02-14-2024, 07:23 PM
(02-14-2024, 05:53 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I am not trying to say anything of the sort.
You guys are spiraling down into obtuse findings, like player stats and other absolutely non relevant items.
I was not referring to the Colts paying a RB, but AT THAT TIME, RBs were receiving much more then than they are today and the opposite is true of WRs.
I NEVER said 50% was the same as anything. I posted the numbers exactly as Perotta stated them, as they are relatively close.
These weird attempts of taking the basic premise of the debate out of context is absurd and not necessary.
This started as a simple question: Has a very expensive QB and two WRs ever won a SB?
The answer is yes, multiple times. Colts, Rams, Bucs
It's framing like this that makes me wonder if you're troling sometimes. Ironic, I know.
The framing of this question is bad as hell. The question needs to be "Has a team ever had an expensive QB and two Expensive WRs on their payroll, and did they win a SB?"
Godwin wasn't expensive when the Bucs won. Robinson, Woods, and Kupp; only one of those receivers are explosive.
These comparisons are just bad and you should feel bad.
