Chiefs Super Bowl Rings and the Overpricing of the Quarterback - Page 2

O.city · 08:58 PM

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.

**notorious** · 02-02-2014, 10:20 PM

Seattle is LOADED.

The exception is not the rule.

O.city · 02-02-2014, 10:21 PM

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 · 02-02-2014, 10:22 PM

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

O.city · 02-02-2014, 10:25 PM

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 · 02-02-2014, 10:26 PM

HonestChieffan · 02-02-2014, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayze

Peyton + pressure = Poopy

Perfect

chiefzilla1501 · 02-02-2014, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

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- · 02-02-2014, 10:31 PM

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

O.city · 02-02-2014, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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 · 02-02-2014, 10:36 PM

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

**ChiefGator** · 02-03-2014, 04:52 AM

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

chiefzilla1501 · 02-03-2014, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

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 · 02-03-2014, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunKC

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 · 02-03-2014, 08:19 AM

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 · 02-03-2014, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

02-02-2014, 08:53 PM
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-715936	Super Bowl Rings and the Overpricing of the Quarterback 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. Last edited by O.city; 02-02-2014 at 08:58 PM..
Posts: 84,239

02-02-2014, 10:20 PM	#16
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $-954116	Seattle is LOADED. The exception is not the rule.
Posts: 88,587

02-02-2014, 10:21 PM	#17
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-715936	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.
Posts: 84,239

02-02-2014, 10:22 PM	#18
Oregon chief Sideline Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $9852131	So does Elway now hold the record for most SB losses?
Posts: 497

02-02-2014, 10:25 PM	#19
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $-715936	I'm curious as to what the Seahawks (and 9ers) do when it comes time to pay up for some of these guys.
Posts: 84,239

02-02-2014, 10:26 PM	#20
Sofa King Bump it Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: South Dakota Casino cash: $-370000 VARSITY
Posts: 23,465

02-02-2014, 10:31 PM	#23
-King- ▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓ Join Date: Jan 2009 Casino cash: $-1404257	Cliff notes needed. And cliff notes of those cliff notes are needed also. __________________ 🏁
Posts: 65,475

02-02-2014, 10:36 PM	#25
RunKC Andy Reid Supporter Join Date: Apr 2012 Casino cash: $-1620389	I'd rather pay for pass rushers as they have proven to have more of an effect on winning SB's lately. __________________ Mike Greenberg@Espngreeny I can’t fathom what it must be like to be a fan of the #Chiefs. Adopt a Chief: Jared Wiley
Posts: 52,216

02-03-2014, 04:52 AM	#26
ChiefGator Can these boys not play? Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Northcentral Florida Casino cash: $6452956	I don't understand your numbers... is that from a chart somewhere that is easier to read? __________________ - Mark
Posts: 4,706

02-03-2014, 08:19 AM	#29
Mile High Mania #triggering Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Tejas Casino cash: $927229	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. __________________
Posts: 30,910