Sgt. Largent":34ugg2tj said:The data is out there, and it isn't good. Teams that break the bank giving their "elite" QB's huge extensions have't fared well after trying to piece together a SB caliber roster with their QB soaking up almost 20% of the cap.
Can you specify what this means? The data set is very limited on this and Matt Ryan was as close as can be to winning with a 16%+ cap hit. Do we think Atlanta blew that b/c they could have signed 1 more bench guy for 500k if Ryan had gone under 15%? I don't. Out of the divisional round playoff teams (top 8 teams) last year 4 spent over 12.9% on QB. ATL, MIN, NO and PIT. Did those 4 teams have teams good enough to contend? Because that should be the question not 'Did they win the SB?'. Limiting it to just the SB winner shrinks the data set too much to make any even halfway good causation analysis. Wilson for instance in the back end of his current contract only gets up to 13.5%. No crazy aberration as it relates to the % of high quality playoff teams. The year before 6 of the top 8 teams had over 12.6% QB cap hits and ATL who were up 28-3 had the highest hit at 16.6%.
I'm not saying paying a QB big dollars doesn't hurt, but when you refer directly to "data" I just wish it was made more specific what you mean because it makes it sound real official but then didn't actually state what you meant or what the data was.
Unfortunately there is 1 Patriots and it's a tough act to replicate what other teams have had recent long stretches of sustained success with low paid QB's other than the Seahawks in 2012-2014? A couple teams came up last year with cheap QB's after a decade of miserable play. Maybe Philadelphia is the answer to my question but they had some pretty lean years. The teams that appear in the playoffs regularly outside of Pats seem to have pretty established well paid QB's.