(01-28-2021, 01:11 PM)D6 Wrote:

(01-25-2021, 01:24 PM)Tank Commander Wrote: It doesn't add up though.  He says he wants to play for a winning culture.
But as you said though, if he is traded for a boat load of picks and players, then the team he will go to will have little talent.

I think he is trying to copy what fellow Houston, James Harden did and force a trade to a winning/super team.
However the value of any player in football is much smaller than in the NBA where you only have a 15 man roster and only 5 players on the court at any given time.

Watson really overestimates his impact and ability.

James Harden is a very good illustration of the impact of a Superstar NBA player being greater than the impact of any player in an NFL game. In the last two Brooklyn Nets games, vs. Miami and last night at Atlanta, Harden's differential all around play was an enormous reason for Brooklyn coming back to win. 

Taking the NBA out of the discussion, I believe that an NFL QB has the greatest impact in any other major team sport in North America. Even more than a dominant Starting Pitcher because the latter isn't available to pitch most games.  An NHL goalie or a Closer Relief Pitcher are also difference makers. But I don't think to the extent that an elite QB can be. 

 When OF Barry Bonds was at or near his MLB peak, I think he was the closest in many decades to having the impact in a non NBA team sport in North America to an elite NFL QB.

Disagree on the QB impact.
It is certainly the most in football but it's still one out of 22 position players (and that doesn't even include special teams or kickers).
The max a QB is in the game is about 50%. (of course this will depend on the game and opponent and time of possession)
So the minimum impact of a QB is 9% when they are on the field and 4.5% (when defense is include).  Even less if special teams/kickers are included)

Now take a sport like Hockey which has 6 players on the floor at anyone time. A dominant goalie (who plays the entire game) is worth at the minimum 16% of a teams game.

Baseball the impact of Bonds is not that great either.  1 of 9 offensive player and 1/2 is pitching (we will discount defensive play as though that has an impact it won't be needed much if you have an ace pitcher).  So a field player is 50%, pitchers 50%.  And a individual field player is 11% of the field players and 5.5% of the total impact on the game when pitching is included.

So using those 3 sports:
NHL: dominant goalie is minimum 16% impact
MLB: dominant field position is minimum 5.5% impact
QB: dominant QB is minimum 4.5% impact.

Even if we double the number for the QB, it's still much less than a dominant NHL goalie.
And this doesn't include the fact that the injury rate for a QB is much higher than a goalie or a baseball player which means you wouldn't want to put all your eggs in the QB basket at the expense of the other positions.

This is why football is probably the ultimate team game, and why you can win a Super Bowl with an average/non HOF QB: Trent Dilfer, Joe Flacco, Doug Williams, Mark Rypien, Phil Sims, Jeff Hosstetler, Brad Johnson and Playoff Nick Foles.

It would almost be unthinkable for an NBA team to win a championship with an average/non HOF player. The closest you can probably come to is Toronto and Kawahi Leonard or Detroit and Ben Wallace (who still will probably make the HOF)

---