ngbills Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 32 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said: I think that's true if they are coming off their rookie contract, but a mid-tier QB is 15-18/mil a year: Dalton, Keenum, FItz, et al.. I'm not sold a mid-tier talent QB on their rookie contract should be done. Dak was not mid-tier. In one of the biggest categories he's been in the top 8 for several years. I'm almost of the belief you're better off draft in the mid-tier rounds, keep a mid-tier vet and focus your attention on running and defense until you find a 2-5rd stud that you plan on extending on a huge contract. Isnt that kind of where the Bills have been since Kelly? 1997 - 2001 - Rob Johnson / Collins with Flutie / Van Pelt Gave up on Johnson and Collins as future QB's; Flutie as the midtier 2002 - 2004 - Bledsoe / Van Pelt after failed Johnson 2005 - 2007 Losman / Holcomb Losman failed 2007 - 2009 Edwards / Losman / Fitz Edwards failed 2010 -2012 - Fitz after Edwards failed 2013 - 2015 Manuel / Fitz / Orton Manuel failed 2015 - 2017 Taylor after Manuel failed with help from Cassel / C Jones / Peterman 2018 - ? Allen Allen fails? Allen does not fail but dont want to pay big $; Start cycle all over again. 1
BigBillsFan Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, ngbills said: Isnt that kind of where the Bills have been since Kelly? 1997 - 2001 - Rob Johnson / Collins with Flutie / Van Pelt Gave up on Johnson and Collins as future QB's; Flutie as the midtier 2002 - 2004 - Bledsoe / Van Pelt after failed Johnson 2005 - 2007 Losman / Holcomb Losman failed 2007 - 2009 Edwards / Losman / Fitz Edwards failed 2010 -2012 - Fitz after Edwards failed 2013 - 2015 Manuel / Fitz / Orton Manuel failed 2015 - 2017 Taylor after Manuel failed with help from Cassel / C Jones / Peterman 2018 - ? Allen Allen fails? Allen does not fail but dont want to pay big $; Start cycle all over again. I'm not sure I agree with that conclusions although the QBs and the history is obvious and factual. Edwards could have been more than serviceable until he went into a cocoon after the concussion. I still think what I said has not been tried which is a mid-tier pick + a vet. We've tried Vets or 1st rounders. 1st rounders IMO carry the most risk because teams feel like they are married to them or the GM gets fired. We should have had an Orton and drafted the best QB from rounds 2-5 every other year until we found one we liked. Only Peterman and Edwards fit that mold. Edwards could have been successful, but that could have happened to a 1st rounder as well. So 2 players in 24 years does not fit my argument.
H2o Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 BigBillsFan, hijacking threads since January 5, 2020 1
MJS Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, BigBillsFan said: I think that's true if they are coming off their rookie contract, but a mid-tier QB is 15-18/mil a year: Dalton, Keenum, FItz, et al.. I'm not sold a mid-tier talent QB on their rookie contract should be done. Dak was not mid-tier. In one of the biggest categories he's been in the top 8 for several years. I'm almost of the belief you're better off draft in the mid-tier rounds, keep a mid-tier vet and focus your attention on running and defense until you find a 2-5rd stud that you plan on extending on a huge contract. Those aren't mid tier. Those are low tier.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, GunnerBill said: If you think that is what I have been doing in this thread you really haven't been paying attention. I did point out Dak is more of a proven commodity than Josh but in the same breath said that Josh still has a higher ceiling. The question in this thread is not about whether I or anyone else wants Josh or Dak because that is utterly irrelevant - it isn't a real choice. The question here is should the Cowboys pay Dak? And in my view they absolutely should. I think in a year or two years time we will be having the exact same conversation on Josh Allen and if he continues to progress then I will be arguing we should "overpay" him too by making him a top 3 salaried QB. The big difference is the team and cap management. Buffalo is not throwing out huge or bad contracts and screwing their cap up along the way to the day Josh is due for a new deal. Buffalo will be in position to pay Josh and also put a good team around him and keep improving the roster after as well. Dallas has put themselves in a bad spot now and is going to be handcuffed to a tighter cap situation moving forward (especially if they keep Cooper too) because they have dealt out a butt load of money, including to a RB, along the way. Now they get to over pay a QB (which is to be expected) who hasn’t been able to carry that team. In fact, they were a better team when Zeke was the key cog over the passing game. And with the cap space limited, they may struggle to build the roster around him better to put him in better chance of sustained playoff success. So the two situations aren’t the same. Dak isn’t close to a top 3 QB, but as the NFL goes, will get paid like one. And if you’re gonna do that, you better manage your roster, draft picks, and cap well...if not, you are going to be stuck in mediocrity and not able to put the necessary pieces around him to get to the next level. Edited March 10, 2020 by Alphadawg7
GunnerBill Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said: The big difference is the team and cap management. Buffalo is not throwing out huge or bad contracts and screwing their cap up along the way to the day Josh is due for a new deal. Buffalo will be in position to pay Josh and also put a good team around him and keep improving the roster after as well. Dallas has put themselves in a bad spot now and is going to be handcuffed to a tighter cap situation moving forward (especially if they keep Cooper too) because they have dealt out a butt load of money, including to a RB, along the way. Now they get to over pay a QB (which is to be expected) who hasn’t been able to carry that team. In fact, they were a better team when Zeke was the key cog over the passing game. And with the cap space limited, they may struggle to build the roster around him better to put him in better chance of sustained playoff success. So the two situations aren’t the same. Dak isn’t close to a top 3 QB, but as the NFL goes, will get paid like one. And if you’re gonna do that, you better manage your roster, draft picks, and cap well...if not, you are going to be stuck in mediocrity and not able to put the necessary pieces around him to get to the next level. I don't think Dallas have managed that cap that poorly actually. I think they still have options available to them. The guys they have tied up are all excellent players. They need to continue to draft well but luckily for them they have drafted extremely well in recent years. The biggest problem in Dallas was on the sideline in my opinion. Jason Garrett was a poor leader and a poor gameday coach. His overall record would have been a lot worse if the front office wasn't doing an excellent job restacking his team for him. Dallas to win the NFC East is the absolute no brainer bet of the 2020 NFL season in my mind. 2
BeastMaster Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: His idea of letting a franchise QB walk, signing Rivers (a guy who was let walk for being bad) and drafting a random day 2 QB isn’t clearly a worse option? Okay bro. Show me where “in history” that works? I bet you were a “don’t pay Russell Wilson” guy too. Actually, I was ok with Wilson getting paid because he proved he could win. I did believe that it would hurt their roster and they wouldn't be as good, and that was true. His line was patchwork for a few years after and it hurt them. Dallas will get weaker after a Dak deal and they weren't even a playoff team last season with a very soft schedule. Dak has an argument to get a paid...I won't dispute that. What I dispute is whether it's a good move for the Cowboys, and I don't believe it will be. Like anything else, time will tell 1
BigBillsFan Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 3 hours ago, MJS said: Those aren't mid tier. Those are low tier. Today they are. I meant in their best years from 26-32 yrs old. Dalton was the picture perfect definition of mid-tier until recently. He'll never blow you away, but he's not a back-up. I consider bottom tier rookies, 2nd year guys, older QBs or early injuries backups with extended time. Guys that show up between 12-20 year in and year out. They move around as coaches look for their chosen one. Let's for example revisit Fitz being cut. Do you think the Bills would have done better if he stayed in Buffalo and if we did draft a QB let them ride the pine until they were ready? I do.
BringBackOrton Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, BeastMaster said: Actually, I was ok with Wilson getting paid because he proved he could win. I did believe that it would hurt their roster and they wouldn't be as good, and that was true. His line was patchwork for a few years after and it hurt them. Dallas will get weaker after a Dak deal and they weren't even a playoff team last season with a very soft schedule. Dak has an argument to get a paid...I won't dispute that. What I dispute is whether it's a good move for the Cowboys, and I don't believe it will be. Like anything else, time will tell That's because your definition of good is wonky. The Seahawks haven't won since Russell Wilson got paid. In fact, they've gone 2-3 in the postseason (of course, one of those losses to the Boys), missed the playoffs one season. Maybe the Seahawks should have traded Wilson, brought in Josh McCown and drafted Paxton Lynch. I can smell the success already, 2
GoBills808 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 15 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: That's because your definition of good is wonky. The Seahawks haven't won since Russell Wilson got paid. In fact, they've gone 2-3 in the postseason (of course, one of those losses to the Boys), missed the playoffs one season. Maybe the Seahawks should have traded Wilson, brought in Josh McCown and drafted Paxton Lynch. I can smell the success already, Remember though that they would have been more able to keep LoB together...could have Fitz plus that defense won a Super Bowl? It's an interesting thought experiment at least
GunnerBill Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Remember though that they would have been more able to keep LoB together...could have Fitz plus that defense won a Super Bowl? It's an interesting thought experiment at least No. And I am an unabashed, unrepentant Fitz fan. Edited March 10, 2020 by GunnerBill
GoBills808 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 Just now, GunnerBill said: No. And I am an unabashed, unrepentant Fitz fan. Yeah but it's not him specifically, just your average FA or mid-round pick is the point. That defense was legendary
GunnerBill Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 Just now, GoBills808 said: Yeah but it's not him specifically, just your average FA or mid-round pick is the point. That defense was legendary Yea. They couldn't. Russ was always a big part of that success in my mind. 1
Meatloaf63 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 On 3/8/2020 at 8:20 PM, BringBackOrton said: Uh what? Case Keenum didn't even start 16 games with the Vikings. He went 11-3 as a starter, and then went 6-10 with Denver the following year. Oh, and then he went 1-7 with the Skins. Thanks for playing. You just made his case for him Einstein, it’s the talent at Minnesota that’s helping the Qb’s be successful and the lack of it hurting them in other teams....
GoBills808 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Yea. They couldn't. Russ was always a big part of that success in my mind. They didn't ask him to do a ton his early years. IMO they relied just as heavily on Lynch as they did Wilson. Now in hindsight, it's a no brainer because he turned into one of the best in the game, but I do not foresee a similar trajectory for Prescott and that's just being honest.
BringBackOrton Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said: You just made his case for him Einstein, it’s the talent at Minnesota that’s helping the Qb’s be successful and the lack of it hurting them in other teams.... Kirk was at least .500 on the deadskins. Keenum could barely win a game. Einstein. 1
Meatloaf63 Posted March 10, 2020 Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Kirk was at least .500 on the deadskins. Keenum could barely win a game. Einstein. Listen Moose Knuckle, Different team some different players. I’m not arguing about your position on Dak , just that Cousins landed in a sweet position.... Edited March 10, 2020 by Meatloaf63
BeastMaster Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 2 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: That's because your definition of good is wonky. The Seahawks haven't won since Russell Wilson got paid. In fact, they've gone 2-3 in the postseason (of course, one of those losses to the Boys), missed the playoffs one season. Maybe the Seahawks should have traded Wilson, brought in Josh McCown and drafted Paxton Lynch. I can smell the success already, My definition is just fine. Reading comprehension would have had you understand that I said that their line was bad for a few years after the deal which had them take a step back. They seem to have figured it out now, but they are not the same team as when they were a true threat to win it all. Wilson carries them for the most part...something Dak can't do even with an all pro supporting cast. You are clearly the type that wants to settle for the safe option and stick with what you know. I'm more of the all or nothing type. It depends on what you're looking for from your franchise. I understand where your coming from...even if I don't subscribe to that philosophy.
BringBackOrton Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, BeastMaster said: My definition is just fine. Reading comprehension would have had you understand that I said that their line was bad for a few years after the deal which had them take a step back. They seem to have figured it out now, but they are not the same team as when they were a true threat to win it all. Wilson carries them for the most part...something Dak can't do even with an all pro supporting cast. You are clearly the type that wants to settle for the safe option and stick with what you know. I'm more of the all or nothing type. It depends on what you're looking for from your franchise. I understand where your coming from...even if I don't subscribe to that philosophy. The Seahawks obviously went for the safe option with Wilson, and uh, they haven’t done anything since. That’s nothing, right? Didn’t they fail by playing it safe? FYI, Wilson did not carry his team when he had an All-Pro supporting cast either. Edited March 11, 2020 by BringBackOrton
BeastMaster Posted March 11, 2020 Posted March 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: The Seahawks obviously went for the safe option with Wilson, and uh, they haven’t done anything since. That’s nothing, right? Didn’t they fail by playing it safe? FYI, Wilson did not carry his team when he had an All-Pro supporting cast either. Again...reading comprehension. I said he carries that team now. They were stronger when they had all those studs on defense (Wilson's deal played a part in losing them). They have stayed relevant with Wilson and he gives you a shot. But Dak is no Wilson...make no mistake about that.
Recommended Posts