BillyC

WhoDat say's a QB should be paid according to where they finish in the QB rating system. That got me to thinking how a QB's salary should be justified. If we go with WhoDat's theory, then here's how the salaries would be paid, with 1 being the highest paid and 16 being the lowest.

2003:
1. Steve McNair TEN 14 400 28.6 250 62.5 3215 229.6 73 24 7 19 108 100.4
2. Peyton Manning IND 16 566 35.4 379 67.0 4267 266.7 79 29 10 18 107 99.0
3. Daunte Culpepper MIN 14 454 32.4 295 65.0 3479 248.5 59 25 11 37 196 96.4
4. Trent Green KC 16 523 32.7 330 63.1 4039 252.4 67 24 12 20 130 92.6
5. Brett Favre GB 16 471 29.4 308 65.4 3361 210.1 66 32 21 19 137 90.4
6. Matt Hasselbeck SEA 16 513 32.1 313 61.0 3841 240.1 80 26 15 42 246 88.8
7. Aaron Brooks NO 16 518 32.4 306 59.1 3546 221.6 76 24 8 34 195 88.8
8. Jon Kitna CIN 16 520 32.5 324 62.3 3591 224.4 82 26 15 37 249 87.4
9. Tom Brady NE 16 527 32.9 317 60.2 3620 226.2 82 23 12 32 219 85.9
10. Chad Pennington NYJ 10 297 29.7 189 63.6 2139 213.9 65 13 12 25 160 82.9
11. Brad Johnson TB 16 570 35.6 354 62.1 3811 238.2 76 26 21 20 111 81.5
12. Marc Bulger STL 15 532 35.5 336 63.2 3845 256.3 48 22 22 37 288 81.4
13. Jake Delhomme CAR 16 449 28.1 266 59.2 3219 201.2 67 19 16 23 168 80.6
14. Jeff Garcia SF 13 392 30.2 225 57.4 2704 208.0 75 18 13 21 104 80.1
15. Donovan McNabb PHI 16 478 29.9 275 57.5 3216 201.0 59 16 11 43 253 79.6
16.Tommy Maddox PIT 16 519 32.4 298 57.4 3414 213.4 53 18 17 41 242 75.3
17. Drew Bledsoe BUF 16 471 29.4 274 58.2 2860 178.8 54 11 12 49 371 73.0


Does this make sense to anyone? If we went with this system Bulger would paid more than McNabb and there's several more examples that don't make any sense.

Also let's look at 2002:


1. Chad Pennington NYJ 15 399 26.6 275 68.9 3120 199.0 47 22 6 22 135 104.2
2. Rich Gannon OAK 16 618 38.6 418 67.6 4689 279.7 75 26 10 36 214 97.3
3. Brad Johnson TB 13 451 34.7 281 62.3 3049 225.2 76 22 6 21 121 92.9
4. Trent Green KC 16 470 29.4 287 61.1 3690 221.8 99 26 13 26 141 92.6
5. Peyton Manning IND 16 591 36.9 392 66.3 4200 253.4 69 27 19 23 145 88.8
6. Matt Hasselbeck SEA 16 419 26.2 267 63.7 3075 183.2 49 15 10 26 143 87.8
7. Drew Bledsoe BUF 16 610 38.1 375 61.5 4359 249.4 73 24 15 54 369 86.0
8. Donovan McNabb PHI 10 361 36.1 211 58.4 2289 212.3 59 17 6 28 166 86.0
9. Tom Brady NE 16 601 37.6 373 62.1 3764 223.4 49 28 14 31 190 85.7
10. Mark Brunell JAC 15 416 27.7 245 58.9 2788 171.9 79 17 7 34 210 85.7
11. Brian Griese DEN 13 436 33.5 291 66.7 3214 229.0 82 15 15 34 237 85.6
12. Brett Favre GB 16 551 34.4 341 61.9 3658 216.9 85 27 16 26 188 85.6
13. Jeff Garcia SF 16 528 33.0 328 62.1 3344 203.2 76 21 10 17 93 85.6
14. Kerry Collins NYG 16 545 34.1 335 61.5 4073 245.1 82 19 14 24 152 85.4
15. Tommy Maddox PIT 15 377 25.1 234 62.1 2836 179.2 72 20 16 26 148 85.2
16. Steve McNair TEN 16 492 30.8 301 61.2 3387 204.1 55 22 15 21 121 84.0
17. Michael Vick ATL 15 421 28.1 231 54.9 2936 182.0 74 16 8 33 206 81.6
18. Aaron Brooks NO 16 528 33.0 283 53.6 3572 208.5 64 27 15 36 236 80.1

Now, as we can clearly see, QB's rankings flucuate wildly. McNair finished first this year and 16th the previous year. How does WhoDat's logic make any sense? Drew Bledsoe finished 17th this year and 7th the previous year.

There is no way that you can use WhoDat's system and I hope I have put that arguement to rest for good.

A QB's performance is more dependant on the rest of the team than any other position in football and rankings will flucuate because of the players around him and as soon as some realize that, the better off they will be.


[Edited on 29/1/2004 by BillyC]

seraph33

But Billy you support so many of your arguments using the QB rating system as a way of gauging how good a QB is.

saintfan

If I could defend Billy here, it was Whodat who started the whole Stats/rating system to evaluate QB\'s...over a year ago. He\'s crawfishin\' now, but some of us have been around long enough to remember.

BillyC

I have never said a QB should be paid according to where they rank. I have used stats in seveal different ways, but that a\'int one of \'em.

Anyway seraph33, I\'m using stats once again to make a point. Do you agree with WhoDat or me?

JKool

We all know that you cannot use a single stat to rate how good any player at any position is. Each stat is merely an INDICATOR of skill at a particular position, but the stat itself is affected by so many things, especially, as Billy notes, the performance of other players.

Here is the most obvious example: some corners get very few interceptions, but this is because they are VERY good, not very bad. Game plans are alterred to avoid that CB, schemes are designed so that player can completely control an area of the field, if the opposing QB is very good, then few passes will be thrown errantly in his direction, if the Safety to the same side is not so good, they will throw away from the CB to the inside, and the list goes on.

Moreover, if QB rating were a very good indicator of the quality of a QB, trades would be made (and FA signings) solely on the basis of that rating. Of course, we would all go ape-shiznit if our boys were to have tried to acquire Pennington (after 2002) no matter the cost, since he was the highest rated QB.

I\'m certainly in favor of incentives in players contracts that are tied to stats, but I don\'t think anyone believes that a player\'s sallary should ONLY depend on his statsistical performance.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

BillyC

Good points JKool.

Since we have determined that stats can\'t be the ONLY thing that determines a QB\'s salary, what can?

Now some have openly stated that WINS are the only things that count and stats are for LOSERS.

But, I must ask, should we only use WINS to justify a QB\'s salary? If that the case, the QB\'s that make it to the Super Bowl every year would be the highest paid. Of course, since it\'s always different QB\'s in the Super Bowl every year that would be impossible.

As a matter of fact, Super Bowl QB\'s rarely even make it to the playoffs the following year.

All of this leads me to one conclusion and that is:

What is your team built around and who are your impact players? Those are the players that are the most valuable money wise. In Carolina the passing game isn\'t a priority. In New Orleans our offense is built around the passing game. Yeah, Deuce too, but our points come out of the passing game.

WhoDat

[quote:f6d49d2a3d]I have never said a QB should be paid according to where they rank. I have used stats in seveal different ways, but that a\'int one of \'em. [/quote[

So QBs shouldn\'t be paid based on their stats or their win/loss numbers. I wonder what they should be paid for? How they look in their jersey? How far they can throw a football? It amazes me Billy can stay in business. I don\'t rate my products by how well they sell or what my profit margin is. Yeah, OK.

BillyC

This was in the same thread, but you seem to have overlooked it. So, here it is again. Let me know what you think of it aiiight?

seraph33

I agree with you Billy totally. Stats are a way of gauging QB\'s but they don\'t tell the whole story. That is certainly true with the QB rating systems. The point I was trying to make earlier was that I have noticed you on several occasions using the QB rating as the basis for an argument in which others were saying the same thing you are saying right now. But on those occasions it fell on deaf ears. As far as QB rating vs. QB pay, I agree with you that ratings don\'t tell the whole story.

BillyC

seraph33 -- OK, I will come clean here. SOMETIMES I\'m forced into using counter idiotic arguements to offset the one\'s presented to me. Hey, a man\'s gotta do what a man\'s gotta do.... :P