Quote: @medaille said:
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Hmmm, I find the 'stats' interesting. Yep, go get that HOF QB and life is definitely good. But if the 6th round is a statistical focus area for drafting a QB, then obviously these stats are fucked up. The question would be why the 6th? Its not the last round of the Draft, it has zero special meaning as a strategic focus area other than its one round before the end. What's makes it significantly productive? Nothing, its a complete random anomaly....a deviation or an outlier. I'd like to see a line by line QBs who's who in the 6th round of who made it. Its more anecdotal than statistical.
Now I say all of this understanding that maybe you were being sarcastic, lol. If so, disregard the above.
Quote: @medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
I chose 2010 because I didn’t want to type a hundred names. That, and it was a nice round number. Sure, you can take this all the way back to the 60s if you want, but it doesn’t support your argument as well as you might think. Because, sure, while that lets you add Flacco and Ben and Eli, who did win Super Bowls on their rookie contracts, you’re also adding dozens of other 1st round QBs like Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, JaMarcus, Quinn, Young, Leinart, etc who didn’t. In other words, the percentage might go up slightly, but not very much.
And I don’t know why you keep mentioning Wilson and Foles and Brady. These were not 1st round QBs, which is the whole point of my post. 1st round QBs are typically taken to be starting QBs. QBs taken later are often taken as backups or developmental QBs. Sure, sometimes teams get lucky with a guy like Tom Brady but that’s a different conversation. This is a conversation about 1st round QBs on the eve of the Vikings likely taking one. And I don’t think you want me to start listing all the Gino Torettas and John David Bootys anyway.
If you want to argue different datasets with all new criteria, fine, start a new post. But the fact in the original post remains: Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Is that wrong? No, it happens to be true. So does that truth surprise you? Not surprise you? Does it make you think taking a QB in the 1st and having the money to build around him is a punched ticket to the title? It shouldn't. Seems pretty clear to me that it's not. Anyway, argue THAT.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
I chose 2010 because I didn’t want to type a hundred names. That, and it was a nice round number. Sure, you can take this all the way back to the 60s if you want, but it doesn’t support your argument as well as you might think. Because, sure, while that lets you add Flacco and Ben and Eli, who did win Super Bowls on their rookie contracts, you’re also adding dozens of other 1st round QBs like Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, JaMarcus, Quinn, Young, Leinart, etc who didn’t. In other words, the percentage might go up slightly, but not very much.
And I don’t know why you keep mentioning Wilson and Foles and Brady. These were not 1st round QBs, which is the whole point of my post. 1st round QBs are typically taken to be starting QBs. QBs taken later are often taken as backups or developmental QBs. Sure, sometimes teams get lucky with a guy like Tom Brady but that’s a different conversation. This is a conversation about 1st round QBs on the eve of the Vikings likely taking one. And I don’t think you want me to start listing all the Gino Torettas and John David Bootys anyway.
If you want to argue different datasets with all new criteria, fine, start a new post. But the fact in the original post remains: Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Is that wrong? No, it happens to be true. So does that truth surprise you? Not surprise you? Does it make you think taking a QB in the 1st and having the money to build around him is a punched ticket to the title? It shouldn't. Seems pretty clear to me that it's not. Anyway, argue THAT.
Your stat is a meaningless stat. Period. The only thing you can glean from it is that a lot of QBs don't win a SB. But that's true about every single category you try to divide QBs into. There is no strategy that dumps SB wins into your lap. You could just as easily spam the same comment into every QB conversation. Don't spend a high draft pick on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't get a FA QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't spend money on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. If that was your point. That's cool. We all already know that. Everyone has a preferred strategy for us finally winning a SB and they all are most likely to end in us not winning a SB.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
I chose 2010 because I didn’t want to type a hundred names. That, and it was a nice round number. Sure, you can take this all the way back to the 60s if you want, but it doesn’t support your argument as well as you might think. Because, sure, while that lets you add Flacco and Ben and Eli, who did win Super Bowls on their rookie contracts, you’re also adding dozens of other 1st round QBs like Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, JaMarcus, Quinn, Young, Leinart, etc who didn’t. In other words, the percentage might go up slightly, but not very much.
And I don’t know why you keep mentioning Wilson and Foles and Brady. These were not 1st round QBs, which is the whole point of my post. 1st round QBs are typically taken to be starting QBs. QBs taken later are often taken as backups or developmental QBs. Sure, sometimes teams get lucky with a guy like Tom Brady but that’s a different conversation. This is a conversation about 1st round QBs on the eve of the Vikings likely taking one. And I don’t think you want me to start listing all the Gino Torettas and John David Bootys anyway.
If you want to argue different datasets with all new criteria, fine, start a new post. But the fact in the original post remains: Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Is that wrong? No, it happens to be true. So does that truth surprise you? Not surprise you? Does it make you think taking a QB in the 1st and having the money to build around him is a punched ticket to the title? It shouldn't. Seems pretty clear to me that it's not. Anyway, argue THAT.
Your stat is a meaningless stat. Period. The only thing you can glean from it is that a lot of QBs don't win a SB. But that's true about every single category you try to divide QBs into. There is no strategy that dumps SB wins into your lap. You could just as easily spam the same comment into every QB conversation. Don't spend a high draft pick on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't get a FA QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't spend money on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. If that was your point. That's cool. We all already know that. Everyone has a preferred strategy for us finally winning a SB and they all are most likely to end in us not winning a SB.
Oh it's a meaningless stat. But what if I say it this way? "Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract."
Here’s the secret to getting that superbowl winning QB: put together an elite defense.
Kirk Cousins is good enough to win a Super Bowl. He’s much better than Joe Flacco has ever been.
We need an upper tier QB and we will need to draft one for the future. Otherwise the defense should be the focus.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
I chose 2010 because I didn’t want to type a hundred names. That, and it was a nice round number. Sure, you can take this all the way back to the 60s if you want, but it doesn’t support your argument as well as you might think. Because, sure, while that lets you add Flacco and Ben and Eli, who did win Super Bowls on their rookie contracts, you’re also adding dozens of other 1st round QBs like Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, JaMarcus, Quinn, Young, Leinart, etc who didn’t. In other words, the percentage might go up slightly, but not very much.
And I don’t know why you keep mentioning Wilson and Foles and Brady. These were not 1st round QBs, which is the whole point of my post. 1st round QBs are typically taken to be starting QBs. QBs taken later are often taken as backups or developmental QBs. Sure, sometimes teams get lucky with a guy like Tom Brady but that’s a different conversation. This is a conversation about 1st round QBs on the eve of the Vikings likely taking one. And I don’t think you want me to start listing all the Gino Torettas and John David Bootys anyway.
If you want to argue different datasets with all new criteria, fine, start a new post. But the fact in the original post remains: Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Is that wrong? No, it happens to be true. So does that truth surprise you? Not surprise you? Does it make you think taking a QB in the 1st and having the money to build around him is a punched ticket to the title? It shouldn't. Seems pretty clear to me that it's not. Anyway, argue THAT.
Your stat is a meaningless stat. Period. The only thing you can glean from it is that a lot of QBs don't win a SB. But that's true about every single category you try to divide QBs into. There is no strategy that dumps SB wins into your lap. You could just as easily spam the same comment into every QB conversation. Don't spend a high draft pick on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't get a FA QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't spend money on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. If that was your point. That's cool. We all already know that. Everyone has a preferred strategy for us finally winning a SB and they all are most likely to end in us not winning a SB.
Oh it's a meaningless stat. But what if I say it this way? "Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract."
Doing a little reverse engineering couldn't you also conclude that drafting a rookie QB is more equitable since it gives you a 1/43 chance (if we just use that) of winning the SB? If you re-sign your current incumbent QB (Vikings or not) you seemingly have little to no shot unless that QB is on a trajectory to be a 1st ballot HOF candidate. In essence we have better data points to suggest Kirk has the same or lesser chance of winning a SB and costs substantially more than a rookie QB.
This isn't a shot at your stat/work, but the whole rookie QB, % of the cap, etc.. argument is unfair. Since you can manipulate the cap hits considerably which makes them all apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ medaille said:
You are still over-restricting. If a QB on a rookie contract can win the SB
for their team, it should be counted in the pool of being beneficial for the
idea of guys on a rookie contract. You
shouldn’t exclude Flacco just because his contract was pre-wage scale. If his team could win despite being burdened
by his “massive” contract, they certainly would have been better off with a
cheaper contract. Likewise Wilson
shouldn’t be excluded just because he was a 3rd rounder. That’s more damning for the people who are judging
who’s good or not, as opposed to the strategy of getting a young QB on a cheap
contract. Also an edge-case (The Eagles
followed the strategy of using the rookie contract QB, had their whole roster
following that plan, but their backup QB saved the day after an injury.)
13 SBs
- 4
are Brady
- 2
are Mahomes
- 2
more are Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers
- 8
of the SBs are occupied by future HOFers or perennial elite QBs (Didn’t
include Wilson because he’s trending downwards hard).
- 9
of the SBs were won by QBs drafted by the team (Manning, Foles, Brady (1x),
Stafford were FA)
- 7
of the SBs were 1st round picks (Brady (4x), Wilson, Foles were
not)
- 4
of the SBs had rosters constructed around a rookie contract QB (Flacco,
Wilson, Foles, Mahomes)
The stats are pretty clear.
- Draft
a QB.
- Get
a HOF caliber QB.
- If
you’re going to draft a QB, the 1st round and the 6th round
were the most productive, so obviously focus there.
Read my post again. You're expanding this beyond the 1st round and beyond 2010. The fact remains that 1 QB in 43 taken in the 1st round since 2010 has won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Why did you phrase your “criteria” in the exact way that you
did, such that it excludes Flacco, Wilson, and Wentz/Foles, despite the fact
that they directly support the argument that you are being critical. 3 of the 9 non-Brady SBs were won by teams
that were following the cheap, rookie contract model, and if you transferred
Flacco’s situation to the modern era, he would count as well. You’re choosing to ignore 75% of the data
that support that model. Why?
I understand that you are trying to make the argument that “expensive”
veteran QBs win SB’s too, but most of those SBs are won by HOF caliber QBs. Of the QBs that are, let’s say, of Cousins
caliber and price range, you’re basically looking at 2 of the 13 SBs (Eli
Manning and Matt Stafford).
I’m not trying to say that we should shit-can Cousins, because
the odds of winning a SB with him are probably better than the odds of any
single unproven rookie at winning a SB in the next year or two, but the long
term odds are going to say that the most likely place our first SB winning QB
was as a first round draft pick, so we need to be taking swings at the draft. The more QBs we draft the more likely we are
to find the one guy that wins us a SB and that guy has a better chance at winning
us our second one as well.
I chose 2010 because I didn’t want to type a hundred names. That, and it was a nice round number. Sure, you can take this all the way back to the 60s if you want, but it doesn’t support your argument as well as you might think. Because, sure, while that lets you add Flacco and Ben and Eli, who did win Super Bowls on their rookie contracts, you’re also adding dozens of other 1st round QBs like Stafford, Sanchez, Freeman, Ryan, JaMarcus, Quinn, Young, Leinart, etc who didn’t. In other words, the percentage might go up slightly, but not very much.
And I don’t know why you keep mentioning Wilson and Foles and Brady. These were not 1st round QBs, which is the whole point of my post. 1st round QBs are typically taken to be starting QBs. QBs taken later are often taken as backups or developmental QBs. Sure, sometimes teams get lucky with a guy like Tom Brady but that’s a different conversation. This is a conversation about 1st round QBs on the eve of the Vikings likely taking one. And I don’t think you want me to start listing all the Gino Torettas and John David Bootys anyway.
If you want to argue different datasets with all new criteria, fine, start a new post. But the fact in the original post remains: Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract.
Is that wrong? No, it happens to be true. So does that truth surprise you? Not surprise you? Does it make you think taking a QB in the 1st and having the money to build around him is a punched ticket to the title? It shouldn't. Seems pretty clear to me that it's not. Anyway, argue THAT.
Your stat is a meaningless stat. Period. The only thing you can glean from it is that a lot of QBs don't win a SB. But that's true about every single category you try to divide QBs into. There is no strategy that dumps SB wins into your lap. You could just as easily spam the same comment into every QB conversation. Don't spend a high draft pick on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't get a FA QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. Don't spend money on a QB, because most of them will fail. Yes. If that was your point. That's cool. We all already know that. Everyone has a preferred strategy for us finally winning a SB and they all are most likely to end in us not winning a SB.
Oh it's a meaningless stat. But what if I say it this way? "Since 2010, 1 of 43 QBs taken in the 1st round--QBs taken to be starters--won a Super Bowl on his rookie contract."
Doing a little reverse engineering couldn't you also conclude that drafting a rookie QB is more equitable since it gives you a 1/43 chance (if we just use that) of winning the SB? If you re-sign your current incumbent QB (Vikings or not) you seemingly have little to no shot unless that QB is on a trajectory to be a 1st ballot HOF candidate. In essence we have better data points to suggest Kirk has the same or lesser chance of winning a SB and costs substantially more than a rookie QB.
This isn't a shot at your stat/work, but the whole rookie QB, % of the cap, etc.. argument is unfair. Since you can manipulate the cap hits considerably which makes them all apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Like Medaille, you're reading way too much into this. Personally, I was surprised that only 1 QB in the last 43 taken in the 1st round has won a title on his rookie deal. Makes me wonder if this notion of having a QB on a rookie deal is not quite the panacea it's made out to be.
|
