The myth of overpaying for a QB

[Scottemojo]

Bravo, McGruff. Too bad it won't matter to that poster.

Did you notice how much fear permeates his posts? Fear of players getting hurt, retiring, declining, not being resigned...his entire posting style is fear based.

I am very optimistic Russ will keep getting better. Only three years in and he has accomplished things that no Seattle QB ever has.

 

[bmorepunk]

I hope Wilson gets paid, but I think it would be the death strike to this team. Every situation is different so it is difficult to compare, but this situation largely reminds of Flacco's. Elite defense, good talent around him offensively, then boom. Flacco gets paid and I'd be willing to bet he never sniffs another superbowl. And sure, Flacco doesn't look so good now. But he was great when he wasn't the focal point of the team. That kind of money forces you to be the focal point.

I think the same thing happens if they pay Wilson that kind of money.

Thanks for the laugh.

Wilson isn't even close to Flacco. And even if he was, Flacco hardly killed the Ravens. The Ravens were one of the best teams in the NFL last year by DVOA.

A lot of people talk about how the Flacco deal was going to break the team. The cap hits are less than $15 million for the first three seasons (2013-2015); it's an insanely back loaded deal. A lot of people who actually don't know the Ravens say things about how Flacco ruined the defense with his contract. When Flacco signed his contract and when they won a Super Bowl they were a middle ranked defense, so he certainly didn't do damage there. They lost really good linebackers to other teams that were willing to overpay them and their secondary was/is horrible. They were having more issues managing Ngata and Suggs' contracts with the Ray Rice cap hit than anything.

Flacco's contract will be interesting next year. The 2013 cap hit was 6.8 million, 2014 was 14.8, this season will be 14.5, and then an insane 28.5 and 31.1 million for 2016 and 2017. Those kind of numbers could certainly hamper the Ravens, but this year and before the numbers weren't untenable. Certainly not the first year in 2013 after he signed it when everybody said "look he broke the team". Right, with a 6.8 million cap hit.

 

[bmorepunk]

2012 Baltimore Ravens Defensive Rankings:

Yards - 17th
Pts/Game - 20th
3rd Down % - 26th
Fumbles Rec - 8th
Interceptions - 19th

Not an elite defense. They were top five in points allowed in 2011, but they fell apart after that. The primary issue is that Ray Lewis and Ed Reed got old.

 

[McGruff]

And how did all those big time FA's the Ravens lost play for their new teams?

Seriously, the Ravens are the template for letting over-acheiving, average, scheme specific players go to other teams and be revealed for what they are.

 

[seedhawk]

Most of us could be overlooking a salient point. Think back over the past 3 years with RW, and remember his total stinker games. If I remember correctly, damn near all of them, Lynch was a non factor. Either his back seized up and he couldn't go, or Bevel for some unknown reason only gave him 10 to 12 carries.

Now,, if Lynch is indeed hurt, you have to go with what you have, however, were some of those 10 to 12 carry games in effect practice? Just to see if RW with average Rb's could take over a game.

Were the Hawks in effect using certain games to take a peek into the future?

Well, you're sidetracking the post, but I don't believe you're correct so I'm looking up the stats.

vs SD: Lynch 6 carries, 36 yds. Wilson 17/25 202 yds, 2 TD 119.1 rating.
vs Dallas: Lynch 10 carries, 61 yds. Wilson 14/28 126 yds, 1 INT 47.6 rating
vs AZ: Lynch 10 carries, 113 yds. Wilson 20/31 339yds 2 TD 122.9 rating

So last season he had one bad game and two really good games when Lynch rushed for less than 13 carries. There was only one game that Lynch rushed that few times the previous year and Wilson had a 117.6 rating.

In the three games in 2012, Wilson's rating was 96.8, 88.0 (in a 58-0 trouncing he sat out part of), and 104.4

So I guess you don't actually remember correctly.

Yep, I sidetracked the thread, and evidently raised a point no one wants to discuss! However, it is a given that RW's career will mostly be spent without Lynch, and a bunch of other current players. So, how do the Hawks do without Okung? Sweezy? Kam? Earl? Sherm? Graham? The list will get longer.

The question becomes, if we pay RW, we lost this and this and this. Is RW capable of overcoming those shortfalls and keeping our Hawks in the playoff equation? What I do know is, if we pay him at 22M a year, that is about 15% of our cap. If we inflate that to 25M, it goes up to almost 18%. Currently, he costs us less than 1% of our cap. Seems to be a very significant change that smoke and mirrors will not correct.

 

[kearly]

A lot of people talk about how the Flacco deal was going to break the team. The cap hits are less than $15 million for the first three seasons (2013-2015); it's an insanely back loaded deal. A lot of people who actually don't know the Ravens say things about how Flacco ruined the defense with his contract. When Flacco signed his contract and when they won a Super Bowl they were a middle ranked defense, so he certainly didn't do damage there. They lost really good linebackers to other teams that were willing to overpay them and their secondary was/is horrible. They were having more issues managing Ngata and Suggs' contracts with the Ray Rice cap hit than anything.

Flacco's contract will be interesting next year. The 2013 cap hit was 6.8 million, 2014 was 14.8, this season will be 14.5, and then an insane 28.5 and 31.1 million for 2016 and 2017. Those kind of numbers could certainly hamper the Ravens, but this year and before the numbers weren't untenable. Certainly not the first year in 2013 after he signed it when everybody said "look he broke the team". Right, with a 6.8 million cap hit.

I stumbled across those numbers too and was pretty shocked by the amounts. It's fairly likely that Baltimore will approach Flacco with a contract extension before those big numbers hit them, to push those big numbers further down the road. Those big numbers seem like a mirage. There's little guaranteed money in them. Which means that Flacco will probably feel enough pressure to agree to a restructure.

 

[kearly]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

Around this same period of time, half of the teams that earned bye weeks in the playoffs lost their first playoff game. There is a lot of randomness in the postseason.

But really now, this 'top five' usage of numbers is why statistics are so often accused of lying. Why not tell us what the top 6 QBs do? Or the top 7? Or the top 10? I would assume that a top 10 paid QB probably wins more than half of all SBs, and the difference in pay between the 5th and 10th highest paid QB is pretty small, maybe enough money to sign a player like O'Brien Schofield. It's certainly not worth the difference between an elite QB and an average one. Stopping at five is arbitrary and only serves to reinforce a belief system, not to enlighten.

And not to lend this top five theory any credence, but... it's worth pointing out that if Wilson signs an extension this offseason he almost certainly won't be top five. Even if his 'new money' is best in the NFL, his AYP won't be because very high because the final rookie year will tank the overall AYP number. We'll win SB 50 with his new deal and it will keep this top five streak alive.

 

[Tical21]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

Around this same period of time, half of the teams that earned bye weeks in the playoffs lost their first playoff game. There is a lot of randomness in the postseason.

But really now, this 'top five' usage of numbers is why statistics are so often accused of lying. Why not tell us what the top 6 QBs do? Or the top 7? Or the top 10? I would assume that a top 10 paid QB probably wins more than half of all SBs, and the difference in pay between the 5th and 10th highest paid QB is pretty small, maybe enough money to sign a player like O'Brien Schofield. It's certainly not worth the difference between an elite QB and an average one. Stopping at five is arbitrary and only serves to reinforce a belief system, not to enlighten.

And not to lend this top five theory any credence, but... it's worth pointing out that if Wilson signs an extension this offseason he almost certainly won't be top five. Even if his 'new money' is best in the NFL, his AYP won't be because very high because the final rookie year will tank the overall AYP number. We'll win SB 50 with his new deal and it will keep this top five streak alive.

I'd have to go take a look at when the QB's got paid, but I actually think a lot of them hadn't gotten paid before they won the Super Bowl. Warner, Dilfer, Brady, Johnson, Ben, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson. Did Eli win one before he got paid? Peyton was the one in the top-5. Was Ben paid when he won his second? I don't think Brees had gotten paid yet. Brady was #16 this year, and I don't think he was paid when he won his first two. At least 10, and probably a couple more in the past 16 years, I don't think were in the top-half of salaries at the position. Sure, five is an arbitrary number, but it is a pretty round number that I think would fairly make the point.

If his year 1 number is low, that's great, we can still surround him with talent, but it's going to be supremely difficult for us to win in his higher years.

Look, I never would have figured this until I looked. I've always thought you pay your quarterback. You find a franchise quarterback, you do whatever you can to keep him. Nobody has shouted more than I have about how much more important the QB position is than all the other positions. But the evidence at the very least is pretty compelling, if not damning. That would go for ANY QB, regardless of a personal opinion about Wilson.

 

[McGruff]

I guess I think of it like this . . . It will be much harder to win WITHOUT Russell Wilson than it will WITH a highly paid Russell Wilson.

History just bears that out. Its hard to win without a franchise QB. When you get one, you pay him because of that fact. Yes, it creates challenges, but those challenges are less challenging than the challenge of winning without a franchise QB.

 

[Popeyejones]

I guess I think of it like this . . . It will be much harder to win WITHOUT Russell Wilson than it will WITH a highly paid Russell Wilson.

History just bears that out. Its hard to win without a franchise QB. When you get one, you pay him because of that fact. Yes, it creates challenges, but those challenges are less challenging than the challenge of winning without a franchise QB.

Totally agreed. I think you can even loosen the restrictions a little bit and say it's basically nearly impossible to win without a top 15 QB.

The problem isn't about assigning dollar values for the top three or four guys, the problem is in assigning dollar values for the top five to fifteen guys. It gets even more complicated if you're talking about a younger QB on a team that has had a whole ton of success but which doesn't lean on their QB like the teams with the top three or four guys do.

At the end of the day though, If you're going deep into the playoffs and you've got a guy ANYWHERE in the top 15 even, you simply don't cut your losses and go back to the drawing board at the QB position. You just don't do it. You simply just don't do it.

Wilson's new contract just has a ton of variables in it. TBH it would be kind of surprising if it WASN'T an intense negotiation.

 

[kearly]

I'd have to go take a look at when the QB's got paid, but I actually think a lot of them hadn't gotten paid before they won the Super Bowl. Warner, Dilfer, Brady, Johnson, Ben, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson. Did Eli win one before he got paid? Peyton was the one in the top-5. Was Ben paid when he won his second? I don't think Brees had gotten paid yet. Brady was #16 this year, and I don't think he was paid when he won his first two. At least 10, and probably a couple more in the past 16 years, I don't think were in the top-half of salaries at the position. Sure, five is an arbitrary number, but it is a pretty round number that I think would fairly make the point.

If his year 1 number is low, that's great, we can still surround him with talent, but it's going to be supremely difficult for us to win in his higher years.

Look, I never would have figured this until I looked. I've always thought you pay your quarterback. You find a franchise quarterback, you do whatever you can to keep him. Nobody has shouted more than I have about how much more important the QB position is than all the other positions. But the evidence at the very least is pretty compelling, if not damning. That would go for ANY QB, regardless of a personal opinion about Wilson.

I went and did some research, turns out a lot of the guys you mention were on 2nd deals.

Brees was on a pricey deal when he won his (he signed with the Saints as a FA in 2005 for a decent chunk of money). Eli signed a massive extension a year before he won his second championship. Big Ben signed a deal that made him one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL 11 months before winning his 2nd Super Bowl. Brady was on his 2nd contract when he won his third SB in 2004. Rodgers signed a pricey 2nd contract extension two years before he won his.

If you go back to the salary cap era starting in 1994, there have been 22 SB winning QBs. 13 of them were future or present HoF QBs who were on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th contracts and were hardly dirt cheap. 7 of them were QBs on rookie deals, and 2 were journeymen.

The history of the NFL shows that great QBs win SBs, or occasionally, a great team with a decent QB who gets hot at the right time. Having a QB who is good right away while he's still dirt cheap obviously helps. But stories like Brady, Big Ben, and Wilson are so rare. Finding the next Wilson/Brady is not a repeatable skill.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I'd have to go take a look at when the QB's got paid, but I actually think a lot of them hadn't gotten paid before they won the Super Bowl. Warner, Dilfer, Brady, Johnson, Ben, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson. Did Eli win one before he got paid? Peyton was the one in the top-5. Was Ben paid when he won his second? I don't think Brees had gotten paid yet. Brady was #16 this year, and I don't think he was paid when he won his first two. At least 10, and probably a couple more in the past 16 years, I don't think were in the top-half of salaries at the position. Sure, five is an arbitrary number, but it is a pretty round number that I think would fairly make the point.

If his year 1 number is low, that's great, we can still surround him with talent, but it's going to be supremely difficult for us to win in his higher years.

Look, I never would have figured this until I looked. I've always thought you pay your quarterback. You find a franchise quarterback, you do whatever you can to keep him. Nobody has shouted more than I have about how much more important the QB position is than all the other positions. But the evidence at the very least is pretty compelling, if not damning. That would go for ANY QB, regardless of a personal opinion about Wilson.

I promise - none of those teams (why is Brad Johnson and Dilfer on this list btw? They never got a big contract) get to a Super Bowl or contend for one if they simply let their franchise guy walk in FA too.

We can argue back and forth until the end of time if he's actually worth 20M plus, but this is the NFL now. Just like MLB where if you have a stud lefty you have to pay obscene amounts of money to keep them or sign them away in FA.. the quarterback is irreplaceable if you find a good one. Entire teams seasons collapse if a quarterback is hurt for a month, much less due to poor performance.

They have to re-sign him and because this is how the league goes.. they will have to pay a pretty penny to do so.

 

[hawk45]

I'd have to go take a look at when the QB's got paid, but I actually think a lot of them hadn't gotten paid before they won the Super Bowl. Warner, Dilfer, Brady, Johnson, Ben, Brees, Rodgers, Flacco, Wilson. Did Eli win one before he got paid? Peyton was the one in the top-5. Was Ben paid when he won his second? I don't think Brees had gotten paid yet. Brady was #16 this year, and I don't think he was paid when he won his first two. At least 10, and probably a couple more in the past 16 years, I don't think were in the top-half of salaries at the position. Sure, five is an arbitrary number, but it is a pretty round number that I think would fairly make the point.

If his year 1 number is low, that's great, we can still surround him with talent, but it's going to be supremely difficult for us to win in his higher years.

Look, I never would have figured this until I looked. I've always thought you pay your quarterback. You find a franchise quarterback, you do whatever you can to keep him. Nobody has shouted more than I have about how much more important the QB position is than all the other positions. But the evidence at the very least is pretty compelling, if not damning. That would go for ANY QB, regardless of a personal opinion about Wilson.

I went and did some research, turns out a lot of the guys you mention were on 2nd deals.

Brees was on a pricey deal when he won his (he signed with the Saints as a FA in 2005 for a decent chunk of money). Eli signed a massive extension a year before he won his second championship. Big Ben signed a deal that made him one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL 11 months before winning his 2nd Super Bowl. Brady was on his 2nd contract when he won his third SB in 2004. Rodgers signed a pricey 2nd contract extension two years before he won his.

If you go back to the salary cap era starting in 1994, there have been 22 SB winning QBs. 13 of them were future or present HoF QBs who were on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th contracts and were hardly dirt cheap. 7 of them were QBs on rookie deals, and 2 were journeymen.

The history of the NFL shows that great QBs win SBs, or occasionally, a great team with a decent QB who gets hot at the right time. Having a QB who is good right away while he's still dirt cheap obviously helps. But stories like Brady, Big Ben, and Wilson are so rare. Finding the next Wilson/Brady is not a repeatable skill.

http://overthecap.com/super-bowl-titles ... rterbacks/

The list at the above link from overthecap.com shows that no QB earning more than 13.1% of the team's cap of that year has won the Superbowl in the cap era. Eli, Brees, Big Ben, they may have been getting paid, but the hit in their SB-winning year wasn't a huge % of the cap.

So history says QBs don't win it all in the high cap-hit years of their deals (although I can see Rodgers being the exception at some point). At 26.4 million in 2015, Brees will be at 18% of cap. At 19.75 million Eli will be 13.78%. (The cap for 2015 is 143 million). If Wilson wants the last year of his deal torn up and to make 25 mil now, that would be 17.4% of the cap. I can see that being a sticking point.

To me this doesn't suggest don't pay Wilson, it just suggests backloading the deal and maybe seeing if he'll restructure later for more guaranteed money when the ramp-up starts.

Sounds complicated but I agree it is much more plausible than plucking a poised-and-ready-for-ring QB out of FA or the draft. Teams spend decades trying to find a guy who can throw more TDs than INTs. A low-round rookie QB won't be able to do jack for years if ever. Halfway decent FA QBs are making 10-15 mil and their teams won't let them go, the idea you can go bargain hunting for an FA QB is nuts. They may be able to replace Wilson's passing *yardage* production, but not his TDs, legs, or poise. At some point our hypothetical Ryan Fitzpatrick would need to make a play with it all on the line, and the Ryan Fitzpatricks of the world don't do that. Hell the Tony Romos can't do it.

The replacement strategy seems to be "find another Russell Wilson bargain" and that's not a strategy.

Now, if Pete/JS wanted to franchise Wilson a couple years while they do their volume approach at the position to try and find the next one that's acceptable to me. We'll see a string of Tjack and Whitehurst and Flynn and at the end have to pay Wilson an even higher % of the cap and risk holdouts and what not, but at least it isn't franchise suicide and there's a possibility they find something (although how you test that with Wilson still starting is beyond me, Flynn looked okay in preseason after all).

 

[Tical21]

I'll flat out say it...paying big money to Russell Wilson drastically hurts our chances of winning more Super Bowls.

But I'll say something more important.....having a better chance of winning a Super Bowl isn't worth the financial risk and job security issues that would come with letting Russell Wilson play for the Raiders. They let Russell go, they risk the fan base turning on them. They list the locker room turning on them. They risk money. As much as we like to say Super Bowls are the only things that matter, that simply is not the case. We'll make the playoffs more years than not, and the fanbase is going to continue to be in love with our quarterback for all of eternity. This alone is going to make Russell Wilson a rich man.

 

[RolandDeschain]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

You should read up on how to tell when correlation and causation are linked, and when they're not.

Also, way to cover both sides of the argument with your reply just above this, Tical. They pay Russell, you win. They let him go, you win. Very solid.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

You should read up on how to tell when correlation and causation are linked, and when they're not.

Also, way to cover both sides of the argument with your reply just above this, Tical. They pay Russell, you win. They let him go, you win. Very solid.

Wow, you mean you actually agree with me and are bored enough to care about whatever silly argument Tical21 is making to cut Wilson and go sign Matt Barkley immediately because he has no clue about how the money and cap actually work. Cool.

 

[Tical21]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

You should read up on how to tell when correlation and causation are linked, and when they're not.

Also, way to cover both sides of the argument with your reply just above this, Tical. They pay Russell, you win. They let him go, you win. Very solid.

Wow, you mean you actually agree with me and are bored enough to care about whatever silly argument Tical21 is making to cut Wilson and go sign Matt Barkley immediately because he has no clue about how the money and cap actually work. Cool.

I am absolutely dying for your enlightenment. The floors is yours.

 

[Tical21]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

You should read up on how to tell when correlation and causation are linked, and when they're not.

Also, way to cover both sides of the argument with your reply just above this, Tical. They pay Russell, you win. They let him go, you win. Very solid.

Except that I personally would take 9 consecutive losing seasons and trade that for one championship. None, not one, not even one. Not one QB has made over 13% of their team's cap and won a Super Bowl. Not even one. There isn't even an exception to the rule ANYWHERE. Even with the strictest of rules, there should be ONE exception. One. Is 20 years not a big enough sample size? Correlation and causation huh. Okay ace.

 

[Scottemojo]

So the fact that in the past 16 years, only one of the 5-highest paid quarterbacks in any given season won the Super Bowl is complete coincidence?

You should read up on how to tell when correlation and causation are linked, and when they're not.

Also, way to cover both sides of the argument with your reply just above this, Tical. They pay Russell, you win. They let him go, you win. Very solid.

Except that I personally would take 9 consecutive losing seasons and trade that for one championship. None, not one, not even one. Not one QB has made over 13% of their team's cap and won a Super Bowl. Not even one. There isn't even an exception to the rule ANYWHERE. Even with the strictest of rules, there should be ONE exception. One. Is 20 years not a big enough sample size? Correlation and causation huh. Okay ace.

Well, with the way Seattle has been in overcoming trends, this is just one more.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Except that I personally would take 9 consecutive losing seasons and trade that for one championship. None, not one, not even one. Not one QB has made over 13% of their team's cap and won a Super Bowl. Not even one. There isn't even an exception to the rule ANYWHERE. Even with the strictest of rules, there should be ONE exception. One. Is 20 years not a big enough sample size? Correlation and causation huh. Okay ace.

One of the huge flaws in your argument is injuries. Your whole premise with this is based on not having enough money to spare for rounding out your overall roster. Mysteriously, spending 12% on a QB is fine for your Super Bowl chances, but add another 2% of your salary cap (less than $3m/year) and you're basically already disqualified, according to you.

Yet, teams sit and lose players making more than that throughout the season every year. You lose two starters making a combined $8m/year, that's a FAR larger impact on your salary cap and the "rest of your team" than a few million more per year for your QB. I understand that you have big faith in the idea of not putting all your eggs in one basket in terms of paying a lot for one position, but you are ignoring other realities against your argument.

If you truly believe the premise of your paying-the-QB argument, then you should be much more adamant that only healthy teams win Super Bowls and that team health is a far more critical factor than a magically percentage threshold which once passed for QB pay, makes you exempt from being able to win a Lombardi.

P.S., I suspect that if you look in the salary cap era and lower the cap by the amount being paid to injured players, you will in fact find a QB or two that won a Super Bowl making more than 13% of the team's salary once that is factored in.

So...Yeah. Correlation and causation. Give it some more extensive thought. Ace.