Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2018 Salary Cap Analysis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dantés" data-source="post: 759511" data-attributes="member: 12283"><p>Look... you tried to make a case for trading Rodgers based on the extremely unlikely hypothetical of the Blake Bortles led Jaguars winning back to back Super Bowls. That's one of the flimsiest arguments I've seen in a while, and this is a fan forum. Now you're adding to it by creating a strange list composed of both QB's and non-QB's... as if it's supposed to be instructive that a handful of good players haven't won any or many titles. </p><p></p><p>Here's the reality-- history actually is instructive and what it teaches us is that the surest bet for winning a Super Bowl is to have a great quarterback and then build a good team around them. It's not the <em>only </em>way, but it is by far the <em>best </em>and <em>most likely to succeed </em>way. This is why you look back over past Super Bowl champions and find that the majority have gone to teams that were led by great quarterbacks.</p><p></p><p>But here's your fallacy. You're arguing as though having a great QB is to the exclusion of having a great overall team. But that's not true. Certainly paying an elite quarterback makes the rest of the roster building more difficult, but far from impossible. Hence you see the Patriots, Broncos, Giants, Packers, Steelers, etc. winning one or more titles while their QB's had very large cap numbers. Getting rid of a QB's cap number would certainly help in bolstering the rest of the roster, but the net effect would be decidedly negative as any gains elsewhere would be cancelled out and then some by the loss of elite play at the most impactful position. </p><p></p><p>Here's what's more-- while it is possible to build a roster that's good enough to win a title without great QB play (e.g. 2015 Broncos), it is much harder to keep a unit like that together and replenished than it is to maintain success with a great QB. Just look at that same Broncos team for illustration. An elite defense carried them to a SB with just game management at QB. But not only was this a big exception to how SB's are normally won, but they have completely fallen apart in the years since. There were too many moving parts to keep everything operating at that high a level. And when the defense could no longer support sub-par QB play, they went into a free-fall. Now they're doing everything they can to <em>find </em>a QB and would certainly be one of the first in line if the Packers were stupid enough to put Rodgers on the block. </p><p></p><p>Jacksonville will be the same story if they can't find a better QB (of, I suppose, unless Bortles actually becomes good). This is as opposed to teams like the Patriots w/ Brady, the Steelers w/Roethlisberger, the Colts w/ Manning, and yes-- the Packers w/ Rodgers, who remain in contention nearly every season because the great QB play remains a constant while the FO's attempt to build a good team around them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dantés, post: 759511, member: 12283"] Look... you tried to make a case for trading Rodgers based on the extremely unlikely hypothetical of the Blake Bortles led Jaguars winning back to back Super Bowls. That's one of the flimsiest arguments I've seen in a while, and this is a fan forum. Now you're adding to it by creating a strange list composed of both QB's and non-QB's... as if it's supposed to be instructive that a handful of good players haven't won any or many titles. Here's the reality-- history actually is instructive and what it teaches us is that the surest bet for winning a Super Bowl is to have a great quarterback and then build a good team around them. It's not the [I]only [/I]way, but it is by far the [I]best [/I]and [I]most likely to succeed [/I]way. This is why you look back over past Super Bowl champions and find that the majority have gone to teams that were led by great quarterbacks. But here's your fallacy. You're arguing as though having a great QB is to the exclusion of having a great overall team. But that's not true. Certainly paying an elite quarterback makes the rest of the roster building more difficult, but far from impossible. Hence you see the Patriots, Broncos, Giants, Packers, Steelers, etc. winning one or more titles while their QB's had very large cap numbers. Getting rid of a QB's cap number would certainly help in bolstering the rest of the roster, but the net effect would be decidedly negative as any gains elsewhere would be cancelled out and then some by the loss of elite play at the most impactful position. Here's what's more-- while it is possible to build a roster that's good enough to win a title without great QB play (e.g. 2015 Broncos), it is much harder to keep a unit like that together and replenished than it is to maintain success with a great QB. Just look at that same Broncos team for illustration. An elite defense carried them to a SB with just game management at QB. But not only was this a big exception to how SB's are normally won, but they have completely fallen apart in the years since. There were too many moving parts to keep everything operating at that high a level. And when the defense could no longer support sub-par QB play, they went into a free-fall. Now they're doing everything they can to [I]find [/I]a QB and would certainly be one of the first in line if the Packers were stupid enough to put Rodgers on the block. Jacksonville will be the same story if they can't find a better QB (of, I suppose, unless Bortles actually becomes good). This is as opposed to teams like the Patriots w/ Brady, the Steelers w/Roethlisberger, the Colts w/ Manning, and yes-- the Packers w/ Rodgers, who remain in contention nearly every season because the great QB play remains a constant while the FO's attempt to build a good team around them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
PackerDNA
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:58 AM
Draft Talk
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 10:55 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
Yesterday at 10:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2018 Salary Cap Analysis
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top