Barnwell: Building a Team Around a QB on a Rookie Contract

[BillsFan130]

It depends on the QB.

 

No way I would move someone like Ben, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Cam, Ryan. 

 

But I for sure agree if they are talking about QBs like Dalton, Tannehill, Flacco, maybe even Stafford. (Mid level to above average guys that make a descent amount of money)

[RyanC883]

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think there are very few GMs that would have the balls to do it; however, QBs like Carr, Mariota, and Winston would be the exact type of players would be in the "I might consider it" range

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

[Jay_Fixit]

1 hour ago, Teddy KGB said:

I though Barnwell said we should keep tuhrod forever. 

I could see that. Barnwell was a huge Tyrod supporter. 

 

Thats what happens when you dont watch him every game like we did.

 

Now people know.

[RyanC883]

Just now, billsfan11 said:

It depends on the QB.

 

No way I would move someone like Ben, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Cam, Ryan. 

 

But I for sure agree if they are talking about QBs like Dalton, Tannehill, Flacco, maybe even Stafford. (Mid level to above average guys that make a descent amount of money)

 

Big Ben is interesting in that the Steelers arguably went the opposite direction of what this article suggests.  They ditched high-priced guys and replaced them (Mike Wallace, kept AB, not signing Bell, etc).  You have to hit on a lot of draft picks.  But a QB like Ben makes a lot of the offense look great.  The D on the other hand has taken a while.  

[BillsFan130]

Just now, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

Ya those are good points you make. 

 

I can't see teams giving away 1st round picks for Mariota, etc.

 

Very tough decisions GMs have to make.

 

Overpay for a guy who is descent? Or move him for what you can get, and try your luck again in the draft

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

It totally depends on the circumstances. It was only a couple short years ago that the Vikings traded a 1st and a future 3rd/2nd/1st for Samuel 'Deer in the headlights' Bradford.

[billsfan1959]

Just now, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

The same thought runs through my mind and, then, I see teams like the Denver Broncos dish out 36 million to Case Keenum. I think there will always be teams that think look at guys like Mariota and Winston and think they could win now with them

[Bray Wyatt]

the issue I have with this article, the theory relies on being able to scout and draft well. Most would agree that picking a qb is the toughest position. Wouldnt it make more sense to keep the QB, and draft the other positions? Its like saying trade Kahlil Mack and then draft a rookie DE and see how much money you save!  

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[Fadingpain]

28 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

The idea Barnwell is putting forward is not "build a team around a good rookie QB" but "build a team around a long succession of rookie-deal QBs" by trading said rookie deal QB during/after the fourth year of their rookie deal.  The idea being that you can trade said QB for another top pick, pick another QB, and continue the same process again and again.

 

The obvious question is whether or not a team can continuously draft good QBs who will produce in such a way that they can get those high value picks.  Barnwell points out that with that trade you're not just getting another top QB prospect, but also the opportunity to put the money saved towards other key pieces of your team.

The flaw with his thinking is that there is not a universal supply of high quality QBs out there waiting to be picked up by a savvy team every 5 years.

 

It's just the opposite; high quality QBs seem to be discovered by accident and are few and far between, so that when you find one, you should hold onto them for dear life until they can no longer play.

 

Enjoy the winning while the good QB is in his playing window...and constantly look to find his replacement along the way, assuming that most of the time you will not find that person.

 

 

 

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

[mannc]

Just now, buffalobloodfloridahome said:

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

Stafford is a bad example.  He is mediocre.

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Fadingpain said:

The flaw with his thinking is that there is not a universal supply of high quality QBs out there waiting to be picked up by a savvy team every 5 years.

 

It's just the opposite; high quality QBs seem to be discovered by accident and are few and far between, so that when you find one, you should hold onto them for dear life until they can no longer play.

 

Enjoy the winning while the good QB is in his playing window...and constantly look to find his replacement along the way, assuming that most of the time you will not find that person.

 

 

 

I guess it would depend on your definition of a "high quality" QB. To me, they are guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Brees, who do not come along very often - and sometimes they are found by accident (Brady) and sometimes they obvious (Manning). However, guys like Mariota and Winston seem to come along every couple of years or so.

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Stafford is a bad example.  He is mediocre.

Still one of the highest paid QB's in the game.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

   Move Goff THEN draft his replacement?  I don't want to overstate team morale/chemistry but that will have the rest of the roster scratching their heads at the least.  Most teams like the idea of late round gems but it is easier said than done.  Otherwise trade ups in the draft would be pretty rare occurrences.

 

The idea is that the team will be dismantled if you extend him anyway.  5th year option buys you a year.  Then he gets his extension and it becomes a major problem to keep players. 

 

The late round guy would be brought in say - this years draft in the 3rd.  Then when goff hits 5th year option, you can look to move him if you are comfortable with the 3rd rd replacement for at least a year (he's had time in the offense, etc).  And can use the picks you get to replenish depth, and possibly draft the next goff.

 

It is not conventional - but the article shows how teams with expensive QBs aren't doing particularly hot anyway - Ravens, Bengals, Raiders, 49ers, Colts, Lions, Chargers - etc. 

 

You keep the strong defense together, you keep your top level playmakers, and you build in the trenches.  It also becomes a QB desirable location from a FA perspective if you need a player for a year.

Edited September 27, 2018 by dneveu

[RochesterRob]

25 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

The idea is that the team will be dismantled if you extend him anyway.  5th year option buys you a year.  Then he gets his extension and it becomes a major problem to keep players. 

 

The late round guy would be brought in say - this years draft in the 3rd.  Then when goff hits 5th year option, you can look to move him if you are comfortable with the 3rd rd replacement for at least a year (he's had time in the offense, etc).  And can use the picks you get to replenish depth, and possibly draft the next goff.

 

It is not conventional - but the article shows how teams with expensive QBs aren't doing particularly hot anyway - Ravens, Bengals, Raiders, 49ers, Colts, Lions, Chargers - etc. 

 

You keep the strong defense together, you keep your top level playmakers, and you build in the trenches.  It also becomes a QB desirable location from a FA perspective if you need a player for a year.

  If it were only as easy as devising a plan then all teams would be contenders.  The problem is that a majority of the time a prospect does not live up to expectations.  It's easy to say that a team will draft a QB in the 3rd and he will be ready when you want to trade your starter but it seldom happens that way.  The owners did it to themselves by offering outrageous contracts to lure or keep key players.  Now they have to deal with certain positions being top heavy in salary.  By the way you need to have players around that are productive over multiple years.  If you are lucky you get 3 long term answers per draft and most contracts are up within 5 years.  So you have to break the cycle of turning players over before you establish a nucleus.  This is done in part with good scouting ahead of the draft and renewing positions that are not cap breakers in terms of salary.  Even that is easier said than done but you have to start there before you can do the specific if/ then's like you are talking with the QB position.

[dollars 2 donuts]

Tangential to this:  what does everyone think of Carr?

 

Was that a mistake by the Raiders or is he just a victim of what's going on right now with that team?

 

That's what scares me a bit.  A QB who looks great, you give him the bucks and then he turns out not to be what you would consider a franchise QB.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

17 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it were only as easy as devising a plan then all teams would be contenders.  The problem is that a majority of the time a prospect does not live up to expectations.  It's easy to say that a team will draft a QB in the 3rd and he will be ready when you want to trade your starter but it seldom happens that way.  The owners did it to themselves by offering outrageous contracts to lure or keep key players.  Now they have to deal with certain positions being top heavy in salary.  By the way you need to have players around that are productive over multiple years.  If you are lucky you get 3 long term answers per draft and most contracts are up within 5 years.  So you have to break the cycle of turning players over before you establish a nucleus.  This is done in part with good scouting ahead of the draft and renewing positions that are not cap breakers in terms of salary.  Even that is easier said than done but you have to start there before you can do the specific if/ then's like you are talking with the QB position.

 

It's different and unconventional.  It's just an idea.  Otherwise they go down the same road of either slowly beginning to rebuild their roster in year 1, or fully gutting their roster on year 2 or 3 of a QB contract.  

13 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

Tangential to this:  what does everyone think of Carr?

 

Was that a mistake by the Raiders or is he just a victim of what's going on right now with that team?

 

That's what scares me a bit.  A QB who looks great, you give him the bucks and then he turns out not to be what you would consider a franchise QB.

 

He seems like... a good not great QB.  Somewhere around that dalton/flacco/tannehill level.  They all have moments where they look great, and moments where they look inconsistent.

[QCity]

The Rams traded 6 high-round draft picks to get Goff. The notion of trading Goff after 5 years if he is successful is ridiculous. I can't fathom the amount of hubris it would take for this. The QB is the foundation of your team that you want to build upon, not some part you swap out. The only thing you'll get from trading a young, star quarterback is an unemployment check.

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, buffalobloodfloridahome said:

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

 

the ravens haven't drafted well to put talent around flacco so everyone thinks he's awful. Now he's off to a nice start because...he's got some weapons.  They've been able to keep the defense going with two great signings in the secondary.  You're right about the packers and lions.  Neither team seems to be able to find a run game to balance the offense.  The year the pack won the superbowl they had a top 5 defense.  The lions turn over coaches and systems along with their poor drafting and the losing just continues.  

 

Belichick and the steelers always seem to get talent on their rosters to go along with elite qb play.  guess who's in afc title games every year? them.  same staffs and systems. draft well and you win games. 

[wppete]

We are in the perfect position to build around Allen and the Defense. $80-$90million in cap room and 10 Draft picks. Hopefully some quality free age system want to come to Buffalo.