QBs on a rookie deal

More turds on that list than diamonds;

I HATE having to draft a qb. Vikings (RS) are not good at it

 To me that list underscores how well the Chiefs are run: Scheme, scheme fit, scouting, drafting, coaching, culture etc..

Look at it another way: GB had 30 years of HOF Qb'ing and won 2 titles across Favre/Rogers. Chiefs have had Mahomes for 5.5 years now. 

I dont think its a solid bet that we move up unless its Caleb Williams and the Bears control that pick, so gonna have to overpay. 

Williams is a very solid prospect but he doesn’t have a truly unique skillset the way Anthony Richardson did.  I’’m coming around to the idea of seeing if Penix is there at 11 or trying to trade down and land Nix ir Mccarthy. I thought a good point was made by OP earlier that this Oline is solid enough you could start a Penix and not get him shell shocked. 

Best thing to do is stay true to your board and take the best player available. There should be a corner or front 7 pick available that will immediately upgrade our D. Best case we trade down a couple spots and try to get our 3rd back. 

Obvi the first chip to fall will be Kirko, which makes all the difference in our plan. 

Teams chase qb's in the draft because if you hit gold, you are competing for a title for a decade or more.   They aren't going to stop trying to hit the jackpot just because it's hard to succeed.   

I think Eagan would be stormed with pitchforks if they drafted a DB at 11. 

Platinum scenario for me would be sign KC to a friendlier 2 year deal, draft bpa at 11, trade-up end of rd 1 ala Bridgewater for one of the tier 2 guys with upside. Let that kid qb mariniate for a bit. 

 Am curious to see how that tier 2 of QB's plays out after they are poked, prodded and stacked by April. 

You’re kind of jumbling up a couple of different things all
at the same time.  Can a young QB
win?  Can a first round draft pick
win?  Does a cheap QB win?

Aaron Rodgers (2010 edit:  6th year), Joe Flacco (2012), Russell Wilson (2013),
and Patrick Mahomes (2019) all won SBs on rookie deals during that time period.

Wilson obviously was a 3rd rounder, that’s obviously
more of an advantage cap wise than a first rounder.

Rodgers and Flacco both were on the older rookie wage scale,
which was more of a burden for their teams to overcome.

The overwhelming trend is that HOF caliber QBs win SBs at
much higher rates than everyone else and you either have to draft them or pick
them up at the very end of their career.

While winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is obviously great, it’s very difficult as OP points out. What it does do, however, if the QB is good and with a trajectory pointing upwards, is allow you to fill out the rest of the roster with talent and cap space. Then, when rent inevitably comes due and you do have to pay the QB, you determine if that QB is good enough, decide yes, give them a massive deal, and kick the money down the road, thus extending the window beyond the rookie deal. That is the hope. Look at the teams with QBs on rookie deals right now and how well they’ve been able to fill out the rest of the roster (SF, CIN, MIA, even JAX and LAC). Are they all winning Super Bowls? No. But is their overall roster in a healthier spot today than if they had been paying $40M/yr to a QB that entire time to also not win Super Bowls? Yes.

Also, I know @MaroonBells is always saying he’d rather compete year in and year out versus winning one Super Bowl and stinking for a decade. I disagree with that but if you do agree then this gameplan should be even more of a W to you. Find the QB. Figure it out. Rolling with a vet might give you a better chance if the stars align (TB, LAR), but it gives you a finite window whereas the other option gives you a lot more headway. 

@"medaille" said: You’re kind of jumbling up a couple of different things all at the same time.  Can a young QB win?  Can a first round draft pick win?  Does a cheap QB win?

Aaron Rodgers (2010), Joe Flacco (2012), Russell Wilson (2013),
and Patrick Mahomes (2019) all won SBs on rookie deals during that time period.

Wilson obviously was a 3rd rounder, that’s obviously
more of an advantage cap wise than a first rounder.

Rodgers and Flacco both were on the older rookie wage scale,
which was more of a burden for their teams to overcome.

The overwhelming trend is that HOF caliber QBs win SBs at
much higher rates than everyone else and you either have to draft them or pick
them up at the very end of their career.

@"pattersaur" said: While winning a SB with a QB on a rookie deal is obviously great, it’s very difficult as OP points out. What it does do, however, if the QB is good and with a trajectory pointing upwards, is allow you to fill out the rest of the roster with talent and cap space. Then, when rent inevitably comes due and you do have to pay the QB, you determine if that QB is good enough, decide yes, give them a massive deal, and kick the money down the road, thus extending the window beyond the rookie deal. That is the hope. Look at the teams with QBs on rookie deals right now and how well they’ve been able to fill out the rest of the roster (SF, CIN, MIA, even JAX and LAC). Are they all winning Super Bowls? No. But is their overall roster in a healthier spot today than if they had been paying $40M/yr to a QB that entire time to also not win Super Bowls? Yes.

Also, I know @MaroonBells is always saying he’d rather compete year in and year out versus winning one Super Bowl and stinking for a decade. I disagree with that but if you do agree then this gameplan should be even more of a W to you. Find the QB. Figure it out. Rolling with a vet might give you a better chance if the stars align (TB, LAR), but it gives you a finite window whereas the other option gives you a lot more headway. 

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.

@"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.

Now I say all of this understanding that maybe you were being sarcastic, lol. If so, disregard the above.

@"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.

@"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. 

@"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.

@"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. 

@"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.

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. 

@"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."

@"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.