Why can't Wisconsin sports fans have nice things?

[HiAndTight]

Yeah it's just often a whole offense playing well that leads to quarterback numbers looking great. The biggest key to winning Super Bowls is to have a young QB on a rookie contract so you can spend the rest of the money building the great team around him (Or find a Tom Brady who's married to an international supermodel who makes more money than him giving him no desire to be the top paid QB). Another acceptable route is to build the great team and find an end of his career veteran to play QB (like Peyton Manning) but even in that case, they probably would have been better off with just about anyone else playing QB as Manning was completely done at that point.

 

I wonder why people keep repeating this?

 

From 2000-2021 (I can count this year since neither QB this year is on a rookie contract), the SB winning QB is on a rookie contract 31.8% (7 of 22) of the time. The SB losing QB is on a rookie contract 22.7% (5 of 22) of the time (or 27.3% combined).

 

6 of the 7 SB winning QBs are probably future HOF QBs (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes) with Flacco as the other. Of the 5 SB losing QBs, you have Wilson as future HOF probable with McNair, Grossman, Kapernick, and Goff.

 

Best way to win a SB is to have a HOF level QB on a rookie contract. The second best way is to have a HOF level QB.

 

 

Feels like it's just become a talking point.

 

You can win with a highly paid QB. You just need to draft well and you can't make bad signings. The Packers have been in a position to win several times. They didn't lose because of Rodgers's salary...especially since most years Thompson carried 10+million in cap room during the year to carry over.

 

He was maybe a little too conservative, but that's the general idea, draft well, retain your own players. Of course, it's easier if you have an additional 30 million dollars, but I guess I don't really get the point as a while. Is the argument that it's better to move on from elite QB's and try to develop younger ones? I'm sure that's not the point. So it feels like we're just talking about a few young QB's who came in and were really good right out of the gate.

 

But take Seattle. They drafted Kam, Sherman and Wagner late in the draft. Browner...who was perfect in that scheme for a while wasn't someone who cost much in terms of draft capital or money.

 

 

It's just about smart team building...and ignoring all the years Brees or Rodgers were in contention and making deep runs(or Peyton or Ryan).

[HiAndTight]

The game was very different then. Half of Favre's sacks back then would be personal fouls today. Much about the game changed.

 

 

I have a pretty vivid image of Greg Lloyd coming in and leading with the crown of his helmet, lowering it and getting Favre right under his facemask.

 

Pretty sure Favre had a concussion from that one.

 

He'd likely have gotten a couple of game suspension for that one in today's NFL.

 

 

I love Favre. He was tough, he brought us back in a lot of games(he also blew quite a few games with just terrible picks) and he helped keep us competitive. BUT...if you're comparing him to Rodgers, he's just not in the same league. That's all. Rodgers may 'just' be a top 5 All-Time QB because of the lack of team success, but he's a tier or two above Favre.

[PeaveyFury]

It's been kind of amazing to watch how much Seattle has mirrored Green Bay. Win the Super Bowl early on with a young QB on a defensive lead team, pay the QB way too much money and watch as that strong defense disintegrates and they're left playing QB ball with a much weaker team around him. They're not terrible by any means, a good QB is certainly helpful, and having a number of playoff runs isn't a bad thing, they're just not winning the Super Bowl.

 

Pittsburgh too. Ben's 3 appearances gloss over that he hasn't been there since 2010.

 

I've been on this train for a while now, but in consideration of why Tomlin still has a job. I know the Rooneys hate coaching turnover more than literally anyone in the league, but other than winning a SB with Cowher's infrastructure, Tomlin has seemingly underperformed every year since....

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

It's been kind of amazing to watch how much Seattle has mirrored Green Bay. Win the Super Bowl early on with a young QB on a defensive lead team, pay the QB way too much money and watch as that strong defense disintegrates and they're left playing QB ball with a much weaker team around him. They're not terrible by any means, a good QB is certainly helpful, and having a number of playoff runs isn't a bad thing, they're just not winning the Super Bowl.

 

Pittsburgh too. Ben's 3 appearances gloss over that he hasn't been there since 2010.

 

I've been on this train for a while now, but in consideration of why Tomlin still has a job. I know the Rooneys hate coaching turnover more than literally anyone in the league, but other than winning a SB with Cowher's infrastructure, Tomlin has seemingly underperformed every year since....

 

That's because Tomlin is literally running the same exact offense and defense he ran in 2007. If you thought Mike McCarthy's philosophy and gameplanning was getting stale, multiply that by 100, and that's how Steelers fans feel.

[PeaveyFury]

I've been on this train for a while now, but in consideration of why Tomlin still has a job. I know the Rooneys hate coaching turnover more than literally anyone in the league, but other than winning a SB with Cowher's infrastructure, Tomlin has seemingly underperformed every year since....

 

That's because Tomlin is literally running the same exact offense and defense he ran in 2007. If you thought Mike McCarthy's philosophy and gameplanning was getting stale, multiply that by 100, and that's how Steelers fans feel.

 

It does feel that Tomlin, McCarthy, and Payton all got their jobs at the same time, all won a SB very early in their career, and all underperformed over the next decade plus. Only the Packers have actually done something about it...

[Baldkin]

I’m guessing Rodgers has had worse RBs overall. Before Jones broke out last year Rodgers entire career has been loaded with some absolutely horrid running backs. Jamaal Williams, Brandon Jennings, Ty Montgomery, James Starks, and Alex Green have all been the leading rusher on a Rodgers team. Favre had way better running backs from the looks of it, like not even close better.

 

Coaching can have a big impact, but going from the MVP to throwing more picks than TDs in two years is on Favre. If Holmgren sticks around would he have ended up more favorably? I mean, yah, probably. I still think he falls off a big cliff regardless.

 

I also think the whole “different era” thing is a bit overblown. It seems to imply like it wasn’t a passing league in Favre’s time. Favre threw just as much as modern day guys, I think he threw more than Rodgers does (on average) actually. This isn’t like trying to compare Unitas (who threw about 350 times a year) to Rodgers (who throws about 550). The era was a bit different, but not that different.

 

Their quality of defenses were close. Both never really had elite defense outside of a year or two. I think Rodgers has had more disaster defenses. Favre’s usually were at least average.

 

The guy was about 5'10" and weighed 165 soaking wet... of course he wasn't a good running back!

 

(I know, you meant Jackson)

[CheezWizHed]

2000 is way too early to use here. This is a very recent trend that started with Seattle, then worked in Philly and Kansas City. You've seen what's happened to Philly and Seattle and KC will follow.

 

It's not winning the Super Bowl either, it's the fact that way more clubs have a willingness to toss the young QBs in immediately and get value off that first contract.

 

But I find the numbers you used pretty convincing of the argument anyway. That's a lot of quarterbacks. That most of them end up really good isn't a detraction, it's the premise of the argument. You win with a great QB you don't have to pay.

 

Further, Brady skews the whole thing anyway, because he's never been paid like the 10x conference champion QB he is. The Patriots domination helps make the argument itself.

 

I'd disagree about 2000 being too early. The dispersion of rookie contract QBs was actually pretty equal from 2000-2010 than 2011-2021. Brady, Roth, Eli and Flacco were 10+ years ago on their rookie contracts. Rodgers is right at my cutoff of 2011, Wilson a few years ago and Mahomes recently. If we give credit for Philly with Wentz (though it was Foles that technically won it ), that makes 4 QBs (with 4SBs) in the last 11 SBs compared to 4 QBs (with 5 SBs) in the 11 years prior.

 

Another interesting item was that nearly every QB that won the SB on their rookie contract immediately got the big extension the year after. Most were on their final year of their rookie contract. I think Brady (on his first) was the only one that didn't. I'm pretty sure every other rookie QB I listed on the winning or losing team immediately got a big contract and was either on the last year of their rookie contract or next-to-last year.

 

And you say the numbers are convincing because there were a lot of QBs. The question being answered was "whether rookie contract QBs are the best way to build a SB". Having the numbers come in at less than 1/3rd of the SBs being won by rookie QBs (and closer to a 1/4th of QBs playing in the SB) makes that answer a pretty resounding "no". If the question is "Can you win with a rookie contract QB?", then obviously yes. Especially if that rookie is a HOF talent.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You're sort of shaping the argument into something it isn't. The philosophy people are advocating is letting your young QB start earlier in his career. There is no guarantee that they'll be in the Super Bowl. SF did this not just once, but twice with two different guys. The days of drafting a top 10 QB and then signing some retread to keep his spot warm on the field for 1-2 years are all but over. What GB did (again) isn't the norm.

 

There was a LOT of heat for the Chiefs when they shoved Alex Smith out the door. I think he even went to a Pro Bowl that season. And I still think going back to 2000 is cheating a bit. Brady doesn't apply for the reason I already said, but I would look at what happened to Pittsburgh, Seattle, Philadelphia and what KC will be one to watch. Their roster is ridiculous right now.

[adambr2]

2 years is probably the "sweet spot" for a QB to have enough time to be ready while still having enough time on his rookie contract for the team to benefit, and I think if Love is our future QB he'll have 2 years in the system first.

 

Not all young QBs are created equal though,

obviously. Some are probably ready to start from Day 1 and others are more on the raw side and need development. Love is definitely more on the raw side. I expect there will be growing pains even after 2 years in the system.

[CheezWizHed]

You're sort of shaping the argument into something it isn't. The philosophy people are advocating is letting your young QB start earlier in his career. There is no guarantee that they'll be in the Super Bowl. SF did this not just once, but twice with two different guys. The days of drafting a top 10 QB and then signing some retread to keep his spot warm on the field for 1-2 years are all but over. What GB did (again) isn't the norm.

 

There was a LOT of heat for the Chiefs when they shoved Alex Smith out the door. I think he even went to a Pro Bowl that season. And I still think going back to 2000 is cheating a bit. Brady doesn't apply for the reason I already said, but I would look at what happened to Pittsburgh, Seattle, Philadelphia and what KC will be one to watch. Their roster is ridiculous right now.

 

Honestly, I saw someone say this (and have heard it several times), so I was curious if it was true. And it wasn't.

 

I'm also curious where the "rookie QB sits" concept comes from too. As far back as I can remember, QBs drafted in the first round more often than not would start that year - especially if they were top 10 picks. In fact, much was made about Rodgers "having the luxury" to sit and learn first.

[HiAndTight]

You're sort of shaping the argument into something it isn't. The philosophy people are advocating is letting your young QB start earlier in his career. There is no guarantee that they'll be in the Super Bowl. SF did this not just once, but twice with two different guys. The days of drafting a top 10 QB and then signing some retread to keep his spot warm on the field for 1-2 years are all but over. What GB did (again) isn't the norm.

 

There was a LOT of heat for the Chiefs when they shoved Alex Smith out the door. I think he even went to a Pro Bowl that season. And I still think going back to 2000 is cheating a bit. Brady doesn't apply for the reason I already said, but I would look at what happened to Pittsburgh, Seattle, Philadelphia and what KC will be one to watch. Their roster is ridiculous right now.

 

Honestly, I saw someone say this (and have heard it several times), so I was curious if it was true. And it wasn't.

 

I'm also curious where the "rookie QB sits" concept comes from too. As far back as I can remember, QBs drafted in the first round more often than not would start that year - especially if they were top 10 picks. In fact, much was made about Rodgers "having the luxury" to sit and learn first.

 

I guess it probably comes from the Steve Young, Tommy Maddux moves. Pretty sure the Dolphins drafted someone who wasn't as notable as Tommy Maddux while they still had Marino. And then the Chiefs just did it with Mahomes.

 

I think it's rare just because if you have an elite QB, teams normally don't go looking for another one. Those situations are kinda rare. I do wonder how many QB's have had their careers ruined because they were thrown in right away. Was David Carr really any better than Derek? I just saw someone explaining how Matt Ryan was so "bad" this year despite throwing 26/11 because how often he was hit/sacked. It something like 41 and 60. David Carr was sacked 76 and 68 times in different seasons and a total of 249 over parts of 5 seasons in Houston.

 

There has been talk about Tua not impressing enough and Miami moving on from him...he went 6-3 as a rookie with 11 TD's and 5 picks.

 

 

Anyway, I think people need to dig a bit more with regard to the rookie QB thing. On all those teams, you had superstars who were drafted late and were also on rookie deals. I think it's an oversimplification. Getting Ty Hill and Travis Kelce in rounds 3 and 5 and not having really paid them yet allowed the Chiefs to invest elsewhere.

 

And now Mahomes has taken a very team-friendly contract(funny to say when you sign for 500 million, but it is and in 5 years it'll likely look MUCH more team friendly) and they're set up pretty well.

[tmwiese55]

Good discussion by all here. I guess i'd struggle to pinpoint a strategy so to speak you can apply. Seems for the most part it just shows it is a huge advantage if you can get a top QB on his rookie deal. But football is such a team game that it's just not that simple as you needs tons of things to fall in place around it, besides also getting lucky the guy you drafted is legit good. Lot's of variable that all need to line up.

 

when it comes down to it, you just have to have a top level QB. If you happen to get one young while somehow having a good team surrounding (which is rare because otherwise you wouldn't be drafting high, so then need some luck to have drafted one anyway for some reason) then you have a big time opportunity for a few years. Once he's good though you can't just let him go and draft a new one because it's such a risk on the next guy. You have to pay him and then try to find steals elsewhere as best you can.

 

Another discussion point. In the last few years we often hear about these ready made good teams that just need a QB (Jax a few years ago, Denver a few back, Colts now, Saints now, etc). The talk goes to getting that proven vet to step in but never about drafting a guy and throwing him to the fire. Maybe that's a route these teams are missing? With some of the immediate results QBs are having in the NFL due to passing be so huge from HS on now maybe that's a better route than a retread mid level QB? Obviously teams like that won't have top 5 picks, but say someone like the FL or BYU QB gets to a team like Colts around pick 20. Maybe that's a better route than a Rivers,Marriotta, Foles, Dalton, Jameis, Newton, Flacco, Fitzpatrick type path of recent years (probably several names I'm forgetting). This obviously proved true in Wilson vs the ex Packers qb Flynn. Matt Stafford would probably be that tipping point this year. I don't know, something to think about.

[owbc]

We’re not going to need this thread tonight, are we???

 

/reverse jinx

[pacopete4]

I don’t think being the underdog in a game 7 applies myself.

[adambr2]

I don’t think being the underdog in a game 7 applies myself.

 

In a vacuum no, in the bigger picture yes. This is probably the overall best team in the NBA over the last 3 years with zero NBA Finals appearances and one conference final appearance with zero conference championships. (If they lose).

 

It would be hard not to see this Bucks era so far as another failure.

[owbc]

We’re not going to need this thread tonight, are we???

 

/reverse jinx

 

It worked!!!!!!!!!!!

[nodakfan17]

We’re not going to need this thread tonight, are we???

 

/reverse jinx

 

It worked!!!!!!!!!!!

Well played.

 

I thought for sure this thread would been fired up after Durant sent the game to OT.

[LouisEly]

Because, of course

[adambr2]

[sixtolezcano16]

Oh well mark another down.

[young guns]

LOCK IT UP!

[adambr2]

We have something nice. Who would have thought when Giannis went down with his knee injury. Simply amazing. What a moment. I'll start another in 10 years if we need it.

[Mr Southpaw]

Awesome

[Fear The Chorizo]

Lock this thread!!

[owbc]

Championship Woah Solvdd