+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Are "ELITE" Quarterbacks really neccesary?

    With the news of Aaron Rodgers new contract coming out today (speculating around 25 million annually), I am left reminiscing in retrospect about this years Super Bowl. For the last five, six years, we have been flooded with the media mindset that teams need an "ELITE" quarterback to win Super Bowls. The word was thrown around consistently. This year, Joe Flacco and basically-rookie Colin Kaepernick competed in the Super Bowl. Flacco made around $6 million last year, with Kaepernick accumulating under $600,000, both well below the presumed "elite" price-tag.

    So this I ask you. We constantly witness change in the NFL. It was just recently where the 100 Million dollar quarterback became necessary. Every team in the league who has a franchise quarterback is locking them up in relation to the pay scale, and every team who doesn't have one is looking for one. Last year we saw two guys who were making a fraction of what those "elite" quarterbacks make, and they both played very well. Are we going to see the short-lived, five-year period of the elite quarterback reigning the NFL come to an end?

    One very interesting fact I stumbled upon while developing the argument to myself: Only one quarterback working under a 100 million dollar contract at the time has won a Super Bowl - our boy Eli Manning. Yes, Brees, Peyton, Brady, and Flacco have all won Super Bowls, but they raked in their 100 million dollar contracts following Super Bowl wins. They have yet to bring their teams back to the title since signing their new deals.

  2. #2
    All-Pro Moke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,122
    There are limited "elite" QBs that makes the team around him that much better. Football is a team sport, never changed.... Tom Brady is considered an elite QB because he makes the best from almost nothing.

    You won't find many QBs like that, it's very difficult. You need to build around your QB, make your QB a better player than he is.

  3. #3
    All-Pro FBomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    27,621
    No ONE player wins by himself. It has always been a team effort. That being said, it certainly helps to have a great QB leading the way.
    And now, in the interest of equal time, here is a message from the National Institute of Pancakes: It reads, and I quote, **** waffles.......G Carlin

  4. #4
    Veteran Ntegrase96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    3,489
    I think the answer to the title is pretty simple... most QBs aren't considered elite until they hoist a Lombardi, meaning the moniker of 'elite' is rather useless since it doesn't involve any foresight. (Joe Flacco wasn't elite but had the ability to win a superbowl making him elite...?)

    But to answer the question about huge contracts for QBs, I think they can definitely be hurtful. You need to be able to retain a lot of pieces that helped get you that first lombardi, and one player shouldn't eat up that huge of a chunk of cap and inhibit you from doing so.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ntegrase96 View Post
    I think the answer to the title is pretty simple... most QBs aren't considered elite until they hoist a Lombardi, meaning the moniker of 'elite' is rather useless since it doesn't involve any foresight. (Joe Flacco wasn't elite but had the ability to win a superbowl making him elite...?)

    But to answer the question about huge contracts for QBs, I think they can definitely be hurtful. You need to be able to retain a lot of pieces that helped get you that first lombardi, and one player shouldn't eat up that huge of a chunk of cap and inhibit you from doing so.
    I find it remarkable how organizations have managed to still be successful after handing out such contracts. Now, it was previously mentioned in this thread, and is absolutely true, that you give those contracts out to quarterbacks who control every facet of the game, and make every one around them better. Which makes sense as to how teams can still click after handing out the contracts. You don't see the Arizona Cardinals with Larry Fitzgerald, Washington Redskins with Albert Haynesworth, or the Buffalo Bills with Mario Williams having recent success with paying non-QB's that money.

    The question here was never can these contracts be hurtful. If it came off that way at some point in my rambling, then woops. The question was will we see a trend of teams who are confident in winning with budget quarterbacks. Sure, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick may not be "budget quarterbacks" in four years, but they are proof that young quarterbacks can come into this league and win right away. In my opinion, if we continue to see a flooding of capable quarterbacks in the league, whether it be due to league rules, advancement of offenses at the college level, whatever - then we will see the market value of the quarterback position decrease, or at least fluctuate dramatically among the class of quarterbacks capable of winning playoff games and Super Bowls. I think it is entirely possible to have a quarterback in this league on the payscale of a guy such as Tony Romo (10 million annually) and still be competitive year after year. Hell, Aaron Rodgers is on a six-year, 65 million dollar deal right now.
    Last edited by greenca190; 03-28-2013 at 12:36 PM.

  6. #6
    All-Pro Moke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,122
    Yeah, everyone calls Eli Manning an elite QB, but you can name a few QBs that have won 1 or 2 SBs and you want to call them elite because of that?

    Stupid reasoning, IMO. Joe Flacco isn't elite after winning that SB.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Moke View Post
    Yeah, everyone calls Eli Manning an elite QB, but you can name a few QBs that have won 1 or 2 SBs and you want to call them elite because of that?

    Stupid reasoning, IMO. Joe Flacco isn't elite after winning that SB.
    Agreed. So the question at hand, is it possible to find that quarterback that your franchise is confident can lead you to a super bowl win without having to pony up 100 million over 6 years? As I mentioned before, Eli is the only quarterback to actually win a super bowl while being paid that fat 100 million. Every other quarterback won, got paid, haven't won since. Is it just a rite of passage or something? How much leverage does a resume with "Super Bowl winning quarterback" give these guys during negotiations?
    Last edited by greenca190; 03-28-2013 at 02:20 PM.

  8. #8
    All-Pro Moke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,122
    Quote Originally Posted by greenca190 View Post
    Agreed. So the question at hand, is it possible to find that quarterback that your franchise is confident can lead you to a super bowl win without having to pony up 100 million over 6 years? As I mentioned before, Eli is the only quarterback to actually win a super bowl while being paid that fat 100 million. Every other quarterback won, got paid, haven't won since. Is it just a rite of passage or something? How much leverage does a resume with "Super Bowl winning quarterback" give these guys during negotiations?
    "getting paid" is a fairly new thing though. You can't win SB after SB in a short period of time. I'm afraid this is a new era of "getting paid". It's bound to happen because we have such a small sample size. I'll have this discussion in 10 years, maybe even longer.

  9. #9
    Veteran Ntegrase96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    3,489
    Quote Originally Posted by greenca190 View Post
    I find it remarkable how organizations have managed to still be successful after handing out such contracts. Now, it was previously mentioned in this thread, and is absolutely true, that you give those contracts out to quarterbacks who control every facet of the game, and make every one around them better. Which makes sense as to how teams can still click after handing out the contracts. You don't see the Arizona Cardinals with Larry Fitzgerald, Washington Redskins with Albert Haynesworth, or the Buffalo Bills with Mario Williams having recent success with paying non-QB's that money.

    The question here was never can these contracts be hurtful. If it came off that way at some point in my rambling, then woops. The question was will we see a trend of teams who are confident in winning with budget quarterbacks. Sure, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick may not be "budget quarterbacks" in four years, but they are proof that young quarterbacks can come into this league and win right away. In my opinion, if we continue to see a flooding of capable quarterbacks in the league, whether it be due to league rules, advancement of offenses at the college level, whatever - then we will see the market value of the quarterback position decrease, or at least fluctuate dramatically among the class of quarterbacks capable of winning playoff games and Super Bowls. I think it is entirely possible to have a quarterback in this league on the payscale of a guy such as Tony Romo (10 million annually) and still be competitive year after year. Hell, Aaron Rodgers is on a six-year, 65 million dollar deal right now.
    We may see teams that try to succeed with low budget QBs, but I kind of doubt it. As long as one team is willing to pay, all teams will be willing to pay.

    Plus, I think this year was an anomaly as far as successful QBs go.

  10. #10
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    5,783
    The problem with this argument is the term "elite", accompanied by the modern QB salary issue.

    If you suspend those 2 for a moment and ask instead, is a high quality, reliable, play making leader of a "franchise" QB necessary in the NFL for a team to have its best chance to succeed at the championship level--the answer is "yes".

    It is no accident or coincidence that certain teams have been consistently mediocre or worse, with absolutely NO chance of getting to a Conference Championship game--much less the SB--over the past 10-12 years at the very least. These team have all had QB revolving doors, with no outstanding or even very good QBs.

    Buffalo, Miami, Jets, Browns, Jags, Titans (since McNair's forced retirement), Broncos (14 years between Elway and Peyton), Raiders, Redskins (before 2012), Vikings, Lions, (jury still out), Panthers (jury still out), Buccaneers, Arizona (except for a 3 year hiatus with Warner), Rams (after 2003), Niners (until 2011, and even then they changed QBs a year later).

    A few of these teams have had a good year or two, with whatever QB they had, but then fall back into "mediocre land". Virtually half the league.

    Ask any of them how hard--and how important to the organization--it is to acquire and retain a franchise QB.

    Again, forget the term "elite QB" and "highest paid" QB. Look at the Super Bowl winners of the last 22 years. Except for Rypkin (and he played at an exceptional level in 91), Dilfer, and Johnson, the winning teams have had the crucial component of a "franchise QB" as their one common thread among them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts