I just find it crazy that he's making Peyton and Brady money. If I'm correct, he's actually making more than both of them, and last I knew, he wasn't the best QB in the league. He's top 10, that's for sure, maybe top 5. At this point, I can think of at least four QBs I'd take before him any day of the week. Brady Manning Palmer Brees Now, if you throw in my crazy Dallas bias, I'd also take Romo over him as well, because he had success in a system geared towards the passing game, whereas Roethlisberger is having success in a system geared towards the running game, while depending on him simply to manage the game and not win the game, which is what's expected of Romo on a frequent basis. And I think that's my main issue with him landing such a mega-deal. He's getting tons of cash to basically manage the game. I know the Steelers did throw the ball a bit more this year, and his stats showed that, but I still view him as more of a game manager than anything. However, since premium QBs are tough to come by in this league, if you have to overpay you do it. In this case, I don't think they overpaid by too much (probably $4-5 mil), and in doing so they held onto one of the best young QBs in the NFL.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Mar 5 2008, 01:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I just find it crazy that he's making Peyton and Brady money. If I'm correct, he's actually making more than both of them, and last I knew, he wasn't the best QB in the league. He's top 10, that's for sure, maybe top 5. At this point, I can think of at least four QBs I'd take before him any day of the week. Brady Manning Palmer Brees Now, if you throw in my crazy Dallas bias, I'd also take Romo over him as well, because he had success in a system geared towards the passing game, whereas Roethlisberger is having success in a system geared towards the running game, while depending on him simply to manage the game and not win the game, which is what's expected of Romo on a frequent basis. And I think that's my main issue with him landing such a mega-deal. He's getting tons of cash to basically manage the game. I know the Steelers did throw the ball a bit more this year, and his stats showed that, but I still view him as more of a game manager than anything. However, since premium QBs are tough to come by in this league, if you have to overpay you do it. In this case, I don't think they overpaid by too much (probably $4-5 mil), and in doing so they held onto one of the best young QBs in the NFL.</div> I know Peyton makes more per year. I have to get back to you on whether Brady makes more... If you account for inflation his contract isn't that bad since it's stretched out for such a long time.
So...looking into this further. Peyton signed a 7-year, $98 million deal. Brady signed a 6-year $60 million deal. So, I apparently mixed up Brady and Manning's deals in my last post, it happens. As it is, if we look at a per year average based on just the contract alone, Big Ben would make an average of $12.75mil, Brady would make an average of $10mil and Peyton would make an average of $14mil. This of course, assumes they get all monies included in the deal, not just the guaranteed cash. But if this is the case, this makes Big Ben a higher paid QB than Tom Brady, which I don't agree with.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Mar 5 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So...looking into this further. Peyton signed a 7-year, $98 million deal. Brady signed a 6-year $60 million deal. So, I apparently mixed up Brady and Manning's deals in my last post, it happens. As it is, if we look at a per year average based on just the contract alone, Big Ben would make an average of $12.75mil, Brady would make an average of $10mil and Peyton would make an average of $14mil. This of course, assumes they get all monies included in the deal, not just the guaranteed cash. But if this is the case, this makes Big Ben a higher paid QB than Tom Brady, which I don't agree with.</div> I thought Brady had some incentives/boosters in his contract though, if not then I must have mixed up his deal and Carson Palmer's.
I didn't check for incentives, for no reason, just didn't. As for Palmer, his deal, with everything included, was a 9-year, $118.75mil deal, which is nuts. As for Brady's deal, looking into it, the $60mil appears to be everything, including incentives. Though, these deals seem like nothing in comparison to what Mike Vick got. 10-years, $130mil. And now, I bet Arthur Blank feels like a moron for that. At least these QBs are actually out on the field making their money, while Mike Vick sits in jail for the 13 or so months, doing nothing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 5 2008, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 5 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 5 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, Adjusted Yards makes sense, QB rating assimilates value randomly, that's a fact. I don't think you're evil or anything guy, I was just saying QB rating is a joke. It's misleading, thus I posted something superior to it. Big Ben obviously had a solid season, no disagreement there.</div> QB rating does not do anything randomly. It has a set formula http://www.nfl.com/help/quarterbackratingformula It is rather contrived, but it isn't random at all. It is an unweighted linear formula. QB rating is one of many evaluation tools and it isn't misleading when used in context. I'm not attempting to correlate anything from the stat, rather I was just showing relative performance. You have professed your love for Adjusted Yards many times, but frankly I don't give a rats ass. I have no desire to get into the ridiculous debates about which QB is better than another because there is so much more that goes into an NFL team. </div> We're talking about one QB, how the hell are we going to go into a tangent about other people and who's the greatest? That's completely off topic. What the **** do I care where Ben ranks against the legends, I simply reported the News with my own chart. QB rating randomly assumes that Completion Percentage is as important as TD-INT ratio for example. That is indeed random. You can not give a **** about Adj/p, that's not the problem. What i can say, is that Ben is definitely better then some people give him credit for, but this BS about being First in some years is completely misleading. So..... This leads me to my ultimate point: I at least wanted to provide more perspective for the casual fan, I don't see the problem. </div> You are confusing unweighted with random. The QB rating formula is unweighted because it doesn't rank one factor as more important than another. That is not random. Stating that in a particular statistical category where a number would place isn't misleading. It is no different than saying that Michael Jordan's 1995-1996 league leading scoring average of 30.38 wouldn't have been first in 2006-2007. You keep tossing around the word misleading, yet I'm not attempting to lead an audience anywhere.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 5 2008, 01:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 5 2008, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 5 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 5 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, Adjusted Yards makes sense, QB rating assimilates value randomly, that's a fact. I don't think you're evil or anything guy, I was just saying QB rating is a joke. It's misleading, thus I posted something superior to it. Big Ben obviously had a solid season, no disagreement there.</div> QB rating does not do anything randomly. It has a set formula http://www.nfl.com/help/quarterbackratingformula It is rather contrived, but it isn't random at all. It is an unweighted linear formula. QB rating is one of many evaluation tools and it isn't misleading when used in context. I'm not attempting to correlate anything from the stat, rather I was just showing relative performance. You have professed your love for Adjusted Yards many times, but frankly I don't give a rats ass. I have no desire to get into the ridiculous debates about which QB is better than another because there is so much more that goes into an NFL team. </div> We're talking about one QB, how the hell are we going to go into a tangent about other people and who's the greatest? That's completely off topic. What the **** do I care where Ben ranks against the legends, I simply reported the News with my own chart. QB rating randomly assumes that Completion Percentage is as important as TD-INT ratio for example. That is indeed random. You can not give a **** about Adj/p, that's not the problem. What i can say, is that Ben is definitely better then some people give him credit for, but this BS about being First in some years is completely misleading. So..... This leads me to my ultimate point: I at least wanted to provide more perspective for the casual fan, I don't see the problem. </div> You are confusing unweighted with random. The QB rating formula is unweighted because it doesn't rank one factor as more important than another. That is not random. Stating that in a particular statistical category where a number would place isn't misleading. It is no different than saying that Michael Jordan's 1995-1996 league leading scoring average of 30.38 wouldn't have been first in 2006-2007. You keep tossing around the word misleading, yet I'm not attempting to lead an audience anywhere. </div> I refined my original post, and it's worded better now. I did that before you posted this. Let me parphrase: What you originally posted is indeed true; Ben ranks in those places with his QB rating. But it's not the complete story, so I provided another objective perspective. QB Rating should not give equal importance to the the four major categories. What it does, is devise a plan in which none of these four factors has more importance than the other, and it does that in an elaborate fashion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 5 2008, 01:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I refined my original post, and it's worded better now. I did that before you posted this. Let me parphrase: What you originally posted is indeed true; Ben ranks in those places with his QB rating. But it's not the complete story, so I provided another objective perspective. QB Rating should not give equal importance to the the four major categories. What it does, is devise a plan in which none of these four factors has more importance than the other, and it does that in an elaborate fashion.</div> I made no attempt to present a complete story nor any representation that it was close to a complete story. I presented a small set of facts without comments and without attempting to lead an audience. QB rating is what it is, an unweighted linear formula. It is one of many comparison tools and makes no representation to be the best one. In order to not give equal weight to each factor, statistical analysis would need to be performed to "prove" the weights that are placed on them. Other formulas have done that so there is no point in changing QB rating.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Mar 5 2008, 01:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't check for incentives, for no reason, just didn't. As for Palmer, his deal, with everything included, was a 9-year, $118.75mil deal, which is nuts. As for Brady's deal, looking into it, the $60mil appears to be everything, including incentives. Though, these deals seem like nothing in comparison to what Mike Vick got. 10-years, $130mil. And now, I bet Arthur Blank feels like a moron for that. At least these QBs are actually out on the field making their money, while Mike Vick sits in jail for the 13 or so months, doing nothing.</div> Here is some more info http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...s/s_555344.html <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>• Peyton Manning, Colts: In 2004, Manning signed a seven-year contract extension worth $99.2 million, and it included a $34.5 million signing bonus. <span style="color:#FF0000">He later restructured the deal to help the Colts clear room under the salary cap.</span> • Tom Brady, Patriots: In May 2005, Brady gave the Patriots a bargain when he signed a six-year contract worth $60 million. Brady's deal included a $26.5 million signing bonus, and <span style="color:#0000FF">he signed for well below his market value so the Patriots would have the flexibility to sign other players.</span> • Carson Palmer, Bengals: In 2005, Cincinnati added six years to his contract, which still had three years remaining on it. The new deal, which included a $15 million signing bonus, could be worth as much as $118.75 million over nine years. • Marc Bulger, Rams: Before the start of training camp last season, the Central Catholic graduate agreed to a six-year, $65 million deal ($27 million is guaranteed) with St. Louis. • Tony Romo, Cowboys: Dallas and Romo agreed on a six-year, $67.5 million contract last October. Romo received an $11.5 million signing bonus and is guaranteed $30 million.</div>
Ben is easily a top 10 QB, if his O-line was decent last year the steelers would went farther, also if willie didn't get hurt
