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.

[RealSNR]

Too sexually aroused from watching the Donks get raped; didn't read

[DaFace]

That's a nice wall of text you've got there.

[O.city]

Tried to re format

[Eleazar]

http://cdn.gifbay.com/2013/08/didn_t_read_lol-74639.gif

[HonestChieffan]

SB night is no time for this shit

[O.city]

I know it's alot of text, but it's a really good read if you have time.

[JD10367]

Simpler interpretation: great QBs are great to have, but a defense is even better. The Patriots won their three SBs with no-name offenses and a solid defense; with a record-setting 2007 offense, they lost to a hard hitting gritty defense. Peyton won his only ring in the year the Colts actually had a defense and running game; like the Pats in '07, Peyton's record-setting offense lost. Baltimore won with defense both times they've won.

[Psyko Tek]

SB night is no time for this shit

says qb's don't win super bowls teams do

[chiefzilla1501]

I know it's alot of text, but it's a really good read if you have time.

I get where this is coming from.

But in this modern era... I just don't get why some teams don't realize that their QB needs to be complemented with a very good RB. Brady and Peyton can win regardless of who you put back there. I would bet that if you put Marshawn Lynch on the Giants, Steelers, or even this year's Ravens, those teams would be competing for the Super Bowl.

People are quick to point to the QB's contract as the point where the team fell apart. I point to the team giving the QB a huge contract, then ignoring the RB position.

[chiefzilla1501]

Simpler interpretation: great QBs are great to have, but a defense is even better. The Patriots won their three SBs with no-name offenses and a solid defense; with a record-setting 2007 offense, they lost to a hard hitting gritty defense. Peyton won his only ring in the year the Colts actually had a defense and running game; like the Pats in '07, Peyton's record-setting offense lost. Baltimore won with defense both times they've won.

You really can't use New England or Indy as examples. Peyton and Brady have both brought otherwise pretty terrible teams to pretty amazing lengths.

The other 99% of QBs can't do that. If you don't have an elite QB, you have to have some balance, and I think much of that can be achieved by an offense that can control the flow of the game through both the run and pass.

[notorious]

We have a QB that is capable.

That's all I care about.

[O.city]

I get where this is coming from.

But in this modern era... I just don't get why some teams don't realize that their QB needs to be complemented with a very good RB. Brady and Peyton can win regardless of who you put back there. I would bet that if you put Marshawn Lynch on the Giants, Steelers, or even this year's Ravens, those teams would be competing for the Super Bowl.

People are quick to point to the QB's contract as the point where the team fell apart. I point to the team giving the QB a huge contract, then ignoring the RB position.

Due to the wear and tear on the position, you just don't want to invest high amounts of resources into it.

Good RB play isn't winning any of those teams SB's alone.

It's just becoming more and more obvious that team building is alot easier when you don't have a QB taking up 13-16 % of your money.

[Dayze]

Peyton + pressure = Poopy

[O.city]

We have a QB that is capable.

That's all I care about.

Thats true, but if we have to pay said QB an over the top amount, I start to care.

[notorious]

Seattle is LOADED.

The exception is not the rule.

[O.city]

It basically comes down to, if you pay a QB that much, the margins become super thin and it basically makes it so that the QB you pay that much has to play to that level, all the time.

There are very few QB's in history who can do that AND beat great teams while doing that.

[Oregon chief]

So does Elway now hold the record for most SB losses?

[O.city]

I'm curious as to what the Seahawks (and 9ers) do when it comes time to pay up for some of these guys.

[Sofa King]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ekR6jG4Iwk/Tw4zvKN4RCI/AAAAAAAAAn0/IX-VBCUOUvs/s1600/didnt-read-lol-chicken-gif.gif

[HonestChieffan]

Peyton + pressure = Poopy
Perfect

[chiefzilla1501]

Due to the wear and tear on the position, you just don't want to invest high amounts of resources into it.

Good RB play isn't winning any of those teams SB's alone.

It's just becoming more and more obvious that team building is alot easier when you don't have a QB taking up 13-16 % of your money.

Good RBs are not hard to find. There is no excuse for teams not to have 2 or 3 RBs on the roster, and most can be found through the draft.

But there is no excuse for the Steelers to surround Big Ben with Jonathan Dwyer. You saw what a huge difference it made when Laveon Bell was finally healthy. The Steelers' struggles were not because Ben got a massive contract. It's because they completely whiffed on the RB. I would bet that one effective RB draft pick would turn the Giants around too.

[-King-]

Cliff notes needed. And cliff notes of those cliff notes are needed also.

[O.city]

Good RBs are not hard to find. There is no excuse for teams not to have 2 or 3 RBs on the roster, and most can be found through the draft.

But there is no excuse for the Steelers to surround Big Ben with Jonathan Dwyer. You saw what a huge difference it made when Laveon Bell was finally healthy. The Steelers' struggles were not because Ben got a massive contract. It's because they completely whiffed on the RB. I would bet that one effective RB draft pick would turn the Giants around too.

A simple RB isn't turning around those teams. They've got alot of problems defensively and depth wise, which is a direct result of the QBs inflated contract.

Good running games would obviously help take some strain off the QB's, but with that contract, the QB is just going to have to do more.

[RunKC]

I'd rather pay for pass rushers as they have proven to have more of an effect on winning SB's lately.

[ChiefGator]

I don't understand your numbers... is that from a chart somewhere that is easier to read?

[chiefzilla1501]

A simple RB isn't turning around those teams. They've got alot of problems defensively and depth wise, which is a direct result of the QBs inflated contract.

Good running games would obviously help take some strain off the QB's, but with that contract, the QB is just going to have to do more.

A simple running back turned the Steelers from one of the worst teams in the league, to one of the hottest teams in the second half.

A simple running back, if you look at Eli's last Super Bowl, turned that team from a struggling bubble playoff team to a Super Bowl winner (Ahmad Bradshaw came on really strong late that year).

What was Ray Rice's YPC this year? A lousy 3.1.

[htismaqe]

I'd rather pay for pass rushers as they have proven to have more of an effect on winning SB's lately.

The Seahawks don't win like that without pretty exceptional play from Wilson.

It's about building a TEAM, which you can't do when you're paying a QB $125M...

[Mile High Mania]

It will be interesting to see what they do when it's contract time with many of these guys. They built a good nucleus quickly and at the right price. The new cap for rookies was played well.

[Mile High Mania]

The Seahawks don't win like that without pretty exceptional play from Wilson.

It's about building a TEAM, which you can't do when you're paying a QB $125M...

4 yrs at 2.99m is his contract and he's at the halfway mark... wonder what happens next. Safe to say he's earned a bit of a raise.

[htismaqe]

Seattle is LOADED.

The exception is not the rule.

Seattle isn't the rule, Denver is.

Read the article.

We've been talking about this for a couple of months now. It's absolutely something to think about with our own QB situation.

[htismaqe]

4 yrs at 2.99m is his contract and he's at the halfway mark... wonder what happens next. Safe to say he's earned a bit of a raise.

He's going to get a big pay raise and the rings will stop, just like the other guys.

[Jimmya]

Alex Smith's new contract will be critical aspect to the future of this team.

[BlackHelicopters]

The broncos lost. Happy day.

[htismaqe]

Alex Smith's new contract will be critical aspect to the future of this team.

Yep.

That's why I'm more convinced now that he's the right QB for this team. I think he's exactly the type of guy that won't go overboard on his contract demands. He knows what he is, he knows what he isn't, and he wants to win more than anything else.

[-King-]

The Seahawks don't win like that without pretty exceptional play from Wilson.

It's about building a TEAM, which you can't do when you're paying a QB $125M...

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

[htismaqe]

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

He was very efficient and worked the pocket very well...

[-King-]

He was very efficient and worked the pocket very well...

In another thread you said you didn't watch the game. Which is it?
Posted via Mobile Device

[htismaqe]

In another thread you said you didn't watch the game. Which is it?
Posted via Mobile Device

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

Keep trying.

[Rausch]

Seattle is LOADED.

The exception is not the rule.

They are loaded because the players they draft are productive.

They're both one of the youngest teams in the NFL and the most talented...

[-King-]

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

Keep trying.

So you're gathering all your information from highlights and talking heads? Good luck with that.

Wilson was the epitome of game manager yesterday. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Jimmya]

Straight up game manager, yes.

[chiefzilla1501]

The Seahawks don't win like that without pretty exceptional play from Wilson.

It's about building a TEAM, which you can't do when you're paying a QB $125M...

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.

[htismaqe]

They are loaded because the players they draft are productive.

They're both one of the youngest teams in the NFL and the most talented...

Succes in the draft = success in the salary cap era.

When your young players produce under their rookie contracts, that's how you become "loaded".

[htismaqe]

So you're gathering all your information from highlights and talking heads? Good luck with that.

Wilson was the epitome of game manager yesterday. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted via Mobile Device

ROFL

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

[htismaqe]

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]

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]

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.

:clap::clap::clap:

[-King-]

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]

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? :D

[-King-]

ROFL

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]

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

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-]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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-]

You wanna be the new splatbass now?
2nd. Still far from half dozen
Posted via Mobile Device

[htismaqe]

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.

Some of those flaws are the direct result of having to fit Peyton Manning's contract into the overall team construct.

[htismaqe]

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

There's a 3rd too.

But you're just being a bitch so I'm not gonna bother.

[KC_Connection]

Some of those flaws are the direct result of having to fit Peyton Manning's contract into the overall team construct.
Sure, but it's not like they have any kind of an option there. Without Manning, the Broncos are essentially nothing. Just another 6-7 win team out of the playoffs.

[threebag]

http://www.sportspickle.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/eli2j.jpg

[MahiMike]

So you're gathering all your information from highlights and talking heads? Good luck with that.

Wilson was the epitome of game manager yesterday. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted via Mobile Device

What he was, was the same QB he was all year. Throwing tight spirals into tight coverage for TD's. His arm strength was twice that of peyton's. If manning looks at that game honestly, he will know it's time to retire.

[MahiMike]

You know who Wilson reminds me of? Alex Smith.

[O.city]

It's not really that paying an elite QB is a bad thing, it's just that when you do pay him that, he has to play to that number.

Like a baseball WAR type thing. If I'm paying a guy to produce at a 4 WAR and he's producing a 2 WAR, while I'm still getting production, it's not enough to make up for the other areas where I have to be worse because I don't have the money to pay for top talent.

[Rausch]

What he was, was the same QB he was all year. Throwing tight spirals into tight coverage for TD's. His arm strength was twice that of peyton's. If manning looks at that game honestly, he will know it's time to retire.

I don't want him to retire.

I want him to leave a shadow of his former self. Embarrassed. Shamed.

And completely beaten...

[Mav]

We have a QB that is capable.

That's all I care about.

And to piggy back off of this. A qb that UNDERSTANDS that he has to have other players to make it work. And wont rape the team for his own benefit.

Like Joe Flacco, like Jay Cutler.

They need to extend Alex for 5 years. He gets it.

The Chiefs will be in contention every single year he is here.

Just build the team around him.

[O.city]

We'll find out soon enough just how "understanding" he is.

Color me skeptical

[Mav]

You know who Wilson reminds me of? Alex Smith.

Sighs. Yup. Even has the every one else gets the credit attitude, the good guy charm, and the selfless soft spoken leadership qualities as well.

Much under appreciated. And Russell Wilson is extremely underrated as well.