Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Nick Caserio - New GM

Earl34 said:
Exactly. Luck, injuries, matchups, home field. There are so many factors that go into winning a Super Bowl, I have a hard time laying it all on QB salary percentage. I don't care how much money Nate Peterman is making, you're not going to win a Super Bowl with him. :shades:
Click to expand...

Sort of a strawman argument when nobody is ever going to pay Nate Peterman anything near these numbers.

I don't think the debate is about laying it all on one position's responsibility. It's a zero sum game with salary cap management, and if you rob Peter to pay Paul the starting QB, then it is simple logic to realize that the pie gets smaller for everyone else on the team. Bench players matter, too, which is where a lot of sacrifices get made due to lack of funds. Think of how many teams every year either never get off the ground or fail in the playoffs due to injuries and lack of good backups to make up the loss of talent.

Corrosion said:
It stands to reason that the 14%, hell 15% or higher barrier will be broken sooner than later as more and more QB's are earning that amount or greater.

The last decade was a different story as there were generally 1-3 who earned greater than 13% in any given season.
Click to expand...

Just curious, how does the percentage change if you include all Super Bowl QBs, regardless if they won or lost the game? Does it alter anything significantly?
 
leebigeztx said:
You're stuck on a % which is not suitable to your ridiculous argument. Qb % on the cap is escalating because of the sheer value of erasers. See how you try to wordplay it. So, it doesn't matter that the qbs are top 5 in their position as long as it doesn't hit your magical 14%. So Mahomes will never win another ring because he's taking up 14% of the cap, correct? Your mythical 14% isn't the reason, its the simple fact teams haven't built teams to withstand losses of personel when your elite players are taking up the chunk of your cap.
Click to expand...

Facts are now ridiculous? OK

I've said many times that somebody will eventually break the trend. If I had to guess it will be Mahomes (A generational talent.) Or Rodgers. It certainly wont be DW4 or a busted leg Dak for that matter.

After 27 yrs maybe it's not possible to build teams that can withstand personnel losses when your elite players are taking up so much of the cap. (BTW, 14% isn't mythical it's fact) There seems to be over a quarter of a century trend here that you seem to be ignoring.
 
Last edited:
Corrosion said:
It stands to reason that the 14%, hell 15% or higher barrier will be broken sooner than later as more and more QB's are earning that amount or greater.

The last decade was a different story as there were generally 1-3 who earned greater than 13% in any given season.
Click to expand...

The numbers will change but the premise will remain.

BTW, I dont see it being broken next yr either unless Rodgers can do it and probably not the yr after that either. By then you will have guys like Lawrence/Herbert upcoming that will be challenging for championships.
 
Double Barrel said:
Just curious, how does the percentage change if you include all Super Bowl QBs, regardless if they won or lost the game? Does it alter anything significantly?
Click to expand...

SB losing QB's salary cap % since 2010:

2021: Patrick Mahomes: 2.4%
2020: Jimmy G: 10.6%
2019: Jared Goff: 4.3%
2018: Tom Brady: 8.4%
2017: Matt Ryan: 15.3%
2016: Cam Newton: 9.1%
2015: Russell Wilson: 0.6%
2014: Peyton Manning: 14.2%
2013: Colin Kaepernick: 1.0%
2012: Tom Brady: 11.0%
2011: Ben Roethlisberger: Uncapped season
2010: Peyton Manning: 17.2%
 
Corrosion said:
I saw you gave one flawed example as OTC showed different than your claimed 15% unspent.

NE had 2.8% or 4.29m unspent out of a cap of 152.2m.

That's the only example I saw .... and again , the figures were flawed.

Then there's the fact that the CBA requires teams to spend at least 90% of the cap so acting as if teams are leaving huge chunks of unspent money just doesn't jive with the facts.
Click to expand...
I gave 3 examples in the same post you got this from, but it does look like the Brady in 2016 number might be a mistake. I got it here, but cannot corroborate.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

The Manning number varies from site to site and is between 17 and 19% of active roster cap hit
 
Double Barrel said:
Sort of a strawman argument when nobody is ever going to pay Nate Peterman anything near these numbers.

I don't think the debate is about laying it all on one position's responsibility. It's a zero sum game with salary cap management, and if you rob Peter to pay Paul the starting QB, then it is simple logic to realize that the pie gets smaller for everyone else on the team. Bench players matter, too, which is where a lot of sacrifices get made due to lack of funds. Think of how many teams every year either never get off the ground or fail in the playoffs due to injuries and lack of good backups to make up the loss of talent.



Just curious, how does the percentage change if you include all Super Bowl QBs, regardless if they won or lost the game? Does it alter anything significantly?
Click to expand...

This is one of the big reasons its so hard for a team to repeat SB runs. After winning a SB players that become F/A start getting big offers and the team can't match it. Its why it actually was very impressive how many starters the Chiefs kept.
 
FireBOB said:
I gave 3 examples in the same post you got this from, but it does look like the Brady in 2016 number might be a mistake. I got it here, but cannot corroborate.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

The Manning number varies from site to site and is between 17 and 19% of active roster cap hit
Click to expand...

Really we're splitting hairs here.

The concept is validated by history .... this is the ultimate team sport.

You can draw the line wherever you want but the fact is that you can't pay one guy a massive percentage of the cap and expect to win at a high level , you got 54 other guys to pay.
 
Corrosion said:
Really we're splitting hairs here.

The concept is validated by history .... this is the ultimate team sport.

You can draw the line wherever you want but the fact is that you can't pay one guy a massive percentage of the cap and expect to win at a high level , you got 54 other guys to pay.
Click to expand...

Only 50 others that count against the cap :kingkong:
 
Mollywhopper said:
SB losing QB's salary cap % since 2010:

2021: Patrick Mahomes: 2.4%
2020: Jimmy G: 10.6%
2019: Jared Goff: 4.3%
2018: Tom Brady: 8.4%
2017: Matt Ryan: 15.3%
2016: Cam Newton: 9.1%
2015: Russell Wilson: 0.6%
2014: Peyton Manning: 14.2%
2013: Colin Kaepernick: 1.0%
2012: Tom Brady: 11.0%
2011: Ben Roethlisberger: Uncapped season
2010: Peyton Manning: 17.2%
Click to expand...
Not only this, if your team makes it to the conference title game, its good enough to win a superbowl.
 
Corrosion said:
Really we're splitting hairs here.

The concept is validated by history .... this is the ultimate team sport.

You can draw the line wherever you want but the fact is that you can't pay one guy a massive percentage of the cap and expect to win at a high level , you got 54 other guys to pay.
Click to expand...
Qb driven league. If you don't have one, you dont stand a chance. If you have one not on a rookie contract, chances are he's taking up a substantial piece of your cap if he's top 10 quality. No gm will look at a % of the cap whe negotiating a franchise qb/eraser type of qb. Some qbs are qbs of the franchise, not franchise caliber/eraser types. Having that dude is the only sustainable constant in the NFL.
 
Corrosion said:
Really we're splitting hairs here.

The concept is validated by history .... this is the ultimate team sport.

You can draw the line wherever you want but the fact is that you can't pay one guy a massive percentage of the cap and expect to win at a high level , you got 54 other guys to pay.
Click to expand...
How many QBs occupied more than 13.2% of their respective team cap space in any given year?

Is it possible that since there are so many that were paid under that figure (maybe even none in a particular year) that the odds simply tilt toward that end?

Let's say that in a certain year, no QB occupied that much cap space.
Well, it's simple, any QB that won the SB that year would have occupied less than that 13.2% figure, right?
 
Last edited:
In 2016, there were 5, but only 3 really qualified as top end QBs (Big Ben, Ryan, Stafford maybe).

2016 Quarterback Contracts and Salaries | Over The Cap

Ranking the top NFL 2016 Quarterback contracts and salaries in the NFL
overthecap.com

But there were at least 5 other QBs that can be considered to be as good or better.

Ryan lost to Brady that year, so it's feasible that without Brady, Ryan and the Falcons could have won it.
The Pats also beat the Steelers in the previous round, so without Brady, we could have seen a SB where both QBs occupied more than 13.2% of their respective team's cap space.
 
76Texan said:
How many QBs occupied more than 13.2% of their respective team cap space in any given year?

Is it possible that since there are so many that were paid under that figure (maybe even none in a particular year) that the odds simply tilt toward that end?

Let's say that in a certain year, no QB occupied that much cap space.
Well, it's simple, any QB that won the SB that year would have occupied less than that 13.2% figure, right?
Click to expand...


Look , stop arguing the X% and realize the concept ..... If you can't comprehend that you got no business in the conversation.

Draw the line where you want but draw the damn thing and draw it south of 20%.
 
Corrosion said:
Look , stop arguing the X% and realize the concept ..... If you can't comprehend that you got no business in the conversation.
Click to expand...
The concept is well understood.

The fact remains that in any given year:
- There are more QBs that have cap space lower than 13.2%. That will skew the odds some.
- Some QB may just have that one year where his cap space was realized that put it over the top.
- Tom Brady skewed the number also.

All in all, that reduces the sample size to such a small number that any oversimplification is purely that.
 
The simple fact is that if there's a QB that should be paid over 13.2% of his team cap space, it would be Brady.
And he would tilt the number more toward the true mean.
 
76Texan said:
No we're not.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna argue with you and try to quantify an exact percentage that's too high.
Its pointless.


We have the facts , they speak volumes.

3 QB's have won it all earning over 11% , two of them twice for a total of 5.

Those three QB's were the best of the best in their respective era's.

None of those were 14% or higher.

Put the bar where you want it.
 
There were also instances (like what FireBob and I had described) where the team that won the SB spent much less than 86.8% to fill out the roster.

So you can't just flat out say that paying the QB 13.2% render the team's chance to next to none.
 
Corrosion said:
Everyone agrees with the concept ... they just want to argue over where the line in the sand is ... how much is to much.
That's just impossible to nail down , there's too many moving parts to a football team.
Click to expand...
Take my bet then.
I say one of the 11 QBs on the top of that list will win the SB this year.
 
Texansballer74 said:
A quarterback in which one member was very high on. Lol
Click to expand...
So if you're referring to me, yes I said I thought NP was worth a 3rd pick back in 2017. He went in the 5th rd. He is still in the league 5 years later so I guess he was worth a middle round pick. This year I have posted I am beginning to like Mac Jones so I guess five years from now someone is going to accuse me of being high on Jones. LOL
 
Double Barrel said:
I assumed that he was talking about Nathan Peterman, now backup QB for the Raiders, after being drafted by the Bills.
Click to expand...
Does this Peterman happen to wear an Urban Sombrero?

84ee7e01f51e499bca278167d5809d2c.png
 
maverick512000 said:
I note none of arguing against this bothered to reply to the many articles I posted on the topic or the one DB added.
Click to expand...
Because those articles are the genesis of this bogus argument. Based upon random observation and not actual statistical analysis. What you would expect from a writer with no mathematics background.
 
Texian said:
So if you're referring to me, yes I said I thought NP was worth a 3rd pick back in 2017. He went in the 5th rd. He is still in the league 5 years later so I guess he was worth a middle round pick. This year I have posted I am beginning to like Mac Jones so I guess five years from now someone is going to accuse me of being high on Jones. LOL
Click to expand...

Lol I wasn’t talking about you.
 
maverick512000 said:
I note none of arguing against this bothered to reply to the many articles I posted on the topic or the one DB added. At this point I don’t even know what point you people are trying to prove is.
Click to expand...
It makes more sense to consider top 5 QB pay in a given year not named Brady; otherwise, the simple odds of the large number of QBs under the figure can easily tilt the favor.
Also, the discrepancy between a rookie contract vs others is simply too big.
If a team hit on a player like Mahomes, Wilson, or Brady, they're in a clear advantage in those years.
 
76Texan said:
Take my bet then.
I say one of the 11 QBs on the top of that list will win the SB this year.
Click to expand...

If you followed the thread , I stated that it would likely happen sooner than later .... why the hell would I take your bet ?

Bottom line is that there is a point where too much is too much .... that's simply undeniable.

Where you want to put that figure is debatable depending upon what set of facts you want to apply or how you interpret them.
 
Lucky said:
Because those articles are the genesis of this bogus argument. Based upon random observation and not actual statistical analysis. What you would expect from a writer with no mathematics background.
Click to expand...

So multiple articles written by multiple people across multiple years, some who break the math down very well, in national publications, some of which are cited as proof of the Easterby issue, all say one thing but a few posters on this board say something different so it’s the articles that are wrong?



:spit::spit::spit:
 
Corrosion said:
If you followed the thread , I stated that it would likely happen sooner than later .... why the hell would I take your bet ?

Bottom line is that there is a point where too much is too much .... that's simply undeniable.

Where you want to put that figure is debatable depending upon what set of facts you want to apply or how you interpret them.
Click to expand...
So you're moving the goal post from the first time you introduced the subject?
 
Corrosion said:
Everyone agrees with the concept ... they just want to argue over where the line in the sand is ... how much is to much.
That's just impossible to nail down , there's too many moving parts to a football team.
Click to expand...

I honest to God can’t figure out why people are arguing about this. When this first came up I thought it was just to defend Watson and his contract but we have moved past this now to not only trying to argue established facts but arguing against the math we learned in first grade.

If there are 6 apples in the basket and Kenny takes 2 apples, Billy takes 1 and Johnny takes 3 apples how many apples will be left for Benny?
 
76Texan said:
In one of his very first posts regarding the matter, he specifically brought up the 13.2%, claiming that by paying a QB that much, the team lacks the money to field a team that can win a Superbowl.
Click to expand...

And you've ignored everything else trying to prove that he may have been off on the exact number a bit
 
76Texan said:
In one of his very first posts regarding the matter, he specifically brought up the 13.2%, claiming that by paying a QB that much, the team lacks the money to field a team that can win a Superbowl.
Click to expand...

No he said that no team had ever done it with paying a QB that much, in response to at the time me saying no team has ever done it paying 15%. Since then Brady has done it, barely, but at no time has ANYONE said it would never be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top