theincrediblesok
New member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,550
- Reaction score
- 0
KiwiHawk":1myrg3nt said:The laughable thing is that "This is how it goes... this is always how it will go" applies to so many things:Hasselbeck":1myrg3nt said: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.
"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.