Russell Wilson and the 3 year, $45.5 million baseline

[theincrediblesok]

Has Kiwihawk just ignored the last decade of QB contracts in the NFL? This is how this goes.. this is how it will always go.

Just like average OL at best making ridiculous money in FA. Teams overpay for premium positions because there is not a lot of easily obtainable talent at these positions. If every team had a great QB, you wouldn't have to pay out the back side to retain them.

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me.

The laughable thing is that "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go" applies to so many things:

"Cornerbacks must be fast and quick and therefore small."
"This is the age of passing, not rushing"
"The GM hires the coach, not the other way around"
"You can't be successful without a QB drafted in the first round"

We simply do things differently. Doesn't matter what the correlation is between passing efficiency and Super Bowls, because we do it the way we do it, not the way the rest of the teams do it.

In light of that, it doesn't matter how other teams structure their cap spending; we do it how we do it, not how they do it.

In the Super Bowl era, USC quarterbacks have won six national titles and 22 conference titles. Yet no USC quarterback has ever played in a Super Bowl.

How can this be? They had so much success with Pete Carroll.

Carroll made Carson Palmer look good enough to be drafted #1 overall. USC continued to win with Matt Leinart, who was drafted 10th overall. USC continued to win with Mark Sanchez, who was drafted #5 overall.

Palmer has had a decent career, but not one you would say befitting of a 1st overall selection. The other two are unmitigated busts.

So which is it? Did these guys suck but Carroll won with them anyway, suggesting Carroll's system doesn't rely on a top QB? Did these guys only respond well to Carroll's style and fail when they went elsewhere?

In the end it didn't matter - Carroll played Next Man Up with his QBs just like any other position, and continued his winning ways.

"That can't be done at NFL level" - is this another "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go"?

One thing remains certain: If you overpay for players, there is less money to go around and you cannot retain and acquire the players you could if you paid appropriate salaries. You effectively have a lower salary cap and you disadvantage yourself against the other teams in the league. You risk closing your Super Bowl window. Ask Baltimore. Ask New Orleans whose salary it was that forced them to deal Jimmy Graham.

How many Heisman winning QB has been to the Superbowl since 1994 when the salary cap era began? I get what your saying, but saying we can just plug in a new QB and win regardless is also risking your Superbowl window.

Pete Carroll said next man up to from Hasselbeck to Charlie Whitehurst to Tavaris Jackson until they finally got a QB, so your telling me that they need to go look in the trash bin to see if they can find a servicable QB. That's the most riskiest thing you can do for your team.

Ok let's say we trade Wilson next year, draft a QB or get em in free agency. Ok what happens next, Lynch decides to retire, oh no running game now. The defense have been injured for the last two years and I can see that continuing, this defense is going to take a step back each year, they can't be #1 forever. If they start having a few losing seasons, the veterans would want to get bigger contracts elsewhere meaning the LOB will be dismantle within the next 3 or 4 years. The defense will be gone but the only thing that could stay for an entire career to keep your odds of returning to the Superbowl is a QB, and I stated many times if you have an efficient offense and a top 15 defense your chances are still pretty good to contend for one.

 

[Anthony!]

Has Kiwihawk just ignored the last decade of QB contracts in the NFL? This is how this goes.. this is how it will always go.

Just like average OL at best making ridiculous money in FA. Teams overpay for premium positions because there is not a lot of easily obtainable talent at these positions. If every team had a great QB, you wouldn't have to pay out the back side to retain them.

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me.

The laughable thing is that "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go" applies to so many things:

"Cornerbacks must be fast and quick and therefore small."
"This is the age of passing, not rushing"
"The GM hires the coach, not the other way around"
"You can't be successful without a QB drafted in the first round"

We simply do things differently. Doesn't matter what the correlation is between passing efficiency and Super Bowls, because we do it the way we do it, not the way the rest of the teams do it.

In light of that, it doesn't matter how other teams structure their cap spending; we do it how we do it, not how they do it.

In the Super Bowl era, USC quarterbacks have won six national titles and 22 conference titles. Yet no USC quarterback has ever played in a Super Bowl.

How can this be? They had so much success with Pete Carroll.

Carroll made Carson Palmer look good enough to be drafted #1 overall. USC continued to win with Matt Leinart, who was drafted 10th overall. USC continued to win with Mark Sanchez, who was drafted #5 overall.

Palmer has had a decent career, but not one you would say befitting of a 1st overall selection. The other two are unmitigated busts.

So which is it? Did these guys suck but Carroll won with them anyway, suggesting Carroll's system doesn't rely on a top QB? Did these guys only respond well to Carroll's style and fail when they went elsewhere?

In the end it didn't matter - Carroll played Next Man Up with his QBs just like any other position, and continued his winning ways.

"That can't be done at NFL level" - is this another "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go"?

One thing remains certain: If you overpay for players, there is less money to go around and you cannot retain and acquire the players you could if you paid appropriate salaries. You effectively have a lower salary cap and you disadvantage yourself against the other teams in the league. You risk closing your Super Bowl window. Ask Baltimore. Ask New Orleans whose salary it was that forced them to deal Jimmy Graham.

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

 

[KiwiHawk]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

 

[KiwiHawk]

How many Heisman winning QB has been to the Superbowl since 1994 when the salary cap era began? I get what your saying, but saying we can just plug in a new QB and win regardless is also risking your Superbowl window.

Pete Carroll said next man up to from Hasselbeck to Charlie Whitehurst to Tavaris Jackson until they finally got a QB, so your telling me that they need to go look in the trash bin to see if they can find a servicable QB. That's the most riskiest thing you can do for your team.

Trash bin is your creation, not mine. I believe Wilson had plenty of trade value should it become impossible to sign him to a salary commensurate with his performance. I would rather trade him than pay him an artificially high salary such as Baltimore did with Flacco.

Ok let's say we trade Wilson next year, draft a QB or get em in free agency. Ok what happens next, Lynch decides to retire, oh no running game now. The defense have been injured for the last two years and I can see that continuing, this defense is going to take a step back each year, they can't be #1 forever. If they start having a few losing seasons, the veterans would want to get bigger contracts elsewhere meaning the LOB will be dismantle within the next 3 or 4 years. The defense will be gone but the only thing that could stay for an entire career to keep your odds of returning to the Superbowl is a QB, and I stated many times if you have an efficient offense and a top 15 defense your chances are still pretty good to contend for one.

We are a team built around the running game and defense. The team philosophy is "next man up". You are operating with the premise that you must keep someone for their entire career, which is contrary to what Carroll has been dealing with on a regular basis at USC and now even in Seattle.

And having distilled all that your conclusion is that we must hold onto the QB for his entire career?

Carroll built the defense from basically nothing, and personnel have changed on a yearly basis yet it remains #1. Maybe it can't be #1 forever, but it can be as long as Carroll has a say about it.

Lynch retires - no running game? Where do you get that? Don't we still have Tom Cable? Don't they still make running backs in college? Haven't we got Christine Michael on a chain in the basement being fed raw slabs of beef?

Our odds of returning to the Super Bowl rest on the effectiveness of our defense and running game, because that's our coach's philosophy, and of all things on the team, that's the one thing that won't change as long as Carroll is in charge. in light of that it is the height of nonsense so sell out to a QB at the expense of our core philosophy.

 

[McGruff]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Nor does it not.

I actually kind of agree with Kiwi and have been wondering along these lines the last few weeks. Pete comes from that college system, and incorporates a lot of those values into his pro thinking. An 80 man deep roster with competition throughout and no giving spots. Very collegiate. A commitment to roster turnover every 3 to 5 years. Very collegiate. A willingness to take athletes and find a spot for them. Very collegiate.

He just might be banking on turning over the QB position like any other. Palmer, Lienart, Sanchez, Barkley with a few Booty's in between. The team kept rolling without a hitch. How much to they believe in their ability to identify and coach the next QB?

Not saying I agree with it. I obviously don't. But that could be their thinking. Obviously they would prefer the proven commodity, but I do wonder if they aren't willing to roll the dice on their drafting and coaching prowess.

 

[McGruff]

FTR, though, I just went to Spotrac.com to look up QB contracts and 2015 salaries.

That record breaking contract signed by Flacco two years ago that crushed the Ravens title team is now just the 4th highest QB salary and just a million or so more than the likes of Tannehill and Kapernick. Oh, and the Ravens are right back at the top of the AFC.

In 2015, Flacco has just $4 million in salary with a $14 million cap hit. The Ravens will face their maker in 2016 when that number jumps to $28 million, although I suggest a restructure is already in the works there.

 

[Anthony!]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Yes you keep saying that when what you really mean is you do not care what the historical data says you want to believe what you want, Under your ridiculous hypothesis there is no proof of anything. Thankfully your thoughts are not back by any real factual support.

 

[theincrediblesok]

How many Heisman winning QB has been to the Superbowl since 1994 when the salary cap era began? I get what your saying, but saying we can just plug in a new QB and win regardless is also risking your Superbowl window.

Pete Carroll said next man up to from Hasselbeck to Charlie Whitehurst to Tavaris Jackson until they finally got a QB, so your telling me that they need to go look in the trash bin to see if they can find a servicable QB. That's the most riskiest thing you can do for your team.

Trash bin is your creation, not mine. I believe Wilson had plenty of trade value should it become impossible to sign him to a salary commensurate with his performance. I would rather trade him than pay him an artificially high salary such as Baltimore did with Flacco.

Ok let's say we trade Wilson next year, draft a QB or get em in free agency. Ok what happens next, Lynch decides to retire, oh no running game now. The defense have been injured for the last two years and I can see that continuing, this defense is going to take a step back each year, they can't be #1 forever. If they start having a few losing seasons, the veterans would want to get bigger contracts elsewhere meaning the LOB will be dismantle within the next 3 or 4 years. The defense will be gone but the only thing that could stay for an entire career to keep your odds of returning to the Superbowl is a QB, and I stated many times if you have an efficient offense and a top 15 defense your chances are still pretty good to contend for one.

We are a team built around the running game and defense. The team philosophy is "next man up". You are operating with the premise that you must keep someone for their entire career, which is contrary to what Carroll has been dealing with on a regular basis at USC and now even in Seattle.

And having distilled all that your conclusion is that we must hold onto the QB for his entire career?

Carroll built the defense from basically nothing, and personnel have changed on a yearly basis yet it remains #1. Maybe it can't be #1 forever, but it can be as long as Carroll has a say about it.

Lynch retires - no running game? Where do you get that? Don't we still have Tom Cable? Don't they still make running backs in college? Haven't we got Christine Michael on a chain in the basement being fed raw slabs of beef?

Our odds of returning to the Super Bowl rest on the effectiveness of our defense and running game, because that's our coach's philosophy, and of all things on the team, that's the one thing that won't change as long as Carroll is in charge. in light of that it is the height of nonsense so sell out to a QB at the expense of our core philosophy.

Your assuming that every player Pete Carroll finds is a starter, last year had shown that we lost alot of depth from 2013 and it affected alot of things. The Buffalo Bills were almost the #1 Defense all they had to do was make one more defensive play or so. Seattle had -16.8 and Bills were -15.5, that's a farcry from the 2014 Seahawks season of -25.9 and the 2nd to that was the Arizona Cardinals at -16.4 in that same year by a good margin.

It shows that our defense was slipping, this year is telling, I hope it goes back up though.

The Chicago Bears were the #1 ranked Defense by DVOA in 2012 with a score of -26.7 and Seattle was #2 with -14.5, but no one talked about that defense as being elite as they had a better score than the 2014 Seahawks. That bears team couldn't even make the playoffs and it came down to the QB.

Whatever Pete decides I'm ok with it, with this team Wilson will never be credited with anything, majority of football fans think it's only the defense and running game. Heck even if Wilson puts up crazy stats this year people will say that it's because of all the weapons he have. If Pete trade Wilson I hope he goes to a team that would haunt him forever.

 

[Hawkfan77]

FTR, though, I just went to Spotrac.com to look up QB contracts and 2015 salaries.

That record breaking contract signed by Flacco two years ago that crushed the Ravens title team is now just the 4th highest QB salary and just a million or so more than the likes of Tannehill and Kapernick. Oh, and the Ravens are right back at the top of the AFC.

In 2015, Flacco has just $4 million in salary with a $14 million cap hit. The Ravens will face their maker in 2016 when that number jumps to $28 million, although I suggest a restructure is already in the works there.

The fact that some can't grasp this is astounding. What is the highest paid contract now, will not be in a year. Luck will get a deal worth much more than Wilson. Cam Newton as well, most likely. Did the Ravens believe Flacco was the best QB in the league? I'd guess no, but they know what they have with him and how he runs their offense and to try and replace that would be idiotic.

Why are some so obsessed with what we do in how it compares to other teams?

 

[Anthony!]

How many Heisman winning QB has been to the Superbowl since 1994 when the salary cap era began? I get what your saying, but saying we can just plug in a new QB and win regardless is also risking your Superbowl window.

Pete Carroll said next man up to from Hasselbeck to Charlie Whitehurst to Tavaris Jackson until they finally got a QB, so your telling me that they need to go look in the trash bin to see if they can find a servicable QB. That's the most riskiest thing you can do for your team.

Trash bin is your creation, not mine. I believe Wilson had plenty of trade value should it become impossible to sign him to a salary commensurate with his performance. I would rather trade him than pay him an artificially high salary such as Baltimore did with Flacco.

Ok let's say we trade Wilson next year, draft a QB or get em in free agency. Ok what happens next, Lynch decides to retire, oh no running game now. The defense have been injured for the last two years and I can see that continuing, this defense is going to take a step back each year, they can't be #1 forever. If they start having a few losing seasons, the veterans would want to get bigger contracts elsewhere meaning the LOB will be dismantle within the next 3 or 4 years. The defense will be gone but the only thing that could stay for an entire career to keep your odds of returning to the Superbowl is a QB, and I stated many times if you have an efficient offense and a top 15 defense your chances are still pretty good to contend for one.

We are a team built around the running game and defense. The team philosophy is "next man up". You are operating with the premise that you must keep someone for their entire career, which is contrary to what Carroll has been dealing with on a regular basis at USC and now even in Seattle.

And having distilled all that your conclusion is that we must hold onto the QB for his entire career?

Carroll built the defense from basically nothing, and personnel have changed on a yearly basis yet it remains #1. Maybe it can't be #1 forever, but it can be as long as Carroll has a say about it.

Lynch retires - no running game? Where do you get that? Don't we still have Tom Cable? Don't they still make running backs in college? Haven't we got Christine Michael on a chain in the basement being fed raw slabs of beef?

Our odds of returning to the Super Bowl rest on the effectiveness of our defense and running game, because that's our coach's philosophy, and of all things on the team, that's the one thing that won't change as long as Carroll is in charge. in light of that it is the height of nonsense so sell out to a QB at the expense of our core philosophy.

As usual your are wrong as the facts have shown with an avg Qb and our run first great defense we still would not have mad the playoffs. Also keep in mind it is our HC philosophy to have a low turnover big play offense and for that you need the right QB and there are not many of them. IT is obvious you believe any old QB would do, thankfully you are not in charge if you were we would be back to 7-9 or worse and missing the payoffs.

 

[Anthony!]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Nor does it not.

I actually kind of agree with Kiwi and have been wondering along these lines the last few weeks. Pete comes from that college system, and incorporates a lot of those values into his pro thinking. An 80 man deep roster with competition throughout and no giving spots. Very collegiate. A commitment to roster turnover every 3 to 5 years. Very collegiate. A willingness to take athletes and find a spot for them. Very collegiate.

He just might be banking on turning over the QB position like any other. Palmer, Lienart, Sanchez, Barkley with a few Booty's in between. The team kept rolling without a hitch. How much to they believe in their ability to identify and coach the next QB?

Not saying I agree with it. I obviously don't. But that could be their thinking. Obviously they would prefer the proven commodity, but I do wonder if they aren't willing to roll the dice on their drafting and coaching prowess.

IF PC is counting on that than he should not be a HC and will not be for very long. History has shown QBs at the level needed to get to the SB do not come around every year. I can guarantee you he does not think this way.

 

[Hawkfan77]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Nor does it not.

I actually kind of agree with Kiwi and have been wondering along these lines the last few weeks. Pete comes from that college system, and incorporates a lot of those values into his pro thinking. An 80 man deep roster with competition throughout and no giving spots. Very collegiate. A commitment to roster turnover every 3 to 5 years. Very collegiate. A willingness to take athletes and find a spot for them. Very collegiate.

He just might be banking on turning over the QB position like any other. Palmer, Lienart, Sanchez, Barkley with a few Booty's in between. The team kept rolling without a hitch. How much to they believe in their ability to identify and coach the next QB?

Not saying I agree with it. I obviously don't. But that could be their thinking. Obviously they would prefer the proven commodity, but I do wonder if they aren't willing to roll the dice on their drafting and coaching prowess.

But you're talking about going from one 5 star recruit to the next. It doesn't work like that in the NFL. There's a finite amount of QBs available to teams every year and it;s something that cannot be controlled unlike in college.

How many great college QBs amount to nothing more than backups in the NFL? Or are just good enough to never win but also to not really lose (Andy Dalton)? QB in the NFL is a completely different breed and I highly doubt the FO and couching staff will take that approach when dealing with such an important position.

 

[Anthony!]

FTR, though, I just went to Spotrac.com to look up QB contracts and 2015 salaries.

That record breaking contract signed by Flacco two years ago that crushed the Ravens title team is now just the 4th highest QB salary and just a million or so more than the likes of Tannehill and Kapernick. Oh, and the Ravens are right back at the top of the AFC.

In 2015, Flacco has just $4 million in salary with a $14 million cap hit. The Ravens will face their maker in 2016 when that number jumps to $28 million, although I suggest a restructure is already in the works there.

The fact that some can't grasp this is astounding. What is the highest paid contract now, will not be in a year. Luck will get a deal worth much more than Wilson. Cam Newton as well, most likely. Did the Ravens believe Flacco was the best QB in the league? I'd guess no, but they know what they have with him and how he runs their offense and to try and replace that would be idiotic.

Why are some so obsessed with what we do in how it compares to other teams?

Because those some do not believe Wilson is needed, or really any good. Or they do not want to believe and it will not be until we loose Wilson for any length of time or permanently that some of the will get it, Some never will, if we lost Wilson today and got an avg QB and when 4-12 they would say something stupid like "Correlation does not prove causation." which means nothing more than I was wrong but I am not going to admit it so I am going to ignore the facts. That is just the way it is when you are a 3rd Pick , who is under 6 foot picked the same year as Luck and the media said you would not be anything and the media drones bought it. As long as Wilson i8s here he will never get the credit he deserves only the blame when thing go wrong.

 

[theincrediblesok]

I mean if Pete truly believes in his core philosophy he shouldn't have extended the contracts of Okung, Unger, Sherman, Kam, and Earl, if he was all about the next man up believing that paying some of these guys too much money, which he gave to Sherm and Earl were huge contracts for their position, they should have been replaced. Their contracts were about to be over why extend them, why not draft their replacements to keep the cost down? Why did they bend to extend Lynch when you said Michael was waiting in the wings.......the philosophy sure don't look like "Next Man Up To Me"

 

[KiwiHawk]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Yes you keep saying that when what you really mean is you do not care what the historical data says you want to believe what you want, Under your ridiculous hypothesis there is no proof of anything. Thankfully your thoughts are not back by any real factual support.

No I keep saying that because you present one single aspect of an extremely complicated team game and claim it to be the causative factor for Super Bowl appearance.

And your correlation? A mere 80%.

There is a 95% relationship between the per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese and death caused by people falling down stairs - does that mean mozzarella cheese causes people to fall down stairs and die?



Yet it's a closer correlation than a top tier QB and a Super Bowl win.

People look for patterns. It's ingrained in the way we view the world. But because there is a pattern is not sufficient reason to assign a cause.

In the NFL there are numerous factors that all contribute to a Super Bowl victory. You need to be effective enough on offense to score more points than your effective defense allows. You need to be consistent to win games most weeks. You need to be healthy. You need good coaching. You need mental toughness. You need leadership on both sides of the ball. And you need a bit of luck - the right call going your way at the right time.

Instead, you're cherry-picking one thing, creating a pattern from it, and nominating it as the cause.

That's not logical reasoning. That's cherry-picking data to support your hypothesis.

Successful teams have successful quarterbacks because they often have good coaching for hose QBs and receivers and linemen and running backs, and there isn't very often the opportunity to take a QB from a successful program and see if he remains successful in a sucky program, so there's no reason to believe that the QB is not responsible for his own greatness.

Unless you include college. Now it gets interesting, because you have QBs who were studs in College who get drafted at the top of the draft but then flame out in the NFL. Is it because people assume a good QB will cause a sucky team to be a contender when in reality that correlation doesn't represent a causative relationship after all?

 

[theincrediblesok]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Yes you keep saying that when what you really mean is you do not care what the historical data says you want to believe what you want, Under your ridiculous hypothesis there is no proof of anything. Thankfully your thoughts are not back by any real factual support.

No I keep saying that because you present one single aspect of an extremely complicated team game and claim it to be the causative factor for Super Bowl appearance.

And your correlation? A mere 80%.

There is a 95% relationship between the per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese and death caused by people falling down stairs - does that mean mozzarella cheese causes people to fall down stairs and die?



Yet it's a closer correlation than a top tier QB and a Super Bowl win.

People look for patterns. It's ingrained in the way we view the world. But because there is a pattern is not sufficient reason to assign a cause.

In the NFL there are numerous factors that all contribute to a Super Bowl victory. You need to be effective enough on offense to score more points than your effective defense allows. You need to be consistent to win games most weeks. You need to be healthy. You need good coaching. You need mental toughness. You need leadership on both sides of the ball. And you need a bit of luck - the right call going your way at the right time.

Instead, you're cherry-picking one thing, creating a pattern from it, and nominating it as the cause.

That's not logical reasoning. That's cherry-picking data to support your hypothesis.

Successful teams have successful quarterbacks because they often have good coaching for hose QBs and receivers and linemen and running backs, and there isn't very often the opportunity to take a QB from a successful program and see if he remains successful in a sucky program, so there's no reason to believe that the QB is not responsible for his own greatness.

Unless you include college. Now it gets interesting, because you have QBs who were studs in College who get drafted at the top of the draft but then flame out in the NFL. Is it because people assume a good QB will cause a sucky team to be a contender when in reality that correlation doesn't represent a causative relationship after all?

Correlation does not prove causation. Period. Sorry I had to do it :lol:

 

[Anthony!]

I mean if Pete truly believes in his core philosophy he shouldn't have extended the contracts of Okung, Unger, Sherman, Kam, and Earl, if he was all about the next man up believing that paying some of these guys too much money, which he gave to Sherm and Earl were huge contracts for their position, they should have been replaced. Their contracts were about to be over why extend them, why not draft their replacements to keep the cost down? Why did they bend to extend Lynch when you said Michael was waiting in the wings.......the philosophy sure don't look like "Next Man Up To Me"

What it really is next man up, with the exception of those truly exceptional players such as Wilson.

 

[Anthony!]

The one thing is for sure is your chance of getting to and winning an SB goes up 80% if you have a franchise QB. Period.

Correlation does not prove causation. Period.

Yes you keep saying that when what you really mean is you do not care what the historical data says you want to believe what you want, Under your ridiculous hypothesis there is no proof of anything. Thankfully your thoughts are not back by any real factual support.

No I keep saying that because you present one single aspect of an extremely complicated team game and claim it to be the causative factor for Super Bowl appearance.

And your correlation? A mere 80%.

There is a 95% relationship between the per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese and death caused by people falling down stairs - does that mean mozzarella cheese causes people to fall down stairs and die?



Yet it's a closer correlation than a top tier QB and a Super Bowl win.

People look for patterns. It's ingrained in the way we view the world. But because there is a pattern is not sufficient reason to assign a cause.

In the NFL there are numerous factors that all contribute to a Super Bowl victory. You need to be effective enough on offense to score more points than your effective defense allows. You need to be consistent to win games most weeks. You need to be healthy. You need good coaching. You need mental toughness. You need leadership on both sides of the ball. And you need a bit of luck - the right call going your way at the right time.

Instead, you're cherry-picking one thing, creating a pattern from it, and nominating it as the cause.
=e
That's not logical reasoning. That's cherry-picking data to support your hypothesis.

Successful teams have successful quarterbacks because they often have good coaching for hose QBs and receivers and linemen and running backs, and there isn't very often the opportunity to take a QB from a successful program and see if he remains successful in a sucky program, so there's no reason to believe that the QB is not responsible for his own greatness.

Unless you include college. Now it gets interesting, because you have QBs who were studs in College who get drafted at the top of the draft but then flame out in the NFL. Is it because people assume a good QB will cause a sucky team to be a contender when in reality that correlation doesn't represent a causative relationship after all?

again in other words you have nothing and refuse to admit the overwhelming facts show your wrong so you are sticking to this ridiculous notion that you feel gives you and out without having any facts to support you. FYI it is not cherry picking when there is this much facts and stats. You catch all is used a lot in the scientific world usually when there might be other variables for a given outcome or conclusion. However that does not take away from the validity of the importance of any 1 variable in this case the top end Qb. So again all you are really doing is trying to dance around all the facts and stats showing how importnat it is to have a high caliber QB

 

[theincrediblesok]

I like turtles

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I like turtles

Really?


I'm curious, was someone on this thread trying to compare Cam Newton (mental midget) to Wilson?