No Team has won the Super Bowl in 20+ years with their QB taking up more than 12.6% of the salary cap

[Mage]

Also Watson's cap hit in 2 years would almost certainly not be that high % wise.  The salary cap is going to increase a TON when TV deals kick in.

[SCO96]

26 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I thought it was building solid teams, then bringing in a great veteran near the end of his career to take that team to the next level (Stafford, Brady at Tampa, Manning).

Fwiw, I don't think there is any one way.  But your way would probably work, if we hadn't screwed up the qb situation so much.    

You can win titles with a young QB on a rookie deal. The relatively low salary allows you to build around him while the cap figure is low.

As you pointed you can win a SB with a great veteran as well. You just have to make sure you're getting contributions from your young draft choices while they're on their rookie deals and/or you can't have more than 3-4 guy making top dollar.

Seattle was great as long as Wilson, Sherman, Chancellor, Thomas, and Wagner were making peanuts in terms of salary. Once those guys started getting paid they lost of a lot of depth and solid contributors (not superstars, but good role players).

When Peyton won in Denver, Von Miller and several other starters were on rookie deals were on a rookie deals and a lot of the veteran players had affordable contracts.

Either scenario works if the the GM/Front office is drafting well and know how to properly allocate the funds to the right position/players.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by SCO96

[MVPccaffrey]

27 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I thought it was building solid teams, then bringing in a great veteran near the end of his career to take that team to the next level (Stafford, Brady at Tampa, Manning).

Fwiw, I don't think there is any one way.  But your way would probably work, if we hadn't screwed up the qb situation so much.    

That may function now too but bringing in a 50 million dollar QB when you don’t have even close to a solid team around you definitely won’t work

[Basbear]

11 minutes ago, Mage said:

Also Watson's cap hit in 2 years would almost certainly not be that high % wise.  The salary cap is going to increase a TON when TV deals kick in.

Whoever trades for him will almost have to turn his 35 million guarantee into a signing bonus and pro-rate it over the life of his deal along with adding years. 

[SCO96]

11 minutes ago, Mage said:

How many QBs a year are taking up more than 12.6% of the salary cap space?

This is the problem I always have when this "evidence" is brought up.  There can only be 1 Super Bowl winner a year.  If there are only 2-3 QBs in any given year taking up 12.6% of the salary cap, then this "evidence" means nothing other that it is just statistically unlikely for any 1 QB in a group of 3 to win what is essentially a one-and-done tournament.  The same as how no MVP has won the Super Bowl since Kurt Warner.  It does not mean MVPs can't win Super Bowls, it just means it is statistically unlikely for 1 QB in a group of 32 to win a tournament for 1 champion

Correlation /=/ Causation

i get what you're saying, but He does have a point. Usually when a QB is sucking up a large percentage of the cap, that team has a glaring weakness that comes back to hurt them in the postseason. It could be a lack of depth exposed by injuries. A certain area on defense or offense is weak (ex. O-line or secondary). It just hard to make sure all of the starters are b-level when QB's (and one or two other players) take up all the money.

[Basbear]

Saints dead cap if they trade the following players

Lattimore- 40 mill

Ramczyk- 38 mill

MThomas- 37 million

Jordan- 34 mill

Peat - 24 million

Kamara - 20 mill(along with pending suspension) 

Hill- 19 mill

 

So thats why they are up against the wall and bluffing hardcore about being in "this". 

 

 

 

 

[ChibCU]

1 hour ago, trueblade said:

Prior to the 2020 season, no team in 20+ years had won a Super Bowl in their own stadium.

It just happened twice.

This is an attempt to refute the OP's message? YIKES

[Call Me James]

55 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

I thought it was building solid teams, then bringing in a great veteran near the end of his career to take that team to the next level (Stafford, Brady at Tampa, Manning).

Fwiw, I don't think there is any one way.  But your way would probably work, if we hadn't screwed up the qb situation so much.    

Absolutely seems to be the answer.

From the same article he cherry picked this Stat:

"If we include ALL QB cap hits for 2021 (active, reserve list, practice squad, & dead cap), the Rams hold the most Quarterback cap in the NFL by a wide margin. In fact, the $46.2M allocated to Rams' QBs in 2021 is the 2nd most of all-time, "

And the year prior the bucs won with the single highest individual cap hit for a starter.

We also see that Matt Ryan and Peyton manning made SBs with 15 and 18 percent cap hits respectively.

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Call Me James

[BrianS]

2 hours ago, SCO96 said:

Thank you for posting this. It should be pretty obvious though. If you have a cap at approximately $200 million to pay 53 players on the game day roster pay, you can't let one guy take up to 20-25% of the roster and expect to be balanced on both sides of the ball.

It should be easier to win a SB title as a QB matures. NFL economics actually make it harder. These days we actually see post ( TV pundits) say you gotta build a team while your frsh out of college QB is on his rookie deal. Crazy.

If the owners hard balled the agents and union in the next bargaining session by saying we aren't paying any QB above a certain percentage of the cap, I'd actually be on their side... as long as the cap was increasing at a believable rate over time.

I'd go one step further and say that no player on a team can take up more than "some agreed percentage" of the cap.  Something between 10 and 15 seems like a place to start.  I don't think this is likely to happen until someone really starts to do the math and figure it out. 

Getting back to the OP, I think it would probably be better to look at not just winning the SB, but getting to the SB.  It's been a bad playing field since Brady has been in the league.  Have higher priced QB's made it to the SB and lost?  Because the Brady era will end - eventually.  And he definitely took less through the prime of his career than his place in the QB rankings might indicate he should have.

[Ricky Spanish]

1 hour ago, Lets go get it Canes said:

What about 12.5?

We gucci

[Mage]

37 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

i get what you're saying, but He does have a point. Usually when a QB is sucking up a large percentage of the cap, that team has a glaring weakness that comes back to hurt them in the postseason. It could be a lack of depth exposed by injuries. A certain area on defense or offense is weak (ex. O-line or secondary). It just hard to make sure all of the starters are b-level when QB's (and one or two other players) take up all the money.

Yeah but how can we know how valid the point is without knowing all the information?
 

That is all I'm saying.  Without knowing how many QBs in a given year eclipse 12.6% of their teams salary cap, then how can we make a determination that somehow 12.6% is the exact cut-off that cripples a teams chances to win a Super Bowl?  Again, we're talking about 32 QBs in a year.  14-game single-elimination tournament. 1 champion.  If only 2 guys are above that level, then off bat it is statistically unlikely for them to win the Super Bowl (even if we eliminate teams who obviously don't have a chance in a season) not because of how much they are making but because it is only 2 guys out of 32.  If I told you that I'll give you $1m if any QB but a specific 2 didn't win, then who the hell wouldn't take that bet?  I mean maybe if one of the QBs was Tom Brady... but has Brady ever made more than 12.6% of his teams salary cap?

[Brooklyn 3.0]

2 hours ago, Ricky Spanish said:

I don't think the people that want Watson comprehend just how bad this deal will be for this franchise moving forward, specifically next season alone.

You are 100% correct. They ONLY care about having a cool QB again, or think he's god tier and can win it all by himself. They don't care at all about the franchise.

[Brooklyn 3.0]

2 hours ago, Kraybrothers said:

DeShaun's contract looks like a steal for a legitimate top three QB.

He went from a Top 5 QB and is now a Top 3????????

[frankw]

12 minutes ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

You are 100% correct. They ONLY care about having a cool QB again, or think he's god tier and can win it all by himself. They don't care at all about the franchise.

But you do? Trolling about wanting the last franchise QB out of the city for the better part of a decade doesn't count