Cap Hell?

[snookdad]

I'm in total agreement with Pday on this issue and Jarntt I believe your totally misinterpreting my statement on the "or our options" that was more of a sarcastic what or you going to do....My point is me personally I'm a fan of this team regardless of the peaks and valleys they go through. I will never tell someone to literally switch teams to keep suggesting that is asinine. As far as cap hell you said it right it's a matter of perspective things are bad, but I don't believe the sky is falling I just don't. I like the knowledge base you bring forth on this issues and other will continue to both read and enjoy you post. This w/o question is not a personal attack on you are anyone else. We're all just talking heads.

I believe the new going rate for a franchise qb is going to be 100M+ we see that example being set every year so unless the NFL increases the allotment of the salary cap imo most team are going to be faced with similar challenges to the one we are being challenged by. These or the New Rules of Engagement. that's why I don't believe we are in cap hell to justify my stance . Most teams to day when their qb is on a new or 2nd contract will be in this boat. When GB has to pay for Rodgers again or the Colts with Luck they will have to mortgage certain quality position in order to retain the most important player on the field. The salary cap need to be adjusted to facilitate this in the future

 

[tw1st3d]

I believe the new going rate for a franchise qb is going to be 100M+ we see that example being set every year so unless the NFL increases the allotment of the salary cap imo most team are going to be faced with similar challenges to the one we are being challenged by. These or the New Rules of Engagement. that's why I don't believe we are in cap hell to justify my stance . Most teams to day when their qb is on a new or 2nd contract will be in this boat. When GB has to pay for Rodgers again or the Colts with Luck they will have to mortgage certain quality position in order to retain the most important player on the field. The salary cap need to be adjusted to facilitate this in the future

LOL this is where Im gonna differ from most ....

I dont think you have to have a "franchise Qb" Actually To be honest I hate the term. I prefer special player.
In the league now .... Brady and Manning ... In the past Aikmen was Marino was Montana was ( just naming a few not all)

3 teams RECENT teams have proved you dont need a franchise Qb ... Ravens 49ers and Seahawks None of the 3 had what is considered a franchise Qb ... all game managers with a solid O-line defense and running game

come to think of it ...... none had a top 5 receiver either

 

[tw1st3d]

should have included Rogers ..... those are the 3 "special" guys I see currently in the league at the Qb position

 

[snookdad]

LOL this is where Im gonna differ from most ....

I dont think you have to have a "franchise Qb" Actually To be honest I hate the term. I prefer special player.
In the league now .... Brady and Manning ... In the past Aikmen was Marino was Montana was ( just naming a few not all)

3 teams RECENT teams have proved you dont need a franchise Qb ... Ravens 49ers and Seahawks None of the 3 had what is considered a franchise Qb ... all game managers with a solid O-line defense and running game

come to think of it ...... none had a top 5 receiver either

You are correct but are those the exception or the rule. When I say a franchise qb I don't mean elite that's a entire different level. Off my head the franchise qb's are: Manning, Brady, Brees, Romo, Newton, Luck, Rg3, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, Rivers, Cutler, Rothlisberger, and that probably it unless I forgot one that's just over 1/3 of the NFL. The one I bolded are guy I either project to be Franchise or they can be debated either way. QB is still the most important player in the field. Of those 13 names 10 led their teams to the playoffs 3 of them were i9n the respective conferences championship game.

 

[tw1st3d]

You are correct but are those the exception or the rule. When I say a franchise qb I don't mean elite that's a entire different level. Off my head the franchise qb's are: Manning, Brady, Brees, Romo, Newton, Luck, Rg3, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, Rivers, Cutler, Rothlisberger, and that probably it unless I forgot one that's just over 1/3 of the NFL. The one I bolded are guy I either project to be Franchise or they can be debated either way. QB is still the most important player in the field. Of those 13 names 10 led their teams to the playoffs 3 of them were i9n the respective conferences championship game.

HAAAAAAAAAAAA we could so debate that list

And if playoffs were all I expected out of a "special guy" Danny White would be one of my heros

 

[tw1st3d]

of your bolded guys though
Newton lives on defense
RG3 is Shuler with legs ... and they got taken away .... BUST
Wilson ... No more then Trent Dilfer

and Cutler? awww come on man ..... dude has more mental issues than Marshall

 

[UK Cowboy]

of your bolded guys though
Newton lives on defense
RG3 is Shuler with legs ... and they got taken away .... BUST
Wilson ... No more then Trent Dilfer

and Cutler? awww come on man ..... dude has more mental issues than Marshall

I'd agree with this. When Russell Wilson starts making $20 million a year, Seattle is going down the toilet in a hurry. That's paying a QB for a ring that had a Hell of a lot more to do with their defense and running game than their decent QB. Even though delusional Seahawks fans who now claim Wilson is a top 5 QB(LAUGHABLE) would riot, the truth is, there are at least 15 QB's that would have won a Super Bowl if they played on that team, and certainly, Tony Romo, who is a far better QB than Wilson is in that group

 

[snookdad]

I'd agree with this. When Russell Wilson starts making $20 million a year, Seattle is going down the toilet in a hurry. That's paying a QB for a ring that had a Hell of a lot more to do with their defense and running game than their decent QB. Even though delusional Seahawks fans who now claim Wilson is a top 5 QB(LAUGHABLE) would riot, the truth is, there are at least 15 QB's that would have won a Super Bowl if they played on that team, and certainly, Tony Romo, who is a far better QB than Wilson is in that group

I don't disagree that Wilson is a game manager at this point, but I do believe because of the level of intelligence that he plays with and his physical skill he can become a franchise qb in just being a game manager...again that doesn't mean he is or even will one day be elite. Same with Cam and Rg3 because of the specific skill set they have and the challenge the present mostly in the (IT) factor they posses it positions them to be a franchise qb to me...that's obviously highly debatable though. I hate saying what this guy would have done with this team or that team (Romo). Romo has not had a SB defense behind him maybe he did the year we went 13-3, but most of our failures in the playoffs and reg.season came as a direct result of Romo's blunders so how can you say with certainty he would have won SB's playing for Seattle or whom ever? On the Other hand Wilson greatest attribute to me is he doesn't turn the ball over in the most crucial moments.

Jay Cutler I agree he's not a franchise QB, but the Bears believe and that's all that matters. The surely paid him like they believe he is.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

You are correct but are those the exception or the rule. When I say a franchise qb I don't mean elite that's a entire different level. Off my head the franchise qb's are: Manning, Brady, Brees, Romo, Newton, Luck, Rg3, Rodgers, Wilson, Ryan, Rivers, Cutler, Rothlisberger, and that probably it unless I forgot one that's just over 1/3 of the NFL. The one I bolded are guy I either project to be Franchise or they can be debated either way. QB is still the most important player in the field. Of those 13 names 10 led their teams to the playoffs 3 of them were i9n the respective conferences championship game.

Agree with ya here Snook. Teams without a decent to elite QB aren't typically going anywhere, any time soon. When the supporting cast is strong (typically elite), teams don't require that 'franchise' quality, but that is really the exception not the rule, IMO

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Agree with ya here Snook. Teams without a decent to elite QB aren't typically going anywhere, any time soon. When the supporting cast is strong (typically elite), teams don't require that 'franchise' quality, but that is really the exception not the rule, IMO

I dont think it is the exception. The rule as you call it is just the perception.
Think about it. Every dominate team builds from the inside out. They usually own the trenches. They may not be as exciting as teams that are passs heavy & have a top notch QB, but the team that wins in the trenches usually wins the game. Until that is recognized in this league good Vet QBs will continue to hurt teams in the long run when looking at the cap.
Twist point is an excellent one on what I think priority of how to build a team is. Inside - out.
Of course we all want the top CB in the league or the top QB, WR, RB etc..... but in the cap era that is impossible. You must pick your strengths when dealing with the cap. The exception is a couple elite passers, not the other way around. Most of the teams that are significant to superbowls are from the inside out.

 

[jarntt]

I don't think there is necessarily any right or wrong way to build a team or to win a SB. Teams do it with Offense, teams do it with defense and teams do it with balance. The idea is to outscore the teams you play and it doesn't matter if it is 3-0 or 50-49. There are definitely easier ways to build a SB team, but you can even win one with a poor QB if the rest of your team compensates for that shortfall even though a stud QB is easily the most important piece of any Football team.

 

[tw1st3d]

The recipe for winning has been there since football began.
O line D line controls the clock.

Ive always said the worst thing to ever happen to the game was "the greatest show on turf" 1st team to ever win a superbowl with a shit defense.

The way they scored attracted part time fans ...... which boosted tv ratings..... So now if you want your games on national tv you either have to win superbowls or score alot of points.

And it's a damn shame that team owners would rather lose and look pretty than win and look boring .... it's a money thing.

Same thing can be said with baseball and basketball. Me personally Id rather watch a 3-1 baseball game anyday over a 13-10 game. OFC Im a Spurs fan ..... and they are always called boring to watch .... Think the worst ratings ever for a finals was Spurs -Pistons a few years back ..... both defensive teams

Id still rather win a football game 13-10 than lose one 45-42 because it hyped up my fantasy team or drew better TV ratings

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I dont think it is the exception. The rule as you call it is just the perception.
Think about it. Every dominate team builds from the inside out. They usually own the trenches. They may not be as exciting as teams that are passs heavy & have a top notch QB, but the team that wins in the trenches usually wins the game. Until that is recognized in this league good Vet QBs will continue to hurt teams in the long run when looking at the cap.
Twist point is an excellent one on what I think priority of how to build a team is. Inside - out.
Of course we all want the top CB in the league or the top QB, WR, RB etc..... but in the cap era that is impossible. You must pick your strengths when dealing with the cap. The exception is a couple elite passers, not the other way around. Most of the teams that are significant to superbowls are from the inside out.

Totally agree. My point was only regarding the QB position, not about building a team as a whole. And just to reiterate, the words I used were decent to elite as the QB qualifier.

As for perception, most SB teams include that decent to elite QB.

 

[tw1st3d]

Totally agree. My point was only regarding the QB position, not about building a team as a whole. And just to reiterate, the words I used were decent to elite as the QB qualifier.

As for perception, most SB teams include that decent to elite QB.

decent but I wouldnt say elite.

Let's go back to the "greatest show on turf" year.

Following that

Ravens beat the Giants with Dilfer at Qb ( he was shit) 2001
Pats beat the Rams Brady was only a game manager at the time ... replaced Bledsoe
Bucs beat the Raiders (defense running game ... game manager)
Pats over the Panthers
Pats over Eagles
Steelers over Seahawks ... Big Ben puts up the lowest passer rating ever in a Superbowl ...defense and running game. ( Same for seattle who had the leagues top rusher that year)
Colts over the Bears .... LOL Bears had Grossman at Qb
Giants over the Pats..... defense and running game trumped Brady
Steelers over the Cards ... defense and running game over Warner Fitz and Boldin
Saints over Colts .... both pass happy
Packers over the Steelers ( passing team won)
Giants over the Pats again ... defense and running game over the 16-0 greatest offense ever
Ravens over the 49ers
Seahawks over the Broncos

So in 14 years ...... only 4 "elite Qbs" have won a superbowl

 

[Caliskinsfan]

decent but I wouldnt say elite.

Let's go back to the "greatest show on turf" year.

Following that

Ravens beat the Giants with Dilfer at Qb ( he was shit) 2001
Pats beat the Rams Brady was only a game manager at the time ... replaced Bledsoe
Bucs beat the Raiders (defense running game ... game manager)
Pats over the Panthers
Pats over Eagles
Steelers over Seahawks ... Big Ben puts up the lowest passer rating ever in a Superbowl ...defense and running game. ( Same for seattle who had the leagues top rusher that year)
Colts over the Bears .... LOL Bears had Grossman at Qb
Giants over the Pats..... defense and running game trumped Brady
Steelers over the Cards ... defense and running game over Warner Fitz and Boldin
Saints over Colts .... both pass happy
Packers over the Steelers ( passing team won)
Giants over the Pats again ... defense and running game over the 16-0 greatest offense ever
Ravens over the 49ers
Seahawks over the Broncos

So in 14 years ...... only 4 "elite Qbs" have won a superbowl

Agree with ya twist, that's why I qualified with decent to elite initially

 

[jarntt]

Looks like a lot of HOF QBs have won the SB over the years.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

decent but I wouldnt say elite.

Let's go back to the "greatest show on turf" year.

Following that

Ravens beat the Giants with Dilfer at Qb ( he was shit) 2001
Pats beat the Rams Brady was only a game manager at the time ... replaced Bledsoe
Bucs beat the Raiders (defense running game ... game manager)
Pats over the Panthers
Pats over Eagles
Steelers over Seahawks ... Big Ben puts up the lowest passer rating ever in a Superbowl ...defense and running game. ( Same for seattle who had the leagues top rusher that year)
Colts over the Bears .... LOL Bears had Grossman at Qb
Giants over the Pats..... defense and running game trumped Brady
Steelers over the Cards ... defense and running game over Warner Fitz and Boldin
Saints over Colts .... both pass happy
Packers over the Steelers ( passing team won)
Giants over the Pats again ... defense and running game over the 16-0 greatest offense ever
Ravens over the 49ers
Seahawks over the Broncos

So in 14 years ...... only 4 "elite Qbs" have won a superbowl

which to me they are the exception to the rule as I stated earlier. but this is what all the teams want to try & copy. the exception to the rule QB. (the quick fix) instead of grinding out building the team long term.
So I agree.

 

[jarntt]

If we look at it the opposite way and go through the year Warner won (can't say defiinitively about active guys) around 25 of the first 34 SB winning teams had HOF QBs and you can make an argument that some of the others were elite. Also, I think only 3 of those years didn't have a HOF QB in the game and some of those years had some decent QBs in the game.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Totally agree. My point was only regarding the QB position, not about building a team as a whole. And just to reiterate, the words I used were decent to elite as the QB qualifier.

As for perception, most SB teams include that decent to elite QB.

I agree the superbowl team needs a decent QB, but think the success of a team by elite QBs is overrated.
Manning is one of those Qbs that can carry a non playoff team deep into a playoff, but there are very few of those exceptions. I think elite gets used to much which waters down the word. Alot of times Qb are considered elite because of their surroundings & therfore their production. Very few Qbs are elite without the supporting cast. Those Qbs are the ones I consider the exception.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I agree the superbowl team needs a decent QB, but think the success of a team by elite QBs is overrated.
Manning is one of those Qbs that can carry a non playoff team deep into a playoff, but there are very few of those exceptions. I think elite gets used to much which waters down the word. Alot of times Qb are considered elite because of their surroundings & therfore their production. Very few Qbs are elite without the supporting cast. Those Qbs are the ones I consider the exception.