Super Bowl Rings and the Overpricing of the Quarterback

[O.city]

In lieu of the SB tonight, thought this would be a good read. Starting to look like it makes alot of sense.

With Tiki Barber taking to the airwaves again to make his latest outlandish statements, it immediately brings up the more modern TV made argument of just how important a Super Bowl ring is to the legacy of the QB. Since then its grown to become a difference maker in salaries and contracts for QBs who have outdistanced everyone else in the game by a wide margin now because of the correlation that is expected between QB and SB titles. Seems like a good topic.

To be honest I don’t really recall the “he just wins” argument being a big deal when I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. Obviously Montana would be the guy who won, but Montana also put up good stats for that era, specifically in the defense dominated NFC. He was a perennial Pro Bowl guy and was always in the upper 20’s in his Touchdowns when healthy.

I don’t recall (and maybe its just from being too young) people killing Dan Marino and John Elway on TV. I remember people talking about both as two of the greatest QB’s of all time. It wasn’t until much later on that I would hear people bringing up Elway’s Super Bowl wins as reasons that he was one of the best 3 or 4 of all time, which is a ridiculous argument since the Elway of the late 90’s was the one being carried to a title whereas the Elway of the 80s was the guy carrying really bad teams to title games, where the team would get exposed for being awful.


I don’t recall anyone putting Terry Bradshaw’s name on the list of greatest of all time. Hall of Famer sure, but whenever people talk of best ever does his name pop up? Not really, despite all the Super Bowl success. Even Troy Aikman, leader of the famed 90’s Cowboys, doesn’t get brought up as the greatest ever because statistically he did not produce to the same level as other players of his time. If Aikman or Bradshaw played now they would not just be Hall of Famers but considered among the greatest to play the game because of the way the criteria changed at some point.


I always felt that the change in QB evaluation metrics came with the Patriots second Super Bowl Championship. ESPN or other media outlets wanted to create an argument that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning. Manning was the far more polished player, being drafted number 1 overall in 1998 and being considered the perfect prospect. Brady was an unknown playing for a defensive minded coach who was a failure in his first stint as a head coach in the NFL.
Statistically there was no comparison. Manning was consistently at 4,200 yards on a high powered offense that averaged 26 points a game. Brady was a 3,600 yard guy on a team around 22 points a game from 2001-2003. In 2003 they beat the Colts two times and in 2004, again, came out with another two victories. By the end of the 2004 season Brady was a bonafide playoff superstar and Manning was anything but. The debate was strictly turned to rings.


From that point forward playoff success has gone from the media right into the negotiating room. The ring became the biggest money maker in all of the NFL. In the pre-rings era players like Mark Rypien, Brad Johnson, Jay Schroder, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon, Jim Plunkett, Ken Stabler, and so many more didn’t break the bank off a Super Bowl. In many cases they had to fight for long term job security and are more or less footnotes in history, rather than legends.
Teams now put so much value on that ring. Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning only had one championship when they were made the highest paid players at the position. Not multiple rings, just one. I think we all tend to forget that Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Peyton only have one title each. Joe Flacco joined that club this season. Brees, Rodgers, and P. Manning are prolific passers but look at the difference in treatment Brees gets compared to a Tony Romo type, who in a different generation would probably be looked up very differently.


The question should be if teams better off by paying QB’s for past rings and past success at the current price levels we are seeing? Brady may go down as one of the best QBs to play the game in part based on the fact that he has 3 Super Bowls. But when Brady put his name into the statistical arguments as well as “ring” argument how many does he have? The answer is none. Brady the superstar Manning-esque level player has lost two times. Manning got back once. Brees and Rodgers haven’t returned.


When I did a more statistical valuation of the QB marketplace the one clear this is that the market is overpaid based on actual production compared to an average player level. The difference is price is really attributed to past success and perceptions of future success. Is it worth it? It is a debatable question. Here is the annual salary estimates presented as a percentage of the salary cap for the Super Bowl winning QBs from 2000-2012. For the uncapped year I assumed a cap of $129 million which was the expected number based on cap growth in the prior CBA.

Year Player% Cap (based on APY)
2012
Flacco
3.73%
2011
E. Manning
13.54%
2010
Rodgers
9.85%
2009
Brees
8.13%
2008
Roethlisberger
12.64%
2007
E. Manning
6.50%
2006
P. Manning
13.73%
2005
Roethlisberger
3.86%
2004
Brady
7.45%
2003
Brady
8.00%
2002
Johnson
7.88%
2001
Brady
0.43%
2000
Dilfer
1.61%

The two highest cap eaters were the Manning brothers, with Roethlisberger being the only other player whose APY at the time ate up more than 10% of the unadjusted salary cap. It should be noted that both Eli and Roethlisberger were on extensions that allowed the total cap to be less than the new money APY used in these estimates. They would be closer to the 11% mark looking at total contract value.


With the increased emphasis on rings the market has skyrocketed for the QB. In 2009 Manning’s Super Bowl driven APY was $16.25 million, highest in the NFL. Now that number only ranks 7th in the league. Considering the way the cap has retreated to 2009 levels the positional spending on the QB has now spiked to incredible levels because of the “ring” part of the equation, except the highest prices are not necessarily providing more rings. Resources have to be moved out of other spots on a team to now pay for the QB. Here are the players that rank above the median Super Bowl champion in terms of cap percentage ( 7.88%) and their percentage of the current years salary cap:

Player% Cap (based on APY)
Rodgers
17.9%
Flacco
16.3%
Brees
16.3%
P. Manning
15.6%
Romo
14.6%
Stafford
14.4%
E. Manning
13.2%
Schaub
12.6%
Rivers
12.4%
Roethlisberger
11.9%
Sanchez
11.0%
Bradford
10.6%
Cutler
9.9%
Brady
9.3%
Ryan
9.1%

If any of the first six names win a championship this season it would represent the highest percentage of cap spent on a QB contract since 2000. The first 12 names all represent numbers greater than 10%, a feat only achieved by three players.
Teams are focusing on the wrong things with the QB payscale and it’s most likely the reason why a team like the Patriots pulled Brady back so much. For as great as he is his salary level was unsustainable if you are looking to build a complete team to win a championship.

With a good crop of young QB’s now in the NFL under a low wage system you will continue to see the trends of the lower cost player winning championships while those with the big money items struggle to find balance on their football teams. It is going to put teams at a competitive disadvantage, at least for the long term, with the overspending on a past Super Bowl on a team constructed with far less spend on the QB position.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I thought Wilson played like an ideal, true game manager. Played an extremely efficient game, wasn't stunning, but made big throws every single time he needed to. And I don't think many players we often incorrectly label as game managers could manage the game the way Wilson did.

He also didn't force the ball or take meaningful sacks.

[Basileus777]

Seattle is a bit of an exception. It's rare that you can build a team out of underpaid veterans and stars on rookie contracts.

That said, Manning clearly bombed in the Superbowl. Denver was built financially around a dominating offense and they could not win with Peyton playing this poorly.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

What? He wasn't exceptional.
Posted via Mobile Device

Wilson was exceptional as long as people get it out of their heads that 400yard performances are exceptional. He capitalized on opportunities. And his drive management in the second half, the way he nicked away and kept drives going made it impossible for Denver to come back.

I think back to one throw where Tate was open on a deep route. He tucked it under and ran. Tremendous heady play from a guy who knew he was up by 29 and knew some chances weren't worth taking. And the accuracy of his throws... He made every throw count.

[BlackHelicopters]

Can't believe he had 280 yards passing.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wilson was exceptional as long as people get it out of their heads that 400yard performances are exceptional. He capitalized on opportunities. And his drive management in the second half, the way he nicked away and kept drives going made it impossible for Denver to come back.

I think back to one throw where Tate was open on a deep route. He tucked it under and ran. Tremendous heady play from a guy who knew he was up by 29 and knew some chances weren't worth taking. And the accuracy of his throws... He made every throw count.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wilson was exceptional as long as people get it out of their heads that 400yard performances are exceptional. He capitalized on opportunities. And his drive management in the second half, the way he nicked away and kept drives going made it impossible for Denver to come back.

I think back to one throw where Tate was open on a deep route. He tucked it under and ran. Tremendous heady play from a guy who knew he was up by 29 and knew some chances weren't worth taking. And the accuracy of his throws... He made every throw count.

That was Actually a bad play for him. They got called on a hold on that play because he held the ball for 5 seconds longer than he should have. He should have either thrown it right away or not wait so long to run it. Of all the examples to use, this wasn't the best one.

The best one would have been the 3rd down throw to Lockette. That was his best pass of the night. Other than that, he was above average.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Eleazar]

Wilson played great.

I think the idea around Chiefsplanet is that a QB doesn't play a great game unless they throw for 300 yards and 3 TD with 0 INT. It's false.

A QB plays a great game if he is efficient and does his part to keep drives moving, resulting in points. The best measure is really the QB Rating considered coequally with the offense's scoring output.

You might look at Manning's stats last week and say he was better last week than Wilson was this week. Well, passing yards and TDs are dependent on situations and game plan. Seattle took their foot off the gas this week. Wilson made competent decisions executing drives.

That doesn't mean he's a game manager. It means he's the general of that offense and he's leading them effectively.

Judge him by 43 points and no turnovers.

[Warpaint69]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Wilson played great.

I think the idea around Chiefsplanet is that a QB doesn't play a great game unless they throw for 300 yards and 3 TD with 0 INT. It's false.

A QB plays a great game if he is efficient and does his part to keep drives moving, resulting in points. The best measure is really the QB Rating considered coequally with the offense's points.

You might look at Manning's stats last week and say he was better last week than Wilson was this week. Well, passing yards and TDs are dependent on situations and game plan. Seattle took their foot off the gas this week. Wilson made competent decisions executing drives.

That doesn't mean he's a game manager. It means he's the general of that offense and he's leading them effectively.

Judge him by 43 points and no turnovers.

Hey, I thought game managing QB's were taboo around here?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's EXACTLY what I said. I only used the word "managed" a half dozen times.

This post is the first post you used the word "managed".
Posted via Mobile Device

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Warpaint69

Hey, I thought game managing QB's were taboo around here?

What I'm saying is that in a veiled "Alex Smith Sucks" debate around here, you have "franchise quarterbacks" and "game managers", and we google stats endlessly which omit all the context of how football is played, which is situational.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Wilson played great.

I think the idea around Chiefsplanet is that a QB doesn't play a great game unless they throw for 300 yards and 3 TD with 0 INT. It's false.

A QB plays a great game if he is efficient and does his part to keep drives moving, resulting in points. The best measure is really the QB Rating considered coequally with the offense's scoring output.

You might look at Manning's stats last week and say he was better last week than Wilson was this week. Well, passing yards and TDs are dependent on situations and game plan. Seattle took their foot off the gas this week. Wilson made competent decisions executing drives.

That doesn't mean he's a game manager. It means he's the general of that offense and he's leading them effectively.

Judge him by 43 points and no turnovers.

I didn't say being a game manager is a bad thing.
Posted via Mobile Device

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by -King-

This post is the first post you used the word "managed".
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I've seen highlights from the breakdown shows. The shows where they were breaking down how well he managed the pocket.

Keep trying.

You wanna be the new splatbass now?

[KC_Connection]

Teams win championships, not quarterbacks. In the rush to create these narratives about postseason clutchness, it seems many forget that.

Did Peyton choke yesterday? For me, no. He just got beat by a far superior team. Peyton Manning covered up for the Broncos' flaws all season until they finally ran into a defense that could handle them.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I thought Wilson played like an ideal, true game manager. Played an extremely efficient game, wasn't stunning, but made big throws every single time he needed to. And I don't think many players we often incorrectly label as game managers could manage the game the way Wilson did.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Wilson was exceptional as long as people get it out of their heads that 400yard performances are exceptional. He capitalized on opportunities. And his drive management in the second half, the way he nicked away and kept drives going made it impossible for Denver to come back.

I think back to one throw where Tate was open on a deep route. He tucked it under and ran. Tremendous heady play from a guy who knew he was up by 29 and knew some chances weren't worth taking. And the accuracy of his throws... He made every throw count.

Originally Posted by Cochise

Wilson played great.

I think the idea around Chiefsplanet is that a QB doesn't play a great game unless they throw for 300 yards and 3 TD with 0 INT. It's false.

A QB plays a great game if he is efficient and does his part to keep drives moving, resulting in points. The best measure is really the QB Rating considered coequally with the offense's scoring output.

You might look at Manning's stats last week and say he was better last week than Wilson was this week. Well, passing yards and TDs are dependent on situations and game plan. Seattle took their foot off the gas this week. Wilson made competent decisions executing drives.

That doesn't mean he's a game manager. It means he's the general of that offense and he's leading them effectively.

Judge him by 43 points and no turnovers.

Agree with these posts. He threw several REALLY good balls into tight windows. He wasn't just throwing safe shit and playing not to lose like what I would consider to be a game manager. He made some really really good plays. And he didn't screw up much. Just because he wasn't asked throw throw it 45 times doesn't mean he's a "game manager".

Good discussion here. I think at the key positions, you have to draft well, and often. I think you can pay a guy like Houston, but you probably can't pay 2 guys like Houston. You need some young guys that can get production for cheap. Same with WR, CB, DL and maybe LT. At those key positions, you have to get cheap production to win.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You wanna be the new splatbass now?

2nd. Still far from half dozen
Posted via Mobile Device