line than that elite tier of Rodgers/Brady/Peyton. Peyton back in 2015 was middle-of-the-road, as you mentioned, but he does have the starpower name. Flacco and Foles have also been brought up.

Andy Dalton was a legitimate leader in the MVP race back in 2015, and Carson Palmer was in that conversation too. Cam had his historic season as well, not sure where consensus ranks him on this scale. I believe Case Keenum finished with the 5th-most MVP votes in 2017, the kind of season he had is a particularly good example of what I'm getting at -- as is Ryan Tannehill's current campaign. The reality is that mid-tier QBs may not elevate a team much, but as long as you get a guy who won't implode and surround him with a strong roster and the right coaching staff, you're golden.

[Prison_Mike]

Browns are expected to activate Njoku this week
(He said he was ready to play 2 weeks ago but the team didn't want to rush him back)

Assuming he gets the green light and full workload, are y'all playing him this week or waiting a week to play him vs. Arizona?

I wouldnt trust him in round 1 of the playoffs unless I had total scrubs at TE currently

I do

For Team 1 I'm choosing between:
Ryan Griffin vs. MIA
Ian Thomas vs. ATL - (Olsen out)
Jonnu Smith vs. OAK
Njoku vs. CIN

I love Thomas & Smith for the future, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am rolling either of them out this week.
I'll probably go with Griffin

[Phaded]

Every other SB has been won by a future HOF QB (Ben, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Eli, Brady, Wilson)

As good as all of these guys may be - they wouldn't have done it without their supporting cast, again; the perfect storm of things being in place. That elite quarterback will probably get you to the playoffs year-after-year, but you need that great team effort to get over the hump.

And their supporting cast wouldn't have done it without those QBs or a QB on their level.

I'm not disagreeing with that or you - but I think we need to stop using the Super Bowl wins as the bench mark for establishing whether a quarterback is successful or worth it since it's not all that common of a benchmark, I think looking at playoff berths is probably a more fair and reasonable approach to it.

[bjd5211]

Fully agree. The mid-tier QBs of the league, your Alex Smiths, Andy Daltons, Jacoby Brissetts etc., are all extremely valuable to NFL teams. We've also seen time and again that with the right roster around those guys, they can do enough to win a Super Bowl or MVP. There's a strong argument to be made for that demanding cap space to just be used elsewhere.

When are all these times we've seen this? Flacco and Foles going on historic runs to the SB with excellent supporting casts are the only examples since the introduction of the rookie wage scale. Every other SB has been won by a future HOF QB (Ben, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Eli, Brady, Wilson) and all the favorites this year have an MVP or HOF caliber QB except for SF, and they have an unbelievable defense which Peyton (in Denver) and Wilson also did if you want to argue against them being elite QBs at the time of winning those SBs.

I dunno that every other SB has been won by a future HOF. I don't think that Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson get in, for instance. Eli Manning probably will, and I love the guy, but I'd consider him closer to the Dalton-line than that elite tier of Rodgers/Brady/Peyton. Peyton back in 2015 was middle-of-the-road, as you mentioned, but he does have the starpower name. Flacco and Foles have also been brought up.

Andy Dalton was a legitimate leader in the MVP race back in 2015, and Carson Palmer was in that conversation too. Cam had his historic season as well, not sure where consensus ranks him on this scale. I believe Case Keenum finished with the 5th-most MVP votes in 2017, the kind of season he had is a particularly good example of what I'm getting at -- as is Ryan Tannehill's current campaign. The reality is that mid-tier QBs may not elevate a team much, but as long as you get a guy who won't implode and surround him with a strong roster and the right coaching staff, you're golden.

Trent and Brad Johnson were pre-rookie wage scale, and had 2 of the greatest defenses in the history of the league. To win SBs or just compete for them on a regular basis you need a HOF level QB, some teams have won ONE with a historic defense and average QB, but they quickly regress back to league average, as did all the teams you listed with decent QBs that had one or two great years, none of whom won a SB or even came close other than Cam. You can't be a long-term excellent team without an elite QB.

[nathanq42]

Browns are expected to activate Njoku this week
(He said he was ready to play 2 weeks ago but the team didn't want to rush him back)

Assuming he gets the green light and full workload, are y'all playing him this week or waiting a week to play him vs. Arizona?

I wouldnt trust him in round 1 of the playoffs unless I had total scrubs at TE currently

I do

For Team 1 I'm choosing between:
Ryan Griffin vs. MIA
Ian Thomas vs. ATL - (Olsen out)
Jonnu Smith vs. OAK
Njoku vs. CIN

I love Thomas & Smith for the future, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am rolling either of them out this week.
I'll probably go with Griffin

thats a yikes from me....

[bjd5211]

As good as all of these guys may be - they wouldn't have done it without their supporting cast, again; the perfect storm of things being in place. That elite quarterback will probably get you to the playoffs year-after-year, but you need that great team effort to get over the hump.

And their supporting cast wouldn't have done it without those QBs or a QB on their level.

I'm not disagreeing with that or you - but I think we need to stop using the Super Bowl wins as the bench mark for establishing whether a quarterback is successful or worth it since it's not all that common of a benchmark, I think looking at playoff berths is probably a more fair and reasonable approach to it.

I'm not using it as a bench mark, all of those guys have shown throughout their careers they are elite players beyond just winning SBs. You can be an elite QB and not win SBs (Marino, Kelly, Rivers), and they are not a guarantee of sucess as those names and others show, but a franchise cannot have long-term success contending for SBs without a QB like that.

[jenkins.math]

All of these arm-chair GMs are hilarious.

You literally have a handful of true, game-changing QBs in the league.
Then you have some great QBs who can occasionally make the game-changing plays.
Then you have the good QBs that are elevated by the supporting cast around them.
Then you have the average or subpar QBs who just can't get it done barring an elite team around them.

The vast majority of NFL quarterbacks fall into category 3 - including Dak.
The problem with going with an unproven or rookie QB - your odds of ending up with a category 4 QB are insanely high and that is why, even the category 3 QBs like Dak are so valuable to teams and get paid.

Just ask teams that have been looking for quarterbacks forever. It's why scrubs like Nick Foles get the contracts they do, because teams try so hard to get that quarterback.

QB is the one position that have the ability to single-handedly take over a game for you - or lose the game for you.

The "vast majority" can't be above average, which is essentially what you have said. That in itself is mathematically impossible.

I probably should of said the "vast majority" of NFL starting quarterbacks - my overall point still stands (there are 94 quarterbacks under contract in the NFL) but you are simply nitpicking at this point and ignoring the overall premise.

The biggest thing is - an elite quarterback can make up some of the deficiencies on your team. But if you have a subpar-to-average quarterback, you need an elite team.

At the end of the day, you need a perfect storm of things going your way contractually speaking. That is why what a team like the Patriots have been doing for so long is so rare. Teams typically have a short window to capitalize on that "perfect contract situation".

All of your math around "you won't win the Super Bowl if your quarterback takes up more than 13% of your salary cap" is just silly.

How is it silly when it is currently the reality? You can choose to not believe it or care, but the numbers are what they are. Why would you purposefully do something that you know has little to no probability of achieving the success you want? That makes absolutely zero sense.

I also understand your overall premise, but you seem to be neglecting your own advice. If Dak is in your tier 3, why would you ever pay that guy 30+ million a year? The only reason you do is because you don't have the balls to let him walk because the public says "you don't just let competent QBs leave". That's literally the only reason. Nothing to do with data. No hard evidence. Just your personal feelings, biases, and psychological perception. There was a time when teams ignored data, percentages, advanced analytics etc. Now that is common place all across sports. When does that catch up with the QB position?

[Phaded]

Okay then - which position is worth investing a large amount of your salary cap in to win Super Bowls if quarterback is not?

I'll wait. Good luck.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to create your own arbitrary cut-offs to fit into the cherry-picked stats all you want (aka 13%).

[nathanq42]

Okay then - which position is worth investing a large amount of your salary cap in to win Super Bowls if quarterback is not?

I'll wait. Good luck.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to create your own arbitrary cut-offs to fit into the cherry-picked stats all you want (aka 13%).

Not part of this 13% war. But if I had to dump capital into any position other than QB itd be Oline or Dline depending on strength of cast on either side of the ball (if I have great RB and WR, I 'd go Dline, If i was rolling out he legion of boom I'd buy an Oline)

[Phaded]

Spoiler alert: dumping a large amount of your salary cap into any individual player is detrimental to your chances of winning the Super Bowl, so that is why I take exception to using that as an anti-QB argument. Again, you need that perfect storm for success (high performing rookies / over-performing players) or you need to be the Patriots.

For the record - the Patriots have Tom Brady eating up most of their cap around 11-12% per year usually, or 12.21% last year when they won the Super Bowl (which is another reason this 13% sounds so cherry-picked, especially with it being a really random number). I'm not an expert, but if there is one team I am going to pay attention to what they do with their money it is the Patriots.

[jenkins.math]

Okay then - which position is worth investing a large amount of your salary cap in to win Super Bowls if quarterback is not?

I'll wait. Good luck.

If it makes you feel better, feel free to create your own arbitrary cut-offs to fit into the cherry-picked stats all you want (aka 13%).

I take it you have zero clue what arbitrary means. Or cherry picking. But I'll try and educate you.

How is this stat cherry picked when it takes into account the entire salary cap era? Cherry picking means selectively choosing. I have chosen the entire time line that this is relevant. Literally I have chosen every single year of the cap era (1994-present day is 25 years) That is far from cherry picking.

Secondly, it isn't arbitrary. That means I am choosing by chance, or impulse, with no reason or principle. What I have given you is a fact and quite the opposite of arbitrary. Over 25 years in the salary cap era, every single Super Bowl winning QB has been under 13% of their team's cap, except for 1. And I was actually wrong, it was Steve Young at 13.1%, not Peyton Manning. My bad on that. Would it make you feel better if I said that no QB has won a Super Bowl over 13.1%? Does that help you grasp this?

Take this article that lays out cap hit vs expected wins and talks about Super Bowls and QB cap hit, etc.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-qu ... ree-agency

What would I pay if not QB? I would pay my offensive and defensive lines. If I have a great offensive line, I can plug anybody behind it and run the ball. See the Cowboys, Steelers the previous seasons, etc. Also the more time my QB has, the more time the WRs have to get open. If I have the "all day to throw" protection, someone gets open eventually.

Why pay the defensive line? Well did you see the Giants and their 2 Super Bowl wins? If I can control the line of scrimmage and get to the QB without blitzing, I don't have to be great behind them. I just have to be adequate.

So I would essentially spend the bulk of my money on 5 starters on the offensive line and then 4 or 5 on the defensive line (depending if you are a 4-3 or 3-4. The edge plays I count towards my lineman in a 3-4 which is where the 5 came from).

[Phaded]

LOL. Your attempt to "educate" me failed dramatically.

So you feel that the number 13% which somebody pulled out of their bleep is not an arbitrary or cherry-picked number?
Why 13%? What is relevant about that specific number?
It's because it fits the narrative, that is all. Hence, arbitrary and cherry-picked.

It's a randomly chosen number for some random fool to try to support their number - unless you truly feel there is a dramatic difference in a team spending an extra .79% of their cap space.

Choosing 13% is the very definition of an arbitrary and cherry-picked stat.

You are also pulling this from a terribly small sample size of 25 individual players (where nearly 25% of them are Tom Brady). That is far less of a sample size than is required to have any sort of definitive proof.

You want to pay the defensive line and offensive line - point out to me the elite players of those positions that got paid and then won the Super Bowl.


---


For fun, the top 5 highest paid positions of each of the last 5 Super Bowl winning teams (I could go back further but I'm not THAT dedicated).

18/19 Pats: QB, FS, TE, LB, CB
17/18 Eagles: WR, RT, DT, DE, DE (this is a very interesting team, Alshon Jeffery was the only player with over $10m on the year)
16/17 Pats: QB, LT, LB, LB, RT
15/16 Broncos: QB, WR, LT, LB, LB
14/15 Pats: QB, DT, CB, TE, FS

Take from it what you will - but it was more an exercise I was curious about.

Again, the Patriots are the most relevant team to observe how they handle their money because many of these other teams tend to disappear after their small window.

A high quality quarterback is the biggest indicator of long-term success (continually making the playoffs). Super Bowl is not a good narrative to use for the study as the sample size is far too small to be conclusive.

Oh - and that article is terrible. Then again, maybe we should take the advice of a random USA Today writer and not the billionaire teams on how to run an NFL team. I'm sure the NFL is pounding down his door for his next tidbit of advice on how to run a team. Again, another armchair GM.

[jenkins.math]

LOL. Your attempt to "educate" me failed dramatically.

So you feel that the number 13% which somebody pulled out of their bleep is not an arbitrary or cherry-picked number?
Why 13%? What is relevant about that specific number?
It's because it fits the narrative, that is all. Hence, arbitrary and cherry-picked.

It's a randomly chosen number for some random fool to try to support their number - unless you truly feel there is a dramatic difference in a team spending an extra .79% of their cap space.

Choosing 13% is the very definition of an arbitrary and cherry-picked stat.

You are also pulling this from a terribly small sample size of 25 individual players (where nearly 25% of them are Tom Brady). That is far less of a sample size than is required to have any sort of definitive proof.

You want to pay the defensive line and offensive line - point out to me the elite players of those positions that got paid and then won the Super Bowl.

Well sometimes the ignorant don't want or can't be educated. I'm the fool yet you are arguing with a fact. What's next? Trump is not the current president of the USA? Germany was actually a peace maker in WW2? Slavery didn't happen?

13.1% is the fact. No team has won a Super Bowl with a QB being paid over that percentage. Period. End of discussion. Why do you say that is cherry picked when that is the line? Could that change at some point? Sure, just as the game has changed. But up to this point it hasn't. Why are you even arguing that? Again, that is a fact.

Showing that the QB is the highest paid player on the team does what? That doesn't change the fact of the QB cap hit for all SB winning QBs was 13.1% or lower. All that says is that team's prioritize that position. Something that I have never argued. My argument is centered around how much I would pay him, especially if he isn't a special player at the position.

You said you want to model like the Pats? Well the Pats have paid Brady around 12%. So you think that is what you should pay a QB? You wouldn't go above that? Ok, cool. Then we agree!!!!!! You know why? Because 12 is less than 13.1!!!!!!!

[AussieMate]

I like the Eagles team the most from that list, just have a good team all round by not paying those "elite dollars". After that it's more on the coach. Can every team just get Bill for a couple of years.