Dude is more of an authority than any of us, that’s for sure.
If rings are these players ONLY incentive for playing, then come to my team for peanuts and we’ll amass some superteam like the NBA has been doing and you’ll get your rings. I don’t wanna hear chit about money though, that’s when the players cut their own throats. They want the most they can squeeze-out of an organization but then complain that they don’t have the players to get win. Well no, because you and a couple of the other guys take-up 65% of our cap!
Not dissing on Stafford, but hypotheticals don’t count.
Nobody said they did.
I’m pretty sure this whole article is base on hypotheticals, so yes “they did”.
I agree that some guys take as much money as they can get and leave little in the cap for some other positions. Then fans complain because the RG or nickel back sucks.
Then why do other teams with highly paid players still win?
Cam Jordan, Drew Brees, and Mike Thomas make as much as any 3 Lions ever have.
Well, Drew Brees is a HOF QB and a great leader. Thomas is a top 5 receiver. Sean Peyton is one of the best coaches in the NFL.
You are making my point. Its possible to pay players and win with good coaching.
Hell Jimmy G and Jerrick McKinnon make top dollar and one has never played for the 9ers and the other has been mediocre at best.
Good teams never have problems paying good players
I was never arguing against that point in the first place.
Stafford is not an elite QB, we know this. He’s not Brady, Rodgers, or Brees. These guys seem to win with lesser players. There’s still a certain threshold of talent they require but it’s a little less than other good QB’s in the NFL.
And like someone else said, if you have an elite QB and a HC who is elite as well, that’s how you win consistently. If you don’t have that, then you need a stacked team around them.
These dudes played in systems that were in place for decades. In cultures that were in place for decades. Look at the rosters these guys won something meaningful with. True, they elevate the level of play of those around them, but did they have inferior talent? Bah!
If you stuck Mathew in Drew’s spot for 2 years, he’d be contending for a title too, and with similar numbers.
I’m not saying Matt is better than Drew, but he’d daaaaaamn sure be called elite, and he’d be a shoe-in HOF dude on that team, in that system, with those players. Sure, it’s hypothetical, but I have zero doubt.
Rodgers is clearly superior in mobility, and that’s not the best comparison. That dude consistently makes sick throws. I’m not saying Matt is better than any of these dudes, but I have to believe he’d have 30% more wins, if he was playing on those rosters, with those coaches, in those systems.
Brady or Bres would get murdered playing in the same scenario as Matt. Rodgers’s mobility would help him to maybe have a bit more success, but he’s also looked like crap when pressured.
Microwaved, I think Matt would be considered elite if he were put in any of these situations.
Another hypothetical argument. It’s always easy to say this or that, but that isn’t the way life works.
The truth is that Brady has won 6 SBs, even though some people want to diminish his accomplishments by claiming it is the system or the coaching, etc.
If it were that easy, then why doesn’t every team use the same system?
Sorry, add Russell Wilson to that list.
Anyways, do you really think Stafford would have a “couple” of rings playing anywhere else?
Since Stafford has been in the league, here are the Superbowl winners:
2019 - NE Patriots over Rams
2018 - Philadelphi Eagles over Patriots
2017- NE Patriots over Falcons
2016 - Broncos over Panthers
2015 - NE Patriots over Seahawks
2014 - Seahawks over Denver
2013 - Ravens over 49’ers
2012 - Giants over NE Patriots
2011 - Packers over Steelers
2010 - Saints over Colts
2009 - Steelers over Cardinals
Do you really think Stafford would have lead another team to “a couple of rings”? That means he would have had to of beaten Brady and Billicheck multiple times to get to the Superbowl or in the Superbowl.
It really is hard for a team to make it to the Superbowl one year, let alone multiple years, and even harder to win both games. And if they didn’t win both Superbowls they were in, they would have had to of gone to even more Superbowls to “win a couple of rings”.
If you really think about it, what Tate said is nearly impossible for any QB and really is just a very ignorant thing for Tate to say.
I believe these are the only QB’s to have multiple Superbowls…but yet somehow Stafford on another team was going to win 2 Superbowls during the Brady and Billicheck run…yeah right!
I wasn’t replying to you.
But I was replying to you.
It’s not the system, it’s that the system has been in place for 15 years. It’s that they don’t need to learn a new system every 3 years, new terminology every 3 years, new way of doing things every 3 years.
Our vets are learning the offense, right alongside the rookies. With them, vets help rooks and new FAs along. It’s like every player is a coach on the field and can help. Culturally, in knowing what to expect, in having the schedules down, etc.
A great coach finds great people and delegates, so he can focus on what he is a genius at. We’re still in a learning curve.
Part of the thing that they can do, is luxury picks too. When they have fewer roster holes to fill, and have the guys they want for their system. Our guys, regardless of GM, are having to get different types of players for different systems, as well. It goes deeper than just …good coach, good system, good players…it’s coordinating all of it. Can that really be done in a year and a half (less than 6 months, for the offense)?
I feel like so many fans are way too quick to get all pissy pants and throw a tantrum. It’s rough when we lose, but let’s get a reasonable sample size before we burn the house down. How has that worked out for us in the past 30 years? Time to do something different? Or, should we just fire the coach every 3 years?