Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I've argued in the past that the current blueprint for getting to the Super Bowl seems to be a great defense, strong perimeter players, and an average athlete who can manage the game at QB.

Hypothetically, you always want the best player at any position. I mean, given the chance, who wouldn't initially jump at the idea of having Peyton Manning as your QB?

However, since the salary cap often puts teams in tough spots (where they have to make hard decisions), I would prefer to focus on a strategy for building a defense and getting playmakers on offense.

This has nothing to do with Brooks, Delhomme, or any other QB. I'm simply stating a philosophy that I like. To illustrate my point, here's an excerpt from a Pat Kirwan article on NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7450559

Let the debating begin.

And NO Saintfan, Billy, and Danno, this is not a veiled attempt to sling mud at Brooks - so sssshhhh even before you start. ;)

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Here\'s the deal.

The only thing you have a valid arguement about is you NEED to have enough money to be able to put enough OVERALL talent on the field to be successful.

Now, of course , if you pay a QB 100-million dollars it\'s not a good idea and it\'s going to prevent you from signing the best players at other positions.

But, your arguement to have a low paid QB is weak, IMO.

The same arguement could be made at the runningback position. The Patriots have showed that you don\'t need probowl runningbacks or high priced runningbacks to be successful. They\'ve won 2 superbowls without one. The pats superstar QB was much more responsible for the Pats supebowl vitories than the runningback.

History has shown that the QB is the most important position in football and if I\'m going to give any player a big contract it\'s going to be the QB. That said, I ain\'t going to pay him so much it keeps me from building a good team.

So, do we really want to sign Deuce to that big contrat??




[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I agree with you 100% WhoDat.
Best post in weeks.
Did you think I\'d disagree with that?

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Danno - Seems to me you have disagreed with that in the past. Maybe I\'m mistaken. Glad that we agree on something. ;)

Billy -
Hhhmmm. Where did I say that you had to have a \"low paid\" QB? I\'m suggesting that you focus money in other areas, yes. You and Saintfan keep suggesting that I\'ve ever said that you should go out and find the cheapest available QB around. I\'ve never said this. Right now, I\'m talking about value.

Let\'s take Brady, your example. You call him a superstar. I disagree. That\'s neither here nor there. You think that he is a counter-example to my argument. In fact, he\'s pretty close to a perfect example.

Just think:
1. Is he well paid? (Honestly, I don\'t know what his contract looks like, but I don\'t think it\'s huge).

2. Is he efficient and does he manage the game well?
I would say yes, and thus he is in the mold I\'m talking about.

3. Can he win games on his own?
Hard to say. I would lean towards no, though he is very competitive.

Point is, compare the answers from Brady to answers to the same questions for Vick, McNabb, Manning, etc. I\'m not suggesting that you find a bum, which you seem to think. Hell, if you could get Manning for what it costs to have Brady, that would be the best option possible. My point is, get the best QB you can, but only after you\'re comfortable with and done whatever it takes on defense and with the other playmakers on offense.

[Edited on 28/6/2004 by WhoDat]

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

As I\'ve said in the past, average/low paid Qb\'s, have gotten a team to the playoffs and to the superbowl.

But, and it\'s a BIG BUT. (no, not a big butt, but a big but) ;)

BUT -- There is NO DOUBT that teams with HIGH PRICED QB\'s have had MUCH MORE success than LOW PRICED QBs.

You can shake it, rattle it, roll it, or spin it. But, you CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to provide evidence to back up your claim that LOW PRICED QB\'s have done BETTER than HIGH PRICED QB\'s.

The burden of proof is on you. I\'ve provided mine about 3 days ago but will be happy to counter your evidence just as SOON AS YOU POST IT.... ;)

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I\'m not talking historically Billy - I\'m talking about the last 5 years or so.

Delhomme - Average to low pay
Brady - Honestly, I\'m not sure but I think he\'s paid average.
Johnson - average to low
Gannon - another guy I\'m not sure of, but I doubt he\'s \"high paid\".
Brady - certainly was low at the time he was a second stringer that year.
Warner - High paid.
Collins - average.
Dilfer - average to low.


So in the last 4 Super Bowls you\'ve had one high paid QB.

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

WhoDat wants to try and SPIN what the definiton of what an above average QB is or define a superstar QB as being ONLY a QB that can run the ball (remember I got the post where you said it WhoDat) ;)

Now if your definition of an AVERAGE QB is Tom Brady then I DEMAND to hear your list of AVERAGE QBs and ABOVE AVERAGE QBs. :P

My evidence that WhoDat\'s theory has sprug a leak and can\'t possibly hold water... :P


QBs in the last 10 super bowls
Tom Brady 2003 Jake Delhomme
Rich Gannon 2002 Brad Johnson
Tom Brady 2001 Kurt Warner
Trent Dilfer 2000 Kerry Collins
Steve McNair 1999 Kurt Warner
John Elway 1998 Chris Chandler
John Elway 1997 Brett Favre
Drew Bledsoe 1996 Brett Favre
Neil O\'Donnell 1995 Troy Aikman
Stan Humphries 1994 Steve Young




Superbowl Winning QBs
1, Tom Brady. (way above average QB)
2. Tom Brady (way above average QB)
3. Kurt Warner ( superstar QB at the time)
4. John Elway (hall of fame QB)
5. John Elway (hall of fame QB)
6. Brett Favre (future hall of fame QB)
7. Troy Aikman (future hall of fame QB)
8. Steve Young (future hall of fame QB)
9. Brad Johnson (WhoDat gets this one)
10. Trent Dilfer (WhoDat gets this one)

Losing Superbowl QBs.
1. Rich Gannon (way above average QB)
2. Kurt Warner (superstar QB)
3. Kerry Collins (WhoDat gets this one)
4. Steve McNair (superstar QB)
5. Chris Chandler (I’ll give this one to WhoDat just because)
6. Brett Favre (future hall of famer)
7. Drew Bledsoe (superstar QB)
8. Neil O’Donnell (WhoDat gets this one)
9. Stan Humphries (WhoDat gets this one)
10. Jake Delhomme (WhoDat gets this one)


[Edited on 28/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I can\'t believe I just read this quote by you in another thread, WhoDat.

Just about all my Superbowl QB\'s finished tops in the league in rankings.

Spin all you want my freind. You\'ve been saying just the opposite for a while. Which one are you MORE concerned with:

1. Results
2. Money

:P

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Never said it - I did say physically gifted. That\'s true. Never said he has to be a runner. Go look at the thread again Billy.

Your attempt to \"expose\" me is pretty sad. But, let\'s just work this out slowly OK.

Now, I\'ve already said I think Carolina paying Jake as much as they did is probably a mistake. And for the sake of everyone who doesn\'t want to hear it again, let\'s keep Jake and Brooks out of this. That said, answer me this:

Who are the highest paid QBs in the league?

In 2003, here\'s your list (this is sorted by total pay for the YEAR - I don\'t have total contract numbers)

1. Dante Culpepper - $12.4M
2. Peyton Manning - $11.3M
3. Carson Palmer - $11M
4. Brad Johnson - $8.5M
5. Jake Plummer - $7.5M
6. Aaron Brooks - $7.5M
7. Joey Harrington - $6.9M
8. Mark Brunell - $6.75M
9. Rich Gannon - $6.5M
10. Joey Harrington - $6.9M

Now, these are SINGLE year numbers only, not total contracts, so that is a consideration. Still, of the top 10 highest paid QBs in the league, only TWO have EVER played in a Super Bowl, and I think we all agree that the Bucs are nuts for paying Johnson that much.

On the contrary, Kerry Collins is number 21. Billy\'s beloved Tom Brady is number 26. Delhomme was 31. In \'03 Dilfer was number 55. So last year\'s Super Bowl QBs were number 26 and 31 on the pay list.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ion.aspx?pos=3

Likewise, there aren\'t a lot of studs by performance who have seen the Super Bowl. From the NFL.com (2003 numbers - Most Yards by a QB)

1. Peyton Manning - 4,267
2. Trent Green - 4,039
3. Marc Bulger - 3,845
4. Matt Hassleback - 3,841
5. Brad Johnson - 3,811
6. Tom Brady - 3,620
7. Jon Kitna - 3,591
8. Aaron Broks - 3,546
9. Dante Culpepper - 3,479
10. Tommy Maddox - 3,414

Again, this is only SINGLE year numbers, but again only TWO have ever seen the Super Bowl. At least in this regard Billy has some credit in that Brady is in the top 10. Of course, that reinforces my idea of good value (number 26 on the pay list but number 6 on the yards list), and shows that a QB with a good supporting cast can play up. Delhomme was number 14. That\'s pretty average to me.

I\'m sorry Billy, but you should have learned by now. :)

[Edited on 29/6/2004 by WhoDat]

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

It\'s not that I\'m trying to discredit you, WhoDat. You make me stop and think about things, and that can\'t be a bad thing... ;)

However, on many occassions, you leave me scratching my head.

You seem obsessed with a QB being paid too much money. Well, we all know that some players are over paid and some under paid. That includes, QB, RB, DE, DT, etc, ect..

You like to point out how teams have been successful with average paid or low paid QBs. No arguement from me there, WhoDat.

And I also agree that teams shouldn\'t pay a QB or any other player so much that it keeps them from buliding a team good enough to compete for a super bowl.

But, as far as I\'m aware, it\'s NOT a wide spread problem around the league where Qb\'s are being paid so much that it prevents them from buliding a competetive team.

Take our Saints for example. Brooks isn\'t putting us in salary cap hell. Brooks\' contact isn\'t keeping us from signing free agent or being able to sign our draft picks. Exactly what problems is Brooks\' contract creating? I think our sarary cap is better than MOST around the NFL.

Donavan McNabb\'s contact isn\'t keeping the Eagles from being an elite team. As witnessed by their 3 concecutive NFL championship games. It\'s also not preventing them from signing quality free-agents. As witnessed by them signing Terrell Owens and Jevone Kearse.

The reason I see teams being sucessful or unsucesful are a result of making good personnel moves (or bad ones), good coaching (or bad coaching) and a little luck along the way.

So, while you believe that the reasons teams are being successful or unsuccessful are the result of over paying or underpaying QB\'s. I see different reasons.

Furthermore, history has shown that a QB has more of an impact on the game of football than any other position. So, if a player is going to receive a big contact, it should be the QB.

Also, when the game is on the line, I don\'t want a good manager of the game. I want a QB that can make plays. Such as: Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, John Elway, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, and Steve Young. Who just happend to have won the last 8 of 10 super bowls. ;)

But, I do agree no team needs to be paying their QB so much that it keeps them from being competitve. But, teams are going to have to pay for good Qb\'s. That\'s just the way it is. Just look at what Jake Delhomme is being paid. Is he worth it? Probably not. But it\'s not keeping his team from being competitive... ;)



[Edited on 29/6/2004 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 29/6/2004 by GumboBC]

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

You all can crunch numbers and dig for info all you want but the point is simply this...there is no concrete plan, no blueprint, no map that leads the way to a sure Super Bowl team. There may be ways to get yourself into the list of \'contenders\' but what does that really mean. Teams through the years have proven it can be done in any way.
Great QB\'s (Montana, Elway, Favre) and not so great QB\'s (Dilfer, B. Johnson, Hostetler) have all had their time holding up the trophy. The same thing goes for all other positions as well. So you guys can argue about what you NEED to have to win the Super Bowl, but all you are doing is fibbing because there isnt one thing you HAVE TO HAVE to win the Super Bowl with the exception of chemisrty and desire. Thanks for your time...Peace, I\'m outta here!

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Great post. I agree.

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Thanks for the props Gumbo. I like to drop by every now and again to express my opinion and touch all of you who will take the time to listen. You are the real hero here....GumboBC, the man\'s man.

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

At this point, I\'m probably an idiot for saying anything about this, but here\'s a thought.

The salary cap makes it difficult for teams to pay all there talent once the talent is proven. That is why teams make tough choices about who to keep and we have things like \"salary cap casualties\".

While I agree with everyone here, the best chances of winning center on very few things: (1) Defense (that is 11 guys, and they can\'t be all superstars or you won\'t be able to afford an offense - so you already had to make some tough choices), (2) Playmakers on offense (obviously this will be WRs and RBs - serviceable TEs will do), and (3) QB (this is the guy who will touch the ball every play).

Great teams have always been defined on offense by \"the big three\": the QB, one WR, and the RB. Thus, getting a big three in those positions is quite important. This is the problem that the Colts are about to have - their big three is going to have to break up because they paid one of them too much. However, this just means that they\'ll need a replacement at one of those positions. WhoDat has argued, by paying the QB less (or perhaps replacing him with a serviceable starter), you could keep the much needed WR and RB. I think there are two things to consider here:

(1) The QB is the most visibile guy on the offense. We all know that this is the guy who puts fans in the seats. I\'ll tell you when Green Bay takes the field, not many people care who the supporting cast is as long as #4 is at the helm. Should they care? Damn straight, but most \"fans\" don\'t. Thus, your QB is your greatest sales agent. An owner would be downright dumb not to keep the guy everyone loves, unless there is a new guy for everyone to love (who is younger). I\'ll tell you what though, Favre will play until he says so, even if the guy behind him is slightly better for this reason: he brings people to the games.

(2) It has been said by many that the QB is the \"leader\" of the offense. Now, what that means to me (since I don\'t agree with the rest of it) is that this is the guy who has a chance to get it done on every play. He\'s the guy who can make things happen REGARDLESS of the supporting cast. Think of Elway pre-great running backs. He could win games pretty well on his own. Duece on a team with a mediocre line, mediocre receivers, and a mediocre QB could NOT simply make it happen on any play; a QB can. Thus, if you are going to \"over pay\" on offense, I think it will be for a QB who can get it done - you then fill in any \"cap casualties\" with cheaper rookies (and serviceable vetrans).

Oh, and one other thing,

(3) It is safe to say that during a QBs career, you\'re only going to get one or two shots at a Super Bowl. Thus, you pay everyone until they become \"cap casualties\", then your window closes. There are few teams in a position to make a run but every three or four years - that cycle is because of financing! Salary caps are intented to prevent dynasties AND THEY HAVE.

Thus, every few years you need to rebuild. I think it is obvious that the hardest position to retrain is QB; thus, you let your stud RB go, and get a new one (they have the shortest NFL learning curve!) - a la Denver - instead of your WR (2-4 year learning curve) and your QB (2-6 year learning curve).

Pay the QB makes sense given (1) the window generated by the salary cap, (2) the learning curve for other positions is shorter, and (3) he puts people in the seats.

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

Not changing my tune, but those are good points Granola-boy, I\'ll give you that - even if I did have to read a book to get to \'em. :P

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

;)

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I\'m gonna have to fall on WhoDat\'s side on this one because the logic is sound and is better when applied more generally to the team than just to the QB position. Point is: a team should try not to overpay any player in such an amount that that team would find it difficult to pay for good talent at other positions.

Obviously, when it comes to superstar QBs this is difficult for the reasons JKool listed above, among others. Bottomline is if the Saints were to give Deuce a $100 million contract, that would negatively affect the team. However, if he were popular enough, it would be tough not to do so.

What I am most interested in as far as the QB position is whether a QB who has signed one of these mega-deals, as Manning has, ever accomplished anything on the field thereafter. The only two I can come up with right now is Favre and Bledsoe. Favre has had more success, but I\'d say neither has done anything since - not anything worth the $$$ they\'re making. (Value to the team\'s marketing campaign might be different.)

Now that I am thinking about it, I recall that Randy Moss is another who has received a mega deal. His team hasn\'t done too well since either. Thus, more proof that it doesn\'t matter which position you overpay - it hurts.

Why NOT to pay your QB
 

I\'m usually very impressed by your posts, Scotty. But, not this statement. ;) I\'m sure you\'ll come to your senses soon.... :P


See, I\'m impressed again, Scotty. LOL... That\'s what it really comes down to. You can\'t overpay ANY player to an extent where it keeps you from buliding a competetive team.

If your house payment is too much you might get your car repossessed. If your car payment is too high, you might lose your house. And if both are too high, you might not be able to afford groceries. LOL!!




[Edited on 30/6/2004 by GumboBC]