Chiefs Super Bowl Rings and the Overpricing of the Quarterback

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.

**RealSNR** · 02-02-2014, 08:53 PM

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

**DaFace** · 02-02-2014, 08:55 PM

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

O.city · 02-02-2014, 08:59 PM

Tried to re format

Eleazar · 02-02-2014, 09:00 PM

HonestChieffan · 02-02-2014, 09:00 PM

SB night is no time for this shit

O.city · 02-02-2014, 09:01 PM

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

JD10367 · 02-02-2014, 09:17 PM

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 · 02-02-2014, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

SB night is no time for this shit

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

chiefzilla1501 · 02-02-2014, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city

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 · 02-02-2014, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 02-02-2014, 10:18 PM

We have a QB that is capable.

That's all I care about.

O.city · 02-02-2014, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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 · 02-02-2014, 10:19 PM

Peyton + pressure = Poopy

O.city · 02-02-2014, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

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.

02-02-2014, 08:53 PM
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2714064	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: 81,277

02-02-2014, 08:53 PM	#2
RealSNR Special Teams ACE!!! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Where the hell is SNR Casino cash: $2330208	Too sexually aroused from watching the Donks get raped; didn't read
Posts: 90,464

02-02-2014, 08:55 PM	#3
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $1996899	That's a nice wall of text you've got there.
Posts: 51,800

02-02-2014, 08:59 PM	#4
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2714064	Tried to re format
Posts: 81,277

02-02-2014, 09:00 PM	#5
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000
Posts: 80,659

02-02-2014, 09:00 PM	#6
HonestChieffan Seeking the Truth daily Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the Country in MO Casino cash: $2194309	SB night is no time for this shit __________________ “Make no mistake. If you try anything to raise the cost of vishessavatubs, I will veto it.” - Joe Biden, SOTU 2023
Posts: 53,350

02-02-2014, 09:01 PM	#7
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2714064	I know it's alot of text, but it's a really good read if you have time.
Posts: 81,277

02-02-2014, 09:17 PM	#8
JD10367 Cheaterlover* Join Date: May 2009 Location: RI Casino cash: $10010716	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.
Posts: 12,916

02-02-2014, 10:18 PM	#12
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $2895884	We have a QB that is capable. That's all I care about.
Posts: 83,398

02-02-2014, 10:19 PM	#14
Dayze Resident Glue Sniffer Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $5149358	Peyton + pressure = Poopy __________________ Life is 99% inspiration, 1% Perspiration, and 1% Attention to Detial. RIP & Godspeed: Saccoppo Lonewolf Ed Fire Me Boy
Posts: 37,362