2014 NFL off-season thread

[LongTimeListener]

Citing the worst games of a quarterback's season and subtracting his best games to evaluate him isn't what I call a valid methodology. You can use that to show Brady and Manning sucked last year. Seattle made Brees and Manning look pretty ill in the playoffs, too, so Kaepernick's got company there -- highly paid company.

OK, I will return to my larger point that of his 27 games, take away the three against one very defensively challenged opponent and you're left with a mixed bag. You're not left with a $20 million-a-year quarterback, especially when you can stand pat and get the same guy for $10 million a year for the next two years.

 

[outofplace]

Citing the worst games of a quarterback's season and subtracting his best games to evaluate him isn't what I call a valid methodology. You can use that to show Brady and Manning sucked last year. Seattle made Brees and Manning look pretty ill in the playoffs, too, so Kaepernick's got company there -- highly paid company.

OK, I will return to my larger point that of his 27 games, take away the three against one very defensively challenged opponent and you're left with a mixed bag. You're not left with a $20 million-a-year quarterback, especially when you can stand pat and get the same guy for $10 million a year for the next two years.

And you went right back to the same flawed methodology that Michael_Gee was talking about, removing the guy's best games to make your evaluation.

 

[LongTimeListener]

They all have one significant thing in common in that case, oop. Think hard about it. Anyway, feel free to insult my reading comprehension here, I won't be re-engaging you.

 

[LongTimeListener]

To Michael -- the teams of Brees, Brady and Manning have had a combined total of three single-digit performances in the last four years.

Kaepernick's team had three in two months.

We're talking about whether you want to break the bank for the guy, two years before it's necessary. I don't think his performance so far comes close to a "yes" on that.

 

[Mark2010]

Citing the worst games of a quarterback's season and subtracting his best games to evaluate him isn't what I call a valid methodology. You can use that to show Brady and Manning sucked last year. Seattle made Brees and Manning look pretty ill in the playoffs, too, so Kaepernick's got company there -- highly paid company.

OK, I will return to my larger point that of his 27 games, take away the three against one very defensively challenged opponent and you're left with a mixed bag. You're not left with a $20 million-a-year quarterback, especially when you can stand pat and get the same guy for $10 million a year for the next two years.

Fair enough. He's not a superstar. Not yet, anyway.

 

[outofplace]

They all have one significant thing in common in that case, oop. Think hard about it. Anyway, feel free to insult my reading comprehension here, I won't be re-engaging you.

Think hard about it? Now you are stealing material from 93Devil? Speaking of things one should think hard about.

Michael explained why the method is flawed. Really, it is an attempt by you to manipulate the numbers in a way that supports your argument rather than make a fair evaluation of the player.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

LTL's point is a good and very valid one... Kaepernick owns the Packers, and two of his best games have been against them.

I'd like to see more of that before I'd pay him the salary of an elite QB.

 

[outofplace]

LTL's point is a good and very valid one... Kaepernick owns the Packers, and two of his best games have been against them.

I'd like to see more of that before I'd pay him the salary of an elite QB.

Unless you break down the performances of every other quarterback you compare him to in the same way, the point is not a good one at all.

 

[Boom_70]

A bad QB with a big salary cap hit is a killer. The Jets went all in on Sanchez on the idea that they made the AFC Championship 2 years in a row.

I have not spent a lot of time on the math but it seems like giving Kaepeernick the money he wants now as opposed to holding him to existing contract would cost
the 49ers at least 3 other productive players due to salary cap issues.

A productive QB with low salary is gold in the current make up of The NFL.

 

[joe king]

The bottom line is he isn't worth elite QB money, at least not yet. That said, there's a really good chance he'll get it for the same reason Romo and Flacco got paid -- who out there can they get who will be as good or better?

 

[Songbird]

If you're going to give a QB $20 million-plus, he better be able to carry your team. I'm talking, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton Manning and Brady. Andrew Luck is probably on the cusp of being included in that group.

Luck *is* in that group.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm surprised we haven't heard more about Cam Newton's contract talks. I'll be curious how much he gets.