Between 2005-2013 Brady was one of the highest paid QB's in the league, in 2010 they made him the highest paid player in the NFL for a short period... they won zero rings in that time frame.
From 2000-2004 he was paid like a 6th round rookie, from 2014-2019 he took a little less and the team perpetually kicked salary cap debt down the road from his contract and those of their highest paid players, they won 6 rings in that time frame.
If teams want to win multiple rings they should either have a great team surrounding a good rookie QB before his rookie deal ends (Chiefs), or they need a vet QB willing to take a little less and also borrow from future cap space to acquire other players win now (Patriots 2014-2018).
This is true but it only considers 1/3rd the situation. Consider the Saints from around 2015-2020. They one of many teams that over a period of time borrows against the future to field a better team. It isn't so much the team needs a vet QB to take less and to borrow vs the future. But they need to pull extra money from somewhere and doing both is more sustainable and easier than doing one.
The thing to point out about the Saints is they are one of many teams that borrowed and got future debt to win. Just like the Pats did from 14-18 (though not to the same extent) There are also teams like KC (18-20), SEA (13-15) or GB (10-14) ect... that had a young underpaid QB who played at a high level. Not all of these teams won every year because they did those things. But it at least put them in contention against the other 'advantaged teams'. Every year there are 5-6 teams that have a huge advantage over the rest of the NFL either because of a good young QB on the cheap or because they are selling out to win now. You may beat 1 in the playoffs, maybe even 2 (super unlikely). But beating 3 in a row? That is almost impossible unless you are also in that group. Even on the bottom edge of it like the Pats were whose version of 'selling out to win' meant getting about 20M in debt by the end as opposed to the Saints 70... At least they were in the conversation and it opened the door for them. If you aren't one of the teams in this group then you almost have no chance to beat the teams that are.
It isn't so much if teams want to win multiple rings. It's if teams want to win
any rings at all. To try to do it the sustainable way the Patriots did from 05'-13' put them in a disadvantageous position every year in the NFL against teams who weren't doing it like that or had a dirt cheap QB. And they did almost win some along the way, but even with the GOAT it didn't bounce their way. This is one of the things I will forever criticize BB for. He was SO OBSESSED with being consistently good and not selling out next year for this one that it cost them rings. Would they perhaps have missed the playoffs some of these years if they went 'all in'. Possibly. But that unwillingness to take risk until late in Brady's career was a huge mistake and cost them multiple chances. If he burrowed against the future for 06'/07' he could have won both those years. Then 08'/09' would have been 'pay the piper years. But he could have done it again in 10'/11'12' and have reset in 13'. Until their final push from 14-18'. I remember fans complaining year in and year out about the lack of urgency from the front office. Them wanting to be consistently good at the cost putting themselves in a position to win. I'm still pissed about it. I don't know why it's not brought up anymore.
Isn't it weird how 13% of the cap commits 50% of the success?
That is a bit unfair. QBs in reality have shown that if they are REALLY good HOF level guy is worth 4-5 extra wins above a good backup QB/low level starter. The difference between a top QB is a bad but not absolute trash QB is about 25-30% of success when going by that. And it makes a lot of sense. When we look at the cap, we need to remember baselines.
To fill a spot on your roster for the minimum price cost on average around .4 % of your cap. That is how much it would cost to just fill your roster without even getting anyone good. Just baseline level players. So before we even look to get above replacement players we have already burned away 22% of our cap just to have a full roster. So 22% of your spending is forced and gone before you even begin. So in reality the money your spending on each player above that is their real worth and your disposable money. So in reality the threshold is closer to 17% of your disposable income. (you divide the salary amount by .78
However, when you still look at it the 17% of disposable cash threshold to win a super bowl doesn't match the 25-30% difference a QB can make. Why? The solution to this could be explained through math no doubt if I took a few days to hammer it our if someone truly gifted with numbers devoted time to it. The short non-proof based answer is about 'Advantaged' teams vs 'league average' vs 'rebuilding teams' and the difference between them. Over the course of the year Team A is likely to faced as many Advantaged teams as rebuilding teams (IE either teams with a very good QB on a rookie contract or teams borrowing substantially against the future as opposed to teams in the opposite spot). They are VERY likely to lose to the advantaged teams if they play one but very likely to win against the rebuilding teams. Then you have the majority of the schedule which is league average teams. These are the majority of teams you face and the teams a HOF QB typically picks on, even if not on an advantaged team. And even on a rebuilding team he does well enough against them. Another way to put it is a good enough QB allows you to almost fully jump one tier up (from rebuilding to league average and from league average to advantaged), though not completely a full tier up. And if you have a HOF level QB on the cheap along with borrowing against the future as well... look out.
