Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
t.j

Trade Carr or Trade Mariota?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

to get there year in and year out you do

No you don't.  The problem is, is that when you get there, you over pay your decent QB and lose players at other positions.  The Ravens are the exact example of that.  The Bucs are another example of it, in a way.  For a run of 5 years, they were Super Bowl contenders with one caveat... they had a HORRIBLE QB.  Once they got a decent one, boom!  Super Bowl.  Had they had a decent QB during Dungy's time there, the Bucs could have won 2 or 3 Super Bowls and maybe more and it's possible that Tony Dungy might still be in Tampa... and it's possible that Peyton never even wins 1.

To note, Drew Brees is often mentioned as one of the leagues best ever QB's, yet he has only 1 ring (the only year his defense finished #1), and he's missed the playoffs in about 40% of the seasons he's played... and that's just in New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a great QB doesn't guarantee a team consistent success. But cmh is right, if you want to be a consistent championship contender over a long period of time, you need a great QB.

You said it yourself, teams that win a Super Bowl with an average QB can't sustain it. Even if you managed to keep your cheap QB, everyone else on the team knows that it was the 21 other guys carrying the QB, and you can't give all of those guys the success bump in salary to maintain that level of success. For sustained success, the QB has to be great so that most everyone else is expendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, t.j said:

Having a great QB doesn't guarantee a team consistent success. But cmh is right, if you want to be a consistent championship contender over a long period of time, you need a great QB.

You said it yourself, teams that win a Super Bowl with an average QB can't sustain it. Even if you managed to keep your cheap QB, everyone else on the team knows that it was the 21 other guys carrying the QB, and you can't give all of those guys the success bump in salary to maintain that level of success. For sustained success, the QB has to be great so that most everyone else is expendable.

That's true for the most part, but at the same time, Nick Foles has just as many Super Bowl rings as Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Russell Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And T Dilfer, and they all have one more then D Marino. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, t.j said:

Having a great QB doesn't guarantee a team consistent success. But cmh is right, if you want to be a consistent championship contender over a long period of time, you need a great QB.

You said it yourself, teams that win a Super Bowl with an average QB can't sustain it. Even if you managed to keep your cheap QB, everyone else on the team knows that it was the 21 other guys carrying the QB, and you can't give all of those guys the success bump in salary to maintain that level of success. For sustained success, the QB has to be great so that most everyone else is expendable.

Joe Flacco calls BS.  Joe Flacco was with the Ravens 11 years, he made the playoffs 7 times and has 1 SB.  Aaron Rodgers has been with the Packers for 13 years (as the starter), made the playoffs 10 times and has 1 SB.  Pretty similar no?  The reason Flacco and the Ravens didn't win more often, is because they overpaid Flacco.  I'd say an 11 year run though is considered "sustained", you?

Team CAN do it.  The reason that they don't more often, is because they overpay the QB's, which was my point.  The ability to do it is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Brian Bilick took over Baltimore in 1999, the Ravens went to the playoffs 12 times in 22 seasons and have 2 Super Bowl rings with a list of QB's named...

  • Tony Banks
  • Trent Dilfer
  • Elvis Grbac
  • Jeff Blake
  • Kyle Boller
  • Steve McNair
  • Joe Flacco

In that same time frame, the Packers went to the playoffs 15 times and have 1 Super Bowl ring with a list of QB's named....

  • Brett Favre
  • Aaron Rodgers

 

Which team, if either, do you think had a better run?  Which team had "That" QB and which didn't... if either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Joe Flacco calls BS.  Joe Flacco was with the Ravens 11 years, he made the playoffs 7 times and has 1 SB.  Aaron Rodgers has been with the Packers for 13 years (as the starter), made the playoffs 10 times and has 1 SB.  Pretty similar no?  The reason Flacco and the Ravens didn't win more often, is because they overpaid Flacco.  

Hello? The Ravens feel apart immediately after they won that Super Bowl. They overpaid him because they won that Super Bowl. If winning a Super Bowl didn't cause players to command higher salaries then it wouldn't be an issue, but it does. Read what you quoted me as saying again: "teams that win a Super Bowl with an average QB can't sustain it." Three Ravens show us that they were able to be a sustain a competitive team with an average QB... until they won the Super Bowl, then they weren't able to sustain success. Much like your Brad Johnson Bucs.

Three Packers meanwhile still have Rodgers and still are a consistent Super Bowl contender with him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, t.j said:

Hello? The Ravens feel apart immediately after they won that Super Bowl. They overpaid him because they won that Super Bowl. If winning a Super Bowl didn't cause players to command higher salaries then it wouldn't be an issue, but it does. Read what you quoted me as saying again: "teams that win a Super Bowl with an average QB can't sustain it." Three Ravens show us that they were able to be a sustain a competitive team with an average QB... until they won the Super Bowl, then they weren't able to sustain success. Much like your Brad Johnson Bucs.

Three Packers meanwhile still have Rodgers and still are a consistent Super Bowl contender with him.

 

The Ravens failed to sustain success BECAUSE they overpaid their "average" QB... not for any other reason.  That was my point.  You can sustain success with an average QB until you pay him like a top QB.  If teams stop overpaying those players, guys like Brady, Rodgers, Peyton, etc, aren't that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to to continue to argue with you about this. It's not even on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

You need that QB AND superstars at skill positions and on defense.  It's not an or proposition, but an an proposition.

you definitely don't need superstars at skill positions.  In fact, it's usually a detriment to have superstars at skill positions since they cost so much.  The only teams that win with that setup have qbs on rookie contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, t.j said:

I'm not going to to continue to argue with you about this. It's not even on topic.

LOL, yeah because there are so many more posts discussing the topic.  I think it ran it's course.  It's about 2 players with limited value.  How many responses did you expect to get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, nobody said:

you definitely don't need superstars at skill positions.  In fact, it's usually a detriment to have superstars at skill positions since they cost so much.  The only teams that win with that setup have qbs on rookie contracts.

All you need in the NFL to win is a great OLine, a great DLine, a "solid" QB, and viable players every where else.  Now, when I say "all you need", I'm not implying it's easy to get that, just stating that this is what's needed.  Because it's not that easy, teams invest heavily in the great players they have to make up for the deficiencies elsewhere.  Where teams go wrong, as you pointed out, is that they invest too much in skill position players.  When the Giants won their Super Bowls, the Eagles won theirs, and Baltimore won their 2, neither had great skill position players.  Those 3 teams in the last 20 years combine for 5 Super Bowls... that's more than the Packers, Saints, and Colts all put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like New Orleans but saying Brees isn’t a great QB because he only made the playoffs 60% of the time is nuts. Getting to the top of the mountain is difficult, staying there more so. That’s all. Yes you can win a Super Bowl without a great QB but it sure helps to have one. In the salary cap era it is almost impossible to assemble a dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve heard that same type on nonsense talk about Marino, who didn’t win a super bowl. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrG said:

I don’t like New Orleans but saying Brees isn’t a great QB because he only made the playoffs 60% of the time is nuts. Getting to the top of the mountain is difficult, staying there more so. That’s all. Yes you can win a Super Bowl without a great QB but it sure helps to have one. In the salary cap era it is almost impossible to assemble a dynasty.

Who said Brees isn't a great QB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2021 at 9:32 AM, DrG said:

Yes you can win a Super Bowl without a great QB but it sure helps to have one. In the salary cap era it is almost impossible to assemble a dynasty.

The Saints making the playoffs 60% of the time with Brees clearly helps, rather than hurts, the argument that having a great QB is what you need to compete year in and year out. Considering that only 37.5% of teams* made the playoffs in a given year, making the playoffs 60% of the time is competing year in and year out.

(*Not counting the extra WC team in 2020, which didn't matter since Saints won their division anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t.j said:

The Saints making the playoffs 60% of the time with Brees clearly helps, rather than hurts, the argument that having a great QB is what you need to compete year in and year out. Considering that only 37.5% of teams* made the playoffs in a given year, making the playoffs 60% of the time is competing year in and year out.

(*Not counting the extra WC team in 2020, which didn't matter since Saints won their division anyway.)

The Ravens, with Joe Flacco, made the playoffs 64% of the time.  He has just as many rings as Brees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The Ravens, with Joe Flacco, made the playoffs 64% of the time.  He has just as many rings as Brees.

As pointed out (probably several times) before, Flacco's consistent success in Baltimore was all entirely before he won a Super Bowl, and he wasn't costing a lot. Brees' consistent success in New Orleans is almost entirely after he won a Super Bowl, and he was costing a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 11:43 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

All you need in the NFL to win is a great OLine, a great DLine, a "solid" QB, and viable players every where else.  Now, when I say "all you need", I'm not implying it's easy to get that, just stating that this is what's needed.  Because it's not that easy, teams invest heavily in the great players they have to make up for the deficiencies elsewhere.  Where teams go wrong, as you pointed out, is that they invest too much in skill position players.  When the Giants won their Super Bowls, the Eagles won theirs, and Baltimore won their 2, neither had great skill position players.  Those 3 teams in the last 20 years combine for 5 Super Bowls... that's more than the Packers, Saints, and Colts all put together.

Preach.  You really want to pay your force multipliers big money.  By force multipliers, I mean guys who make other people better.  That obviously includes quarterbacks, but the o-line makes the runningback and quarterback better.  Similarly, pass rushers make the secondary better, and defensive backs can make the pass rush better.  

Wide receivers have to be extremely special to make a qb better, and runningbacks are so fungible that it's difficult to really gain advantage by paying up for that position.  The whole purpose in my eyes of having a decent runningback is to make the defense respect play action, and you can do that with a committee pretty easily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, t.j said:

As pointed out (probably several times) before, Flacco's consistent success in Baltimore was all entirely before he won a Super Bowl, and he wasn't costing a lot. Brees' consistent success in New Orleans is almost entirely after he won a Super Bowl, and he was costing a lot.

....and as I pointed out, as with my first statement, you can win with a decent QB as long as you don't overpay them.  The team struggled after they overpaid Flacco.  When he was making appropriate money, they were contenders ever year.  Baltimore is proof that you can be a contender year in and year out without "that guy" at QB, you just can't over pay them.

Personally, this is what I believe is one of the factors in the league making a shift to the dual threat QB.  They're life expectancy, so to speak, is much shorter than a pocket passer.  Sure, you may only get 7 years and not 15, but you're not as likely to be cash strapped and will be able to have "the next guy up" in place when needed.  You also increase the pool of viable options, thus increasing the supply and lowering the demand.  In the end, reducing salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nobody said:

Preach.  You really want to pay your force multipliers big money.  By force multipliers, I mean guys who make other people better.  That obviously includes quarterbacks, but the o-line makes the runningback and quarterback better.  Similarly, pass rushers make the secondary better, and defensive backs can make the pass rush better.  

Wide receivers have to be extremely special to make a qb better, and runningbacks are so fungible that it's difficult to really gain advantage by paying up for that position.  The whole purpose in my eyes of having a decent runningback is to make the defense respect play action, and you can do that with a committee pretty easily.

Spot on.  If you spend your money in the trenches, you can spread the rest out more judiciously... including the QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all those saying you don't need an upper echelon qb, look who is in the championship games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

To all those saying you don't need an upper echelon qb, look who is in the championship games.

Yes, 2 QB's on rookie contracts, a QB who's underpaid (took a lot less money than market), and Aaron Rodgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes, 2 QB's on rookie contracts, a QB who's underpaid (took a lot less money than market), and Aaron Rodgers.

Regardless, those are probably the best 4 in the game right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

Regardless, those are probably the best 4 in the game right now.

No "regardless" about it.  Money absolutely is the issue.  If you have a decent QB, you can be a contender for years.... UNTIL, you pay him like he's a top 5 guy.  Once you pay people that money, the rest of the team will suffer for it.

I'd even make the point that over paying average QB's is the very reason why teams (and people), feel that they need a top tier guy to win.  Teams need to stop over paying QB's.  It's so much better and easier for their team if they pay them properly.  Continuity is a huge reason why teams win.  You can have more continuity if you pay you $18M QB $18M instead of giving him $35M.

If teams are smart, you do what small market baseball teams do.  You sign a guy early and give him enough years to spread out the money and won't actually have to over pay him.  For example, Kyler Murray and Daniel Jones.  Now, I don't think either is as good as they're made out to be by some, but let's assume the Cardinals and Giants love them and think they're the future.  Murray is set to make only $9M in the next 2 seasons and about $25M the following season (the 5th year option), Jones is a little cheaper, but similar.  Right now their teams should offer them a 5 year extension at $30M per year.  They'll essentially be paying these kids about $23M a year for 8 years (full value of the contract would $184M, including the remaining years on their deal), instead of paying them $40M a year for 5 years.

Why would the player do it?  Because none of the money going forward is guaranteed except the roster bonus.  The 5th year isn't guaranteed either.  The team guarantees the first 3 years in guaranteeing the player $23M (only about $35M than what they'd have to pay (but over 3 years)), and the player is guaranteed almost $70M instead of making like $10M.

Why would the team do it?  Because they never have to pay their QB obscene money over the next 7 years and can build the rest of their team.  They also won't fall into the a scenario where the team (pulls a Baltimore), and wins the Super Bowl in the QB's last year of his contract... and now they're forced to overpay them to keep them.

In Murray's or Jones' last year, you draft his replacement.  Let them sit a year to watch and learn and insert new player on a rookie contract.  That's how you stay a contender every year without having "that guy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya gotta admit, though, it makes a difference who you're paying half a billion to.  I understand how a team can be crippled by overpaying a Flacco or a Dilfer, but when you're talking Mahomes... he almost IS the team.  You don't need much defense, you don't really need a RB, just Mahomes, Kelce, Hill and a few JAGs and you outscore every team you face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Ya gotta admit, though, it makes a difference who you're paying half a billion to.  I understand how a team can be crippled by overpaying a Flacco or a Dilfer, but when you're talking Mahomes... he almost IS the team.  You don't need much defense, you don't really need a RB, just Mahomes, Kelce, Hill and a few JAGs and you outscore every team you face.

If you pay Mahomes $50M per year, you're not going to have the Travis Kelce's and Tyreek Hill's of the football world, very long.  If the Chiefs lose a bit of their offensive line and say Kelce OR Hill (but not both), how good do you think that offense will be?  Keep in mind, they do have a couple great players on defense, but as a unit, they're not all that great right now.  It's good, but the not special and an argument could be made that teams place KC differently than they normally would because of the offence.  Just 2 years ago, their defense ranked 31st in yards and 24th in points.  They lost to Pats in the Conf. Champ.  Last year, they ranked 7th in point and 17th in yards, so that bump put them into the Super Bowl with a win.  This year, they're around the same with 10 points and 16th in yards.  What happens if their offense drops to say... 8th in points and yards (instead of top 5), and the defense drops to say 17th and 20th?  I'm willing to bet their playoff run won't be as easy (meaning... not 2 home games), or deep.

Mahomes' cheap deal gives them the luxury of paying more players and keeping them.  Next year, his cap hit will jump from $5.3M to $24.8M.  You don't think that'll have an impact?  The following year it jumps to $31.45M, then it'll be around $40M for the next 4 years, then $60M.  Now, I think we all know that his $50M AAV for the last 5 years of his deal likely won't happen, but the last few years, he's cost them about $5M per year and the next 5 will cost an average of almost $40M.  That money is going to have to come at someone's expense.

Right now, they're projected to be almost $19M OVER the cap for next year.  Sure, Mahomes will keep them competitive, but will they be the next New Orleans Saints?  By that, I mean... make the playoffs 60% of the time and never win 2 games in one post season.  Being "competitive" is great, but if you never win....

I can tell you this, if Tampa wins the Super Bowl, I'd look back at 2000 - 2020 as being more successful than the Saints during that time frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Ya gotta admit, though, it makes a difference who you're paying half a billion to.  I understand how a team can be crippled by overpaying a Flacco or a Dilfer, but when you're talking Mahomes... he almost IS the team.  You don't need much defense, you don't really need a RB, just Mahomes, Kelce, Hill and a few JAGs and you outscore every team you face.

Mahomes may be a special case, but their problem won't be this season.  It'll be when that money starts kicking in and they have to say, "Bye Chris Jones.  Bye Tyrann Mathieu.  Bye Mitchell Scwartz.  Bye Frank Clark."  All so they can keep Tyreek Hil, Mahomes, and Kelce together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to make overpaying (or paying even market value) for guys work is to go the Saints model and kill the draft a lot.  And, of course, he Saints still couldn't even make the NFC championship, and they underachieve in the playoffs every year since every team knows Brees can't throw deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

Regardless, those are probably the best 4 in the game right now.

By the way, Brady is not a top 4 qb.  Watson and DangeRuss off the top of my head.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nobody said:

By the way, Brady is not a top 4 qb.  Watson and DangeRuss off the top of my head.  

Yeah at this point he's not.  But Derek carr doesn't get this far with this Tampa team either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

Yeah at this point he's not.  But Derek carr doesn't get this far with this Tampa team either.

The Saints have been pretenders all year.  They always caught a break or two that made them seem a bit better than they were.  This time they didn't catch any breaks.  I wouldn't read too much into beating them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that by beating the Saints, the Bucs are one game away from playing in the Super Bowl. 

Go Bucs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If you pay Mahomes $50M per year, you're not going to have the Travis Kelce's and Tyreek Hill's of the football world, very long.

I realize that this is all opinion, and as such, probly isn't worth a detailed analysis, but hey, it's basically the offseason now, so we have time.

I was kind of saying that if you KEEP the Mahomes/Kelce/Hill trinity together--and I think just about any team has enough cap space to keep any three specific players indefinitely--then you really don't need to worry about an A-list defense or O-line.  My point being that Mahomes is the kind of Superman that makes it worth "overpaying" the QB position, even though it comes at the expense of several other positions.

 

56 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Just 2 years ago, their defense ranked 31st in yards and 24th in points.  They lost to Pats in the Conf. Champ.

That kind of illustrates my point.  The Chiefs were absolutely dreadful on defense in 2018, but they still would have been playing the Rams in Super Bowl LIII if Dee Ford could line up on his side of the ball.  Was that a failing of the defense?  Ok, technically yes, but how much do you have to pay a guy to line up on his side of the ball, really?  It was really more a testament to how powerful a Mahomes-led offense really is.

 

59 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

What happens if their offense drops to say... 8th in points and yards (instead of top 5), and the defense drops to say 17th and 20th?  I'm willing to bet their playoff run won't be as easy (meaning... not 2 home games), or deep.

Again, a matter of opinion.  I can point to 2018 when they were bottom 10 in points and yards, and they both hosted the AFC Championship Game and came that offsides penalty away from the Super Bowl.  Now yeah, if the offense somehow drops off, THAT would be a problem, but with Mahomes/Kelce/Hill humming away at peak performance, you just can't outscore the Chiefs.

 

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Mahomes' cheap deal gives them the luxury of paying more players and keeping them.  Next year, his cap hit will jump from $5.3M to $24.8M.  You don't think that'll have an impact?  The following year it jumps to $31.45M, then it'll be around $40M for the next 4 years, then $60M.  Now, I think we all know that his $50M AAV for the last 5 years of his deal likely won't happen, but the last few years, he's cost them about $5M per year and the next 5 will cost an average of almost $40M.  That money is going to have to come at someone's expense.

And I say let it come.  Mahomes is the team.  (Almost) everyone else is replaceable, and the Chiefs can afford to keep the three or four other players who are not.  In my opinion, the Chiefs are going to win 3 of the next 5 Super Bowls, barring catastrophic injuries to Mahomes and the core skill players, regardless of the teams they field around them--just because of Mahomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

I realize that this is all opinion, and as such, probly isn't worth a detailed analysis, but hey, it's basically the offseason now, so we have time.

I was kind of saying that if you KEEP the Mahomes/Kelce/Hill trinity together--and I think just about any team has enough cap space to keep any three specific players indefinitely--then you really don't need to worry about an A-list defense or O-line.  My point being that Mahomes is the kind of Superman that makes it worth "overpaying" the QB position, even though it comes at the expense of several other positions.

 

That kind of illustrates my point.  The Chiefs were absolutely dreadful on defense in 2018, but they still would have been playing the Rams in Super Bowl LIII if Dee Ford could line up on his side of the ball.  Was that a failing of the defense?  Ok, technically yes, but how much do you have to pay a guy to line up on his side of the ball, really?  It was really more a testament to how powerful a Mahomes-led offense really is.

 

Again, a matter of opinion.  I can point to 2018 when they were bottom 10 in points and yards, and they both hosted the AFC Championship Game and came that offsides penalty away from the Super Bowl.  Now yeah, if the offense somehow drops off, THAT would be a problem, but with Mahomes/Kelce/Hill humming away at peak performance, you just can't outscore the Chiefs.

 

And I say let it come.  Mahomes is the team.  (Almost) everyone else is replaceable, and the Chiefs can afford to keep the three or four other players who are not.  In my opinion, the Chiefs are going to win 3 of the next 5 Super Bowls, barring catastrophic injuries to Mahomes and the core skill players, regardless of the teams they field around them--just because of Mahomes.

All of that came when Mahomes was getting paid $5M.  When he gets paid $40M, more than just Kelce or Hill will be affected.  It'll also be his offensive line.  You also need to understand that part of that defensive ranking was because the Chiefs were putting up a lot of points and teams were playing catchup a lot.  The Chiefs were giving up yards and points in lieu of time coming off the clock.  It wasn't really because their defense was bad.  My point was that, yes, you can be competitive year in and year out if you have "that guy", but it doesn't mean it'll translate to championships.  Nor does it mean you'll end up with more than your counter part.  As I said above, that you chose to ignore, "I can tell you this, if Tampa wins the Super Bowl, I'd look back at 2000 - 2020 as being more successful than the Saints during that time frame."  From 2001 to 2020, the Saints have had 2 QB.  In that time frame, they're 1-3 in Conf Champ games and 1-0 in the Super Bowl.  From 2001 to 2020, the Bucs have had 10 QB's, be AT WORST 1-1 in Conf Champ games, and 1-0 in the Super Bowl. If they win this year, they'll have been 2-0 in Conf Champ games and 2-0 in the Super Bowl.  I ask you, who had the better 20 years?  

What happens when the defense actually isn't good and Mahomes has to generate his offense by playing from behind because his defense can't stop anyone?  Imagine what's going to happen when he doesn't have the targets or the offensive line to help him.  You're projecting Mahomes in the future and a $40M cap hit based on what he did in the past where Mahomes was a $5M cap hit.  That's flawed.  See New Orleans as a possible example.

Also keep this in mind.  Since 2001, the Packers have had Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers that whole time.  If Tampa does win the Super Bowl this year, since 2001, Tampa will have as MORE NFC Championships and Super Bowl rings than the Green Bay Packers.

I think that if you look at the 80's and 90's, you'll see the proof.  NFL QB's weren't paid excessively.  That's why Marino has 0 rings, Kelly has 0 rings, and Elway didn't get his until he was well past his prime and Terrell Davis won them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only time will tell.  Rumor was Brady met with mahomes a year or two ago suggesting he keep his deal team friendly so the team can pay other talent and make more money off endorsements.  It sounds like his deal was somewhat team friendly.  They re-signed kelce and chris jones after the 10 year mahomes deal.  But is there a team you would bet on to win more Super bowls over the next ten years other than the chiefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

Only time will tell.  Rumor was Brady met with mahomes a year or two ago suggesting he keep his deal team friendly so the team can pay other talent and make more money off endorsements.  It sounds like his deal was somewhat team friendly.  They re-signed kelce and chris jones after the 10 year mahomes deal.  But is there a team you would bet on to win more Super bowls over the next ten years other than the chiefs?

It was team friendly in the sense that there is only a short-term negative impact.  Meaning, if for some reason Mahomes craps the bed, the Chief's are only hampered with his contract for 1 year.  Cap-wise, year by year, it's not very team friendly has he'll likely be a top 3 to 5 paid QB in the league for the next 7 years.  Even if it's only 3 years, that doesn't change the fact that his contract will still be around 20% of the teams' total cap expense.

If I had to bet on someone, yeah, I'd bet on the Chiefs, but that doesn't mean I'll win the bet.  The favorite doesn't always cover the spread.  In fact, they only cover 48% of the time.  So odds are, I will lose that bet.

If 20 years ago, someone came up to you and said, "By the end of 2020, who will have more rings... the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Green Bay Packers?", you won't know until after this season.  On top of that, it still may be a push.  You could also substitute in the Baltimore Ravens or NY Giants against the Packers and you will have guaranteed that you can not win the bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also doesn't take into account the salary call increase, or if they will do something different for what a qb's deal counts against the cap, which could be different under a new cba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

That also doesn't take into account the salary call increase, or if they will do something different for what a qb's deal counts against the cap, which could be different under a new cba

Certainly, the cap will go up, but so does Mahomes' contract.  It goes from $32M to $39M, up to $42M and eventually $59M.  I was just averaging out his overall number to make it easier.

I'm sure they will do something with his contract before that $59M year, but right now, it's in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmh6476 said:

But is there a team you would bet on to win more Super bowls over the next ten years other than the chiefs?

The Urban Meyer/Trevor Lawrence dynasty of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×