Rodgers is obviously the better QB, but Kaep just has his number

[BRHornet45]

I have to admit, I was shocked to see these head to head stats. Kaep goes toe to toe with him in the passing game and even beats him in most categories.



Wins

Kaep - 3
Rodgers - 0


Passing Yards

Kaep - 902
Rodgers - 767


Completion Percentage

Kaep - 60%
Rodgers - 62%


Passing Touchdowns

Kaep - 6
Rodgers - 6


Interceptions

Kaep - 2
Rodgers - 2


QB Rating

Kaep - 98.6
Rodgers - 97.3


Rushing Yards

Kaep - 301
Rodgers - 52


Rushing Touchdowns

Kaep - 2
Rodgers - 0

[MeloHype]

Kaeperpick isn't playing a good defense like Rodgers

[AchillesHeel]

Kaeperpick isn't playing a good defense like Rodgers

this :lol

[BRHornet45]

Kaeperpick isn't playing a good defense like Rodgers

Packers were ranked #11 last year in defense and some of those stats are from that season.

regardless it's amazing to me that monkeyballism is putting those numbers up. bad defense or not.

[Spur-Addict]

At some point we have to be honest and put the responsibility on the guy who's eating up a large chunk of the salary cap that causes the defense to have short comings. Also, the money spent to give weapons to said QB. And, be honest and not point to that same defense that has a talent deficiency comparatively because of that contract. Not every team with a top end QB like N.O can field a top end defense like N.O. That's an anomaly tbh. If you're getting paid the big dollars, and you have those weapons at your disposal, it's on you, period.

Especially in a game where your defense only gives up 23 points. I bet if you ask a GB fan before the game if you'd live with SF only scoring 23, they'd take that in a heartbeat.

[Creepn]

Kaeperpick isn't playing a good defense like Rodgers

Isn't part of being an elite qb is figuring them out and getting around it to win them though? Are you saying no "elite" qb driven team would've beat the Niners tonight?

[.G.]

At some point we have to be honest and put the responsibility on the guy who's eating up a large chunk of the salary cap that causes the defense to have short comings. Also, the money spent to give weapons to said QB. And, be honest and not point to that same defense that has a talent deficiency comparatively because of that contract. Not every team with a top end QB like N.O can field a top end defense like N.O. That's an anomaly tbh. If you're getting paid the big dollars, and you have those weapons at your disposal, it's on you, period.

Especially in a game where your defense only gives up 23 points. I bet if you ask a GB fan before the game if you'd live with SF only scoring 23, they'd take that in a heartbeat.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/ef5886f5.jpg

[HarlemHeat37]

Rodgers and Kaepernick aren't playing against each other, that's not how it works:lol..

The book on how to beat Green Bay has been out since the Giants eliminated them in their 15-1 season, tbh..Packer fans were afraid of the 9ers more than any other team, look at their forums..any team that is physically dominant on both sides will beat the Packers, while any team that looks to beat them in a battle in the air or in a dome will lose..

Green Bay had a minimal chance of beating San Fran/Seattle(I'd say Carolina, too, but they aren't a legit contender), tbh, they match up horribly with physical teams..

[HarlemHeat37]

And FYI, Green Bay has had 1 season in the Rodgers era where their D was elite(#1 in the league in 2010) and they won the SB that year:lol..

[SupremeGuy]

Kaeperpick isn't playing a good defense like RodgersDamn, thread killer in the first response. :lol

[ata]

When comparing QBs, there is also offensive line to be considered. GP's offensive line last night was just pathetic (+ injuries).
That said: Kaep is top QB and 9ers win was well deserved.

[Raven]

At some point we have to be honest and put the responsibility on the guy who's eating up a large chunk of the salary cap that causes the defense to have short comings. Also, the money spent to give weapons to said QB. And, be honest and not point to that same defense that has a talent deficiency comparatively because of that contract. Not every team with a top end QB like N.O can field a top end defense like N.O. That's an anomaly tbh. If you're getting paid the big dollars, and you have those weapons at your disposal, it's on you, period.

Especially in a game where your defense only gives up 23 points. I bet if you ask a GB fan before the game if you'd live with SF only scoring 23, they'd take that in a heartbeat.

that implication says nothing about who the better qb is, unless they decide to take less money like Brady.

[Spur-Addict]

that implication says nothing about who the better qb is, unless they decide to take less money like Brady.

Does it look like I'm trying to argue that point? Does it look like that's a significant part of the OP? I'm glad you think both answers are the same, as in, no :D

[Trill Clinton]

damn, so rodgers has been getting outplayed head to head by a monkey brained chimp. say it aint so!!

[Raven]

Does it look like I'm trying to argue that point? Does it look like that's a significant part of the OP? I'm glad you think both answers are the same, as in, no :D

the answer is yes if you say he has Rogers number and not the Packers..

[Phillip]

this is every bit as stupid as people who put stock into Brady vs Manning head to head stats/wins.

neither player is ever on the field at the same time.

[MultiTroll]

Rodgers layed the perfect floater jump ball out and GB receiver let ball bounce off his hands then helmet for the missed 50 yard gain and 1st and goal at the 5.
Hard to say rrrrrrrrauuugh Kaep was better.
On the game winning drive, the crucial 3rd and 8 with 1:10 remaining, while it was a great run by Kaep, it's fair to characterize it as just as big a screw up by #24 Green Bays failure to contain.

Just saying.
For the record i was pulling for 49ers.

[Spur-Addict]

the answer is yes if you say he has Rogers number and not the Packers..

You're switching topics :lol Talking about who is the better player has nothing to do with this thread. Now you're getting back in line with having Rodgers number and making it a more coherent argument.

And even if I did say he has his number, Rodgers is a member of GB is he not? So, you can't separate the two. You're trying to separate the head from the body, doesn't work that way. I've seen multiple people bang their head against the wall trying to get you to understand things. I will not fall victim to that tbh. I posted in another thread that Rodgers is the better QB, no question in my opinion. But with the responsibility that's on his shoulders he didn't do enough last game. Even Rodgers will tell you that. Take it from the mouth of the person you're defending tbh.

Rodgers took the massive contract at the expense of his team and consequently has to live with the consequences. Which means, more responsibility is on HIS shoulders. He should be out pacing Kap based on his responsibilities. He is not. And based on the ability of his defense due to the constraint Rodgers put on them talent wise, 23 points is good. Hell, SF gave up 20 and they have a much better defense. And if I'm not mistaken, the GB defense is the only one of the two that forced and recovered a turnover this game. Just accept it.

[Raven]

You're switching topics :lol Talking about who is the better player has nothing to do with this thread. Now you're getting back in line with having Rodgers number and making it a more coherent argument.

And even if I did say he has his number, Rodgers is a member of GB is he not? So, you can't separate the two. You're trying to separate the head from the body, doesn't work that way. I've seen multiple people bang their head against the wall trying to get you to understand things. I will not fall victim to that tbh. I posted in another thread that Rodgers is the better QB, no question in my opinion. But with the responsibility that's on his shoulders he didn't do enough last game. Even Rodgers will tell you that. Take it from the mouth of the person you're defending tbh.

Rodgers took the massive contract at the expense of his team and consequently has to live with the consequences. Which means, more responsibility is on HIS shoulders. He should be out pacing Kap based on his responsibilities. He is not. And based on the ability of his defense due to the constraint Rodgers put on them talent wise, 23 points is good. Hell, SF gave up 20 and they have a much better defense. And if I'm not mistaken, the GB defense is the only one of the two that forced and recovered a turnover this game. Just accept it.

accept what exactly :lol, it's not like you're saying anything i don't agree with.. but if he has his number, than why will he not make it once he gets paid?

[Spur-Addict]

accept what exactly :lol, it's not like you're saying anything i don't agree with.. but if he has his number, than why will he not make it once he gets paid?

I have no idea what that means. Why will he not make what?

[angrydude]

GB wouldn't pay for a defense even if Rodgers was getting nothing. Their GM is cheap and hates free agency.

[The Gemini Method]

^^^What angry says is true--that and they were really missing a lot on D. If Matthews and Shields are involved for the whole game it might've gone the Packers' way. Also, Micah Hyde needs to make that pick in the 4th. The Panthers and 49er tilt may be extra boring but I'm guessing it is who'll choke the game away between Cam and Colin...

[Spur-Addict]

angrydude, what source for the figures do you have? The numbers I'm looking at say GB spent 118 million to SF's 115 million this season. But then another source says GB spent 104 to SF's 118.

Not having Clay Matthews is a big hit for sure. But the D playing that well despite those issues says a lot. 23 points isn't costing your team the game imo. But as far as that INT is concerned, that Rodgers fumble not being recovered by SF cancels that out, as well as other turnover opportunities. That INT drop by Hyde is more glaring because of the moment of the game imo.

[BatManu20]

Uhh no. Green Bay's defense is pretty bad and couldn't get off the field. Not to mention they were missing 3 or 4 key starters. If they make that pick in the 4th Packers take it.

[The Gemini Method]

It seemed this weekend was also the weekend of key losses in game that doomed teams. KC lost a handful of Pro Bowl talent in that game, GB lost its best corner, Philly had a few banged-up, and Cincinnatti had a hobbled Rey M. Pretty noticeable more for KC but still it pays to be healthy like SF and Indy has been of late. Sans Miller the FB for the 49ers which will be key for Gore's success.

[Spur-Addict]

BatManu20, Tramon Williams gained more yards on his INT reception return comparatively to the GB offense until that point (INT made at 13 mins left in 2nd Quarter). To give you an idea, the yardage gained on that return was about 17 yards. That's unacceptable. So, the GB offense had a lot to do with them being on the field for extended periods of time throughout that game. There were at least three, 3-and-outs by the GB offense in the first half.

[HarlemHeat37]

Rodgers didn't play well, he really didn't play well in either of the 2 games he played to end the season, he was clearly rusty..however, Kaepernick played awful as well, but was bailed out by a defense that didn't understand the simple concept of containment:lol..

Comparing Rodgers' fumble where the ball fell right in front of him to Kaepernick throwing 2 balls that should have EASILY been intercepted is just reaching, tbh:lol..

Tramon Williams dropped an INT in the end zone that should have been easy for any decent defensive back, and Hyde dropped a ball that Kaepernick essentially begged him to take, and could have potentially been a pick-6:lol..

Green Bay's defense got virtually no pressure on Kaepernick all game and the only reason they "only" allowed 23 points is because Kaepernick is a very mediocre QB, tbh..he missed a ton of throws and looked terrible inside the pocket, as usual..

[resistanze]

GB also kicked a fumble out of bounds, so I'd like to know the other examples of potential turnovers that negative GB's clear missed chances :lol

[Spur-Addict]

No, not reaching. And I'm sure if I went back and watched the game there would be other turnover opportunities squandered as well by SF. But, why make excuses? :rollin

Because that's all I'm hearing tbh

[HarlemHeat37]

GB also kicked a fumble out of bounds, so I'd like to know the other examples of potential turnovers that negative GB's clear missed chances :lol

:lol ya, I forgot about that, Jennings had an easy fumble recovery that any decent defensive player would have recovered, tbh..

[HarlemHeat37]

No, not reaching. And I'm sure if I went back and watched the game there would be other turnover opportunities squandered as well by SF. But, why make excuses? :rollin

Because that's all I'm hearing tbh

You're actually arguing that you could find turnover opportunities that are comparable to Kaepernick throwing 2 atrocious balls that were literally in the hands of the defensive backs and dropped?:lol..

[resistanze]

I don't see the issue...SF was the superior team and won. Rodgers could've been better, and the defense A LOT better. they missed game changers and gave up game changers. Saying "177 yards, 1 TD isn't gonna cut it!" isn't a rational football argument for someone that watched the game tbh. Pointing to the points total without factoring missed opportunities by the defense is weird. SF didn't play well at all either - they probably put up 13 points against an average defensive team.

[Spur-Addict]

A turnover opportunity is just that, an opportunity. Spin it how you'd like to. But for the most part, the meat of what I've been saying hasn't really be addressed. And to sit here and pin this on the defense is laughable when they're the only defense that created an actual turnover in yesterdays game, and only gave up 23 total points when you have the best QB in the game at the helm of your franchise who only accounted for 188 total yards and 1 TD, tbh.

[Chinook]

At some point we have to be honest and put the responsibility on the guy who's eating up a large chunk of the salary cap that causes the defense to have short comings. Also, the money spent to give weapons to said QB. And, be honest and not point to that same defense that has a talent deficiency comparatively because of that contract. Not every team with a top end QB like N.O can field a top end defense like N.O. That's an anomaly tbh. If you're getting paid the big dollars, and you have those weapons at your disposal, it's on you, period.

Especially in a game where your defense only gives up 23 points. I bet if you ask a GB fan before the game if you'd live with SF only scoring 23, they'd take that in a heartbeat.

This is trurer than most folks understand. People think quarterbacks' value is increasing due to the new rules, and that's true in a general sense. The position is becoming more important. But the effect of that is that the relative value of elite quarterbacks is decreasing. Why pay so much for a Flacco if a Nick Foles can come in and be just as good? Obviously, bad QB play can sink a team, but if organizations prioritized development and scheme, you wouldn't see Colts-like drop-offs.

[Spur-Addict]

I don't see the issue...SF was the superior team and won. Rodgers could've been better, and the defense A LOT better. they missed game changers and gave up game changers. Saying "177 yards, 1 TD isn't gonna cut it!" isn't a rational football argument for someone that watched the game tbh. Pointing to the points total without factoring missed opportunities by the defense is weird. SF didn't play well at all either - they probably put up 13 points against an average defensive team.

I think you're putting to much emphasis on a battered defense that gave up 23 total points, and caused the only turnover of the game. But in a game so close your horses carry you. If the main horse did a little more, everyone is singing his praises. He has to take it in this situation, it's only right. And I've said more than just stats, so lets be comprehensive respectfully. I know the last thing you want to do is talk about your team losing less than a day after.

[Spur-Addict]

This is trurer than most folks understand. People think quarterbacks' value is increasing due to the new rules, and that's true in a general sense. The position is becoming more important. But the effect of that is that the relative value of elite quarterbacks is decreasing. Why pay so much for a Flacco if a Nick Foles can come in and be just as good? Obviously, bad QB play can sink a team, but if organizations prioritized development and scheme, you wouldn't see Colts-like drop-offs.

Certainly, I think you have a nice point here. But how does one properly gauge the value of the QB they have based on how that team is set up? How can we gauge that talent accurately to give fair market value to both the player, and the team? Very difficult.

[resistanze]

I think you're putting to much emphasis on a battered defense that gave up 23 total points, and caused the only turnover of the game. But in a game so close your horses carry you. If the main horse did a little more, everyone is singing his praises. He has to take it in this situation, it's only right. And I've said more than just stats, so lets be comprehensive respectfully. I know the last thing you want to do is talk about your team losing less than a day after.

Not really, GB squeaked into the playoffs and faced a superior opponent, and have a lot of things to work on the the postseason. I just don't agree with your assessment,, so we'll agree to disagree.

[Chinook]

Certainly, I think you have a nice point here. But how does one properly gauge the value of the QB they have based on how that team is set up? How can we gauge that talent accurately to give fair market value to both the player, and the team? Very difficult.

The market value is currently established at about $20 Million a year. But the actual value is up for grabs. It varies by teams. Denver needed to pay a lot for Manning, because their team had a short window and no replacement. The Lions didn't need to pay for Stafford, because he hasn't shown anything when it mattered. Cutler was outplayed by his backup.

[Spur-Addict]

The market value is currently established at about $20 Million a year. But the actual value is up for grabs. It varies by teams. Denver needed to pay a lot for Manning, because their team had a short window and no replacement. The Lions didn't need to pay for Stafford, because he hasn't shown anything when it mattered. Cutler was outplayed by his backup.

Is there a number that you personally think is the ceiling for any QB? Or are there guys that justify an escalating price tag despite the detriment to your overall roster?

[Chinook]

Is there a number that you personally think is the ceiling for any QB? Or are there guys that justify an escalating price tag despite the detriment to your overall roster?

I think we're at about the cap now. But as long as teams do not develop proper backups qnd scheme appropriately, talent will always be at a premium.

I need to see a $20 Million quarterback actually win it all before I feel the current philosophy is a viable one.

[HI-FI]

I think we're at about the cap now. But as long as teams do not develop proper backups qnd scheme appropriately, talent will always be at a premium.

I need to see a $20 Million quarterback actually win it all before I feel the current philosophy is a viable one.
What about Manning? He was paid at a premium, and finally got a ring for it, though his team stepped up big time. Though I think he should've been like Brady and taken less, though Brady probably realized the system was bigger than him.


As for Kaep, I've been happy with Niners drafting him from the beginning, I think he's got the goods, but it may take awhile for it come together. Hopefully by his next contract, we don't overpay him, unless he helps us win a ring, then I don't mind him getting overpaid like Flacco.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Franchise QB's are worth every penny in today's NFL. Almost all the elites have rings--and more importantly--consistent contending football teams.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

You're actually arguing that you could find turnover opportunities that are comparable to Kaepernick throwing 2 atrocious balls that were literally in the hands of the defensive backs and dropped?:lol..

:cry he threw two bad passes :cry

[Chinook]

What about Manning? He was paid at a premium, and finally got a ring for it, though his team stepped up big time. Though I think he should've been like Brady and taken less, though Brady probably realized the system was bigger than him.


As for Kaep, I've been happy with Niners drafting him from the beginning, I think he's got the goods, but it may take awhile for it come together. Hopefully by his next contract, we don't overpay him, unless he helps us win a ring, then I don't mind him getting overpaid like Flacco.

I am on record here as saying Manning was the only true franchise quarterback I've seen. And i like Kaep. But the 9ers' chances of winning drop as soon as he gets Flacco money. Seems like a pointless endeavor to cripple a team for that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Manning's 2006 cap hit was a little over $10M, so Chinook's statement about $20M QBs still stands.

[Chinook]

Franchise QB's are worth every penny in today's NFL. Almost all the elites have rings--and more importantly--consistent contending football teams.

I think it's backwards. Most quarterbacks who win rings are considered elite. How many were elite before they won? Manning is the only who comes to mind. Brady won as well, but he wasnt making elite money yet. The top four QBs have three rings since 04. Is that their fault? Not really. But clearly having one isn't a make-or-break thing.

[spurraider21]

I think it's backwards. Most quarterbacks who win rings are considered elite. How many were elite before they won? Manning is the only who comes to mind. Brady won as well, but he wasnt making elite money yet. The top four QBs have three rings since 04. Is that their fault? Not really. But clearly having one isn't a make-or-break thing.
Bombs of truth

:lol at the notions of Eli and Flacco being elite

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Bombs of truth

:lol at the notions of Eli and Flacco being elite

Flacco and Eli were elite in the playoffs, thus they were rewarded.

[spurraider21]

^sure, but i'd hardly call them elite in a league with Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Manning. neither Flacco nor Eli are even in that echelon

[Chinook]

Flacco and Eli were elite in the playoffs, thus they were rewarded.

Flacco's stretch last year is overrated. Denver LBs dropped two interceptions which would have ended the game. Even still he had an elite stretch. But he had five mediocre years before that. To me that's more indicative of Joe. He's inconsistent. A team can win with him, but they can't depend on his production week in and week out. That's not worth $15 Million, let alone 20.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

^sure, but i'd hardly call them elite in a league with Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Manning. neither Flacco nor Eli are even in that echelon

Eli used to be pretty close

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So basically a team that can get elite QB play from a QB who's not getting paid elite money has a huge advantage.

Who'da thunk it!

[spurraider21]

So basically a team that can get elite QB play from a QB who's not getting paid elite money has a huge advantage.

Who'da thunk it!
or elite qb's are getting paid too much

[Chinook]

So basically a team that can get elite QB play from a QB who's not getting paid elite money has a huge advantage.

Who'da thunk it!

Obviously. But it's not just that they have an advantage. It's that the QBs have oretty much been shut out after they got their money. So if you're a team trying to win a ring, why pay so much money to retain a guy when keeping him hurts the team so much? Why not just invest in developing a backup? If $20 Million QBs can't win, why ever pay one that much?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

or elite qb's are getting paid too much

Of the 8 teams left in the playoffs, 3 teams have elite QBs getting elite money (Peyton @ 17.5M, Brady @ $13.8M, Brees @ 17.4M), 1 team has a good QB getting overpaid (Rivers @ $13M), and 4 teams have QBs still on their rookie deals (Wilson, Luck, Kaep, Cum).

I'm not sure why people think the fact QBs still on their rookie deals don't compromise cap space means elite QBs are getting paid too much. The 8 teams remaining tell me that unless you've got a bargain at QB still playing out his rookie deal, you better have an elite QB.

[spurraider21]

Of the 8 teams left in the playoffs, 3 teams have elite QBs getting elite money (Peyton @ 17.5M, Brady @ $13.8M, Brees @ 17.4M), 1 team has a good QB getting overpaid (Rivers @ $13M), and 4 teams have QBs still on their rookie deals (Wilson, Luck, Kaep, Cum).

I'm not sure why people think the fact QBs still on their rookie deals don't compromise cap space means elite QBs are getting paid too much. The 8 teams remaining tell me that unless you've got a bargain at QB still playing out his rookie deal, you better have an elite QB.
it could also mean the perceived market value for these elite qb's is higher than their actual value

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Obviously. But it's not just that they have an advantage. It's that the QBs have oretty much been shut out after they got their money. So if you're a team trying to win a ring, why pay so much money to retain a guy when keeping him hurts the team so much? Why not just invest in developing a backup? If $20 Million QBs can't win, why ever pay one that much?

Eli Manning's 2011 cap value was $14.1M, 2007 was $10M
Drew Brees' 2009 cap value was $10.7M
Peyton's 2006 cap value was $10.6M

Plenty of QBs have won a superbowl after "getting their money". The fact you keep using this arbitrary $20M number when that's the cap figure you see in the shittiest years of the QB's contract doesn't change that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

it could also mean the perceived market value for these elite qb's is higher than their actual value

Good job not addressing the fact that the only teams in the playoffs not paying their QB elite money are teams with a QB on his rookie deal.

[spurraider21]

Good job not addressing the fact that the only teams in the playoffs not paying their QB elite money are teams with a QB on his rookie deal.
im not trying to understate the importance of qb's, but the salaries of recent winners tells me the market value of FA qb's is inflated. those teams with rookie contract QB's have stacked rosters, like Seattle and SF, while teams like GB, NE, and even Denver have glaring holes that their great qb's can sometimes mask. the great qb's should obviously get paid, but perhaps the contracts should be dialed down

[spurraider21]

Eli Manning's 2011 cap value was $14.1M, 2007 was $10M
Drew Brees' 2009 cap value was $10.7M
Peyton's 2006 cap value was $10.6M

Plenty of QBs have won a superbowl after "getting their money". The fact you keep using this arbitrary $20M number when that's the cap figure you see in the shittiest years of the QB's contract doesn't change that.
nowadays a 10 million dollar contract for a qb isn't exactly "getting their money"

[Chinook]

No one is arguing against $14 Million. If Flacco had gotten $84M/6 we'd probably all think he was paid well. So throw Brady and Rivers out. That's two of eight making elite money by today's standards. Manning had a bye, and if he loses this weekend, he'll be no one to brag about. So we only have the Saints as evidence. We already know they sucked without Payton. So I think it's debatable that Brees is the main reason why they're still in it.

We can aslo talk about all quarterbacks sitting at home who average what Brees and Manning are.making this year. So it's not like that money always gets used well. At best, it seems like the only QBs who should get more than $14 Million are the Big Four.

[Chinook]

Eli Manning's 2011 cap value was $14.1M, 2007 was $10M
Drew Brees' 2009 cap value was $10.7M
Peyton's 2006 cap value was $10.6M

Plenty of QBs have won a superbowl after "getting their money". The fact you keep using this arbitrary $20M number when that's the cap figure you see in the shittiest years of the QB's contract doesn't change that.

It's not like I'm calling the QBs one-year wonders. A bunch of second-contract quarterbacks win it all. There's a huge difference between $13 Million and $20 Million. Thats the number that most starters are hitting nowadays. So it's not like I plucked that from the heavens.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

im not trying to understate the importance of qb's, but the salaries of recent winners tells me the market value of FA qb's is inflated. those teams with rookie contract QB's have stacked rosters, like Seattle and SF, while teams like GB, NE, and even Denver have glaring holes that their great qb's can sometimes mask. the great qb's should obviously get paid, but perhaps the contracts should be dialed down

Eli Manning was a recent winner at $14.1M, and you just said he's not even elite.

But yes, I'm sure Tom Brady making elite QB money is why Wes Welker dropped a game winning SB catch or why they've had key injuries every year, or why Belichick has blown countless recent 2nd round picks on total duds. I'm also sure Rogers' contract is why his defense has had key injuries every year. On the flip side, I'm sure Kaepernick's contract has directly led to the near-perfect health the 49ers had last year, and Joe Flacco's small contract was why Baltimore got healthy at the right time last year.

Neither San Fran or Seattle have won anything either, so I'm not sure what they're supposed to prove :lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's not like I'm calling the QBs one-year wonders. A bunch of second-contract quarterbacks win it all. There's a huge difference between $13 Million and $20 Million. Thats the number that most starters are hitting nowadays. So it's not like I plucked that from the heavens.

There's 1 QB in the NFL with a cap figure at or over $20M this year, and only 3 more with a cap figure over $15M, so yeah, I'd say you did pluck that from the heavens :lmao

[spurraider21]

Eli Manning was a recent winner at $14.1M, and you just said he's not even elite.
he isn't. he has had 2 great playoff runs though.


But yes, I'm sure Tom Brady making elite QB money is why Wes Welker dropped a game winning SB catch or why they've had key injuries every year, or why Belichick has blown countless recent 2nd round picks on total duds. I'm also sure Rogers' contract is why his defense has had key injuries every year. On the flip side, I'm sure Kaepernick's contract has directly led to the near-perfect health the 49ers had last year, and Joe Flacco's small contract was why Baltimore got healthy at the right time last year.

smaller cap numbers lead to more depth, which could explain why injuries are more debilitating to teams with players with very high cap numbers (typically qb's). what was brady's cap number in 2011 tho?


Neither San Fran or Seattle have won anything either, so I'm not sure what they're supposed to prove :lmao
you brought them up as 2 of the remaining teams (along with carolina). they are 2 teams without elite QB play who are doing fine, because they are spending that money typically reserved for qb's on other positions, which puts them in a competing position. unless you think kaep is playing at a high level or somethin like that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

smaller cap numbers lead to more depth, which could explain why injuries are more debilitating to teams with players with very high cap numbers (typically qb's).
Oh look another argument not supported by any specific examples, just general statements. The 49ers had horrible depth last year, their starters just didn't get injured in spite of a high snap count. Please point out specific evidence where more depth prevented injuries or how a lack of depth caused injuries. I'm anxious to hear how a lack of depth is why Gronk's knee collided with another player's helmet and he tore his ACL.


what was brady's cap number in 2011 tho?
Brady's total cap figure for 2011 was $13.2M so he was counting against the cap less than Eli. Were you hoping the number I gave would help your argument? :lmao


you brought them up as 2 of the remaining teams (along with carolina). they are 2 teams without elite QB play who are doing fine, because they are spending that money typically reserved for qb's on other positions, which puts them in a competing position. unless you think kaep is playing at a high level or somethin like that.
Which they won't be able to do once their QBs get new deals. What are you saying, teams with elite QBs should let them leave and try to find a bargain QB in the draft?

[Chinook]

There's 1 QB in the NFL with a cap figure at or over $20M this year, and only 3 more with a cap figure over $15M, so yeah, I'd say you did pluck that from the heavens :lmao

No... I'm speaking as a fan of team who just gave its QB a $20.1 APY because that's supposedly the going rate for franchise QBs. Later in the off-season two more signed for even higher averages. Afterwards, three more signed for near that average. Now are their cap numbers that high this year? Nope. That rarely happens. But the numbers will catch up. Flacco, Ryan and Romo aren't sitting at home due to their cap numbers. But those numbers could keep them at home in future post-seasons.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No... I'm speaking as a fan of team who just gave ita QB a $20.1 APY because that's supposedly the going rate for franchise QBs. Later in the off-season two more signed for even higher averages. After three more signed for near thay average. Now are their cap numbers that high this year? Nope. That rarely happens. But the numbers will catch up. Flacco, Ryan and Romo aren't sitting at home due to their cap numbers. But those numbers could keep them at home in future post-seasons.

Oh ok so you're talking about hypotheticals that haven't happened yet, not the current day NFL. Got it.

Make sure you save all of your posts in case this argument happens again in 3 years.

[Chinook]

Oh ok so you're talking about hypotheticals that haven't happened yet, not the current day NFL. Got it.

Make sure you save all of your posts in case this argument happens again in 3 years.

Nope, making two arguments that are getting concatenated. The first is that having the absolute top QBs doesnt seem to really get rings. Instead, teams that can put their cheap QBs in positions to succeed keep getting all the glory.

The second is that today there is a prevailing mentality that QBs are so important that even average ones are worth more than elite players at other positions. So that's leading to mediocre QBs like Flacco and Stafford gettting elite money. That leads to actually elite players demanding even more. The market is not out of control because Brees and Rogers are getting $20 Million. It's out of control because Stafford and Cutler get $18M+ and no one bats an eye.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Nope, making two arguments that are getting concatenated. The first is that having the absolute top QBs doesnt seem to really get rings. Instead, teams that can put their cheap QBs in positions to succeed keep getting all the glory.

The second is that today there is a prevailing mentality that QBs are so important that even average ones are worth more than elite players at other positions. So that's leading to mediocre QBs like Flacco and Stafford gettting elite money. That leads to actually elite players demanding even more. The market is not out of control because Brees and Rogers are getting $20 Million. It's out of control because Stafford and Cutler get $18M+ and no one bats an eye.

:lol this wasn't the argument at all, but OK. I have no idea when Stafford and Cutler became a part of this discussion.

[HarlemHeat37]

I don't think Flacco is anywhere near elite and I've always thought he was a little overrated, but he DID have an elite stretch of football when it mattered most last year, tbh..

I don't believe you need an elite QB to win a title, but I do think you need a QB that can play at an elite level for a few weeks of the playoffs, tbh..it's difficult to win with a Trent Dilfer, like you could in the past..

I still value defense over anything, and that seems to be overlooked by today's fans and media, tbh..

1- Defense
2- QB play
3- Coaching

IMO, that should be the priority for winning, and it seems obvious..I can't remember a team that won with only 1 of the 3, which worries me as a Broncos fan(although you could argue Manning negates Fox's staff as the offensive game planner)..

[Chinook]

:lol this wasn't the argument at all, but OK. I have no idea when Stafford and Cutler became a part of this discussion.

We were arguing about the innate value of starting quarterbacks upthread. That's when I jumped in and talked about that second part. The first part is just repeating my stance on elite QBs. The elite label doesn't have any predictive power. New QBs keeo winning while the elite keep getting knocked out.

About Rogers, I don't see him winning once his extension kicks in in earnest. He needs too much to win. The only way got get that much help and fit in under the cap is to consistently draft amd develop well. But even Flacco showed he can win a ring with the right players around him, so what makes Rogers essential? Maybe the Pack would have even had a good record had they developed a backup instead of signing them off the street.

[spurraider21]

i never said a lack of depth causes injuries. i said a lack of depth makes injuries more detrimental. maybe i should just post the word "strawman" over and over again and post pictures of reading comprehension textbooks

[HI-FI]

I am on record here as saying Manning was the only true franchise quarterback I've seen. And i like Kaep. But the 9ers' chances of winning drop as soon as he gets Flacco money. Seems like a pointless endeavor to cripple a team for that.

It's not that I want him to make Flacco money, I think way too many of these QBs are getting overpaid. It's the nature of the market, way too much demand and not enough supply of elite QBs. I'm just saying that if Kaep helped us to win a ring, I'd be okay biting the bullet and living with him making Flacco money, because I think Kaep could turn out to be special. But ideally I'd like for him to help us win and not get overpaid.

Personally, if no elite or franchise QB was available, and there aren't many tbh, then I'd just load up on O-Line and D-Line.

I agree I think Manning was the one of the few worth it, since he raised the entire level of that franchise and city, but he could've improved his chances by taking less. It would've been interesting to see what he could've done if signed with the newer rookie contracts. Be interesting to see how Colts fare once Luck gets the big bucks.

[Pelicans78]

No one is arguing against $14 Million. If Flacco had gotten $84M/6 we'd probably all think he was paid well. So throw Brady and Rivers out. That's two of eight making elite money by today's standards. Manning had a bye, and if he loses this weekend, he'll be no one to brag about. So we only have the Saints as evidence. We already know they sucked without Payton. So I think it's debatable that Brees is the main reason why they're still in it.

We can aslo talk about all quarterbacks sitting at home who average what Brees and Manning are.making this year. So it's not like that money always gets used well. At best, it seems like the only QBs who should get more than $14 Million are the Big Four.

Saints offense was better last season than this season. Brees played with the worst defense in NFL history. The defense this season is the biggest reason for the Saints success. They've outplayed the offense all season.

Also Brees had success under Marty ball.

You can continue with your shitty takes.

[Bill_Brasky]

Saints offense was better last season than this season. Brees played with the worst defense in NFL history. The defense this season is the biggest reason for the Saints success. They've outplayed the offense all season.

Also Brees had success under Marty ball.

You can continue with your shitty takes.

You just fucking agreed with him.

[Raven]

Saints offense was better last season than this season. Brees played with the worst defense in NFL history. The defense this season is the biggest reason for the Saints success. They've outplayed the offense all season.

Also Brees had success under Marty ball.

You can continue with your shitty takes.

rude.

[Chinook]

Saints offense was better last season than this season. Brees played with the worst defense in NFL history. The defense this season is the biggest reason for the Saints success. They've outplayed the offense all season.

Also Brees had success under Marty ball.

You can continue with your shitty takes.

...

So? I didn't say Brees didn't play well. I said he wasn't enough without Payton. If the Saints sucked despite Brees playing well, that reinforces the argument that he doesn't make or break the team.

[Pelicans78]

...

So? I didn't say Brees didn't play well. I said he wasn't enough without Payton. If the Saints sucked despite Brees playing well, that reinforces the argument that he doesn't make or break the team.

The problem wasn't just Payton. It was the horrible defense he had to deal with. Poor coaching mostly. Ryan has made a big difference despite just adding one FA in Keenan Lewis and a draft pick in Vaccaro.

i do think Brees is 5 million too much since it's hurt the o-line by losing three starters in the last 3 seasons which has really hurt the offense overall. But Brees has been an elite passer with a Super Bowl run so he was gonna get his money regardless and it hasn't taken away from the defense this season.

And Payton can be overrated at times with his stubborn play-calling. The road losses can always be traced to his lack of desire in the running game.