The argument isn’t whether it’s too high in general. It’s whether it’s too high for a specific issue — in this case win or get to the Super Bowl. The data provided actually shows there is a range of salary percentage that historically gets that done.
For SBs, you're operating with a very small sample size skewed by a single QB (Brady) who took a pay cut yet may have still won multiple SBs without doing so.
Has any post ever been more obvious in that the poster didn’t actually read the post it’s responding to?
The fact that he took less money disputes your position because it shows even Brady knew to win he needed to minimize his cap impact. That very deliberate act runs contrary to your argument. but ultimately it doesn’t matter. Whether the salary reflects fair market value or is artificially minimized is irrelevant to the factual numbers and how those numbers impact the cap.
No it doesn't because all it shows is that Brady knows that minimizing his cap impact increases the odds of his team winning, which is common sense. It doesn't necessarily mean his team wouldn't have won if he hadn't taken the pay cut. And it absolutely does matter because you're dealing with a situation where six of the past 20 Super Bowls have been won by the same quarterback where you have no idea what would have happened if he hadn't taken the pay cut. Ultimately, it boils down to trying to make a strong argument with too small of a sample size, which isn't good statistical practice.
Nobody is arguing it means his team wouldn’t have won — you can’t prove a negative is a basic tenant of logical reasoning so it’s ridiculous for you to argue such. the argument is the salary impact on the cap and does it statistically correlate to actual , empirical, factual success. That means analyzing the actual numbers and comparing it to another number to see if it’s in range. Watson’s impact is beyond the range of the established topic - the cap hit of SB participating QB’s.
Considering the fact that football has drastically changed to favor the offense and specifically now the quarterback given the protection rules that weren't in place even in the late 2000's, quarterback contracts are always going to be inflated with even moderate success. There's a reason Kirk Cousins makes tons of money. Wait until we see Baker's ridiculous extension as well as Lamar Jackson who struggles mightily in the playoffs as teams have identified a way to beat him. I'd take my shot with a top 5 quarterback talent making slightly more than than the mediocre quarterbacks in this league. Otherwise you're going to end up trying to build a great team and using the hope and pray strategy that you can nail down a quarterback on his rookie contract and win before you give him his mega extension. We had SB calibre rosters throughout the 2000's without the missing piece and have been searching for one to even play average football that Pennington offered (two above average seasons to be fair - average at best in what the NFL is now).
I don’t get really where the fear comes from that the cap will not continue its rising trajectory. There will likely be a new tv deal in place at some point this off-season, as well as a vaccine in stages of distribution. And frankly, I’ve said many times that Watson’s cap hit can be reduced literally any year.
I never said anyone's arguing it means Brady's team wouldn't have won. My only position is that due to the small sample size of SB winners (and participants), Brady taking a pay cut blows up any statistical analysis trying to link SBs to cap spending on QBs. You really have to use measures like wins or playoff births where the sample size is big enough to draw conclusions with a high degree of confidence.
The problem is that unless you have great QB, you probably aren't making it to more than 1 conference championship game and you have to be nearly perfect in every other roster move to get to the Super Bowl. If you have an elite QB (Brady/Rodgers/Brees/Manning/Mahomes) you at least have a shot to get there for several seasons. Mark Sanchez and Joe Flacco are the only average QBs to get to multiple conference championships and their teams have a total of 1 Super Bowl appearance, and win, to show for it. The "can't win by paying an elite QB" crowd seems to want to spend the next 3 years trying to recreate the Joe Flacco Ravens. Or maybe they are hoping to draft Russel Wilson in the 3rd round? They haven't really explained how they are going to create a team that consistently contends for a Super Bowl. I'd much rather get Deshaun Watson and work towards the Aaron Rodgers Packers.
which means 1 or 2 players make a big difference. again not against watson just looking at all angles. i don't think there is a right answer here. it's always a gamble any move you make
If I had to guess we could probably get Stafford, the lions 2nd rounder in 2021, and a first in 2022 to swap draft positions with them. (They pick 7th).
