Sweating it out - the QB deals

[Deus Irae]

As Chris Rock said "you might be able to drive a car with your feet but it doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do".

Indeed. You might be able to win with a Trent Dilfer at QB, but that doesn't mean it's a smart way to plan. Excellent point. History shows that you're much better off with a top level QB.

As for building a team, BB has said that you build from the line out and the middle up, top down teams like the Jets usually collapse on themselves, I want a team that has the depth to sustain injuries and go deep in the playoffs. We won our Suberbowls because of a balanced team, we even had a team that would have been dangerous in the playoffs with Matt Cassel.

The Patriots won their Super Bowls because they had the best QB and HC in the game on the same team, and because that duo was supported with an excellent defense. Depth is what gets you through the regular season. Healthy top end players is what gets you through the playoffs.

Also, the Colts might very well have won that Suberbowl they lost of they were more balanced instead of focusing so much on Manning.

The Colts lost the Super Bowl because Manning choked, and because the Saints made a call about an onsides kick that paid off. The Colts running game that day was 19 carries for 99 yards and a touchdown, which was superior to the 18 carries, 51 yards and no touchdowns that the Saints running game was able to muster.

I could also make the argument that the Giants would have been a better playoff team in 08 if they hadn't thrown so much money at Manning and made more of an effort to keep Derrick Brooks and or hired another WR so that they wouldn't have been as exposed if Burress was injured (or shot himself).

Derrick Brooks was still a member of the Buccaneers in 2008 and never played for the Giants, so I have no idea what you're trying to claim here.

Individual players don't win Superbowls, teams win Suberbowls.

Yes, teams with tremendous individual players win Super Bowls.

 

[Miguel]

It was Breer who wrote the article. He blogged that he did. Breer blogged that Bradford's deal may affect the 2011 franchise tag # for QBs which tells me that he has no idea what the 1st year cap number for the #1 picks has been lately and that he made no effort to research it.

USATODAY.com

 

[Snake Eyes]

Indeed. You might be able to win with a Trent Dilfer at QB, but that doesn't mean it's a smart way to plan. Excellent point. History shows that you're much better off with a top level QB.

Sure, but if you seriously sacrifice a lot of other positions you're painting yourself into a corner.

The Patriots won their Super Bowls because they had the best QB and HC in the game on the same team, and because that duo was supported with an excellent defense. Depth is what gets you through the regular season. Healthy top end players is what gets you through the playoffs.

How do you know how many players will be healthy at the end of the season? Many times a top-end player is only "top end" because of the players around him, lose too much in the way of a supporting cast and they're effectiveness is mitigated.

Also, the defense from the Superbowl days was nasty, you can try to downplay their importance to ballwash Brady but DEFENSE is that wins championships. Giving Brady a deal that handcuffs the rest of the team is stupid.

The Colts lost the Super Bowl because Manning choked, and because the Saints made a call about an onsides kick that paid off. The Colts running game that day was 19 carries for 99 yards and a touchdown, which was superior to the 18 carries, 51 yards and no touchdowns that the Saints running game was able to muster

I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. Strengthening any other areas of the Colts would have had no impact on the game?

Derrick Brooks was still a member of the Buccaneers in 2008 and never played for the Giants, so I have no idea what you're trying to claim here.

Derrick Ward, I meant, sorry, my fault on that one.

 

[Miguel]

What the article fails to mention is
1.) the number of sponsorship deals that the NFL have reached since the owners opted out of the CBA. I have counted at least six.

Here are the six deals.
Verizon - Verizon Strikes Deal to Carry NFL's RedZone Channel - WSJ.com
DirectTV -
DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Renewal Sets NFL Network's Game Plan - 2009-03-29 06:01:00 | Multichannel News
Anheuser-Busch
Anheuser-Busch win $1bn sponsorship deal with NFL
Pro Football Is One Game Major Marketers Want to Play (and Buy) - Advertising Age - Special Report: Sports Marketing 2010
"The price -- criticized by some -- was the biggest in company history, the first billion-dollar deal in NFL history and more than double what MillerCoors had paid."
Papa John's -
Papa John’s to be main pizza sponsor for NFL | Chicago Breaking Business
Campbell's -
Campbell renews NFL sponsorship - BusinessWeek
Barclay's -
Two-month warning for NFL credit card holders - NFL - ESPN
State Lotterys -
NFL opens door on deals with state lotteries, and Patriots rush through - ESPN
Proctor and Gamble -
NFL Teams With Procter & Gamble In a Play for New Kinds of Sponsors - WSJ.com

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here are the six deals.
Verizon - Verizon Strikes Deal to Carry NFL's RedZone Channel - WSJ.com
DirectTV -
DirecTV's Sunday Ticket Renewal Sets NFL Network's Game Plan - 2009-03-29 06:01:00 | Multichannel News
Anheuser-Busch
Anheuser-Busch win $1bn sponsorship deal with NFL
Pro Football Is One Game Major Marketers Want to Play (and Buy) - Advertising Age - Special Report: Sports Marketing 2010
"The price -- criticized by some -- was the biggest in company history, the first billion-dollar deal in NFL history and more than double what MillerCoors had paid."
Papa John's -
Papa John’s to be main pizza sponsor for NFL | Chicago Breaking Business
Campbell's -
Campbell renews NFL sponsorship - BusinessWeek
Barclay's -
Two-month warning for NFL credit card holders - NFL - ESPN
State Lotterys -
NFL opens door on deals with state lotteries, and Patriots rush through - ESPN
Proctor and Gamble -
NFL Teams With Procter & Gamble In a Play for New Kinds of Sponsors - WSJ.com

The point you seem intent on making seems a little disingenuous because most of those deals were situations where a new sponsor simply outbid the existing sponsor for the deal going forward. In some cases that may be because some of the old sponsors are experiencing belt tightening...

 

[Miguel]

The point you seem intent on making seems a little disingenuous because most of those deals were situations where a new sponsor simply outbid the existing sponsor for the deal going forward. In some cases that may be because some of the old sponsors are experiencing belt tightening...

The points I am making is
1.) that the NFL is committed to growing its revenue
2.) the NFL has been indeed growing its revenue since the owners opted out of the CBA

I should have been clearer with that.