GunnerBill Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, JaCrispy said: People may agree or disagree with your opinion on Josh....however, one thing that is undeniable is that your post makes logical sense. I think it makes theoretical sense. I think in practice it would be a bad strategy. And that is leaving the Josh issue totally to one side.
FireChans Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: People may agree or disagree with your opinion on Josh....however, one thing that is undeniable is that your post makes logical sense. It’s plausible but not practical. If the Eagles let Wentz walk this year rather than paying him, who would they have a chance to draft? Especially considering they traded assets for Wentz in the first place. And then they are going to play out their aging stars last years with a rookie QB trying to learn how to play in the NFL? It begins to defy logic when you actually attempt to apply it. Edited April 14, 2020 by FireChans
FireChans Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: There just are not enough good rookies in a 4 or 5 year period for me to advise a GM who has one of those four guys that it would be a good idea. You would think Bills fans of all people would see the glaring issues with a “let a good QB walk and just find another in the draft,” strategy. I mean, we tried to “just find another one” for how many years? 2
JaCrispy Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 48 minutes ago, FireChans said: It’s plausible but not practical. If the Eagles let Wentz walk this year rather than paying him, who would they have a chance to draft? Especially considering they traded assets for Wentz in the first place. And then they are going to play out their aging stars last years with a rookie QB trying to learn how to play in the NFL? It begins to defy logic when you actually attempt to apply it. I see your point...hypothetically speaking, of course, Im curious if the experiment would be better suited to a team that drafted a QB every other year...that way, if a team is not completely sold on the starter, they could potentially trade him for whatever assets they can get...then bump the backup to the starter position...that way you’re not looking to draft an immediate starter...But, you are always grooming the eventual starter...??♂️ Certainly interesting to try to conceptualize... Edited April 14, 2020 by JaCrispy
Straight Hucklebuck Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I think the issue is that these guys look good when those players are on a rookie deal making $4-8 mil year with elite teams surrounding them. The last few years has pretty clearly shown that when you pay these guys $35 mil/year and have to start sacrificing other parts of your roster to make the numbers work, most of these teams take a step backwards because ultimately the QB that they gave the huge contract to didn't actually deserve it. 6 of the 10 highest paid QBs in the NFL last year didn't make the playoffs. That's crazy to me. The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model. I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. Edited April 14, 2020 by Straight Hucklebuck
Billl Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said: When teams like the Colts are convinced Rivers will win a Playoff game or take their franchise anywhere, I don't see the NFL adopting a progressive view on this for awhile. The Titans, as far as they went last year, cling to Tannehill and Henry to try and recapture the magic of 2019. Would the Panthers be better trying to get a rookie QB or paying Bridgewater a ton of money? NFL teams seem to take known commodities, even if they are average at the QB position, and don't move off them in practice. It’s simple math, really. There are 32 teams, and there are maybe 10-20 people on the planet capable of being a franchise QB. Throwing numbers at the situation doesn’t change the equation. It’s interesting to me how little ink gets devoted to what the Chiefs did. They had a franchise QB playing at his peak, and they still made a huge move to get someone they saw as a superstar. I don’t think that had ever been done before, and I know it hasn’t been done since. It was brilliant because it worked, but I don’t know who has the balls to try something similar. It does make sense that bringing a young QB in when you’ve got the ability to ease him into a good situation rather than throw him into a mess is a winning strategy, but it’s a luxury that few teams have. I wouldn’t be shocked to see KC draft someone like Anthony Gordon in the 5th round, groom him, and trade him for a high draft pick to a QB needy team that doesn’t have the time/ability to groom their own (similar to what the Patriots did with Brissett and Jimmy G.)
oldmanfan Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said: The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model. I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex. NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset. Doesn’t make it right of course. NFL teams copy cat too much. If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game. Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run. Think ‘72 Dolphins. 1
FireChans Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 14 minutes ago, JaCrispy said: I see your point...hypothetically speaking, of course, Im curious if the experiment would be better suited to a team that drafted a QB every other year...that way, if a team is not completely sold on the starter, they could potentially trade him for whatever assets they can get...then then bump the backup to the starter position...that way you’re to looking to the draft an immediate starter...But, you are always grooming the eventual starter...??♂️ Certainly interesting to try to conceptualize... Even then. Take a look at say, the Seahawks. They grab Russell in 2012. They didn’t have a 1st rounder in 2014, so at best they take Carr or Jimmy G with a trade up (but why?), at worst, Logan Thomas, Tom Savage, Murray, McCarron, Mettenberger. Now 2016, they have no chance at Goff or Wentz due to picking 31st in the first. Which means if they don’t draft Dak, they are basically getting a bum. And even if they draft Dak/Carr/Jimmy G, they would easily be worse off.
Straight Hucklebuck Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Billl said: It’s simple math, really. There are 32 teams, and there are maybe 10-20 people on the planet capable of being a franchise QB. Throwing numbers at the situation doesn’t change the equation. It’s interesting to me how little ink gets devoted to what the Chiefs did. They had a franchise QB playing at his peak, and they still made a huge move to get someone they saw as a superstar. I don’t think that had ever been done before, and I know it hasn’t been done since. It was brilliant because it worked, but I don’t know who has the balls to try something similar. It does make sense that bringing a young QB in when you’ve got the ability to ease him into a good situation rather than throw him into a mess is a winning strategy, but it’s a luxury that few teams have. I wouldn’t be shocked to see KC draft someone like Anthony Gordon in the 5th round, groom him, and trade him for a high draft pick to a QB needy team that doesn’t have the time/ability to groom their own (similar to what the Patriots did with Brissett and Jimmy G.) You’re right, it’s not common, when something like this has happened before, Rodgers drafted while Favre was on the roster, or Manning leaving Indianapolis, the incumbent was in their late 30’s, and it was clear that the end was in sight. The Bengals may be the most similar. They had a QB that has had good statistical seasons and made the Playoffs 5-years in a row, but their roster maxed out when their secondary started to get old, and they let Marvin Jones and M Sanu walk in the same free agency, along with Whitworth on the offensive line because he was getting too old ala London Fletcher. Edited April 14, 2020 by Straight Hucklebuck 1
Billl Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, jrober38 said: I see very few "franchise" QBs across the NFL who can carry a franchise while making $35-40 million a season. If we could give Josh an extension at say... $20 mil/season, I'd do that, but I don't see how it makes any sense to pay a guy top money when they're not a top player. I feel the same way about the contracts given to Wentz, Prescott, Goff, Cousins, etc. I think those mega contracts for guys who aren't truly "elite" are more detrimental to their teams than just trying their luck on a different rookie QB. What does Cousins have to do for people to start respecting him? He’s thrown 56 TDs and 15 INTs in his two seasons with Minnesota. He threw for nearly 5,000 yards for the freaking Redskins. He’s Phillip Rivers. 3
Mango Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex. NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset. Doesn’t make it right of course. NFL teams copy cat too much. If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game. Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run. Think ‘72 Dolphins. Belichick has been doing this for years. As defenses got bigger he beat them over the top with Moss and carved them up with a shifty Welker. As defenses have gotten quicker to account for gaudy passing numbers he has been pounding them with the run. He has been just ahead of the curve for 20 years now. It is all about timing your system with the league properly. The Bills were much too late to react in years past. In the last playoffs: 4/12 teams were in the top 12 in passing yards 8/12 teams were in the top 12 in rushing yards Interestingly though 8/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for PTD 7/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for RTD Obviously a 1000 foot view, but even with huge passing yardages in the NFL, teams are becoming much more reliant on the run to find success. But they are doing a large percentage of their scoring through the air, regardless of how they rack up yardage. 1
Billl Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 26 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said: The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model. I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. He’s given them 4 years of top 10 QB production for pennies on the dollar. His performance has been worth easily $30,000,000 in terms of value per year. He’s averaged less than $3,000,000. He’s damn right that he deserves $35,000,000. What have they done with that $120,000,000 in surplus value that leads anyone to believe that the Cowboys can build a competitive team around him if he makes $32,000,000 but not if he makes $35,000,000? Good luck finding another 26 year old QB to give you 30 TDs and 5,000 yards without turning the ball over who doesn’t want to be paid elite money. 1 1
Billl Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Mango said: In the last playoffs: 4/12 teams were in the top 12 in passing yards 8/12 teams were in the top 12 in rushing yards Interestingly though 8/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for PTD 7/12 teams in the playoffs are in the top 12 for RTD Obviously a 1000 foot view, but even with huge passing yardages in the NFL, teams are becoming much more reliant on the run to find success. But they are doing a large percentage of their scoring through the air, regardless of how they rack up yardage. That’s a chicken/egg situation. Teams aren’t winning because they run. They run because they’re winning. The teams who run the most kneel downs have the highest winning percentage, but that doesn’t mean teams need to implement kneel-heavy offenses. As your last sentence implies, teams throw to score and run to kill the clock. 2
Shaw66 Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 3 hours ago, jrober38 said: 1. I think the age of the "franchise QB" is coming to an end. I've been away from this thread for a while and there are some interesting things being said here. I hope I can come back later and read through all of it. In the meantime, I wanted to comment about this statement. I think it's at the core of the discussion, and I completely disagree with the notion that the franchise QB era is ending. I think all that's happening is that you and I and all the rest of us can't see yet who the next franchise quarterbacks are. I think that NFL football has been on a one-way street for 70 years, and it's going to continue. The game keeps evolving, and the evolution is making the game continuously more complex. It's not going back. Coaches keep inventing new techniques, and the techniques never go away. So when the standard QB option sweep was invented 70 years ago, it was a devastating weapon until people figured out how to stop it. And at the highest level, the pros, they learned to stop simply because the defender who was the option read was so athletic that with training he could cover both options. But the option sweep didn't go away; it just became part of the repertoire. Offenses have to be able to run it and defenses have to be able stop it. The same was true with the "rub" pass patterns. They worked until defenses figured out a scheme for beating the pick. The same will be true with run-pass options. They work now, but defenses are in the process of figuring out how to stop them. Teams will still run those plays, but they can't be the mainstay of your offense, because if you're running it all the time, defenses will stop you. The point is, offenses keep getting more complicated, and defenses add complexity to stop the offenses. It's a one-way street. Yes, colleges have these wide-open offenses and guys like Mayfield and Murray and others are truly explosive running them, but colleges play those offenses because if you have the right QB, none of your opponents have enough talent on defense to stop them. The QB's athletic ability is enough to win, and the offenses are simple enough that most good athletes can learn them. When those QBs get to the NFL, it's different. There are 11 elite athletes on defense, and the coaches can figure out an infinite number of combinations of athletes and strategies that will stop the QB. Once that happens, the QB has to understand the defense and adjust. In short, once that happens, the QB has to learn to play the same game that all the other QBs are playing. Part of it is simply the complexity of having 11 defenders. In the NBA, if you double team Hardin, he doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the open man. He's trained to do it, and it's relatively easy for him. But in the NFL, if the defense spies the running QB with a combination of players, so the QB doesn't know where the spy is coming from and where to attack as a result, it isn't so easy. It's not going to get simpler. And if it isn't going to get simpler, having a QB who understands the whole offense and the whole defense, who can read and attack defenses pre- and post-snap, is still the pre-eminent weapon. You might win a Super Bowl with Matt Stafford, but it you might win four with Drew Brees. The traditional franchise qbs are weapons that are in a completely different league than players in any other position. Nobody talks about JJ Watt as a "franchise" defensive tackle. Best in the league for a few years, but having him on the roster doesn't make your team competitive for ten years. It doesn't even necessarily make your team competitive from game to game. Franchise QBs make your team relevant the day training camp opens, they make your team a threat to win it all. The consequence of that, despite what you say, is that GMs are not going to look for a string of Bridgewaters and Foleses and other guys, pay them $15 million a year, and hope that the GM and coach can put together a collection of other players and somehow win a Super Bowl. It happens, of course, as it did with Flacco, but the GMs are going to continue to look for the Breeses, because if you can get a Drew Brees with a coach to go with him, you have ten years where you have a shot, multiple shots, even consecutive shots. The consequence of that is that they GMs are going to continue to write $30 million contracts to the Goffs of the world, not because they're that much better than the Foleses, but because they still have the potential to be better than the Foleses, the potential to become franchise QBs. The QBs who can process information quickly and accurately, who can make accurate decisions quickly and who can execute once the decision has been made are invaluable, and GMs will continue to make fools of themselves going after guys who might be one of those.
Straight Hucklebuck Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 47 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Neurosurgeons make more than family practice docs because their jobs are more complex. NFL teams pay QBs more because they have a similar mindset. Doesn’t make it right of course. NFL teams copy cat too much. If I were running a team I’d give serious thought to going against the grain and basing my offense on a very strong running game. Take Singleton, get a bruising big guy that can batter a defense, and use Allen and Diggs et al when the D goes all in against the run. Think ‘72 Dolphins. It can work, you need a strong offensive line, a QB that doesn't turn the ball over, and a defense that can hold opponents to under 16 points per game. It's a hard way to win though. Showing up on Sunday and hoping to run over your opponent. The Titans got far with it, the Ravens are dynamic with it, the Bills lead the league in rushing during the Rex days but didn't have the defense to fall back on. 1 1
GunnerBill Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said: It can work, you need a strong offensive line, a QB that doesn't turn the ball over, and a defense that can hold opponents to under 16 points per game. It's a hard way to win though. Showing up on Sunday and hoping to run over your opponent. The Titans got far with it, the Ravens are dynamic with it, the Bills lead the league in rushing during the Rex days but didn't have the defense to fall back on. It requires a lot of pieces and in the free agency era it is hard to sustain over more than a 2-3 year period. You gotta pay an elite back, a line, a QB, a receiver who can win deep and then enough pieces on defense to stop them scoring. 1
Mr. K Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 I'm caught up on what is going to show me more; More efficient offense or enough wins because of Josh to get in the playoffs. If JA can manage to get the team in position 21+ on the board weekly I'm sold. My expectation is that he has a marginal tick up and if thats the cause of a losing season it might be time to consider another prospect regardless of if he is starting or not the following year. I want JA to be great but he still has to prove he can make the right decisions with the ball.
jrober38 Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said: The Cowboys cooked themselves. They paid Elliott top dollar and just paid Amari Cooper. So now it makes no sense to start over with a cheap rookie. Jones is obviously trying to follow the Ailman, Emmitt, Irvin model. I read on PFT that Dak won’t participate in offseason activities until he has a new deal. Like he’s done anything to deserve being the highest paid NFL player ever. Exactly. Dallas has the 17th pick and this was a deep free agent group of QBs. Some teams definitely need a QB, but maybe they can make a play to move up for Justin Herbert or Bryce Love. Either of those guys at $5 mil/year seems like a better option than Prescott at $40 mil/year, IMO. 2 hours ago, Billl said: What does Cousins have to do for people to start respecting him? He’s thrown 56 TDs and 15 INTs in his two seasons with Minnesota. He threw for nearly 5,000 yards for the freaking Redskins. He’s Phillip Rivers. Beat good teams.
Billl Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Beat good teams. https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131038
jrober38 Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: I've been away from this thread for a while and there are some interesting things being said here. I hope I can come back later and read through all of it. In the meantime, I wanted to comment about this statement. I think it's at the core of the discussion, and I completely disagree with the notion that the franchise QB era is ending. I think all that's happening is that you and I and all the rest of us can't see yet who the next franchise quarterbacks are. I think that NFL football has been on a one-way street for 70 years, and it's going to continue. The game keeps evolving, and the evolution is making the game continuously more complex. It's not going back. Coaches keep inventing new techniques, and the techniques never go away. So when the standard QB option sweep was invented 70 years ago, it was a devastating weapon until people figured out how to stop it. And at the highest level, the pros, they learned to stop simply because the defender who was the option read was so athletic that with training he could cover both options. But the option sweep didn't go away; it just became part of the repertoire. Offenses have to be able to run it and defenses have to be able stop it. The same was true with the "rub" pass patterns. They worked until defenses figured out a scheme for beating the pick. The same will be true with run-pass options. They work now, but defenses are in the process of figuring out how to stop them. Teams will still run those plays, but they can't be the mainstay of your offense, because if you're running it all the time, defenses will stop you. The point is, offenses keep getting more complicated, and defenses add complexity to stop the offenses. It's a one-way street. Yes, colleges have these wide-open offenses and guys like Mayfield and Murray and others are truly explosive running them, but colleges play those offenses because if you have the right QB, none of your opponents have enough talent on defense to stop them. The QB's athletic ability is enough to win, and the offenses are simple enough that most good athletes can learn them. When those QBs get to the NFL, it's different. There are 11 elite athletes on defense, and the coaches can figure out an infinite number of combinations of athletes and strategies that will stop the QB. Once that happens, the QB has to understand the defense and adjust. In short, once that happens, the QB has to learn to play the same game that all the other QBs are playing. Part of it is simply the complexity of having 11 defenders. In the NBA, if you double team Hardin, he doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the open man. He's trained to do it, and it's relatively easy for him. But in the NFL, if the defense spies the running QB with a combination of players, so the QB doesn't know where the spy is coming from and where to attack as a result, it isn't so easy. It's not going to get simpler. And if it isn't going to get simpler, having a QB who understands the whole offense and the whole defense, who can read and attack defenses pre- and post-snap, is still the pre-eminent weapon. You might win a Super Bowl with Matt Stafford, but it you might win four with Drew Brees. The traditional franchise qbs are weapons that are in a completely different league than players in any other position. Nobody talks about JJ Watt as a "franchise" defensive tackle. Best in the league for a few years, but having him on the roster doesn't make your team competitive for ten years. It doesn't even necessarily make your team competitive from game to game. Franchise QBs make your team relevant the day training camp opens, they make your team a threat to win it all. The consequence of that, despite what you say, is that GMs are not going to look for a string of Bridgewaters and Foleses and other guys, pay them $15 million a year, and hope that the GM and coach can put together a collection of other players and somehow win a Super Bowl. It happens, of course, as it did with Flacco, but the GMs are going to continue to look for the Breeses, because if you can get a Drew Brees with a coach to go with him, you have ten years where you have a shot, multiple shots, even consecutive shots. The consequence of that is that they GMs are going to continue to write $30 million contracts to the Goffs of the world, not because they're that much better than the Foleses, but because they still have the potential to be better than the Foleses, the potential to become franchise QBs. The QBs who can process information quickly and accurately, who can make accurate decisions quickly and who can execute once the decision has been made are invaluable, and GMs will continue to make fools of themselves going after guys who might be one of those. I get what you're saying, I just think the premise is totally flawed. Potential rarely materializes at the NFL level. I mean, how many big, strong, athletic QBs have been picked in the first round of the draft over the past 20 years who went on to never reach their potential and bust? A ton. I think ultimately the NFL is dominated by egos. There are egos on the field, on the sidelines and in the press box. For the egos in the press box, nothing gets them off more by buying in on a guy because of his potential because if they hit you look like a genius. Everyone wants to think they're the best/smartest in the league at their job. I've maintained for years that the NFL constantly tries to over complicate things and the result is often terrible. The changing rules of the game I think play the biggest part in why I think this process is becoming more and more easy for QBs to come in and play relatively well immediately. This isn't like 1985 where guys were expected to come into the NFL and sit on the bench for a couple years because the college game was so far behind the pro game. NFL and college passing concepts are more alike than ever and as a result I think it's easier to find a serviceable QB who can post a QB Rating between 85 and 94 and lead a really good supporting cast to a 10 win season. Those guys might never be elite but they more than earn their pay cheque while on a rookie deal. The problems for most teams seem to start when a team has a QB making $35 mil/year and other parts of the roster get stripped down to accommodate that contract. 5 minutes ago, Billl said: https://www.espn.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=401131038 Consistently. The following week he was a train wreck.
Recommended Posts