top 10 wrs with superbowl rings since 2000 (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

We keep hearing how this is a passing league and how valuable these elite wide receivers are. Dez Bryant is about to break the bank while Demarco Murray is expected to test the market, and nobody bats an eye. I get that. But if this is such a passing era, who are the great wide receivers who helped their team win rings? I think the top ten has a lot of packers and colts, but that's just two of the last 15 superbowls.

Am I missing some?

 

[tangfoot]

Victor Cruz?

 

[Kiddnets]

Good point - WRs are secondary - it's all about the QB.....Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Big Ben..

 

[Freelove]

Looks like most roster builds with respect to receivers are represented.

Teams built for speed with high priced WRs...Rams, Colts

Teams built for speed with high turnover system WRs...Saints, Pack

Teams built for power that clearly devalue the position...Ravens, Seahawks

Teams built for power that clearly value WRs...Steelers, Giants

And of course, the Pats, who don't fit all that neatly into any category, and seem to devalue everything until they've got an all time great on their hands.

Lately, the teams that don't value spending in the passing game seem to be ascendant, but I don't know if that signifies much, nor is it clear what we can glean about successful roster building moving forward, since the cap landscape is about to shift radically.

 

[Freelove]

But FWIW, I've heard a number of national talkshow guys asking whether teams ought to be spending big chunks of cap on Dez Bryants when teams are kicking ### with WR's from Foot Locker. So it's a question well worth asking.

 

[bostonfred]

harrison

wayne

Jennings

Jordy and driver (Does either really count? They had less than 600 yards apiece)

Hines ward

Victor Cruz

Keyshawn Johnson

marquees Colston

Torrey smith

Deion branch

 

[Freelove]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I think the Seahawks would have won another title this year had they had a top 10 WR. Heck, they probably win another title if they would have had a top 50 WR.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

I think the real lesson is to get Aaron Rodgers/Andrew Luck/Tom Brady/Peyton Manning.

They will get you to the playoffs just about every year. With some luck in the health dept, you may just be good enough to win it all that year.

It will be interesting to see where the Seahawks go from here. They have built their team around a fantastic defense. Obviously, you can win a title doing that. It really hasn't proven to be as good long term though as having the elite QB.

 

[bostonfred]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

The Bengals are an interesting test case.

 

[Freelove]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

I think the real lesson is to get Aaron Rodgers/Andrew Luck/Tom Brady/Peyton Manning. They will get you to the playoffs just about every year. With some luck in the health dept, you may just be good enough to win it all that year.

It will be interesting to see where the Seahawks go from here. They have built their team around a fantastic defense. Obviously, you can win a title doing that. It really hasn't proven to be as good long term though as having the elite QB.

Getting a legendary QB for his career is clearly going to help, but it's a bit beyond the team's control. Everyone tries, but only a few turn into that, even among top prospects (and obviously some come from outside those ranks).

Organizational matters are purely within a team's scope of control.

But back to the original premise: if I'm putting together a blueprint for my team's payroll, I'd certainly devalue WR, too. But it doesn't seem the only way to skin the cat.

 

[Freelove]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

The Bengals are an interesting test case.

I almost mentioned them.

Clearly a team that HAS had organizational stability, and has become a perennial playoff squad...yet the shortcomings are well known.

Agreed that they're interesting to watch in this regard.

 

[bostonfred]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

I think the real lesson is to get Aaron Rodgers/Andrew Luck/Tom Brady/Peyton Manning. They will get you to the playoffs just about every year. With some luck in the health dept, you may just be good enough to win it all that year.

It will be interesting to see where the Seahawks go from here. They have built their team around a fantastic defense. Obviously, you can win a title doing that. It really hasn't proven to be as good long term though as having the elite QB.

true but the Seahawks also effectively have 15 million extra dollars on cap space because they're getting stud production from Russell Wilson at rookie prices. that let them miss on Percy Harvin and not even blink. Once they have to pay him and a few more of their top players hit the market, we will see whether they can continue. There is a lot less margin for error when you're getting late draft picks every year and you have to pay full price for your quarterback.

 

[moleculo]

harrison

wayne

Jennings

Jordy and driver (Does either really count? They had less than 600 yards apiece)

Hines ward

Victor Cruz

Keyshawn Johnson

marquees Colston

Torrey smith

Deion branch

Harvin and Boldin both helped their teams too.

There have been some great WR's on losing teams: Demaryius Thomas, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Mike Wallace, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Smith, Terrell Owens, Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce. if you want to consider guys who were close enough to smell it, you should think about these guys too.

not sure what all of these guys contracts were like at the time. It's an interesting point - in the salary cap era, is it worth dedicating a large amount of money towards stud receivers?

 

[moleculo]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

The Bengals are an interesting test case.

I almost mentioned them.

Clearly a team that HAS had organizational stability, and has become a perennial playoff squad...yet the shortcomings are well known.

Agreed that they're interesting to watch in this regard.

Falcons are another. Obviously, they don't have stability, but they have a couple of stud WR's and a capable QB, but haven't been able to close the deal.

 

[bostonfred]

harrison

wayne

Jennings

Jordy and driver (Does either really count? They had less than 600 yards apiece)

Hines ward

Victor Cruz

Keyshawn Johnson

marquees Colston

Torrey smith

Deion branch

Harvin and Boldin both helped their teams win superbowls since 2000: There have been some great WR's on losing teams: Demaryius Thomas, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Mike Wallace, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Smith, Terrell Owens, Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce. if you want to consider guys who were close enough to smell it, you should think about these guys too.

not sure what all of these guys contracts were like at the time. It's an interesting point - in the salary cap era, is it worth dedicating a large amount of money towards stud receivers?

Boldin is a good one, forgot about him. I don't think Harvin counts. And yes, that's what I'm wondering. It seems like a lot of the good but not great wrs are the ones with rings. Small sample size, but interesting.

 

[mr roboto]

The lesson is no one phase of your team can be so great that it carries you. You have to be above average at most to all the phases of the game.

Having an elite QB is very helpful. So is having an elite defense. Or an elite RB.

But the WR isn't even the most important component of their role (passing game) in their phase (offense).

 

[12punch]

Lately, the teams that don't value spending in the passing game seem to be ascendant, but I don't know if that signifies much, nor is it clear what we can glean about successful roster building moving forward, since the cap landscape is about to shift radically.

everybody getting a 10% bump is a radical shift in the capscape?

ok

despite that, the topic's a good one.

I think the 'passing league' thing that everybody throws around is a little overblown, and even if we take that for granted there are a lot more parts to a passing game than just wr.

atlanta has had a lot of issues because of their line, despite having a pretty good qb and wr combo.

I think it's pretty much true that having a top wr doesn't seem to correlate to sb trips, and even guys like demaryius, harrison, or jordy I think are more like passengers on teams that are really qb driven.

if we look past qb I'd prioritize the lines, but that's a lot more than just one guy.

so, what do we do in the first round when dez or watkins are available?

do we trade up to get a julio jones?

do we overpay to keep a dez or fitz?

I think probably a lot of people look to the pats as a model and it's been kind of taken for granted that they devalue the position, but to be fair about it, they offered to make deion branch one of the highest paid receivers, but still couldn't work it out with him, and that cost us a sb trip.

they took chad jackson at 36, but that didn't work out.

randy moss helped the pats set records in the regular season, but did he help win a title?

I'd love to have a pro bowler at every position, but when it comes time to take that one guy in teh first i'd probably pass on wr and take a lineman --- because if it's a passing league I need to protect on offense, and get to the qb on defense, and that's even before you start talking about stuff like establishing play action.

I don't think the lines will ever go out of style in football.

 

[bostonfred]

Maybe the takeaway is that wide receivers are too expensive? If your choice is between one elite WR or two elite guards, the two guards seem more valuable.

 

[Freelove]

Lately, the teams that don't value spending in the passing game seem to be ascendant, but I don't know if that signifies much, nor is it clear what we can glean about successful roster building moving forward, since the cap landscape is about to shift radically.

everybody getting a 10% bump is a radical shift in the capscape?

No, the consensus opinion that new media deals are expected to launch it past 200M before this season's new contracts expire is a radical shift.

 

[12punch]

and just to add, while you might have to pay rodgers whatever it takes to keep him, I don't think it's such a great idea to overpay at any position, whether it's wr, line, or w/e.

so, it just becomes an exercise in what they appropriate value for each position is on your team, and this won't always line up with the highest bidder in the league.

another thing to bear in mind is that fantasy nerds tend to fall in love with stats, and there's really more to football than just stats

 

[Skoo]

If you look at the winners for the past 15 years, the big thing that stands out is elite QB play, as oppposed to elite WRs. All the elite QBs in the league (save Luck) are represented:

Brady x 4

Roeth x 2

Peyton x 1

Rodgers x 1

Brees x 1

Then you have Baltimore, Tampa, and Seattle winning with great defense. But it seems to me that most of the time, elite QB play is what gets you there. Flacco and Eli may not be elite QBs, but they played at an elite level in their SB runs.

I guess the lesson is that it doesn't really matter how great your WRs are your QB can't get them the ball.

 

[12punch]

Maybe the takeaway is that wide receivers are too expensive? If your choice is between one elite WR or two elite guards, the two guards seem more valuable.

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty succinctly, and if we're talking about paying $$ for one elite guy at a position, I'd probably prefer paying an elite corner than wr, and this is still in keeping with the 'passing league' reasoning.

I don't know if you get any better correlation there on sb teams, but just as a hypothetical if I had to make that choice.

I think it was in belichick's 'a football life' where he was expressing concern about the offense because it was so reliant on moss and welker, and a wr can be taken away -- then what?

I actually feel a lot better about this current edelman led team than the one with randy moss as a centerpiece, and I think that's because you can't just lean on one guy unless it's a premiere qb.

 

[Freelove]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

The Bengals are an interesting test case.

I almost mentioned them.Clearly a team that HAS had organizational stability, and has become a perennial playoff squad...yet the shortcomings are well known.

Agreed that they're interesting to watch in this regard.

Falcons are another. Obviously, they don't have stability, but they have a couple of stud WR's and a capable QB, but haven't been able to close the deal.

Yeah, the Falcs could practically be the team this thread points an accusatory finger at. The organization has been at sea while the team tried to make the passing game the centerpiece...to no good effect.Eager to see Quinn there. I'm very familiar with his defensive philosophy, and by all accounts he's an excellent coach from a teaching standpoint. But no idea what he'll bring to the table as a HC.

Hopefully, ATL fans don't get too excited about building a Seahawk D. A D running that scheme, so dependent on a single high S, is only going to be a shutdown unit if you've got a historically good FS eating ground in center field. And Earl Thomases don't grow on trees.

But still, I hope he pursues it, and they stick with him. I strongly believe that with a good organization behind him, Ryan is more than good enough to shepherd a team.

Be nice if their O line could keep a guy or two healthy for a change, too.

ETA: I was actually eager to talk about this in the official Falcs thread, but it turns out that thread gets like three posts a year.

 

[kutta]

Maybe the takeaway is that wide receivers are too expensive? If your choice is between one elite WR or two elite guards, the two guards seem more valuable.

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty succinctly, and if we're talking about paying $$ for one elite guy at a position, I'd probably prefer paying an elite corner than wr, and this is still in keeping with the 'passing league' reasoning.

I don't know if you get any better correlation there on sb teams, but just as a hypothetical if I had to make that choice.

I think it was in belichick's 'a football life' where he was expressing concern about the offense because it was so reliant on moss and welker, and a wr can be taken away -- then what?

I actually feel a lot better about this current edelman led team than the one with randy moss as a centerpiece, and I think that's because you can't just lean on one guy unless it's a premiere qb.

This is more of a Gronk led team. If he wasn't around, this offense wouldn't be nearly as good.

 

[12punch]

If you look at the winners for the past 15 years, the big thing that stands out is elite QB play, as oppposed to elite WRs. All the elite QBs in the league (save Luck) are represented:

Brady x 4

Roeth x 2

Peyton x 1

Rodgers x 1

Brees x 1

Then you have Baltimore, Tampa, and Seattle winning with great defense. But it seems to me that most of the time, elite QB play is what gets you there. Flacco and Eli may not be elite QBs, but they played at an elite level in their SB runs.

I guess the lesson is that it doesn't really matter how great your WRs are your QB can't get them the ball.

I doubt anyone would disagree that qb >> wr, and I doubt anybody in the league would turn down rodgers for their best wr, but I think i'd remove qb from the discussion as I think it's a bit harder to get a top qb than a top wr.

I don't think there's any question as to the importance of a good qb, but that's just a question of finding one.

you can list 'defense' as a priority, but I think it's kind of unfair to compare a single guy to half your team.

 

[bostonfred]

Also I think it shows that a qb like Brady, Brees and Wilson lets you underpay at receiver and still have an elite offense. One of the reasons brady was so awesome - aside from being really cheap those first few years - is that you could basically plunk him on a team of nobodies and have an above average to great offense.

 

[Warrior]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

There's continuity because they've been winning. Who would fire a HC or front office guy when they are successful?

 

[Anarchy99]

I think an equally interesting question is how much the starting QB made the year his team won the SB. I don't think any team won with a QB already getting paid mega bucks. Once the QB gets around $20 million a year, teams don't seem to advance as far. I don't remember if Eli was already getting paid a ton in 2011. But in the main, highly paid QBs seem to potentially weaken their teams taking up so much of the cap.

 

[moleculo]

I think an equally interesting question is how much the starting QB made the year his team won the SB. I don't think any team won with a QB already getting paid mega bucks. Once the QB gets around $20 million a year, teams don't seem to advance as far. I don't remember if Eli was already getting paid a ton in 2011. But in the main, highly paid QBs seem to potentially weaken their teams taking up so much of the cap.

cap number of SB winning QB's, at the time they won:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m

2013 - Wilson - $0.7m

2012 - Flacco - $8m

2011 - Eli - $14.1m

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m

that's as far back as overthecap.com goes.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Get a real QB & a line to protect him.

 

[randall146]

You all know much more about football than I do, but could it also be that a great QB or RB can do a lot for a team on their own (with a decent OL), but a receiver cannot - a receiver needs a good QB and a good OL, and really at least another good WR or TE.

So teams with a stud QB and mediocre receivers can still win enough to get to the Superbowl. Teams with a stud WR but a mediocre QB have a much harder time getting that far.

Plus, it's relatively cheap to get good-enough RBs and WRs, so you can spend a ton on a star QB and still get good-enough RBs and WRs to have a good offense, but when you give a great WR a lot of $ you have less to go around for QB, defense, and STILL may not have a good offense.

 

[randall146]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

There's continuity because they've been winning. Who would fire a HC or front office guy when they are successful?

Agreed - there's some chicken and egg to the organizational continuity argument

 

[bostonfred]

You all know much more about football than I do, but could it also be that a great QB or RB can do a lot for a team on their own (with a decent OL), but a receiver cannot - a receiver needs a good QB and a good OL, and really at least another good WR or TE.

So teams with a stud QB and mediocre receivers can still win enough to get to the Superbowl. Teams with a stud WR but a mediocre QB have a much harder time getting that far.

Plus, it's relatively cheap to get good-enough RBs and WRs, so you can spend a ton on a star QB and still get good-enough RBs and WRs to have a good offense, but when you give a great WR a lot of $ you have less to go around for QB, defense, and STILL may not have a good offense.

I think that's a big part of it. But it's also that you can scheme to take away a great receiver. You can't scheme to take away a great quarterback.

 

[Road Warriors]

Maybe the takeaway is that wide receivers are too expensive? If your choice is between one elite WR or two elite guards, the two guards seem more valuable.

yeah, I think that sums it up pretty succinctly, and if we're talking about paying $$ for one elite guy at a position, I'd probably prefer paying an elite corner than wr, and this is still in keeping with the 'passing league' reasoning.

I don't know if you get any better correlation there on sb teams, but just as a hypothetical if I had to make that choice.

I think it was in belichick's 'a football life' where he was expressing concern about the offense because it was so reliant on moss and welker, and a wr can be taken away -- then what?

I actually feel a lot better about this current edelman led team than the one with randy moss as a centerpiece, and I think that's because you can't just lean on one guy unless it's a premiere qb.

This is more of a Gronk led team. If he wasn't around, this offense wouldn't be nearly as good.

Sort of. This super bowl was a great example of what makes this particular version of the Pats offense so difficult to defend.

Typically, SEA sits in cover 3 zone, plays fast to the ball, and punishes the underneath routes. Few teams can execute the necessary number of plays against that D with the athletes Seattle has to consistently move the ball through the air. NE, with Edelman, Amendola, Gronk and Vereen all running various route combinations have enough underneath options to do this. Unless the D can collapse the interior of the pocket, Brady will hit 9/10 ( possibly an exaggeration ) of those underneath crossing routes.

Then, if you decide to man up and take away the underneath routes, you end up with matchup problems, like Gronk on KJ on the outside, or Lafell on your 2nd or 3rd corner. Individually, nobody but Gronk scares you. Collectively, they're a matchup nightmare. And if you do sell out on the pass, they can go big and power run the ball.

NE offense this season was able to shift its primary attack to match up against the opponents weakness better than the recent past, partially because of health, and partially because of the multiple skillset receiving corps.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

WRs have value in Fantasy Football. In real football, having a lot of passing yards is the result of a sound OL, good play design, and an accurate QB.

It's no secret... you build the lines, get a good coach, put an accurate QB behind the OL, then put good tacklers behind the DL. It's been that way for 40+ years.

RB, WR, TE, CB ... they are all nice to have, but they aren't the blood and guts of a football team.

 

[Freelove]

If there's a lesson to losing teams -- and I think there is -- it's to get a coach, GM, and system you trust, keep them long term, and tailor your talent to that system, whatever it is.

The 2000's honor roll is like a who's who of organizational continuity.

There's continuity because they've been winning. Who would fire a HC or front office guy when they are successful?

Agreed - there's some chicken and egg to the organizational continuity argument

Not speaking only of the Pats, whose year-to-year success is unmatched, but of, say, the Giants, where the cries for organizational heads to roll are loud and frequent, and of the Steelers, whose track record of picking a horse and riding him till he drops is unmatched.

Nobody has thought the Pats should ditch Belichick, but these other teams have all had ups and downs, and when you've got ownership who stand by their hires during the dips, there seems to be a reward in getting more than your 1 out of every 32 titles while other owners flit from flower to flower.



But to be sure, this is all philosophical, and there's no right and wrong here. I imagine we'd need way more data points than a yearly league with only 16 games a season to do more with the data than give our best guesses.

 

[12punch]

I think an equally interesting question is how much the starting QB made the year his team won the SB. I don't think any team won with a QB already getting paid mega bucks. Once the QB gets around $20 million a year, teams don't seem to advance as far. I don't remember if Eli was already getting paid a ton in 2011. But in the main, highly paid QBs seem to potentially weaken their teams taking up so much of the cap.

cap number of SB winning QB's, at the time they won:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m

2013 - Wilson - $0.7m

2012 - Flacco - $8m

2011 - Eli - $14.1m

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m

that's as far back as overthecap.com goes.

you could check spotrac if you're interested

 

[moleculo]

I think an equally interesting question is how much the starting QB made the year his team won the SB. I don't think any team won with a QB already getting paid mega bucks. Once the QB gets around $20 million a year, teams don't seem to advance as far. I don't remember if Eli was already getting paid a ton in 2011. But in the main, highly paid QBs seem to potentially weaken their teams taking up so much of the cap.

cap number of SB winning QB's, at the time they won:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m

2013 - Wilson - $0.7m

2012 - Flacco - $8m

2011 - Eli - $14.1m

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m

that's as far back as overthecap.com goes.

you could check spotrac if you're interested

their server was down when I was looking it up before. looks like they are back.

per spotrac:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m/$133M (11%)

2013 - Wilson - $0.8m/$123M (1%)

2012 - Flacco - $8m/$120.6M (7%)

2011 - Eli - $14.1m/$120M (12%)

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m/uncapped

2009 - Brees - $10.3M/$123M (8%)

2008 - Ben - $13.5M/$116M (12%)

2007 - Eli - $15.2M/$109M (14%)

That's as far back as I can go in spotrac w/o premium access.

league salary cap data from here.

 

[12punch]

seems pretty inconclusive from that tiny handful of data --- you should expand out to sb participants or even final 4 ccg teams, or something like that.

as for the absence of qb above that 11-14% range, I'd bet there just aren't a lot of qb in that pay range, so being the last guy standing while also making $$ is just statistically improbable, rather than evidence of some correlation

 

[moleculo]

seems pretty inconclusive from that tiny handful of data --- you should expand out to sb participants or even final 4 ccg teams, or something like that.

as for the absence of qb above that 11-14% range, I'd bet there just aren't a lot of qb in that pay range, so being the last guy standing while also making $$ is just statistically improbable, rather than evidence of some correlation

you are more than welcome to look it up yourself and draw your own conclusion.

 

[Anarchy99]

Salary Cap Numbers . . .

2015

Romo $27.7

Brees $26.4

Peyton $21.5

Eli $19.7

Ryan $19.5

Big Ben $18.4

Rodgers $18.2

Stafford $17.7

Rivers $17.4

Bradford $16.6

Cutler $16.5

Smith $15.6

Kaepernick $15.3

Newton $14.7

Flacco $14.6

Palmer $14.5

Brady $14

2014

Eli $20.4

Big Ben $18.9

Cutler $18.5

Brees $18.4

Bradford $17.6

Rodgers $17.6

Ryan $17.5

Peyton $17.5

Rivers $16.7

Stafford $15.8

Brady $14.8

Flacco $14.8

Palmer $13

Romo $11.8

Dalton $9

Schaub $8

2013

Eli $20.9

Stafford $17.8

Peyton $17.5

Brees $17.4

Brady $13.8

Rivers $13.8

Big Ben $13.6

Sanchez $12.9

Bradford $12.6

Vick $12.2

Romo $11.8

Rodgers $11.7

Schaub $10.8

Cutler $10.4

Ryan $9.6

Smith $8.5

2012

Peyton $18

Bradford $15.6

Rivers $15.3

Vick $13.9

Ryan $13.5

Schaub $11.2

Kolb $10.5

Brees $10.4

Eli $9.6

Cutler $9.6

Smith $9.3

Stafford $8.9

Big Ben $8.9

Rodgers $8.5

Brady $8

Flacco $8

2011

Sanchez $17.2

Peyton $16

Cassel $14.6

Vick $14.4

Eli $14.1

Rivers $13.5

Ryan $13.3

Brady $13

Brees $12.6

Bradford $12.5

Big Ben $11.3

Cutler $9.5

Cutler $9

Orton $8.9

Rodgers $7.8

Romo $6.4

 

[Road Warriors]

Salary Cap Numbers . . .

2015

Romo $27.7

Brees $26.4

Peyton $21.5

Eli $19.7

Ryan $19.5

Big Ben $18.4

Rodgers $18.2

Stafford $17.7

Rivers $17.4

Bradford $16.6

Cutler $16.5

Smith $15.6

Kaepernick $15.3

Newton $14.7

Flacco $14.6

Palmer $14.5

Brady $14

2014

Eli $20.4

Big Ben $18.9

Cutler $18.5

Brees $18.4

Bradford $17.6

Rodgers $17.6

Ryan $17.5

Peyton $17.5

Rivers $16.7

Stafford $15.8

Brady $14.8

Flacco $14.8

Palmer $13

Romo $11.8

Dalton $9

Schaub $8

2013

Eli $20.9

Stafford $17.8

Peyton $17.5

Brees $17.4

Brady $13.8

Rivers $13.8

Big Ben $13.6

Sanchez $12.9

Bradford $12.6

Vick $12.2

Romo $11.8

Rodgers $11.7

Schaub $10.8

Cutler $10.4

Ryan $9.6

Smith $8.5

2012

Peyton $18

Bradford $15.6

Rivers $15.3

Vick $13.9

Ryan $13.5

Schaub $11.2

Kolb $10.5

Brees $10.4

Eli $9.6

Cutler $9.6

Smith $9.3

Stafford $8.9

Big Ben $8.9

Rodgers $8.5

Brady $8

Flacco $8

2011

Sanchez $17.2

Peyton $16

Cassel $14.6

Vick $14.4

Eli $14.1

Rivers $13.5

Ryan $13.3

Brady $13

Brees $12.6

Bradford $12.5

Big Ben $11.3

Cutler $9.5

Cutler $9

Orton $8.9

Rodgers $7.8

Romo $6.4

Brady is in the bottom half of salary cap hits for QBs next year? That's unreal.

 

[12punch]

omg sanchez with the highest cap fig in 2011

 

[flysack]

Also I think it shows that a qb like Brady, Brees and Wilson lets you underpay at receiver and still have an elite offense. One of the reasons brady was so awesome - aside from being really cheap those first few years - is that you could basically plunk him on a team of nobodies and have an above average to great offense.

Also note that when he won SBs, he didn't have an elite (and high priced) WR, but merely decent-to-good ones. The year he had Moss is the year they lost.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think an equally interesting question is how much the starting QB made the year his team won the SB. I don't think any team won with a QB already getting paid mega bucks. Once the QB gets around $20 million a year, teams don't seem to advance as far. I don't remember if Eli was already getting paid a ton in 2011. But in the main, highly paid QBs seem to potentially weaken their teams taking up so much of the cap.

cap number of SB winning QB's, at the time they won:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m

2013 - Wilson - $0.7m

2012 - Flacco - $8m

2011 - Eli - $14.1m

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m

that's as far back as overthecap.com goes.

you could check spotrac if you're interested

their server was down when I was looking it up before. looks like they are back.

per spotrac:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m/$133M (11%)

2013 - Wilson - $0.8m/$123M (1%)

2012 - Flacco - $8m/$120.6M (7%)

2011 - Eli - $14.1m/$120M (12%)

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m/uncapped

2009 - Brees - $10.3M/$123M (8%)

2008 - Ben - $13.5M/$116M (12%)

2007 - Eli - $15.2M/$109M (14%)

That's as far back as I can go in spotrac w/o premium access.

league salary cap data from here.

This is the real list:

2014 - Brady - $14.8m/$133M (11%)

• Gronk, Edelman

2013 - Wilson - $0.8m/$123M (1%)

• Defense

2012 - Flacco - $8m/$120.6M (7%)

• Defense

2011 - Eli - $14.1m/$120M (12%)

• Defense

2010 - Rodgers - $6.5m/uncapped

• Jennings

2009 - Brees - $10.3M/$123M (8%)

• Colston

2008 - Ben - $13.5M/$116M (12%)

• Ward

2007 - Eli - $15.2M/$109M (14%)

• Defense

Gronk is the one top tier "receiver" there. Jennings, Ward, Colston and Edelman might have been top-10 in some categories, like receptions, FFP, but I don't think anyone would call them elite (well, maybe Ward and Jennings at the time).

(IIRC).

 

[bostonfred]

I'm not sure TE fits in this conversation. Not because it doesn't fit my narrative, but because TEs get paid less than the true elite receivers. Same thing with Victor Cruz, Torrey smith, Deion branch, Jordy Nelson, Reggie Wayne (I think) and a few others. Even randy moss, demaryius Thomas and some of those guys were on cheap money for their failed superbowls.