Twitter: Heinicke on Cowboys defense

[tyke1doe]

Yes he did..

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JohnBu00.htm

And no.. The QB can't carry a team.. for one simple reason.. He doesn't play defense.. Elway was standing on the sideline when Jeremiah Castille punched the ball out of Earnest Byner's hands as he was on his way into the end zone for what would have been the game clinching TD. Being the focal point is one thing.. Carrying? Never happens.. No matter how often a fallacy is repeated it will always remains a fallacy.

First, thanks for the Butch Johnson information. I forgot all about that. But surely, you're not arguing that a Butch Johnson in his final years was a top player in the league enough to say he helped Elway more than the other way around?

Second, you point to a play on defense. I can point to the 98-yard drive for the go-ahead touchdown against the Browns in the 1987 AFC Championship Game. That series Elway very much carried the team to a victory. Of course, his receivers catching the ball played a part. But that doesn't detract from his MAJOR role in the drive. If that's not carrying a team, I don't know what is.

Third, if a quarterback/player couldn't carry a team, why does the league or even teams themselves designate MVPs, team captains, etc.?

If it were a fallacy that a player could carry a team, we wouldn't have these awards and measurements to recognize "best" players, "most valuable" players, not to mention pay quarterback obscene amounts of money because of their "value" to their team. And that "value" is related to how they can lift their teams - PARTICULARLY at the quarterback position.

Far from a fallacy. Awards and salary differences speak to the reality of value, and value is measured by how important a player is to his team, i.e., this person is MORE IMPORTANT to our team than another. Translation: he has the ability to "lift" this team more than another player.

Be that as it may, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

First, thanks for the Butch Johnson information. I forgot all about that. But surely, you're not arguing that a Butch Johnson in his final years was a top player in the league enough to say he helped Elway more than the other way around?

Second, you point to a play on defense. I can point to the 98-yard drive for the go-ahead touchdown against the Browns in the 1987 AFC Championship Game. That series Elway very much carried the team to a victory. Of course, his receivers catching the ball played a part. But that doesn't detract from his MAJOR role in the drive. If that's not carrying a team, I don't know what is.

Third, if a quarterback/player couldn't carry a team, why does the league or even teams themselves designate MVPs, team captains, etc.?

If it were a fallacy that a player could carry a team, we wouldn't have these awards and measurements to recognize "best" players, "most valuable" players, not to mention pay quarterback obscene amounts of money because of their "value" to their team. And that "value" is related to how they can lift their teams - PARTICULARLY at the quarterback position.

Far from a fallacy. Awards and salary differences speak to the reality of value, and value is measured by how important a player is to his team, i.e., this person is MORE IMPORTANT to our team than another. Translation: he has the ability to "lift" this team more than another player.

Be that as it may, we'll have to agree to disagree.

so you just said, the recievers played a part, but Elway carried them? or elway played a major part? it still doesn't change the fact that browns fumbled on the 2 yard line.....so the defense actually carried them because no fumble, another loss for Denver.

the value is not relative to the team. its relative to the market. 15 QBs are making 100M+. 4 more to come soon. should 20 QBs carry their team? there is only 14 playoff teams. so some QBs will not be carrying anything.

 

[Redsfan_83]

He is clearly looking for a backup job next year, lol

 

[tyke1doe]

so you just said, the recievers played a part, but Elway carried them? or elway played a major part? it still doesn't change the fact that browns fumbled on the 2 yard line.....so the defense actually carried them because no fumble, another loss for Denver.

Well, if someone played a MAJOR part, wouldn't that constitute carrying a team? Or are we playing semantics?

Second, the Fumble game and the Drive game are different games. The Fumble game was given as a rebuttal. I countered with the Drive.

the value is not relative to the team. its relative to the market. 15 QBs are making 100M+. 4 more to come soon. should 20 QBs carry their team? there is only 14 playoff teams. so some QBs will not be carrying anything.

Actually, it's both. Salaries are connected to importance of the position and the person performing in that position. Taylor Heinicke isn't commanding Dak Prescott money, even though both are quarterbacks. Neither is Cooper Rush or any backup on any other club.

The quarterbacks who do command those dollars are seen by their teams as carrying their teams, Some others may get the residual effects of that, but, again, KC isn't paying Chad Henne Patrick Mahomes money even though both are quarterbacks.

 

[Beaker42]

Same here, I felt bad for him.

A little.

It’s hard for me because as I get older, I realize it’s just a game and I’m losing my total hatred and disgust for the teams in our division and their players, along with the rest of the league.

But then the Packers remind me of how right I was to feel that way.

 

[Beaker42]

He is clearly looking for a backup job next year, lol

I’ll take him. Can’t decide if he’s better than Rush.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Well, if someone played a MAJOR part, wouldn't that constitute carrying a team? Or are we playing semantics?

Second, the Fumble game and the Drive game are different games. The Fumble game was given as a rebuttal. I countered with the Drive.



Actually, it's both. Salaries are connected to importance of the position and the person performing in that position. Taylor Heinicke isn't commanding Dak Prescott money, even though both are quarterbacks. Neither is Cooper Rush or any backup on any other club.

The quarterbacks who do command those dollars are seen by their teams as carrying their teams, Some others may get the residual effects of that, but, again, KC isn't paying Chad Henne Patrick Mahomes money even though both are quarterbacks.

so by that account, then WRs also carried the team? no? they played a major part too...... if that's the definition you are using. the fact is no one player single handedly carries a team....that's why its called a TEAM. sounds like you are playing semantics and want to give props to one player only....

what you probably mean is that some players have more impact on the outcome than others, but no player single handedly does it. ever.

and I totally agree. depending on the position the market value is different. the league (market) generally sets that value by the contracts they hand out. its also supply and demand, if there are more players/options available, then they are less willing to hand out bigger contracts.....and players value in the market is set by the market and players like Heineke get less, because they are easily replaceable. so yes, some QBs are worth more than others. I never argued against that. I have been arguing that Dak's contract is where the market is for a top 10 QB....regardless of what we the fans think about the money being worth it or not.

my point was that because anyone thinks a QB makes 2100,150, 180, 400M per year they should carry a team is dumb....given 15 QBs are making 100M plus....its just market value. it is what it is....I said it in another post. you may pay 1.5M for a house in SF and get a 1200 square foot home, you can demand a mansion for that price, but in SF that's what it will get you....its the market.....

 

[Pantone282C]

I think he and Gregory are best friends now.

Like trying to make friends with a hungry mountain lion...

 

[tyke1doe]

so by that account, then WRs also carried the team? no? they played a major part too...... if that's the definition you are using. the fact is no one player single handedly carries a team....that's why its called a TEAM. sounds like you are playing semantics and want to give props to one player only....

Again, salaries and awards contradicts your argument that a single player can't carry a team. If everything is equally distributed on a team, then EVERY player should make the same salary and every position would make the same, and we KNOW that's not the case.

Second, I don't know the necessity of saying "single handedly" carries. That's YOUR adjective not mine. Of course, in a TEAM game no one player single-handedly carries a team. But some players are better than others and can carry a team by their play.

what you probably mean is that some players have more impact on the outcome than others, but no player single handedly does it. ever.

You're changing definitions by inserting "single handedly". But I've address that.

To me "more impact" and "carrying a team" is really a distinction without a difference.

and I totally agree. depending on the position the market value is different. the league (market) generally sets that value by the contracts they hand out. its also supply and demand, if there are more players/options available, then they are less willing to hand out bigger contracts.....and players value in the market is set by the market and players like Heineke get less, because they are easily replaceable. so yes, some QBs are worth more than others. I never argued against that. I have been arguing that Dak's contract is where the market is for a top 10 QB....regardless of what we the fans think about the money being worth it or not.

my point was that because anyone thinks a QB makes 2100,150, 180, 400M per year they should carry a team is dumb....given 15 QBs are making 100M plus....its just market value. it is what it is....I said it in another post. you may pay 1.5M for a house in SF and get a 1200 square foot home, you can demand a mansion for that price, but in SF that's what it will get you....its the market.....

And market value is also determined by importance - or what one deems is important. Importance is measured by value. And if one can carry one's team, that is value being compensated through the market.

To not understand this is, well, as you say, dumb.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Again, salaries and awards contradicts your argument that a single player can't carry a team. If everything is equally distributed on a team, then EVERY player should make the same salary and every position would make the same, and we KNOW that's not the case.

not sure what your point is with this.... not every position is as impactful or important. those are set by the market.... doesn't mean a Randy Moss didn't impact the game and carried his team more eventhough he made less than the QB.

and sometimes you pay more, because there are no other alternatives...those things have nothing to do with players on the field. its fan expectations..you make X amount, I want to see this or that....totally meaningless

Second, I don't know the necessity of saying "single handedly" carries. That's YOUR adjective not mine. Of course, in a TEAM game no one player single-handedly carries a team. But some players are better than others and can carry a team by their play.

yes, that's the point. some players have more impact on the game and team than others. that is the point......

You're changing definitions by inserting "single handedly". But I've address that.

To me "more impact" and "carrying a team" is really a distinction without a difference.



And market value is also determined by importance - or what one deems is important. Importance is measured by value. And if one can carry one's team, that is value being compensated through the market.

To not understand this is, well, as you say, dumb.

market value is driven by supply, demand and impact...I have said as much..... what are you missing? what are you arguing? if there were 25 Aaron Rodgers's in the league, QB contracts wouldn't go up as much. the fact its there just isn't. if all QBs were about the same, their salaries wouldn't be as high. its easier to replace a WR than it is a QB. etc. and yes, some positions impact the game more than others.

what you said it terms of importance is true. but importance in NFL is by position. some positions are more valued and more important, ala QB vs. WR vs. Full back.... the market is not just set by Value of that position. its set by supply and demand of players who are good in those positions and the value to success of the team. the NFL is riddled with Taylor Heineke's. he would never demand a high salary. he will probably not get paid as much as some WRs, DEs, OL men, etc. regardless of the importance of that position to a team.

what's so hard to understand about that?

 

[tyke1doe]

not sure what your point is with this.... not every position is as impactful or important. those are set by the market.... doesn't mean a Randy Moss didn't impact the game and carried his team more eventhough he made less than the QB.

and sometimes you pay more, because there are no other alternatives...those things have nothing to do with players on the field. its fan expectations..you make X amount, I want to see this or that....totally meaningless

yes, that's the point. some players have more impact on the game and team than others. that is the point......



market value is driven by supply, demand and impact...I have said as much..... what are you missing? what are you arguing? if there were 25 Aaron Rodgers's in the league, QB contracts wouldn't go up as much. the fact its there just isn't. if all QBs were about the same, their salaries wouldn't be as high. its easier to replace a WR than it is a QB. etc. and yes, some positions impact the game more than others.

what you said it terms of importance is true. but importance in NFL is by position. some positions are more valued and more important, ala QB vs. WR vs. Full back.... the market is not just set by Value of that position. its set by supply and demand of players who are good in those positions and the value to success of the team. the NFL is riddled with Taylor Heineke's. he would never demand a high salary. he will probably not get paid as much as some WRs, DEs, OL men, etc. regardless of the importance of that position to a team.

what's so hard to understand about that?

Apparently, we have a fundamental difference regarding what it means to be important and to carry one's team.
In the context of football, I believe the distinction doesn't make a difference.
If one makes a MAJOR impact in a game to which it is noticeable above what others are doing, one is carrying one's team.
As for Taylor Heineke, the reason why he may not get paid as much as a WR is because he's not considered as important to that wide receiver. And how do we measure "importance" or "major impact"? It is assigned to the one who has more of an impact on WINNING than another player.
To me, that's carrying a team. And the way we award a person who is considered important or having a major impact on a team is via salaries, along with individual awards.
Be that as it may, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Peace.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Apparently, we have a fundamental difference regarding what it means to be important and to carry one's team.
In the context of football, I believe the distinction doesn't make a difference.
If one makes a MAJOR impact in a game to which it is noticeable above what others are doing, one is carrying one's team.
As for Taylor Heineke, the reason why he may not get paid as much as a WR is because he's not considered as important to that wide receiver. And how do we measure "importance" or "major impact"? It is assigned to the one who has more of an impact on WINNING than another player.
To me, that's carrying a team. And the way we award a person who is considered important or having a major impact on a team is via salaries, along with individual awards.
Be that as it may, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Peace.

I don't think we are far off. I agree that if anyone makes a major impact in a game then they are helping to carry a team, but importance of positions can not be dismissed. a QB can have more major impact to a team success, relative to a WR. as there is one QB and multiple WRs. etc...

and I separate salaries....its market driven. market sets value that QB is a "major" impact player. the QB market is limited, thus price goes up. that simple.its about supply and demand. even a low end QB, gets paid more than a low end WR. ...that's level of importance to a team, however, low end QBs are easy to find, thus their salaries are low relative to QB market value. thus Heineke is easy to replace. however a top 10 QB is not so easy. thus salaries go up significantly for those type of players.

a single player can't consistently carry any team. it takes the team and other players on the team doing their parts in a significant way for any single player to have impact.... a WR can't do it consistently with a bad QB....a good QB can't do it consistently with a bad core of WRs, etc. etc...... the difference is often what you accomplish when you have a good core of players around you....even the elite's were surronded by impactful players, but their output was significant as a result.