What is the max amount you can pay a QB and still win a SB

[Adreme]

It does matter. Wilson is a very good QB, but he won a super bowl due to a great D. He hasn't come close since he signed that massive contract.

And then look at the flipside, KC. KC just won a super bowl on the strength of their D. They completely shut down SF in the 4th to give Mahomes his shot. W/o that deep talented DLine, KC does not win the super bowl. When Mahomes gets paid, they'll no longer have that.

Meanwhile we can look at SF and they just paid a guy who isn't that great top tier money and they made the SB. The formala isn't whether you pay your QB, as evidenced by them, its be bad for awhile, get high picks, and now you have playmakers for a few years and depth to pair it with.

Pay the QB or don't, all that matters is having both him and playmakers. Note this is also how Denver won.

 

[kskboys]

Meanwhile we can look at SF and they just paid a guy who isn't that great top tier money and they made the SB. The formala isn't whether you pay your QB, as evidenced by them, its be bad for awhile, get high picks, and now you have playmakers for a few years and depth to pair it with.

Pay the QB or don't, all that matters is having both him and playmakers. Note this is also how Denver won.

Not true. The Garrop contract averages 27.4 mil/season. I'd be more than happy to pay Dak that amount, and I believe that's around what he deserves.

Once again, you weren't correct. What now, another book?

Any formula you try is going to be derailed by huge contracts. That is a fact and has been proven many times over.

 

[Ranched]

Once again, you weren't correct. What now, another book?

That's hilarious & spot on. If it's more than 4 sentences, I chuckle/give the eyes a roll & move forward.

 

[Adreme]

Not true. The Garrop contract averages 27.4 mil/season. I'd be more than happy to pay Dak that amount, and I believe that's around what he deserves.

Once again, you weren't correct. What now, another book?

Any formula you try is going to be derailed by huge contracts. That is a fact and has been proven many times over.

The word fact does not mean what you think it does and in fact I was correct so you were wrong on two fronts.

What Garop signed his contract it was the highest paid contract in the NFL. He has played like a mediocre to below average starter in the NFL which makes it a perfect case study on whether such a contract is a hindrance or not to a teams success. They made the Super Bowl (and barring them forgetting that they are running team would have won it) because they had been drafting at the top of the draft and you get better players when you draft at the top. Hitting those 1st and 2nd round picks is how you build the foundation to win a Super Bowl and you are not going to hit many home runs drafting in the late teens and early 20s, which is what having a franchise QB does.

NO, Green Bay, Pitt, and now add in KC, Balt, and Houston, these teams do not get to be bad football teams. They will not be drafting in the top 15 of the draft barring either having a massive amount of injuries or an injury to said QB and for those teams it makes it far harder to reload on talent. Succeeding in the NFL is hard. Except for the Patriots dynasties do not exist anymore because the NFL is structured so that no team can stay good for too long a period of time before having to be bad for a couple seasons before, if your team drafts well, having another 5-6 year run. If you want a chance at said run though, you need a franchise QB. The data clearly shows you do not make it far into the playoffs without one, but it ALSO shows you CAN pay one and make it far. Disagreeing with this is not arguing with me, its arguing with reality and reality tends to win most arguments. The Math says what it says.

Just as drafting a QB is statistically a bad way to try and find a new one (greater than 2/3 failure rate in the first round alone), not having one is provably even worse which is why they will get paid and will continue to get paid and these contracts will look like nothing in a couple years which is why KC probably wants to try and do Mahomes now rather than next year, but that might be tricky for them.

Edit: as a note franchise QBs do not hit free agency often but when they do teams like Denver and SF can take them and take a roster of high draft picks and suddenly they are a legit Super Bowl contender.

 

[Whirlwin]

It does matter. Wilson is a very good QB, but he won a super bowl due to a great D. He hasn't come close since he signed that massive contract.

And then look at the flipside, KC. KC just won a super bowl on the strength of their D. They completely shut down SF in the 4th to give Mahomes his shot. W/o that deep talented DLine, KC does not win the super bowl. When Mahomes gets paid, they'll no longer have that.

I don’t think the signing of his contract had anything to do with it. It’s just the way it goes.

 

[kskboys]

The word fact does not mean what you think it does and in fact I was correct so you were wrong on two fronts.

What Garop signed his contract it was the highest paid contract in the NFL. He has played like a mediocre to below average starter in the NFL which makes it a perfect case study on whether such a contract is a hindrance or not to a teams success. They made the Super Bowl (and barring them forgetting that they are running team would have won it) because they had been drafting at the top of the draft and you get better players when you draft at the top. Hitting those 1st and 2nd round picks is how you build the foundation to win a Super Bowl and you are not going to hit many home runs drafting in the late teens and early 20s, which is what having a franchise QB does.

NO, Green Bay, Pitt, and now add in KC, Balt, and Houston, these teams do not get to be bad football teams. They will not be drafting in the top 15 of the draft barring either having a massive amount of injuries or an injury to said QB and for those teams it makes it far harder to reload on talent. Succeeding in the NFL is hard. Except for the Patriots dynasties do not exist anymore because the NFL is structured so that no team can stay good for too long a period of time before having to be bad for a couple seasons before, if your team drafts well, having another 5-6 year run. If you want a chance at said run though, you need a franchise QB. The data clearly shows you do not make it far into the playoffs without one, but it ALSO shows you CAN pay one and make it far. Disagreeing with this is not arguing with me, its arguing with reality and reality tends to win most arguments. The Math says what it says.

Just as drafting a QB is statistically a bad way to try and find a new one (greater than 2/3 failure rate in the first round alone), not having one is provably even worse which is why they will get paid and will continue to get paid and these contracts will look like nothing in a couple years which is why KC probably wants to try and do Mahomes now rather than next year, but that might be tricky for them.

Edit: as a note franchise QBs do not hit free agency often but when they do teams like Denver and SF can take them and take a roster of high draft picks and suddenly they are a legit Super Bowl contender.

And the math says big contracts are not winning super bowls.

 

[kskboys]

I don’t think the signing of his contract had anything to do with it. It’s just the way it goes.

Of course it does. Earl Thomas, Frank Clark, Sherman, Doug Baldwin, Mebane, Avril, Jimmy Graham, Joeckel, Unger, Paul Richardson, Chancellor.

There's a long list of players Sea had to let walk due to paying Russ. Man, you just cannot ignore how many players left. Don't forget, it was reiterated over and over that Russ had no receivers this season. Why didn't he? His contract.

 

[Adreme]

And the math says big contracts are not winning super bowls.

The math says there is not enough data to support this and drawing any conclusion from it would be erroneous. Using your logic, I just flipped a coin and it landed tails. The math says coins always land tails.

 

[Whyjerry]

Sorry if that chart copied badly. The sensitive sallies here will probably be mad. Point is that the data is pretty conclusive - higher QB salaries don’t guarantee wins. Instead of absolute numbers probably better to look at percent of cap. Anyhow intuitively it makes 100 pct sense. Brady has played at a discount for years. Big salary guys (now) like Wilson, Rodgers, and Rivers haven’t won. Personally I think the key is winning on those rookie contracts and finding a player to think big picture and take a discount.

 

[Adreme]

Sorry if that chart copied badly. The sensitive sallies here will probably be mad. Point is that the data is pretty conclusive - higher QB salaries don’t guarantee wins. Instead of absolute numbers probably better to look at percent of cap. Anyhow intuitively it makes 100 pct sense. Brady has played at a discount for years. Big salary guys (now) like Wilson, Rodgers, and Rivers haven’t won. Personally I think the key is winning on those rookie contracts and finding a player to think big picture and take a discount.

Meanwhile the 49ers and Broncos would say you can absolutely pay a guy top dollars (even if he plays like a scrub) and still win. That is why the SB, even making it, is a bad set of guidelines. We have had maybe 4-6 years since the rookie wage scale wiped out all those massive rookie deals from the books so there is just not enough data to show whether paying a QB has a negative effect on winning. The reason I like to use the Broncos and 49ers as case studies is because they effectively eliminate the variable of the worse draft position that you got because you had a franchise QB for 4 years before paying him. By eliminating that variable you can see that the thing that makes these teams get worse is not paying the QB, but that they were drafting in the late teens to early 20s at best for 4 years in a row so they did not have a new influx of young talent.

 

[kskboys]

Meanwhile the 49ers and Broncos would say you can absolutely pay a guy top dollars (even if he plays like a scrub) and still win. That is why the SB, even making it, is a bad set of guidelines. We have had maybe 4-6 years since the rookie wage scale wiped out all those massive rookie deals from the books so there is just not enough data to show whether paying a QB has a negative effect on winning. The reason I like to use the Broncos and 49ers as case studies is because they effectively eliminate the variable of the worse draft position that you got because you had a franchise QB for 4 years before paying him. By eliminating that variable you can see that the thing that makes these teams get worse is not paying the QB, but that they were drafting in the late teens to early 20s at best for 4 years in a row so they did not have a new influx of young talent.

No, it's not.

PManning and Garropolo came into super bowl ready teams.

Gawd, this is so simple and you keep missing it!!! I mean, you gotta try to ignore this much data and points made.

 

[kskboys]

The math says there is not enough data to support this and drawing any conclusion from it would be erroneous. Using your logic, I just flipped a coin and it landed tails. The math says coins always land tails.

Then why are you arguing the other side of the coin? Not enough data is not enough data. According to that way of thinking, you should never have entered this thread, and certainly should not have taken a side in the discussion. Are you perhaps manic?

 

[Adreme]

Then why are you arguing the other side of the coin? Not enough data is not enough data. According to that way of thinking, you should never have entered this thread, and certainly should not have taken a side in the discussion. Are you perhaps manic?

I entered the thread to deal with the erroneous claim that you can use how well past SB winning QBs have gotten paid as a basis for talking about what you can pay a QB and win a SB. The problem is, when using historical data, that the entire landscape changed fairly recently and that it only settled about 4-6 years ago, depending on the contract, and you cannot really take that data as suggestive of what is possible. The ONLY data we can use reliably as it relates to QB salaries and the effects they have upon teams is to look at the teams making the playoffs and look at the top QB salaries and see if there is a relationship there which there is. With the amount of data we have we can estimate a correlation there.

The reason I brought up the 49ers and the Broncos was not to use them as a statistical argument on what is possible or impossible or even what a good formula, BUT to see what happens when a team builds a Super Bowl roster in the traditional way (read: is awful for a bit and drafts top caliber talent), but instead of drafting the QB they signed the QB to a big-money contract. Most teams draft the QB around the same time so its hard to separate them, but those were 2 unique cases where we could view what happens when you pay big money to a QB AND have the perks of all the young talent you drafted with high draft picks so it made a good test of CAN you pay the QB and win which you clearly could. Now unfortunately two cases are not enough to determine whether that is a good or even valid way to build a team (how many teams are letting franchise QBs go because I can only think of 3 or 4 in the last 15 years), but they were interesting to point out that you NEED SB caliber talent to win the SB AND you generally need a SB caliber QB to win about 90% of the time historically (that I can talk about because I am taking money out of the equation because while financials changed drastically over the years the value of the QB has not).