You still didn't answer the question.
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Nick Caserio - New GM
- Thread starter gwallaia
- Start date
You still didn't answer the question.
But I did answer the question. Let's just take it back to the Texans inaurgural season (2002). 32 teams a year have vied for the Super Bowl championship. That's 19 years x 32 teams = 608 teams. About 7 over those teams had QBs making more than your contrived cap %. That's 1.1% of all teams during this time period.
So you're going to make an assumption, no you call it a "fact", that it's impossible for a team to win a Super Bowl with a QB making 13% -15% or whatever % of the cap...based upon 1.1% of teams not being able to do so? Can you not see how ridiculous that is? And if you can't, just trust me. It's ridiculous.
I will answer my question for you.
0 is the number and here's another number for you 27 as in yrs.
You can make numbers say whatever you want but the 2 numbers I posted are fact and really the only number that matters is ZERO.
Those figures just can't be correct.
There have been at least 1-2 QB's making greater than 13.1% every year the last handful of seasons.
The number is not 7 since the inception of the Texans.
OK, I found the list in one of the million Watson threads. 13 QBs over 7 seasons.
Let's forget about every year except the past 7 seasons. 13 QBs during that time. 224 teams competing for the Super Bowl. That's 5.8% of teams in that time period with QBs over that threshold. Versus 94.2% that are not. So yeah, odds are that one of these QBs didn't win the Super Bowl. What can't be said is that it would be impossible to do so.QB's in the last 10 years to hit or exceed 15% of the cap..
Last edited:
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Do you feel like you have a better than impossible shot at winning the lotto when the odds are so dramatically lopsided? Technically they can say its not "impossible" to win it as well.
Do you have a point somewhere? If 50 % of teams have a QB making too much over a statistically significant period of time, and none of the teams win the Super Bowl, then we can pose the question of the impossibility of it all.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
my point is that your point isn’t really a point m if all you’re saying is that “it’s not impossible”...of course it’s not. The point they’re making is that it ain’t happened yet in 27 years and with the way salaries are going up for qb’s it’s not likely to happen anytime soon..at least not in the next few COVID years anyway
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
For sure it is.....but until that day arrives.....
FireBOB
Waterboy
Brilliant, hadn't seen this. So, we now have the math to prove this whole argument is ridiculous.
If the probability of a team having a 15%-of-cap QB is about 5%, then we can plug the numbers into the probability mass function to determine how many trials we need to get exactly one occurrence of the event at a 95% confidence level.
Probability mass functions are difficult, but fortunately we have the statistical rule of 3 to fall back on...
Rule of three (statistics) - Wikipedia
So we'd expect one occurrence of a 5% probability event to happen every 60 trials (at a 95% confidence level).
Given this event (SB winning team with QB>15%) has actually happened once in 27 trials we can conclude that a team with a QB earning more than 15% of the cap appears to be happening MORE frequently than we'd expect.
Except .... we don't. You've moved the goalpost.
There's a flaw in your data.
Your data is 15% which equates to 113.6% of the originally discussed figure. My contention has been 13.2% - that benchmark was set by Steve Young in the first year of the cap and only exceeded this year on a technicality - Brady's superbowl bonus. Otherwise it still stands. Brady's figure was 13.7 ..... 5 tenths of a percent above the historical mark.
If we're gonna have this argument , the goalpost has to be stationary.
No , it hasn't happened - not at 15%.
Brady's figure would have been short of the 13.2% figure without the superbowl bonus.
With the bonus it was 13.7%.
Far short of this new 15% figure.
And by stationary, you mean arbitrary. Because that number 13.whatever to 15 is reverse engineered to prove a negative. What is the ideal cap number% for a Super Bowl winning QB? Have you done a regression analysis to determine that?
It's ridiculous. Just admit it and move on.
13.2% is NOT an arbitrary figure. It is the highest figure a QB had earned , prior to this season as a percentage of the cap and won the Lombardi. It's a figure that has stood for 27 years.
13.2% was the benchmark.
How was the 13.2 % determined? Because the author of an article on cap % for QBs looked up the highest number for a Super Bowl winning QB, then arbitrarily made the "benchmark" higher.
FireBOB
Waterboy
The rate doesn't matter,, it's just a magical threshold.. At the 13.2% level it happened once in 28 years - by your own definition - with Steve Young. Since only 5% of teams pay their QB that amount, you'd expect the event to happen once every 60 years. Actually 59, having run the full binomial calculation.
Something happened once in 28 years that you'd expect to happen randomly once every 59 years.
There's no observable correlation here.
With the bonus it was actually 13.9%..
Max
Veteran
The 13.2% qb rule could have relevance but does it have any more relevance than a 9.7% wr rule, or a 12.3% pass rusher rule, or a 8.4% running back rule or on and on for every position. It can't be a meaningful analysis until these #'s are examined for every position to have enough data to determine if it's a meaningful stat or not. Maybe it's more significant that no team has tied up a certain cap % in their top 2 wr's, or too much in their secondary or any number of combinations. It wouldn't surprise me if some analytics firm has done these calculations and shown gm's meaningful #'s. The 13.2 qb rule sounds great but I'd say that it has the potential to be misleading unless all of these other #s have been calculated and compared. (All of those #'s are made up BTW in case some nerd does the math to prove me wrong).
Max
Veteran
Should have added - there might be proof that teams are already doing this type of analysis when you see the trend changes of taking interior d lineman and rb's later in the draft. It didn't used to be that way but has become a trend. Some kind of analysis was done to figure this out and I'm sure that if there's something to the qb rule, teams will figure that out as well.
The 13.2 is determined by Young's percentage of the cap in that superbowl winning year.
The benchmark was set , Not magically pulled out of the keister.
Again , you are basing your numbers off of the flawed 15% to come to your 5% conclusion , its moving the goalpost. That's a 113.6% of the benchmark figure and significantly fewer have been paid in that range.
FireBOB
Waterboy
Let me know how many teams spent 13.2% or more on QBs, and I'll run the numbers then. For there to be any significant correlation it would need to be signficantly above 9% otherwise we're just dealing with random chance.
Signed,
Some nerd
Edit: 11% not 9%
Last edited:
Texian
Hall of Fame
Math Fight!
The actual number is really irrelevant.
It's just plain common sense - Football is the ultimate team sport , when you spend a large percentage on one player / position , you have to make cuts elsewhere and the overall team is weaker for it.
The number we've thrown around was the most a QB had earned as a percentage of the whole in the salary cap era and it stood for 27 seasons and was only broken because of multiple incentive bonuses for the team winning playoff games and the guy who finally did break that benchmark is The GOAT.
Lets forget about the 13.2 or 15% figures and look at the contract that got us started with this conversation where Watson will equate to in the neighborhood of 28% of the cap projections in those $40+million seasons More than double that benchmark.
Common sense tells you that if it took the GOAT to finally break the old benchmark by the tiny fraction of 7 tenths of a percentage point , more than doubling that benchmark is ..... just plain ignorant.
Max
Veteran
Looks like about 23% in 2022 if the cap stays at 180MM. Seems likely that the cap will probably go up substantially by then though which will bring the 23% down substantially, but I hear you. They fired the guy that would have taken covid into account and future cap management so you're not going to get me to defend BOB's planning. But if it turns out that Watson's # is closer to the 13.2% (or whatever # we're using) when the cap goes up and this is how much top qb's are getting paid in those years....then we're right back to this conversation of if 13.2% is too much.
My point is fairly simple though and I think valid. What if the biggest statistical difference with SB winners is that they pay a substantially higher amount on their D Line compared to other teams? Or they pay substantially less on wr's than other teams, or on and on. We've decided to pick ONE variable out of dozens of other options and without any analysis, have made it settled science that this is the ONE thing that matters. The 13.2% qb rule wouldn't be enough for me to go on if I'm a GM to not pay a QB. I'd need a lot more info.
Last edited:
FireBOB
Waterboy
This all sounds sensible in theory, but simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I just plucked a random recent SB winner, Patriots in 2016.
They spent only around 9% of the cap on Brady - which nicely supports your argument.
But wait a minute. They only used 85% of available cap in total!
That means they could have spent 24% on their QB without adversely affecting their roster.
Just looking at the two prior SBs...
Broncos in 2015- 12% on Manning, 7% unused... could have spent 19% on Manning
Patriots 2014- 11% on Brady, 14% unused... could have spent 25% on Brady
13.2% is a myth.
Q.E.D.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Brady is an outlier and truthfully makes Corrosion and Steele’s case for them b/c for years he took less than he was worth FOR THE EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE of keeping the team of players around him paid. These young dudes ain’t doing that bro. That is also why they were able to sustain excellence and go to as many SB’s as they did. If he takes what he’s truly worth, even squeezing in a 1 yr. 12 million dollar deal for Darelle Revis is tough to accomplish...which is what they did in 2014. Damn sure ain’t dropping 14 per for Gilmore a few years later.
Last edited:
FireBOB
Waterboy
Sorry, but this is nonsense, they didn't spend it on the other players. 15% went unspent.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
Lol, It went unspent b/c he didn’t make them spend it on his services when he could’ve commanded it. Which is even more reason for why he as a data point in all this is the exception to the overall rule.
FireBOB
Waterboy
Exactly my point. They could have given him 25% without affecting the roster. Proves that 13.2% is a myth.
maverick512000
Hall of Fame
Oh for the love of God, you guys do realize you’re not just arguing against @Corrosion @steelbtexan and I’ll add myself in there as well. This has been talked about and debated for years.
www.si.com
insidethepylon.com
www.cbs46.com
www.nbcsports.com
www.cbssports.com
www.theringer.com
I have no clue why people are still trying to argue against this but facts are the facts and that doesn’t change just because you don’t like the people telling you the facts.
The Economic Realities of Paying a Star Quarterback
Three of the four AFC teams in the divisional round are led by quarterbacks still on their rookie deals. All four of the NFC teams have highly paid QBs on at least their second contract. What can we learn from these teams’ situations?
www.si.com
Does a High Salary Veteran QB Hurt Your Super Bowl Chances? - Inside The Pylon
Tom Mead analyzes how teams build Super Bowl winners, specifically looking at if a high quarterback salary hurts a team's chance at winning.
insidethepylon.com
Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks | Over the Cap
Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks | Over the Cap
overthecap.com
QB pay doesn't equate to Super Bowls in NFL
As the Los Angeles Rams represent the NFC in Super Bowl LIII, Atlanta Falcons fans and the team’s owner are looking ahead to next year and hoping for a big
Perry: Is a QB with a big cap hit a recipe for success?
There are plenty of expensive quarterback options being floated out this offseason, but as our Phil Perry writes, a signal caller with a big cap hit can really compromise building a championship contender.
www.nbcsports.com
NFL quarterback contracts: QBs with biggest salary cap hit have had zero NFL playoff success over past decade
Having a quarterback with a big cap hit has been a kiss of death in the NFL over the past decade
www.cbssports.com
The Curse of a Salary-Cap-Eating Quarterback
Big-money quarterbacks like Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, and Aaron Rodgers are sitting at home during the playoffs, while the Rams, Chiefs, and Texans have built contenders around young starters still on their rookie deals. The lesson is obvious if NFL teams pay attention.
www.theringer.com
I have no clue why people are still trying to argue against this but facts are the facts and that doesn’t change just because you don’t like the people telling you the facts.
Mr teX
Hall of Fame
that’s not a point simply b/c it wasn’t up to them, it was up to HIM. Had he commanded it, Kraft most definitely would’ve paid him more. Instead Brady opted to work with the organization and chose to make under the table deals with Kraft to take less to help his guys get paid and to keep the team in a financially viable situation from year to year. Why? To be able to bring in top talent at the beginning of the season, resign their top guys still in their primes and bring in guys at the trade deadlines....if they needed to. It was all part of the strategy of putting the team before self. And they brought in top talent ALL the time with Moss, Revis, Gilmore, Gordon and Brown. These young dudes ain’t doing that they’re forcing their organization’s hand to pay.
the fact that it went unspent a lot of times is just a testament to how good Brady and Belichick were together.
OptimisticTexan
2024 / Rebuilding Block 4 After Playoffs / Texans
For all those thinking that money earned via their team salary is the end all.....ask TB how that endorsement money stacked up versus taking the deserved money and depleting the team talent.
1 yr, ever heard of the word outlier?
Also they didn't use it so my point stands. Why they didn't or should have used it doesn't really matter.
Zero is still the number. Play with the numbers all you like. If somebody breaks it that still wont mean it's not an outlier. Let it happen 3 yrs in a row or 7 out of 10 yrs and we can have a discussion.
Last edited:
Oh for the love of God, you guys do realize you’re not just arguing against @Corrosion @steelbtexan and I’ll add myself in there as well. This has been talked about and debated for years.
The Economic Realities of Paying a Star Quarterback
Three of the four AFC teams in the divisional round are led by quarterbacks still on their rookie deals. All four of the NFC teams have highly paid QBs on at least their second contract. What can we learn from these teams’ situations?
Does a High Salary Veteran QB Hurt Your Super Bowl Chances? - Inside The Pylon
Tom Mead analyzes how teams build Super Bowl winners, specifically looking at if a high quarterback salary hurts a team's chance at winning.
Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks | Over the Cap
Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks | Over the Capoverthecap.com
QB pay doesn't equate to Super Bowls in NFL
As the Los Angeles Rams represent the NFC in Super Bowl LIII, Atlanta Falcons fans and the team’s owner are looking ahead to next year and hoping for a big
Perry: Is a QB with a big cap hit a recipe for success?
There are plenty of expensive quarterback options being floated out this offseason, but as our Phil Perry writes, a signal caller with a big cap hit can really compromise building a championship contender.
NFL quarterback contracts: QBs with biggest salary cap hit have had zero NFL playoff success over past decade
Having a quarterback with a big cap hit has been a kiss of death in the NFL over the past decade
The Curse of a Salary-Cap-Eating Quarterback
Big-money quarterbacks like Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryan, and Aaron Rodgers are sitting at home during the playoffs, while the Rams, Chiefs, and Texans have built contenders around young starters still on their rookie deals. The lesson is obvious if NFL teams pay attention.
I have no clue why people are still trying to argue against this but facts are the facts and that doesn’t change just because you don’t like the people telling you the facts.
Yep. Add this USA Today article, as well.
This is the point that really stood out (which sort of comes at the same subject from a different direction):
"There is no proof that paying for a quarterback leads to winning. In fact, there is basically no correlation between a quarterback’s compensation and how many games he wins. We did the math."
Source: NFL teams are paying quarterbacks way too much money and here's the proof
From that same article:
"The record for the highest cap hit percentage remains Steve Young’s 13.1% in that first season, when teams were still getting used to building rosters under a budget. Only four quarterbacks have ever won a Super Bowl while accounting for at least 11% of their team’s cap room: Young, Peyton Manning (twice), Tom Brady and Eli Manning."
Texansballer74
The Marine
It didn’t take the Rams and a few other teams to do that. Sometimes you can get lucky. Your way works sometimes and sometimes it doesn’t.
It’s all a gamble
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.
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
So when Denver went to the Superbowl twice in 3 yrs, Manning was one of the top 5 highest paid qbs in the NFL. So were the 49ers with Jimmy G too. You try to wordplay play the situation. When Eli was the qb, he was top 5 in money too. Matt Ryan was #3
That's where you are misguided .... is not the ONE thing , its one of many things.
Its simply the realization that you can not pay any one player , regardless of position such a significant amount of the whole in the ultimate team sport and reach the ultimate prize.
You really need to throw out the actual number as if its some hard and fast rule and realize the principal.
The figure might be ..... the concept is not. Arguing otherwise is ignorant.
And again , I point you to the contract that started this debate and its greater than 20% payout to one player. We aren't arguing the merits of 13.2 , we're arguing the concept.
Throw Tunsil's 27m in with Watson's 42 and you've got 69m tied up in two players and at a 200m cap , that's 34.5% of the total spent on two players.
Are you going to argue that this is wise spending ?
According to OTC the 2016 Pats had an adjusted cap of 152m of which 2.8% or 4.29m went unspent.
That's your own oversimplification and has never been insinuated as part of the discussion by me. It is constantly used by the opposition as "this is the only thing" , just look at the last page of this thread and its argued in at least 3 posts as the only thing that matters ..... simply not true.
FireBOB
Waterboy
I agree with the concept and specifically the case with the Texans - as you rightly point out - is absurd.
I maintain that the hypothesis is incorrectly stated. It should be something like: in order to maximize likelihood of success, you need to spend at least 80% of the cap on the Rest Of the Team. Furthermore, that 80% needs to be appropriately distributed too.
I'm not hung up on 80%, using it as an example.
We can adjust the 80% to match whatever statistically is the correct value. I have no interest in wading through that data to find the true number, but if you want to pull it out, I'll do the math.
One further caveate: this is subject to the usual rules of game theory, i.e. it matters what everyone else does too. If every team suddenly decides to only spend 60% of cap on ROT, then you can happily adjust the 80% downwards.
No QB has won a SB in 27 years making more than 14 percent of the cap.
Can you just accept that as a fact?
Here's the numbers in a nutshell.
Only 3 QB's have won superbowls earning greater that 11% of the cap.
Two of those have done it twice , the other once for a total of 5 times in 28 years.
Al three of the QB's to win the big game while earning over 11% of the cap are first ballot HOFER's. Steve Young (1) Tom Brady (2) and Peyton Manning (2).
Prior to this season , the largest percentage of the cap earned by a superbowl winning QB was Steve Young's 13.1% in the first year of the cap era.
This season Tom Brady eclipsed that figure due to bonuses earned for winning playoff games and the new high figure is now 13.9%.
Still , only 3 QB's have won it all earning greater than 11% of the total cap and none greater than 13.9%.
You put the figure wherever you want ..... but the numbers show its nowhere near 20% in fact , 15% on the individual is historically to much. Somewhere north of 85% needs to be spent on the rest of the team and correctly allocated ...
FireBOB
Waterboy
Your refusal to consider unspent money and dead money makes the debate pointless. I've already given three examples where the SB winners spent 75, 76 and 81% of cap on active roster excluding the starting QB. Those are the important numbers... the money you can spend on the Rest Of the Team.
It seems smart to hold cap $$$$ back if you're a contender so if injuries hit you have the cap space to trade for a replacement. Instead of spending most of your cap on 1 player. Looks like the Pats were lucky that yr and didn't suffer major injuries. Hence they didn't need/use the cap space. It's all about maintaining flexibility. I'm guessing you've never ran a business?
leebigeztx
Keep it Movin!
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.
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.
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.