Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[Ring 6]

Andy,

I'll answer you when you respond to this

OK. Ive answered it. Now answer mine.
By the way the fact that you judge my answer to be wrong does not mean I havent answered it.
You can just chalk up my answer as "I dont know" because I dont believe it can be answered.

 

[makewayhomer]

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

franchise values are determined by the top 5 players at each position. so the franchise values can be used as a proxy to figure out the value of the BEST QB's vs the BEST LT's vs the BEST Cb's, etc.

 

[makewayhomer]

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

I certainly agree that judging a QB's CONTRIBUTION to winning is the most important thing there is

 

[Ring 6]

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

Tough call. I think they belong loosely within the same category.
I thin Elway gets an edge because he won the 2nd by beating Favre head to head.
And I think Elway gets the edge because he won a lot of other big games to get to a SB.
Getting there isn't winning but its better than not getting there at all.

On balance, yes Elway was a better QB than Favre, but its pretty close.

 

[bradmahn]

franchise values are determined by the top 5 players at each position. so the franchise values can be used as a proxy to figure out the value of the BEST QB's vs the BEST LT's vs the BEST Cb's, etc.

No. You are flat out wrong. Franchise tags are determined by the top five highest paid players at the positions. There is a huge difference between "best" and highest paid. Sometimes one means the other, but most of the time it does not.

Of course I shouldn't expect someone so fixated on figures to understand such a concept.

 

[Ring 6]

franchise values are determined by the top 5 players at each position. so the franchise values can be used as a proxy to figure out the value of the BEST QB's vs the BEST LT's vs the BEST Cb's, etc.

That may be 1 factor of 50 in determing the value of a position. Certainly not proof of your argument./

 

[makewayhomer]

Why not just divy up your money, and get the best FA that will accept that amount?

replace "FA" with "player" and this is basically exactly what does happen

(of course, when deciding between 2 $1m TE's, other factors come into play, like fit, attitude, etc)

but when the Pats don't pay Daniel Gramam $4m or whatever, it's b/c they reasoned that a great blocking TE can be found for much cheaper, and contribute the same amount to winning

 

[Ring 6]

I certainly agree that judging a QB's CONTRIBUTION to winning is the most important thing there is

And the QBs contribution in winning Championships is that if they make plays when they are needed, their teams win Championships.
Not every QB on every team will get that opportunity every year. Not every great QB will make them every time.
But, we are DEFINING GREATNESS.
To be considered for greatness:
-First you must elevate your team to be contenders.
Almost every great QB ever started on a terrible team and elevated them
-This puts you in position to be able to make the plays that win the Championship
-To be great, you must make them

Are you really telling me that if Dan Marino played GREAT in some of those 10 games that his seasons ended on, he wouldn't have won?

Ultimately, the QB has the OPPORTUNITY in those situations to be the reason his team won a Championship. The GREAT ONES seize that opportunity, at least some of the time. If you were incapable of doing so, you aren't great.

 

[makewayhomer]

I thin Elway gets an edge because he won the 2nd by beating Favre head to head.

and that is why using SB wins is terrible mistake

Favre in that SB: 25/42, 256 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT
Elway in that SB: 12/22, 123 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT

by any measure, Favre played better than Elway that day. he contributed far more to his offense than Elway did.

but Elway got the SB win, b/c his running game was awesome.

 

[Deus Irae]

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?

The assumption that players are being paid solely based upon positional importance.

 

[Ring 6]

replace "FA" with "player" and this is basically exactly what does happen

(of course, when deciding between 2 $1m TE's, other factors come into play, like fit, attitude, etc)

but when the Pats don't pay Daniel Gramam $4m or whatever, it's b/c they reasoned that a great blocking TE can be found for much cheaper, and contribute the same amount to winning

No, its not even close.
DANIEL GRAHAM did not add up to as much value as what the Patriots felt they could get with that amount of money. BB did not look at his chart and say 'how much is a great blocking TE worth'. He looked at the player, what he contributes. Then looked at his roster, the strengths and weaknesses. Then looked at the market, and said 'what could i do to improve my team with that money'. Then he made a decision.
Kyle Brady does not contribute the same thing to winning as Daniel Graham.
They are 2 different people, with different strengths and weaknesses.
This is consistent in your arguments. You are stereotyping players by your rhetoric of what they are, or your statistics, and thinking you can just interchange them. Thats not real.

Because there is a cap, BB had to SACRIFICE a DECLINE at the TE position, because he felt he needed the money elsewhere.
If there were no cap, Graham would have stayed and CONTRIBUTED MORE TO WINNING THAN KYLE BRADY.

Here is why your percentage this is stupid.

 

[Ring 6]

and that is why using SB wins is terrible mistake

Favre in that SB: 25/42, 256 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT
Elway in that SB: 12/22, 123 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT

by any measure, Favre played better than Elway that day. he contributed far more to his offense than Elway did.

but Elway got the SB win, b/c his running game was awesome.

NO HE DID NOT.
Because on the plays that determined the outcome of that game Elway came through and Favre did not.
When yuo say 'by any measure' you are showing me that you have no clue how football games are won or lost.
Remember Elway running for the first down? That was one of the game deciding plays. The fact that Favre threw it twice as much and put up numbers is NOT THE MEASURE OF WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES.

 

[makewayhomer]

NO HE DID NOT.
Because on the plays that determined the outcome of that game Elway came through and Favre did not.
When yuo say 'by any measure' you are showing me that you have no clue how football games are won or lost.
Remember Elway running for the first down? That was one of the game deciding plays. The fact that Favre threw it twice as much and put up numbers is NOT THE MEASURE OF WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES.

now I am officially done with you. the fact that you don't understand that Favres contribution to the Green Bay offense was WAY, WAY, WAY more than Elways contribution to Denvers offense means you are incapable of separating the QB's individual play from everybody elses

goodbye for the last time.

 

[Ring 6]

NO HE DID NOT.
Because on the plays that determined the outcome of that game Elway came through and Favre did not.
When yuo say 'by any measure' you are showing me that you have no clue how football games are won or lost.
Remember Elway running for the first down? That was one of the game deciding plays. The fact that Favre threw it twice as much and put up numbers is NOT THE MEASURE OF WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES.

The Packers were 5/14 on 3rd down, and 0/1 on 4th down.

This happened in that game:

>>>Tyrone Braxton intercepted Favre two plays later, and John Elway scored on a third-and-goal play to begin the second quarter. Steve Atwater forced Favre to fumble three plays later, and Neil Smith recovered at the Packers' 33. Jason Elam converted a 51-yard field goal, the second longest in Super Bowl history, to give the Broncos a 17-7 lead with 12:21 left in the half.<<<

And here is the clincher.
The game was tied in the 4th quarter.
Favre got 3 posesions (Denver scored before the last one to go up 7)
1st possession. (starting at the GB 48)1 FD, then inc pass on 1st and 10 and 3rd and 8.
2nd possession, 3 and out
3rd possession. inc passes on 2nd and 6, 3rd and 6, 4th and 6, game over.


Yet, because Denver was ahead, and GB threw twice as often, the fact that Favre had essentially 2x the attempt, completes and yards, you conclude "BY ANY MEASURE" he played better??
By WHAT measure?

When the game was tied in the 4th quarter he FAILED 3 times.
He had 2 turnovers to 1.
He was poor on 3rd down.

The game was in his hands to win, and he failed.
But because he compiled more stats, by throwing MORE OFTEN BUT NOT BETTER, you think 'by any measure' he was better? How about the measure of getting his team into the end zone when it was 24-24 in the 4th quarter?
How about by the measure of converting ANY 3rd downs on the 3 most important drives of the game?

I see your dilemma.
You think the best guy at something is the guy who did it the most.

 

[Deus Irae]

now I am officially done with you. the fact that you don't understand that Favres contribution to the Green Bay offense was WAY, WAY, WAY more than Elways contribution to Denvers offense means you are incapable of separating the QB's individual play from everybody elses

goodbye for the last time.

Actually, this is one of those great examples of both people being wrong. Andy is overvaluing Elway's performance and you are undervaluing it. It's a brilliant synergy. Elway was no longer the main cog in his team's offense, but he stepped up when it mattered in that game. For the Packers, it was all about Favre, and he fell short.

Just as Dilfer is unfairly derided for successfully performing his duties in Baltimore's Super Bowl winning season, Elway is being unfairly derided by you for not tossing the ball in the air as much as Favre did. You are equating the amount of passes with importance to the team, and it simply doesn't work that way, as the Dilfer experience should have taught every football fan in America.

 

[Ring 6]

now I am officially done with you. the fact that you don't understand that Favres contribution to the Green Bay offense was WAY, WAY, WAY more than Elways contribution to Denvers offense means you are incapable of separating the QB's individual play from everybody elses

goodbye for the last time.

How?
Because Favre threw twice as much?
Where is his contribution in the 4th quarter?
You are out of your mind if you think that because one team chooses to pass 45 times and the other 22 (partly because GB was playing from behind, due to Favre turnovers also) and that means the guy who threw more was better and contributed more.
WTF?
Doing a lot of something for 3 quarters of a close game then contributing nothing in the 4th quarter is good?

Are you really telling me that if QB As team thrwos 50 times and he gets 300 yards passing, but 24 points, and QB Bs team throws 25 and he gets 150 but his team gets 31 points that QB A is better? Better at what?

I think you are confused about the job of the QB. His job is not to get the most passing yards, its to win.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, this is one of those great examples of both people being wrong. Andy is overvaluing Elway's performance and you are undervaluing it. It's a brilliant synergy. Elway was no longer the main cog in his team's offense, but he stepped up when it mattered in that game. For the Packers, it was all about Favre, and he fell short.

Just as Dilfer is unfairly derided for successfully performing his duties in Baltimore's Super Bowl winning season, Elway is being unfairly derided by you for not tossing the ball in the air as much as Favre did. You are equating the amount of passes with importance to the team, and it simply doesn't work that way, as the Dilfer experience should have taught every football fan in America.

Bottom line to me: Game tied 24-24 in the 4th. Elway gets his team in the end zone, Favre doesnt.
I dont care if Elway lead blocked for Terrell Davis, or did a fumblerooski (exagerrating of course) when the pressure was on and a Championship on the line, Elway got his team in the end zone. Favre did not, and he had 3 good opportunites that he did nothing with.

 

[Ring 6]

And just so we all understand here, in that game, Green Bay ran the ball for 4.8 yards per rush, and Denver for 4.6.

 

[makewayhomer]

You are equating the amount of passes with importance to the team, and it simply doesn't work that way,

assuming you throw more AND you are better on a per throw basis, then yeah it does work that way.

throwing the ball in the modern NFL is more effective than running the ball, on a per play and total basis. all of the best offenses now have ridiculous passing attacks (the Pats this year, Colts for most of these years, the Vikings and Rams before them) are all historically great offenses, and they were all built on great passing attacks.

teams that don't throw the ball a lot aren't doing it b/c running is better, they are doing it b/c they aren't good enough to have a passing attack.

if every team could throw the ball 45 times a game and be effective doing it (like the Pats), every team would.

 

[Ring 6]

now I am officially done with you. the fact that you don't understand that Favres contribution to the Green Bay offense was WAY, WAY, WAY more than Elways contribution to Denvers offense means you are incapable of separating the QB's individual play from everybody elses

goodbye for the last time.

I just cant leave this one.

I want to understand what you are saying.

Do you believe that a QBs contribution is how often he passes, not how successful he is?
Do you believe that the difference between these players in this game is that when Favres O scored 3 TDs and Elways 4, that Favre was better because the TD occured on a pass play instead of a run?

Do you believe that if one QB throw 4 TD passes from the 1 yard line, he played better than the QB who led his team to 5 TD drives that ended with 1 yard runs?

What exactly did Favre do better, other than have a gameplan that said throw more, and fail to win with that gameplan?

What contributions? Throwing 17 incomplete passes, including 6 clutch ones in the 4th quarter?

Are you really saying that Favre was better because he threw more passes while losing, and Elway was worse because his teams game plan called for more runs?