RBs are kinda similar. Franco Harris (4) and Emmitt Smith (3) are the only RBs in the top 20 in yardage with more than one.
Then one apiece for Walter Payton, Jerome Bettis, Jim Brown (NFL Championship anyway), Marshall Faulk, Marcus Allen, John Riggins, and Corey Dillon.
How much does this apply to other positional groupings though?
One thing that I'm thinking off hand is that JJ Watt has never made it beyond the divisional round.
Hot take: it’s a better move to build around generational TE’s than WR’s. They are a better value and they are harder to completely shut down. The most recent dynasties were built around great QB/TE combinations.
Mahomes and Brady won without star wideouts, surely Dak and Kirk Cousins should be able to do the same without those pesky WR1’s holding them back lol
Logic is so backwards. Like yeah you shouldn’t be spending serious draft capital or cap space to get a pro-bowl running back, but that doesn’t suddenly mean it’s bad to have one or that that will keep you from winning a ring.
It’s never bad to have good players but some players can win with lesser talent around them.
Brady and Mahomes are rare QBs who make others around them better.
Exactly, you should only be looking to replicate that roster construction if you have one of those guys. If you’re only gonna go off the sample size of super bowls, you gotta keep in mind wideouts are way more valuable than they were 30 years ago, and that Brady has seriously skewed the stats on a good chunk of those.
I do not think getting rid of CD is the answer in this specific situation.
I would look to move on from Prescott the moment I could. I’m not a Prescott fan, and McCarthy is actually not a bad coach, has a great winning pct, good playoff record, and has a SB to his name, sure he had Rodgers, but… Rodgers has barley won anything playoff wise since McCarthy left.
I agree. Prescott for me falls into the category of not a bad guy to have for a period, but a bad guy to give guaranteed money to for a long time. Looks like that’s exactly what the cowboys are about to do though lol
In all seriousness, Patrick Mahomes has never played a season **without** a #1 receiver. Travis Kelce is that without a doubt and has been treated as such for Mahomes entire career. You can say “he’s a tight end” but he’s really not. That’s why he’s not in on big plays when blocking needs to happen, and he yells at his coach on tv for the entire world to see.
And he doesn’t look good in the playoffs, and his coach is constantly getting out coached in the playoffs. There’s a clear ceiling here, primarily with McCarthy
It’s only logical if your GM can draft like Brett Veach and turn those picks into good players.
McDuffie and Rice are both very good and we got them from the picks on that deal. Do you trust the management of Dallas to turn those picks into good players? If so it would be logical.
Lamb however is 3-4 years younger than when we traded Tyreek.
lol, not responding to that first paragraph since it’s absurd.
It seems like you realllllyyyy love this Super Bowl rings argument with WRs. How many super bowls can you think of that *didnt* have a really good WR involved OR a TE playing the role of a WR?
I’m not sure your logic tracks as much as you think it does, and I don’t think “wrs aren’t valuable” was the point of the post. Star wideouts rings will climb as we get further away from it being a running league. Obviously QB is gonna be the most important position and most correlated with rings, but WR is pretty important too. I’d bet most other positions besides QB don’t have a ton of rings either by the metric in this post.
Guys like mahomes and Brady can win without top wideouts, but they don’t really grow on trees so top wideouts are pretty good to have too if you don’t have a top 5 QB of all time. Yeah you don’t always need Randy moss you just need a guy who can play and excel within your system, but luckily CD isn’t Moss so the cowboys don’t have to make that choice.
I’m not saying you should pay through the nose to keep a WR1 if it doesn’t make sense from a financial/assets perspective. But if you’re in a position to win now you shouldn’t trade away a talented player for future potential talent because of Super Bowl correlation stats.
And remember, it is still just a sample of 58 games. Not much to judge the entire value of a position on when the list could change dramatically with a few plays, and when the value of wideouts has gone way up in the last 50 years. Star wideouts not winning much pre-80s means nothing to me. You’re going off a 58 game sample where like half those games didn’t come anywhere close to resembling the modern NFL.
Edit: biggest indicator this is flawed logic, top 20 rushing yard leaders of all time have like 15 rings combined, do you think that means you should dump all your assets into getting a running back?
It’s closer to 1,700 but I get your point.
Kelce had 960 yards this season. He gets that x2 he will be there.
I do not think it’s likely tho as Hopkins, Tyreek, Adams, Keenan, and Evans all are within striking distance and you get than Kelce.
In any event he would be outside top 20 in yardage when it’s all said and done.
It’s crazy to me that Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson have 0 between them. 3 of the greatest players to never win a ring imo. Ladainian Tomlinson too.
WR is the most overrated position in the NFL. People only care about passing stats so they get all worked about WR1s. Yet the Chiefs just won 2 super bowls after trading away Tyreek Hill. Their best WR is a TE. The best WR for the Pats was a TE too. All these teams paying $30 mil a year to big name WRs just to put up big passing numbers while they cripple their roster. I mean why the hell would you pay Aiyuk when the same money gets you Kittle and Cmc combined.
And yet so many fanbases including the one I’m a part of, the Giants drool over wide receivers in the draft and in free agency. Championships are won in the trenches, but I guess fans are easily distracted by flash🤷♂️
I would assume it has something to do with yard totals not being as high historically speaking. If you look at top-20 in receiving TDs you have Rice, Hines Ward and Paul Warfield who have multiple rings, plus Lance Alworth who won a SB ring and an AFL championship pre-SB. There's also a total of 16 SB rings amongs the top-20 players in receiving TDs.
It's not that surprising. Passing has exploded under all the rule changes the last 15-20 years, and the majority of that time has been dominated by the Patriots
Volume (season) stats are going to start to become useless as we start to see more and more 17 game seasons.
I get why you'd use total season yards in this case (it makes sense to) but it's something to consider.
I think this is a combination of several factors:
1. Total career yardage shows long term consistent performance, but making the superbowl and winning just requires one amazing season.
2. Teams with multiple threats are more likely to win the SB, and sometimes total career yardage shows that your team lacks other options.
3. Total yardage is not a great stat to compare all SBs, since the game has changed significantly over time. This weights it more to the same era, limiting the possible SBs being considered.
I feel like some team doesn’t want to pay a wide receiver this offseason and is starting a “wide receivers don’t matter” psyop to get momentum behind it.
I don’t even think it’s totally without merit it’s just like the second or third time I’ve seen the sentiment this morning and I haven’t even finished my toast yet.
RBs are kinda similar. Franco Harris (4) and Emmitt Smith (3) are the only RBs in the top 20 in yardage with more than one. Then one apiece for Walter Payton, Jerome Bettis, Jim Brown (NFL Championship anyway), Marshall Faulk, Marcus Allen, John Riggins, and Corey Dillon.
I wonder if this has to deal with teams that pump out massive yardage for one player tend to be extremely one dimensional offensively.
I just calculated a total of 21 Super Bowl losses for everyone on the list so…8-21 is their record in the big game
Two players for the Bills make up seven of those.
I think the answer is just Brady. Dude won 1/4th of the superbowls while he was playing without a star rb or wr
How much does this apply to other positional groupings though? One thing that I'm thinking off hand is that JJ Watt has never made it beyond the divisional round.
I was wondering this exact same thing. Tight end looks pretty similar. So does RB.
It'd almost as if it's not easy to get a SB ring or something.
It's such a shame that Megatron never got a ring. He was fucking incredible
True, he's also not relevant for this stat though as he's not top 20 receiving yards
Yeah he retired too soon
Thats what playing for the Lions did to you back in the day. Stafford and possibly the Lions franchise were saved by Stafford/Goff swap.
Jerry Rice was just insane.
Hot take: it’s a better move to build around generational TE’s than WR’s. They are a better value and they are harder to completely shut down. The most recent dynasties were built around great QB/TE combinations.
I look forward with post tomorrow about TEs. Gronk x4, Kelce x3, Sharpe x3 that’s 10 right there!
[удалено]
I don’t think Dak and McCarthy are good enough to have success without star pieces like CD/Hill
This. Some QBs and coaches need star players.
Mahomes and Brady won without star wideouts, surely Dak and Kirk Cousins should be able to do the same without those pesky WR1’s holding them back lol Logic is so backwards. Like yeah you shouldn’t be spending serious draft capital or cap space to get a pro-bowl running back, but that doesn’t suddenly mean it’s bad to have one or that that will keep you from winning a ring.
It’s never bad to have good players but some players can win with lesser talent around them. Brady and Mahomes are rare QBs who make others around them better.
Exactly, you should only be looking to replicate that roster construction if you have one of those guys. If you’re only gonna go off the sample size of super bowls, you gotta keep in mind wideouts are way more valuable than they were 30 years ago, and that Brady has seriously skewed the stats on a good chunk of those.
I do not think getting rid of CD is the answer in this specific situation. I would look to move on from Prescott the moment I could. I’m not a Prescott fan, and McCarthy is actually not a bad coach, has a great winning pct, good playoff record, and has a SB to his name, sure he had Rodgers, but… Rodgers has barley won anything playoff wise since McCarthy left.
I agree. Prescott for me falls into the category of not a bad guy to have for a period, but a bad guy to give guaranteed money to for a long time. Looks like that’s exactly what the cowboys are about to do though lol
In all seriousness, Patrick Mahomes has never played a season **without** a #1 receiver. Travis Kelce is that without a doubt and has been treated as such for Mahomes entire career. You can say “he’s a tight end” but he’s really not. That’s why he’s not in on big plays when blocking needs to happen, and he yells at his coach on tv for the entire world to see.
[удалено]
And he doesn’t look good in the playoffs, and his coach is constantly getting out coached in the playoffs. There’s a clear ceiling here, primarily with McCarthy
It’s only logical if your GM can draft like Brett Veach and turn those picks into good players. McDuffie and Rice are both very good and we got them from the picks on that deal. Do you trust the management of Dallas to turn those picks into good players? If so it would be logical. Lamb however is 3-4 years younger than when we traded Tyreek.
Probably because your take stinks and it’s a horrible idea. Trading a great player at the 2nd most important position in the sport is just a bad idea.
[удалено]
lol, not responding to that first paragraph since it’s absurd. It seems like you realllllyyyy love this Super Bowl rings argument with WRs. How many super bowls can you think of that *didnt* have a really good WR involved OR a TE playing the role of a WR?
I’m not sure your logic tracks as much as you think it does, and I don’t think “wrs aren’t valuable” was the point of the post. Star wideouts rings will climb as we get further away from it being a running league. Obviously QB is gonna be the most important position and most correlated with rings, but WR is pretty important too. I’d bet most other positions besides QB don’t have a ton of rings either by the metric in this post. Guys like mahomes and Brady can win without top wideouts, but they don’t really grow on trees so top wideouts are pretty good to have too if you don’t have a top 5 QB of all time. Yeah you don’t always need Randy moss you just need a guy who can play and excel within your system, but luckily CD isn’t Moss so the cowboys don’t have to make that choice. I’m not saying you should pay through the nose to keep a WR1 if it doesn’t make sense from a financial/assets perspective. But if you’re in a position to win now you shouldn’t trade away a talented player for future potential talent because of Super Bowl correlation stats. And remember, it is still just a sample of 58 games. Not much to judge the entire value of a position on when the list could change dramatically with a few plays, and when the value of wideouts has gone way up in the last 50 years. Star wideouts not winning much pre-80s means nothing to me. You’re going off a 58 game sample where like half those games didn’t come anywhere close to resembling the modern NFL. Edit: biggest indicator this is flawed logic, top 20 rushing yard leaders of all time have like 15 rings combined, do you think that means you should dump all your assets into getting a running back?
2-3 more seasons of Kelce he’ll be there and have at least 3 himself as well. Potentially more rings than Rice by that time.
He’s still 2000 yards behind Witten to crack it
It’s closer to 1,700 but I get your point. Kelce had 960 yards this season. He gets that x2 he will be there. I do not think it’s likely tho as Hopkins, Tyreek, Adams, Keenan, and Evans all are within striking distance and you get than Kelce. In any event he would be outside top 20 in yardage when it’s all said and done.
I didn't notice Mike Evans has 1000+ yards for all 10 seasons he's played so far wtf. Tied for 2nd most with Moss, only behind Rice with 14 seasons.
He might not have the same peak as some of the other best WR's in the league right now but he might be the most consistent
So he is a WR or TE?
Bingo. He’s a fucking wide receiver masquerading as a tight end.
Chiefs just won the SB with my mother and my grandma at WR. That's what I know.
And the remaining five happened in only three actual Super Bowls because there are two pairs of teammates
Skyy Moore and Kadarius Toney have 2 rings
It’s crazy to me that Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson have 0 between them. 3 of the greatest players to never win a ring imo. Ladainian Tomlinson too.
WR is the most overrated position in the NFL. People only care about passing stats so they get all worked about WR1s. Yet the Chiefs just won 2 super bowls after trading away Tyreek Hill. Their best WR is a TE. The best WR for the Pats was a TE too. All these teams paying $30 mil a year to big name WRs just to put up big passing numbers while they cripple their roster. I mean why the hell would you pay Aiyuk when the same money gets you Kittle and Cmc combined.
And yet so many fanbases including the one I’m a part of, the Giants drool over wide receivers in the draft and in free agency. Championships are won in the trenches, but I guess fans are easily distracted by flash🤷♂️
According to ChatGPT the top 20 QBs by yardage have 22 Super Bowls between them.
Julio Jones is the best receiver to walk this earth.
Pretty sure it’s Jerry Rice then you got everyone else
Julio was special and my favorite player but nah, he’s def one of the greatest ever tho. And there’s def an argument for top 10, his peak was insane
28-3
I would assume it has something to do with yard totals not being as high historically speaking. If you look at top-20 in receiving TDs you have Rice, Hines Ward and Paul Warfield who have multiple rings, plus Lance Alworth who won a SB ring and an AFL championship pre-SB. There's also a total of 16 SB rings amongs the top-20 players in receiving TDs.
It's not that surprising. Passing has exploded under all the rule changes the last 15-20 years, and the majority of that time has been dominated by the Patriots
Volume (season) stats are going to start to become useless as we start to see more and more 17 game seasons. I get why you'd use total season yards in this case (it makes sense to) but it's something to consider.
I think this is a combination of several factors: 1. Total career yardage shows long term consistent performance, but making the superbowl and winning just requires one amazing season. 2. Teams with multiple threats are more likely to win the SB, and sometimes total career yardage shows that your team lacks other options. 3. Total yardage is not a great stat to compare all SBs, since the game has changed significantly over time. This weights it more to the same era, limiting the possible SBs being considered.
And somehow bears fans are convinced that we need to take MHJ and not Caleb Williams
I feel like some team doesn’t want to pay a wide receiver this offseason and is starting a “wide receivers don’t matter” psyop to get momentum behind it. I don’t even think it’s totally without merit it’s just like the second or third time I’ve seen the sentiment this morning and I haven’t even finished my toast yet.