Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[RayClay]

you missed the point - YOU are not a professional scout. YOU do not have access to coaches tapes.

you (and here I'm assuming) are a casual fan who watches games a couple times a week. this is far, far different than a pro scout breaking down coaching tapes.

ever listen to BB's press conferences when he is asked about how Player X did? he almost always answers with "I dunno, some good, some bad, I I really need to watch the tapes to see"

if he can't do it in real time, then you can't.

That's because he's a coach, it's his job.

He met Rodney Harrison at the pro bowl and decided he'd get him if given the chance. He didn't need to compare his statistics with other safeties that might become available. He knew he had a winning attitude.

 

[bradmahn]

not only is it not unrespondable, it is the job of NFL GM's to answer the question. Scott Pioli has answered this question.

now answer the question. go ahead and answer it for the 77 Steelers or the 74 Steelers. or a modern team

NFL GMs don't equate the roles of players in percentages, they judge the value of said players. It's a stupid practice by people like you who only think in terms of statistics. Andy's response was perfect.

Where has Scott Pioli answered this question?

 

[RayClay]

No, i hadn't. I didn't realize that you were trying to summarize what you had seen in the thread, just thought you were making a general claim.

No, I mentioned it first. I was surprised a number of people said the same thing since my memory is hazy.

I'm not surprised to see defenders either.

I do think it shows that fan's do get an impression of a QBs composure, toughness etc. quite independent of statistics and this impression is often correct.

Confidence and fear are often discernible even under a football helmet and performance when it counts is far more memorable than garbage time production.

 

[Ring 6]

On second though it's pretty funny that "winning the big one" is so highly valued over stats until somebody actually does it, and then fades into the night with knee problems.

Of course his legend has to do with SBIII. Whose wouldn't? The guy came up big when he had to. With those knees he was lucky to even play at that level.

I was 4 when Namath won the SB, and his knees were shot by the time I really became a football fan, but my understanding was the knee problems came after that.
Namath is an interesting topic within this argument.
-He won the big one
-He did a lot of good for his team, and also a lot of bad (big plays, and ints)
-He never played in another playoff game after that SB

How much did the injuries have to do with that? Was he a one hit wonder, or would he have been more if healthy?

I cant comment much on him because I don't know the facts.

 

[makewayhomer]

Scott Pioli has not answered the question of what % of winning is attributed to each position. Its a stupid question.
It cannot be answered. It is fantasy.

I would answer it if there were any possible way to answer it.

you're 100% wrong.

one of the great things about the salary cap era and free agency is that GM's have had to decide how much position is worth: how much each position ultimately contributes to the ultimate goal. since every team has the same budget, some clear answers emerge.

how do we know this? b/c we can look at how much they have decided to pay each player and position.

GM's know that QB is the most important player on the field, and so they pay QB's the most. however, GM's have told us that Left Tackle and Cornerback are also extremely important - the average salary of a franchise Left Tackle or corneback is extremely high. not quite as high as QB, but close.

if QB's were responsible for 50% of a W, 50% of a teams salary cap would be paid to the QB. in reality, it's not even close to that.

QB's are more important than Left Tackles, yes, but not by nearly the extent that you wrongly think.

 

[RayClay]

Andy,

I'll ask you to go through the same exercise. please rate what % of a "W" is normally due to each of the factors:

coaching:
defense:
special teams:
offense:

(need to add to 100%)

and from the total for offense, please specify for

QB's:
RB's:
WRs:
TE:
the entire OL:

This is a thread about overrated QBs.

Can I take it by this misdirection post you've given up the argument?

 

[Deus Irae]

you're 100% wrong.

one of the great things about the salary cap era and free agency is that GM's have had to decide how much position is worth: how much each position ultimately contributes to the ultimate goal. since every team has the same budget, some clear answers emerge.

how do we know this? b/c we can look at how much they have decided to pay each player and position.

GM's know that QB is the most important player on the field, and so they pay QB's the most. however, GM's have told us that Left Tackle and Cornerback are also extremely important - the average salary of a franchise Left Tackle or corneback is extremely high. not quite as high as QB, but close.

if QB's were responsible for 50% of a W, 50% of a teams salary cap would be paid to the QB. in reality, it's not even close to that.

QB's are more important than Left Tackles, yes, but not by nearly the extent that you wrongly think.

This is what's known as making false assumptions and presuming them to be facts. It's also a brilliant example of someone who doesn't grasp the concepts of supply and demand.

 

[makewayhomer]

This is a thread about overrated QBs.

Can I take it by this misdirection post you've given up the argument?

no, you can't. I'm showing that judging QB's (and not other positions) by Wins is stupid, b/c they are just a small piece of the puzzle

 

[RayClay]

On second though it's pretty funny that "winning the big one" is so highly valued over stats until somebody actually does it, and then fades into the night with knee problems.

Of course his legend has to do with SBIII. Whose wouldn't? The guy came up big when he had to. With those knees he was lucky to even play at that level.

Even the ESPN article that had him most overrated said he was great only a few years.

The didn't say very good, they said great.

Fans know the tough players and they know who comes through in the clutch.

 

[makewayhomer]

This is what's known as making false assumptions and presuming them to be facts. It's also a brilliant example of someone who doesn't grasp the concepts of supply and demand.

huh? what false assumption?

 

[RayClay]

no, you can't. I'm showing that judging QB's (and not other positions) by Wins is stupid, b/c they are just a small piece of the puzzle

So wins aren't important? That's an interesting take.

Plus, Andy is giving total statistical performance in big games. That's quite a different thing.

Do you have a problem comparing performance in big games?

 

[bradmahn]

you're 100% wrong.

one of the great things about the salary cap era and free agency is that GM's have had to decide how much position is worth: how much each position ultimately contributes to the ultimate goal. since every team has the same budget, some clear answers emerge.

how do we know this? b/c we can look at how much they have decided to pay each player and position.

GM's know that QB is the most important player on the field, and so they pay QB's the most. however, GM's have told us that Left Tackle and Cornerback are also extremely important - the average salary of a franchise Left Tackle or corneback is extremely high. not quite as high as QB, but close.

if QB's were responsible for 50% of a W, 50% of a teams salary cap would be paid to the QB. in reality, it's not even close to that.

QB's are more important than Left Tackles, yes, but not by nearly the extent that you wrongly think.

If that were the case, Pioli would spend the same percentage of the cap on one position every year, and they don't do that. It changes based on the quality of players available, the resources available, and the needs of the team. Your argument is presumptuous.

 

[Ring 6]

you're 100% wrong.

one of the great things about the salary cap era and free agency is that GM's have had to decide how much position is worth: how much each position ultimately contributes to the ultimate goal. since every team has the same budget, some clear answers emerge.

how do we know this? b/c we can look at how much they have decided to pay each player and position.

GM's know that QB is the most important player on the field, and so they pay QB's the most. however, GM's have told us that Left Tackle and Cornerback are also extremely important - the average salary of a franchise Left Tackle or corneback is extremely high. not quite as high as QB, but close.

if QB's were responsible for 50% of a W, 50% of a teams salary cap would be paid to the QB. in reality, it's not even close to that.

QB's are more important than Left Tackles, yes, but not by nearly the extent that you wrongly think.

This is ridiculously ignorant.
First of all WHY IS A LT PAID HIGHLY???
Because he is the guy who is most critical to PROTECTING THE QB.

It is blindly unthinking to believe that an NFL team is sitting around with a price on every position.
Scott Pioli said We are building a team not collecting players. Your method says collect a player at this position for this price, etc.

You also totally ignore that you don't pay a player a set price then get that player, you pay based on the market. If I think OLB is 2% of my success, so it should be 2% of my cap, that would give me about 1.8mill for OLb, and I would have terrible ones. If I consider it 20%, then i have 18mill, and would be overpaying.

Why not look at the draft?
When a team is unhappy with there QB position, do they do nothing? Do they pass up better players to get a QB? Of course, all the time. I cannot think of a team that had a hole at QB (with the possible exception of rebuilding teams who need so much they put off the QB for later) that didnt draft whatever QB was available.

 

[makewayhomer]

So wins aren't important? That's an interesting take.

you are fabulously consistent at horrible reading comprehension.

Wins aren't the most important thing in judging a QB. they are important at judging at team

 

[makewayhomer]

This is ridiculously ignorant.
First of all WHY IS A LT PAID HIGHLY???
Because he is the guy who is most critical to PROTECTING THE QB.

Congrats! you are finally getting it! A QB can not be effective without a good LT. and in a similar fashion, with all other positions.

It is blindly unthinking to believe that an NFL team is sitting around with a price on every position.

again, you're 100% wrong. go look at the franchise values per position. this is EXACTLY what NFL Gm's do

 

[Ring 6]

no, you can't. I'm showing that judging QB's (and not other positions) by Wins is stupid, b/c they are just a small piece of the puzzle

Winning is the ENTIRE PUZZLE.

And, for the 1000th time, no one is judging only QBs by winning. What everyone, apparently other than you, is doing is saying QBs are the most important player on the team. The teams job is to win. The best QB is the one that gets that job done.
The same goes for every other position, but the QB is the only one who, if he is good to start with, will ALWAYS have opportunities where if he plays great his team wins championships.

We aren't talking about the difference between Eli Manning and Jason Campbell here.
We are DEFINING GREATNESS.
To be defined as great, you must have at some point in your career made the plays that added up to Championships.
Do you disagree that all the QBs mentioned in this thread have been in the position where their play could have made the difference in winning Championships?

Would the perfect QB lead his team to Championships?
Would the awful QB prevent his team from winning them?
Of course.
So what we are talking about is judging QBs along that line.

MO, you define greatness not by the stats you put up that did not contribute to winning, but by what you did with those opportunities where if you make the plays, you team wins a title.

 

[bradmahn]

again, you're 100% wrong. go look at the franchise values per position. this is EXACTLY what NFL Gm's do

Until you realize that they aren't paying based on the position but ON THE PLAYER this argument is going nowhere.

 

[Ring 6]

Congrats! you are finally getting it! A QB can not be effective without a good LT. and in a similar fashion, with all other positions.



again, you're 100% wrong. go look at the franchise values per position. this is EXACTLY what NFL Gm's do

No. A bad LT will get your QB killed, and eliminate your chances to win.

Franchise values are the average of the top players contracts.
First it has nothing to do with GMs deciding what percentage of winning belongs to each position. Secondly it can vary from year to year based on which positions had good players up for new contracts.

Are you really telling me that somewhere in a vault in Foxboro, the keys to the kingdom are Piloi and Belichick sitting down and deciding what position contributes what % to winning?
By the way, if that were the case why gameplan? Why draft? The draft is risky.
Why not just divy up your money, and get the best FA that will accept that amount?

 

[Ring 6]

you are fabulously consistent at horrible reading comprehension.

Wins aren't the most important thing in judging a QB. they are important at judging at team

What about whether that QB helped you win or didnt?
Is anything more important in judging a QB than that?

 

[makewayhomer]

Winning is the ENTIRE PUZZLE.

And, for the 1000th time, no one is judging only QBs by winning. What everyone, apparently other than you, is doing is saying QBs are the most important player on the team. The teams job is to win. The best QB is the one that gets that job done.
The same goes for every other position, but the QB is the only one who, if he is good to start with, will ALWAYS have opportunities where if he plays great his team wins championships.

We aren't talking about the difference between Eli Manning and Jason Campbell here.
We are DEFINING GREATNESS.
To be defined as great, you must have at some point in your career made the plays that added up to Championships.
Do you disagree that all the QBs mentioned in this thread have been in the position where their play could have made the difference in winning Championships?

Would the perfect QB lead his team to Championships?
Would the awful QB prevent his team from winning them?
Of course.
So what we are talking about is judging QBs along that line.

MO, you define greatness not by the stats you put up that did not contribute to winning, but by what you did with those opportunities where if you make the plays, you team wins a title.

does Elway get the edge over Favre b/c he won 2 SB's instead of 1?