The Bell Offer

[pittpete]

3 of the 4 teams in the Conference Championship last year, used a RB by committee

[Steel Maniac]

When was the last time the best RB in the league won a Super Bowl. I know the answer but it speaks for itself.

[Ernie]

When was the last time the best RB in the league won a Super Bowl. I know the answer but it speaks for itself.

perhaps Seattle with M Lynch.. but it's worth noting that R. Wilson was on his rookie contract at the time.

[Steel Maniac]

Lynch wasn’t the best but he was up there no doubt. Try Marshall Faulk.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't see how having the best running back keeps you from winning the Superbowl.

[Ernie]

I don't see how having the best running back keeps you from winning the Superbowl.

It seems odd that most Superbowl winners do it without the best backs in the league, doesn't it?

[NorthCoast]

I don't see how having the best running back keeps you from winning the Superbowl.

It does when half the team's salary cap is tied up in 3 offensive players and there is little money left to pay other guys that might help the team more. Guess which team was #1 in defensive salary cap and beat the Steelers to move on in the playoffs last season?.....

[Ernie]

It does when half the team's salary cap is tied up in 3 offensive players and there is little money left to pay other guys that might help the team more. Guess which team was #1 in defensive salary cap and beat the Steelers to move on in the playoffs last season?.....

This $$$$ ... and honestly id imagine it's more than 3.. we've got a pile of money tied up in that O-Line also. Pouncey's contract was "Highest in the league" for centers when he signed.

[steelz09]

Did the Steelers make a mistake playing this game with Bell? They could have used the 14.5 million they're going to pay him this year in FA to bolster the defense, scoring more points won't matter come playoff time if they can't stop a rushing attack again.

Pappy

We have Big Red. What's there to worry about?

[steelz09]

Bell is dumber than what I thought and trust me, I never thought he was the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with.

[Northern_Blitz]

It seems odd that most Superbowl winners do it without the best backs in the league, doesn't it?

There is only ever 1 team in the league with the best running back.

There are always 31 teams in the league without the best running back.

If I had to pick which group was more likely to win the SB, I'd always pick the 31 teams.

The only position where I'd go against this rule (potentially) is QB. But even then, I think it's more that the Pats do well because they have the best QB AND he chooses to play on a contact that pays him less than market value. That's two huge competitive advantages.

When Manning was the best (or second best) QB and being paid market value, he only won once when he was both the best (or second best) QB and being paid like it. In the second championship, he wasn't the best QB in the league (probably not all that close to it either).

[steelz09]

There is only ever 1 team in the league with the best running back.

There are always 31 teams in the league without the best running back.

If I had to pick which group was more likely to win the SB, I'd always pick the 31 teams.

The only position where I'd go against this rule (potentially) is QB. But even then, I think it's more that the Pats do well because they have the best QB AND he chooses to play on a contact that pays him less than market value. That's two huge competitive advantages.

When Manning was the best (or second best) QB and being paid market value, he only won once when he was both the best (or second best) QB and being paid like it. In the second championship, he wasn't the best QB in the league (probably not all that close to it either).

This is a fascinating topic because I've wondered for years if NFL teams are in for a shift in strategy.

Are we nearing a point where signing franchise QBs to monsterous contracts becomes so detrimental to the overall team from a financial standpoint that it prevents the team from winning the super bowl? It's not that outrageous because it weakens so many other areas of the team over time.

[Ernie]

There is only ever 1 team in the league with the best running back.

There are always 31 teams in the league without the best running back.

If I had to pick which group was more likely to win the SB, I'd always pick the 31 teams.

The only position where I'd go against this rule (potentially) is QB. But even then, I think it's more that the Pats do well because they have the best QB AND he chooses to play on a contact that pays him less than market value. That's two huge competitive advantages.

When Manning was the best (or second best) QB and being paid market value, he only won once when he was both the best (or second best) QB and being paid like it. In the second championship, he wasn't the best QB in the league (probably not all that close to it either).

When I said "Best backs" I meant the top couple... not just the #1. Sorry I didn't clarify sooner. I could have saved you some typing.

[Slapstick]

This is a fascinating topic because I've wondered for years if NFL teams are in for a shift in strategy.

Are we nearing a point where signing franchise QBs to monsterous contracts becomes so detrimental to the overall team from a financial standpoint that it prevents the team from winning the super bowl? It's not that outrageous because it weakens so many other areas of the team over time.

It makes drafting that much more important...if you miss on a few picks, it can make the difference between contending and not...

[Captain Lemming]

There is only ever 1 team in the league with the best running back.

There are always 31 teams in the league without the best running back.

If I had to pick which group was more likely to win the SB, I'd always pick the 31 teams.

The only position where I'd go against this rule (potentially) is QB. But even then, I think it's more that the Pats do well because they have the best QB AND he chooses to play on a contact that pays him less than market value. That's two huge competitive advantages.

When Manning was the best (or second best) QB and being paid market value, he only won once when he was both the best (or second best) QB and being paid like it. In the second championship, he wasn't the best QB in the league (probably not all that close to it either).

Broaden the topic to "great" (HOF worthy) players of recent years and you will see how insignificant the RB position has been relative to other positions.

Since the Marshall Faulk (the last otential HOF caliber runningback to win a SB after the 99 season)

The following HOF discussion caliber defensive backs have started SB winners since Faulk:

Rod Woodson
Richard Sherman
Troy P
Ed Reed
Darrelle Revis
Aquib Talib
Charles Woodson

Other 1st team all pro players with rings in
2000s.

Rodney Harrison
John Lynch
Earl Thomas
Bob Sanders
Darrin Sharper
Ty Law
Rhode Barber

The best runningback of the 2000s with a ring is Marshall Lynch.....he was all pro ONCE. Just about every secondary player above was all pro twice or more.

I can add
Chris Harris
Malcolm Butler
Kam Chancellor

Better than any SB runningback other than Lynch.

The VAST MAJORITY of elite DB's of the era have rings.

The majority of SB's had players in the list above.
Great secondary play enhances your chances greatly.

Runningbacks? No correlation whatsoever to "greatness" associated with championships.

If you get a great back at a reasonable price, great.

But paying big bucks for an elite back is NOT a recipe for success.