Quote
RamsFanSinceLA
Good post Coy but I think it strays a bit from the OP's original point. That is: Do your chances of making it to the Conference Championship game increase with a top 5 PAID QB? Is there a direct correlation? Based on Albany's quick research (which is appreciated), it looks like the answer is no.
Yes, I did go in a different direction from Albany's point. I did that because I think it's a poor metric to use in trying to identify the worth of a top paid QB. I wonder what results I would get if I did some statistical analysis on making it to the conf. championships with QBs whose last name starts with either a "B" or a "F," or some other similar convolution. The statistic might be valid, but essentially worthless when trying to identify how to get to a Conf. Champ. game.
No criticism of Albany is meant here, and I believe he got it from another site.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the implication of Albany's statistic is that you don't need to pay a QB big money to get to the Conf. Champ. game, correct? History shows that a number of lower paid QBs have won Conf. Championships.
So, if the Rams win the next two SBs, or let's say Conf. Championships, and Goff wants big money, the Rams would be fine with letting him walk?
I wonder how many teams with top paid DTs have won Conf. Championships?
No. Football is a team sport with a great amount of unstable factors, or changing variables. The belief is that the top performers, like AD, and some QBs, are worth the money because they're highly productive in their particular job. I think a more valuable set of metrics to predict future wins, apart from pay, is QB performance in several categories. I'd like to see if any correlation exists between a paid-scale, and an actual performance metric, like passing yards, completion %, oh, perhaps the QB rating would be a good one to use. Pay vs. QB rating, that should be more easily doable.
Anyway, sorry if I'm rambling. I don't have the time to do those analysis, but they would be fascinating to read.
