The widely accepted theory in the NFL is that the more teams spend on quarterbacks, the better their chances for success.
According to a study by USA Today, that theory is false.
It showed there was no connection between how much money was spent on a starting quarterback and how much winning his team does.
In the salary cap era, the quarterback for the Super Bowl winner accounted for an average of 6.9 percent of his team's salary cap.
In 2017, 20 starters received more than 6.9 percent and 10 accounted for at least 11 percent (only four Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks accounted for a total of 11 percent or more: Steve Young, Peyton Manning twice, Tom Brady and Eli Manning).
The study showed that of the 12 teams less than the Super Bowl-winning average, five made the playoffs, including the Philadelphia Eagles, who won Super Bowl LII.
The Buffalo Bills were also one of those playoff clubs, along with the Tennessee Titans, Jacksonville Jaguars and Los Angeles Rams.
It's notable that of the 12 teams with starters whose salaries fell less than the 6.9-percent range, all except the Bills, with Tyrod Taylor, and the New York Jets, with Josh McCown, had quarterbacks playing under rookie contracts.
Taylor took a pay cut before the 2017 season on a restructured contract that paid him a base of $7.5 million plus a prorated portion of his signing bonus. McCown made $6.5 million with the Jets.
The Bills rank No. 21 in the league in percentage of salary cap paid to the starting quarterback, with Taylor accounting for 5.8 percent. The overall league average is 8 percent.
My latest attempt to get teams to stop paying so much for QBs. https://t.co/0oeqg8m8jc
"There’s is no correlation between a quarterback’s salary and how many games he wins, so whatever benefit a team gets from paying the quarterback premium is not showing up on the scoreboard." pic.twitter.com/cSjgPv4IhF
— Steven Ruiz (@theStevenRuiz) February 20, 2018