Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 14:00

wow, not sure if I should feel glad or sad glad obviously that you agree with me concerning this topic, but sad that it sounds like the first time

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2021 12:34

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 14:00

wow, not sure if I should feel glad or sad glad obviously that you agree with me concerning this topic, but sad that it sounds like the first time

Not the first time. I'm pretty sure I gave you a 'like trophy' a couple weeks ago

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2021 08:14

texas wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 23:44

Yeah but go all the way back to Elway tbh. The pattern has rewarded below-market QBs for a much longer time than this. The other thing is, your stats for the past decade are sort of skewed because Brady/Manning account for half of the Super Bowls. Before Brady's recent dominance, it really did skew young in addition to below-market.

Regardless, you need a good QB at a cheap price. Just a fact.

Going all the way back eliminates the argument about rookie wage scales because it used to be that early pick rookie contracts were top-of-the-market deals. For instance in 2011, Mark Sanchez had the highest QB cap value in the league based on the final year of his rookie contract. That's why I stopped when I did.

So before Brady's second streak of dominance, even if you had Big Ben and Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco all succeeding on rookie contracts, they weren't bargains or values or less expensive.

Plus, while Brady's wins put a tally in the column for taking less money, Manning's SB win was the only time a top-3 cap number won a SB ring. So lumping Brady and Manning together in this discussion is antithetical. They are opposite ends of the spectrum.

And on one hand, you can say Brady's win streak skews the numbers. But on the other hand, you could suggest a causal link--that maybe Brady winning all these Super Bowls is in part BECAUSE he took less money and his teams could always afford that one extra piece. There's certainly not conclusive evidence on that, but there also aren't a lot of examples of HoF QBs playing multiple seasons at the 60th or 70th percentile of QB contracts. The one example we do have has set the bar for dominance, suggesting it is something worth attempting to replicate.

paco wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 11:41

Me, dedicated. to not working

Labrev wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 21:12

Corey Linsley Expected to Get a "Monster Deal"
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/0 ... ee-agency/

Linsley's game is solid all-around, but he is patently not a monster on the OL, so if this report ends up being true... I'm out.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 22:04

Labrev wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 21:12

Corey Linsley Expected to Get a "Monster Deal"
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/0 ... ee-agency/

Linsley's game is solid all-around, but he is patently not a monster on the OL, so if this report ends up being true... I'm out.

He's easily a top 3 center in the NFL. He without a doubt deserves to get paid like one.

Labrev wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 22:20

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 22:04

Labrev wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 21:12

Corey Linsley Expected to Get a "Monster Deal"
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2021/0 ... ee-agency/

Linsley's game is solid all-around, but he is patently not a monster on the OL, so if this report ends up being true... I'm out.

He's easily a top 3 center in the NFL. He without a doubt deserves to get paid like one.

I mean, sure, but there is no C in the game I'd want to pay like they're dominant.

Whereas when Jenkins is up, I will throw money at the mofo.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2021 22:21

How much more dominant does Linsley need to be?

Spoiler

And since both of those things get my rocks off, it will be just that easy to tell!

paco wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 12:04

I'll post them when I see them.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 12:12

paco wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 12:04

I'll post them when I see them.

Yaassss, I'm thinking a 4th, a 5th, and a 6th, but I am expecting to be disappointed and get two 5ths and a 6th.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 12:36

Doesn't Bulaga fall into some perceived rule that you don't get better than a 5th for a more-than-10-year-vet?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 12:36

Doesn't Bulaga fall into some perceived rule that you don't get better than a 5th for a more-than-10-year-vet?