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]