Le'Veon Bell

[Northern_Blitz]

Brady has a side business deal with the Pats ownership in which he gets compensation. He probably be receiving compensations well after he is retired.

Sure, but if the argument is we shouldn't pay skill players over a certain cap percentage because other teams haven't been able to win that way,we need to apply the same logic to the QB position.

I tend to think we're now paying Ben too much to be competitive without getting more than our share of good luck.

But I hope I'm wrong

[Disco1981]

Sure, but if the argument is we shouldn't pay skill players over a certain cap percentage because other teams haven't been able to win that way,we need to apply the same logic to the QB position.

I tend to think we're now paying Ben too much to be competitive without getting more than our share of good luck.

But I hope I'm wrong

This...I have been saying this for years...I believe the Cheats,Cheat at EVERYTHING...They absolutely ( I think ) lol...Have been funneling money to Marsha for years...I mean, How would you ever know...And would you really put it past them

[BURGH86STEEL]

Sure, but if the argument is we shouldn't pay skill players over a certain cap percentage because other teams haven't been able to win that way,we need to apply the same logic to the QB position.

I tend to think we're now paying Ben too much to be competitive without getting more than our share of good luck.

But I hope I'm wrong

The thing about it is that other teams won and win that way.

I doubt QBs/players would accept that structure. Other teams that need QBs would always be willing to pay more. There is usually another team that's willing to pay more.

Teams have to go with the horses they have and hope things play out as they envision. There's more than one way to win games in the NFL.

[Northern_Blitz]

The thing about it is that other teams won and win that way.

I doubt QBs/players would accept that structure. Other teams that need QBs would always be willing to pay more. There is usually another team that's willing to pay more.

Teams have to go with the horses they have and hope things play out as they envision. There's more than one way to win games in the NFL.

So.. If (1) we accept Captains argument that we should loosely base our cap structure on other successful teams and (2) it's true that no other recent SB winner has devoted 20% of the cap to a QB (I don't know if this is true), then what should we do?

I think the "moneyball" answer would be to trade the great QB on a market level deal for a huge bounty of draft picks. Then go hunting for a new young QB that we can underpay on his first 2 deals. The money we save at QB probably also let's us go after elite players on D as well.

I think that's the best way to win a championship (good QB on a rookie deal and a great D).

But do these "moneyball" type strategies work?

Is it just correlation between the cap allocation and the SB wins, or is it causation?

And if you already have great players on your roster (at QB, RB, WR etc) , should you get rid of them when you have to pay them market value?

I don't know.

[Captain Lemming]

Sure, but if the argument is we shouldn't pay skill players over a certain cap percentage because other teams haven't been able to win that way,we need to apply the same logic to the QB position.

I tend to think we're now paying Ben too much to be competitive without getting more than our share of good luck.

But I hope I'm wrong

I agree there is a tipping point for QBs. Seattle might well have surpassed that threshold, don’t know about us.

But this is my point:
Elite QBs are the most valuable single position to a championship. There is some logic to the investment.

Why? MOST current elite QBs have rings.

Yet MOST backs and receivers have no rings. Despite the fact that on team they outnumber QBs THREE OR FOUR TO ONE.
In recent seasons which team has elite receivers and backs has had ZERO bearing on winning championships. Zero.

Frankly, it is statistically disproportionate to even pure random chance.
That is why I contend that teams that pay certain positions too highly, hurt their chances.

Contrast that to secondary.
MOST elite secondary players of this era HAVE RINGS, The disparity is ginormous compared to skill players.

Yet fans don’t even think secondary players are most the important DEFENSIVE players. Most think pass rush is more important, many times here people say pass rush makes a secondary.

THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE.

We have had arguably the leagues best RB, the leagues best receiver, a franchise QB, a superb offensive line, and on defense........
AMONG THE LEAGUE LEADERS IN SACKS.
AND a weak secondary.

When we last won the SB, we had, lesser receivers, lesser backs, a porous offensive line, similar sacks, but:
The number one pass defense led by a future HOF safely and a corner who routinely shut down the opponents best receiver in the secondary.

[pittpete]

[Captain Lemming]

The NFL is a copycat league. Look at the championship teams and try to re-create those winning situations. That's fine when you can do it. But sometimes it's just not possible.

The flaw is your logic is THE LEAGUE IS NOT imitating the Pats.

Can we win like the Seahawks or Eagles won? No, our franchise QB is not playing on a rookie contract.

He was not on his rookie deal during our last SB, nor the last SB he played in on an equally talented team.

Can we win like New England wins? No, our franchise QB is not willing to accept a contract worth a fraction of what he could make on the open market because he has a supermodel wife that brings in $30M/yr herself (Seriously...Tom Brady's average yearly salary is less than every starting non-rookie-contract QB except for Andy Freaking Dalton...he's literally the 18th highest paid QB in the league right now even if he is the winningest QB of all time).

Yes the Pats have more money to spend, true. You add to my case.

If paying backs and receivers MADE SENSE they have more than we do to do just that.
Yet they don’t waste that excess money on the wrong positions do they?
Why does the greatest mind in today’s NFL (threw up a little admitting that) not use his unfair advantage of a cheap franchise QB use all that extra dough on elite receivers and backs?

It situations like this, sometimes you have to zig when other teams zag.

Problem with this is that nobody is actually “zagging” Ruthless. We have been “zigging” but so has most of the league when it comes to the positions we value.

When the 4-3 defense is en vogue, decide to run a 3-4 instead to capitalize on undervalued tweeners that don't necessarily fit neatly in the predominant 4-3 looks.

Agreed, why I continue to like the 3/4.

When teams are building their defenses with smaller, faster athletes to counter wide open spread offenses, bring out a power I formation with a lead blocking FB to smash it.

I like it. We are better equipped TODAY with multiple power back to do that better than we ever could with Bell at a fraction of the cost.

There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Sometimes it's best to look at what has been successful recently and try to do it just like that. Sometimes it's best to look at what has been successful recently and try to counter it with the opposite strategies.

I get your point but this presupposes the league is in fact intentionally copying the Pats. I am not sure they are.
We have been doing EXACTLY WHAT THE ENTIRE LEAGUE has done, which contributes to the one team that has figured this out having a ginormous advantage.

[Captain Lemming]

We are better equipped TODAY with multiple power back to do that better than we ever could with Bell at a fraction of the cost.

Let me demonstrate the numbers

Bells cap hit 13 mil.
Conner, Snell, Samuels combined.....roughly 1.5 mil

Plenty that helped sign free agents and our guys.

What if we never extended Brown as I suggested years ago?
Dude is a 21 million cap hit to us, to play for the Raiders.

Please people hear this:
The issue is not are we better off without those guys in a vacuum.

Are we better with “good enough” at those positions, which gives us 20 million plus to spend elsewhere.

[BURGH86STEEL]

So.. If (1) we accept Captains argument that we should loosely base our cap structure on other successful teams and (2) it's true that no other recent SB winner has devoted 20% of the cap to a QB (I don't know if this is true), then what should we do?

I think the "moneyball" answer would be to trade the great QB on a market level deal for a huge bounty of draft picks. Then go hunting for a new young QB that we can underpay on his first 2 deals. The money we save at QB probably also let's us go after elite players on D as well.

I think that's the best way to win a championship (good QB on a rookie deal and a great D).

But do these "moneyball" type strategies work?

Is it just correlation between the cap allocation and the SB wins, or is it causation?

And if you already have great players on your roster (at QB, RB, WR etc) , should you get rid of them when you have to pay them market value?

I don't know.

For myself and other teams in the league it isn't simply about winning the Superbowl. It's about winning games and having the opportunity to win the Supberbowl. Teams have different formulas to achieve that goal. Teams are always going to pay the players that they believe can help them achieve that goal. All of the teams in the league probably have a certain amount of dollars that they will spend in mind per position.

It would probably be bad for business if teams simply traded away a proven franchise QB in his prime for the unknown. Fans of the team would probably deem the organization incompetent for trading away a franchise QB in his prime.

It's so easy to say that if teams do this or do that they will win. There is more than one way to achieve the goal of winning games and ultimately the Superbowl. If a team is good enough to make it into the playoffs then that team can play well enough to win the Supberbowl.

[Captain Lemming]

So.. If (1) we accept Captains argument that we should loosely base our cap structure on other successful teams and (2) it's true that no other recent SB winner has devoted 20% of the cap to a QB (I don't know if this is true), then what should we do?

I think the "moneyball" answer would be to trade the great QB on a market level deal for a huge bounty of draft picks. Then go hunting for a new young QB that we can underpay on his first 2 deals. The money we save at QB probably also let's us go after elite players on D as well.

I think that's the best way to win a championship (good QB on a rookie deal and a great D).

But do these "moneyball" type strategies work?

Is it just correlation between the cap allocation and the SB wins, or is it causation?

And if you already have great players on your roster (at QB, RB, WR etc) , should you get rid of them when you have to pay them market value?

I don't know.

I too wonder whether we are paying Ben too much. But there is a fundamental and huge difference with QB. Elite ones are the ones with MULTIPLE championships and these guys are difficult to find, ESPECIALLY if you never have premium high picks in the first.

2 decades between SB QBs.
BOTH BRADSHAW AND BEN......TOP 6 PICKS.
Running backs?
Willie Parker started 2.....he was “good”.....but hardly a difficult level of back to replace.

We just added a pro bowl receiver and running back without needing to use a first on either. We didn’t need a first to get either Bell or Brown in the first place.

Let’s look at running back:

This team has been to 4 SBs since Franco and were represented as starters by:
1. Eric Pegram
2. Willie Parker
3. Willie Parker
4. Rashard Mendenhall

The Steelers best backs since Franco:
1. Barry Foster (albeit briefly) 1st team all pro and STILL has Steeler single season rushing record
2. Jerome Bettis- HOFer
3. Bell- On HOF pace, at times best back in the league

Are the first three players better than the last three?
Of course not!

The difference is QB (O’Donnell had a career year....until the SB) and Defense.

Nevermind NE.
Elite running backs have not go gotten US to the SB since the 70s. The caliber of backs that are drafted EVERY YEAR in the 2nd round and later is all you need. EASY to replace.

QBs.......20 years between Bradshaw and Ben the ONLY Steeler QBs with rings.

[Captain Lemming]

For myself and other teams in the league it isn't simply about winning the Superbowl. It's about winning games and having the opportunity to win the Supberbowl. Teams have different formulas to achieve that goal.

Given that “goal” the best option is to get a run first QB. Nearly every one of them get you to the playoffs. Drop back passers have a higher “fail” rate as many dont make the playoffs. But think about the names. Run first QBs get teams to the playoffs PLENTY....nearly ALL do. Including Tebow who beat us in the playoffs. Is THAT a formula to follow if you want to win a SB?

Teams are always going to pay the players that they believe can help them achieve that goal. All of the teams in the league probably have a certain amount of dollars that they will spend in mind per position.

YES, yes THIS is my point. Teams that allocate high salaries to flashy big number receiver and backs overrate the “value” of the position relative to others. In a LEAGUE where this is the norm ANY TEAM that signs a big name player at those positions are overpaying because someone in the league overvalues the position.

It would probably be bad for business if teams simply traded away a proven franchise QB in his prime for the unknown. Fans of the team would probably deem the organization incompetent for trading away a franchise QB in his prime.

I agree. I say the only way to do this is the Packer way, draft the QB first, if he impresses, let the vet go.

It's so easy to say that if teams do this or do that they will win. There is more than one way to achieve the goal of winning games and ultimately the Superbowl. If a team is good enough to make it into the playoffs then that team can play well enough to win the Supberbowl.

Again.....would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

[Captain Lemming]

I can go on with examples:
ADRIAN PETERSEN
BEST BACK OF THE ERA (not Bell BTW) and the most surefire HOFer of ANY runningback in the league;

Vikings 2017 the year after AP was gone......better record than the EVER had with him in his prime.

[hawaiiansteel]

would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

no, I wouldn't. aside from Russell Wilson, what other run first QB has ever won a Super Bowl?

I'm pretty sure there aren't many and you'll go have to go back many years...

[Steel Maniac]

Steve young but he learned to check down to the third option.

[BURGH86STEEL]

Given that “goal” the best option is to get a run first QB. Nearly every one of them get you to the playoffs. Drop back passers have a higher “fail” rate as many dont make the playoffs. But think about the names. Run first QBs get teams to the playoffs PLENTY....nearly ALL do. Including Tebow who beat us in the playoffs. Is THAT a formula to follow if you want to win a SB?



YES, yes THIS is my point. Teams that allocate high salaries to flashy big number receiver and backs overrate the “value” of the position relative to others. In a LEAGUE where this is the norm ANY TEAM that signs a big name player at those positions are overpaying because someone in the league overvalues the position.



I agree. I say the only way to do this is the Packer way, draft the QB first, if he impresses, let the vet go.



Again.....would you draft run first QBs in that quest?

Again it's not simply about winning the Supberbowl. It's about having the ability to win games, make the playoffs, and make it to the Supberbowl. There is more than one formula that can accomplish those goals. Every team in the league can't have the same players, strengths, weaknesses, ect. So teams invest in the players that they believe can help them achieve their goals. Doesn't make them wrong or right.

At the end of the day there are a lot of variables involved in building winning teams and Supberbowl winner. The Rams invested a lot of money into skill position players. As a result they had the opportunity to compete for the Supberbowl. IMO Goeff didn't play well enough in that game. Goeff didn't make the necessary plays to give the Rams the best chance to win. The Rams formula won a lot of games and they gave themselves the opportunity even though they fell short.

Players are worth what teams believe they are worth. That goes for any position. You don't have to agree. It also doesn't make you 100% right in terms of building a winner. Many different types of teams won games and the Supberbowl in the NFL.

I am not sure what you mean by run first QB? A QB won't be a QB if he can't throw the ball.

Teams won a lot of games and the Supberbowl with mobile QB's. Winning with a mobile QB might not be what's ideal but winning can be done. To believe that a team can't win with different types of players and by using different variables is ignorance. It has been done and can be done. I believe that there are many different ways to achieve goals and win in the NFL.