Pricing Yourself OUT of a Super Bowl? (1 Viewer)

[Soulfly3]

Saw this thread on another forum, and thought this topic would EXPLODE here... forgive me if it's been posted or discussed, but I wouldnt even know where to begin searching for this on my phone... takes too long.

http://q.usatoday.com/2014/03/07/paying-for-an-elite-qb-often-means-not-affording-even-a-mediocre-defense/

A lot of stat nuts in here... finance gurus etc. Thought this could get wild in the Pool.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I'd agree that it becomes more difficult to have a deep team once you've paid a QB top money. However, the conclusions drawn in that article are really reaching. The reason the Packers defense has been underwhelming since 2010 isn't because of the money that Aaron Rodgers makes. It's because they haven't drafted well enough on that side of the ball. I think Seattle clearly was the better team superbowl sunday, but if they played that game 10 times, Denver probably wins three of them.

 

[Anarchy99]

The concept (but not that particular article) has been discussed previously.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=684910

 

[Dr. Octopus]

While the article makes some interesting points, the "fallacy" is that it's conclusions are based on the low number of teams "have won a Super Bowl with a quarterback taking up more than 10 percent of the team’s cap".

Only one team gets to win the SuperBowl every year but having a Manning(x2), Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger puts you in the mix year in and year out for the most part.

Sure perhaps paying a Cutler, Dalton or Flacco at those rates may be misguided - but those teams are in a tough situation because franchise QBs don't grow on trees. The teams that can win with lower salaried QBs have been benefiting from landing hidden gems like Wilson and Kaepernick (yes, he hasn't won yet). On the flipside teams drafting Gabbert, Ponder or Locker or using mediocre cheap veteran stopgap types like McCown, Fitzpatrick or Hoyer are not likely to win a Superbowl even though they can save money and use it elsewhere.

 

[Soulfly3]

So once you win a Superbowl w your "underpaid" QB - would wisdom dictate you drop that QB instead of giving him the 20m contract?

It's a very thin line between smarts and stupidity

 

[LawFitz]

So once you win a Superbowl w your "underpaid" QB - would wisdom dictate you drop that QB instead of giving him the 20m contract?

It's a very thin line between smarts and stupidity

Already linked above, but good discussion answering your question here.

 

[Soulfly3]

So once you win a Superbowl w your "underpaid" QB - would wisdom dictate you drop that QB instead of giving him the 20m contract?

It's a very thin line between smarts and stupidity

Already linked above, but good discussion answering your question here.

 

[msommer]

While the article makes some interesting points, the "fallacy" is that it's conclusions are based on the low number of teams "have won a Super Bowl with a quarterback taking up more than 10 percent of the team’s cap".

Only one team gets to win the SuperBowl every year but having a Manning(x2), Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger puts you in the mix year in and year out for the most part.

Sure perhaps paying a Cutler, Dalton or Flacco at those rates may be misguided - but those teams are in a tough situation because franchise QBs don't grow on trees. The teams that can win with lower salaried QBs have been benefiting from landing hidden gems like Wilson and Kaepernick (yes, he hasn't won yet). On the flipside teams drafting Gabbert, Ponder or Locker or using mediocre cheap veteran stopgap types like McCown, Fitzpatrick or Hoyer are not likely to win a Superbowl even though they can save money and use it elsewhere.

What are the money implications between making the playoffs and not?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FWIW, this hasn't happened to the Saints. They were a moneyball team to begin with, and even after signing Brees for 20 mill, they still went 11-5, vastly improved their defense to the best its ever been under Payton (in contrast to the article's comment about the Packers), and were just 2 missed FGA's and a FL by a RB (Ingram) still on his rookie contract from making the NFCC yet again.

And the NFL's 20 mill QB club of the Pats, Pack, Broncos and Saints are all still among the most dangerous and most winning around.

So, no, I don't buy it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

 

[Nucker101]

Don't buy it either, just gotta limit as much dead money as possible and have a strong scouting staff. It's easier for winning teams with elite QB's to attract free agents anyways

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

 

[BespokeJort]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

If your goal is Super Bowl or bust I think that's OK though. Draft a QB; if he doesn't play well the first couple years you can load up on high draft picks at other positions and then draft another one (who you drop into that much better of a supporting cast and hope he's a wilson/kaepernick/luck/etc).

Paying a Romo type 20 mil may guarantee a floor of 7 wins, but if it also guarantees a ceiling that doesn't involve a Super Bowl I don't think that's worth it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

If your goal is Super Bowl or bust I think that's OK though. Draft a QB; if he doesn't play well the first couple years you can load up on high draft picks at other positions and then draft another one (who you drop into that much better of a supporting cast and hope he's a wilson/kaepernick/luck/etc).

Paying a Romo type 20 mil may guarantee a floor of 7 wins, but if it also guarantees a ceiling that doesn't involve a Super Bowl I don't think that's worth it.

Well to be clear Wilson is the only of the three to be on a championship team. Any other examples?

 

[BespokeJort]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

If your goal is Super Bowl or bust I think that's OK though. Draft a QB; if he doesn't play well the first couple years you can load up on high draft picks at other positions and then draft another one (who you drop into that much better of a supporting cast and hope he's a wilson/kaepernick/luck/etc).Paying a Romo type 20 mil may guarantee a floor of 7 wins, but if it also guarantees a ceiling that doesn't involve a Super Bowl I don't think that's worth it.

Well to be clear Wilson is the only of the three to be on a championship team. Any other examples?

Kaepernick is a fine example having been to a Super Bowl and two NFC championships (even coming from a Seahawks fan/niner hater). Big Ben also fits.

This model is relatively new though given the new rookie salary scale; it didn't work nearly as well back when you had to give a Jamarcus Russell a $60M/30M contract sight unseen. As such there is not going to be any great plethora of historical examples, but that doesn't mean it's not the direction things are going.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

If your goal is Super Bowl or bust I think that's OK though. Draft a QB; if he doesn't play well the first couple years you can load up on high draft picks at other positions and then draft another one (who you drop into that much better of a supporting cast and hope he's a wilson/kaepernick/luck/etc).

Paying a Romo type 20 mil may guarantee a floor of 7 wins, but if it also guarantees a ceiling that doesn't involve a Super Bowl I don't think that's worth it.

Well to be clear Wilson is the only of the three to be on a championship team. Any other examples?

Plus, will any of those guys be kicked to the curb once their rookie deals run out? There needs to be some consistency for a team to build into a contender. Are you really going to replace your QB every 4 years through the rookie draft. My guess is you have a lot of "bad" 10-12 years streaks with that method.

 

[BespokeJort]

I imagine this article would look very different if the 2007 Patriots or 2013 Broncos won the Super Bowl. Also, I wonder what sort of cap value they're measuring here, and how they dealt with Elway's salaries. Is that applicable to today's environment?

There is great value in having a Russell Wilson for cheap. No one disputes that. The question is whether you'd rather have Geno Smith for cheap or Peyton Manning for $20M.

Finally, a discussion of the number of teams that have not won Super Bowls while paying their QBs less than 10% of the cap seems to have been omitted.

Just because A does not guarantee B, emphatically does not mean that (not A) guarantees B.

I would gladly, right now, without checking a single statistic, bet my mortgage that the QB's cap percentage on teams finishing 5-11 or worse in the modern era is below the NFL league average - probably well below.

If your goal is Super Bowl or bust I think that's OK though. Draft a QB; if he doesn't play well the first couple years you can load up on high draft picks at other positions and then draft another one (who you drop into that much better of a supporting cast and hope he's a wilson/kaepernick/luck/etc).Paying a Romo type 20 mil may guarantee a floor of 7 wins, but if it also guarantees a ceiling that doesn't involve a Super Bowl I don't think that's worth it.

Well to be clear Wilson is the only of the three to be on a championship team. Any other examples?

Plus, will any of those guys be kicked to the curb once their rookie deals run out? There needs to be some consistency for a team to build into a contender. Are you really going to replace your QB every 4 years through the rookie draft. My guess is you have a lot of "bad" 10-12 years streaks with that method.

I'm sure you will. Teams have bad 10 year streaks now, and that will continue no matter what strategy gets used (especially if they draft and manage the cap poorly).

But in addition to the draft you've got guys like mallett/hoyer/ cousins available for (relatively) cheap picks and contracts. Whether you re-sign that qb after he proves himself depends on the money (unless you're talking truly elite guys). If he'll take 12-15M annual average sure. If he wants 20? I'd take mallett and the money before paying flacco what they did.

 

[JohnnyU]

I've always thought the Colts in years past couldn't field a competitive defense because they were paying Manning too much money. If he wanted to win a Super Bowl so bad (not counting the one he finally did win), that he would sacrifice a few million so the team could field a better defense.

 

[Rockchild]

It all so sounds so simple but you still have to have a dominant defense, strong o-line and special teams. Seems to me that no matter what strategy you use you have to get lucky with strong contributors on cheap contracts at key positions, stay healthy, or at least get healthy at the right time and get on a streak in the playoffs.

 

[Soulfly3]

I've always thought the Colts in years past couldn't field a competitive defense because they were paying Manning too much money. If he wanted to win a Super Bowl so bad (not counting the one he finally did win), that he would sacrifice a few million so the team could field a better defense.

This is what I wanted to hear.