QB Salary Comparison 2010 to 2020

[BigBillsFan]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002.

 

Before 1993 free agency changes the league used to be a D-league winner or a stud QB winner.

 

My point is due the rising cost of QBs having a middle of the road QB at the higher price to your salary cap is a horrible idea and you’re better off trying with a new rookie contract and moving on.

 

My other point congruent to that is that it’s horrible for teams because they can’t just put a QB on the slow-burner and develop them as a starter like Big Ben.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Before 1993 free agency changes the league used to be a D-league winner or a stud QB winner.

 

My point is due the rising cost of QBs having a middle of the road QB at the higher price to your salary cap is a horrible idea and you’re better off trying with a new rookie contract and moving on.

 

My other point congruent to that is that it’s horrible for teams because they can’t just put a QB on the slow-burner and develop them as a starter like Big Ben.

 

I think that is right I just don't think it is that new. It has certainly not changed since 2010. It was embedded long before then. I have been following the NFL since 2002 and it has always been thus. I think as for what do teams do.... well tying yourself in to a Tannehill or a Dalton or a Tyrod or an Alex Smith at big $s long term is a losing strategy. But there is a crowd of guys above that - I think all the 2016 guys are there.... Wentz, Goff and Dak.... well it is just darn hard to find QBs who can play at that level. The drop off from those guys to the guys you don't have to pay but can start for you - Keenum, Fitz etc is significant. 

[BigBillsFan]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think that is right I just don't think it is that new. It has certainly not changed since 2010. It was embedded long before then. I have been following the NFL since 2002 and it has always been thus. I think as for what do teams do.... well tying yourself in to a Tannehill or a Dalton or a Tyrod or an Alex Smith at big $s long term is a losing strategy. But there is a crowd of guys above that - I think all the 2016 guys are there.... Wentz, Goff and Dak.... well it is just darn hard to find QBs who can play at that level. The drop off from those guys to the guys you don't have to pay but can start for you - Keenum, Fitz etc is significant. 

 

I guess I was just pointing out that the concept of a decent quarterback who wins with a strong defense but gets paid more than 10% of the salary cap is a dead idea. They either need an elite defense which requires the QB isn't paid much  but needs moderate competency with a great running game, or be one of the top 4 best in the game or you start over is the best case scenario for ever winning the Superbowl in the modern era.

 

I don't think Big Ben for his 1st SB wasn't very good yet, I think Flacco hit fire in the playoffs but wasn't good otherwise. Mahomes didn't play all that well in the SB either. They all had that little margin for error to lack greatness and still win because of a strong team. My point is that goes away with a highly paid QB. You have to be amazing at the draft and finding FAs that perfectly fit your model to maximize wins.

Edited April 3, 2020 by BigBillsFan

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

We're going to win the Super Bowl.

[GunnerBill]

10 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

I guess I was just pointing out that the concept of a decent quarterback who wins with a strong defense but gets paid more than 10% of the salary cap is a dead idea. They either need an elite defense which requires the QB isn't paid much  but needs moderate competency with a great running game, or be one of the top 4 best in the game or you start over is the best case scenario for ever winning the Superbowl in the modern era.

 

I don't think Big Ben for his 1st SB wasn't very good yet, I think Flacco hit fire in the playoffs but wasn't good otherwise. Mahomes didn't play all that well in the SB either. They all had that little margin for error to lack greatness and still win because of a strong team. My point is that goes away with a highly paid QB. You have to be amazing at the draft and finding FAs that perfectly fit your model to maximize wins.

 

I think Mahomes won his team the Superbowl. He might not have been great all 4 quarters but he was the difference in the game. Flacco and Ben both won the Superbowl you are talking about while on rookie deals supported by strong teams and strong defences, sure. 

 

My point is I don't think it has ever (in my time watching the NFL) been any different. Maybe it was in the 90s that is before my time. But you always needed either a rookie contract QB and a stacked roster or one of the top 5 or 6 QBs in the league capable of hiding other roster flaws. I don't think an increase in the mean QB salary from 10% to 12% has changed that one iota. 

 

EDIT: the reason it is not as easy as just moving off a Matt Stafford or a Dak or a Goff is as we in Buffalo should know only too well the alternative can be 10, 15, 20 years of irrelevance. The Bills didn't go to the draft often enough in that time in my view (Losman, Manuel and a 3rd rounder in Edwards) but the more you do go to the draft well to try and find that guy who might be good enough while on his rookie deal with a stacked roster..... the harder it becomes to build that stacked roster. So while I am sure all NFL teams know how hard it is to win with one of those good not great QBs taking up 12% of their cap they also know that having that can still make you a playoff contender more often than not - see Cousins, Kirk - and the alternative is you being sub .500 ever year. And if you are that GM and Head Coach you are going to get fired.

Edited April 3, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

18 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Goff was given a deal after putting together back to back very good to great seasons in 2017 to 2018. They just paid him early but at least given the context there was some sense to it. Derek Carr's contract actually makes sense. His aav is 25 million in 2017 which while a high end contract wasn't too bad. He constantly throws for well over 4000 yards, is super accurate, and has a TD to INT ratio that is usually 2 to 1 or better. He is an upper mid-level QB getting paid like one (and the fact that the deal was front loaded makes his current 20 million dollar cap hit better.) 

 

But I agree why pay guys like Tannehill and Cousins so much? Cousins is at best an above average QB who is getting paid like a top 10 QB with an insane guarantee. Who was paying 30 million for Tannehill on the open market? I would rather have lasic surgery Jamis for 10 million than Tannehill or even Tyrod plus 23 million in cap space than Tannehill. I think teams need to start playing hardball with QB's who aren't top players. Let a QB walk if some other team wants to commit 30 million to a guy who can't throw for over 100 yards in a playoff game. 

 

That's why I think the Cowboys were and are smart to franchise Dak, why pay him 30+ million if you can't win with a team constructed around him and a massive cap hit dedicated to him. 

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

 

Goff is better than Tannehill. I know he struggled last year but believe me much of that was on coaching. The scheme got figured out and McVay struggled big time to adjust. Finally after the humiliation by the Ravens he did adjust. They abandoned the stretch zone for the most part, went to more of a man blocking power scheme up front and a traditional play action pass game. Goff threw half of his season tally of touchdowns in those last 5 games. Before that the offense was fundamentally broken and while I don't absolve Goff from any of the blame the majority of it belonged on coaching. Matt Patricia hasn't proven much yet as an NFL Head Coach but he was the man who found the recipe to stopping McVay's offense. The Bears and then ultimately the Patriots in the Superbowl were building on the Patricia blueprint. And once the book is out there on you in the NFL.... that is when the challenge begins. We will see how Lamar and the Ravens offense fairs next year because the Bills and McDermott found a blueprint to slowing them too and then the Titans refined it to perfection in the playoffs. Teams will keep using it until the Ravens can overcome.

[JetsFan20]

I find Jameis Winston to be an interesting case study. 
 

I think 10 years ago he would have received a second contract from the Bucs. In today’s game you don’t pay a QB unless you feel he’s upper echelon. 

[T master]

Any way you look at it the contracts are getting pretty foolish unless you have a generational talent might be the only way that kind of money should be paid to any 1 player .

 

Bruce, LT (giants), Bo, Rice,  & the many others that can walk on the field & the entire game changes because that 1 person is there then yah i can see it but IMHO it's just crazy to think a person can make some $25 mill a season or more (& it will be more in the future) is just nuts !! 

 

Just Saying !! 

[BigBillsFan]

I guess that was my point @JetsFan20 and @T master although I should point out what we pay them should be proportionate to the team salary cap.

 

I just think the idea of holding on to a QB will be impossible moving forward unless you are willing to allocate more money than team's previously had who didn't have studs. The Goffs, Prescotts, and Wentzs of NFL give you a shot to be entertaining and potentially in the playoffs annually but they can never be winners without getting more talent.

 

It's a weird situation. Obviously I don't have the time or desire to do a full analysis but it was interesting that McVay said the best time to win was under Goff's rookie deal. Looking at it now it only makes sense if above average QBs went from 10% of the salary cap to to 12%. While it seems marginal it's the difference in $4 million annually to extend to other talent you want to retain.

 

If someone did a full return on investment analysis based on metrics from cap spend that would be fascinating. I'm sure GMs have this hidden metric, but it's obviously the reason why teams aren't signing Winston. There is some hidden metric they have that says they can only allocate X budget to a player if they hit some formula. I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Goff is better than Tannehill. I know he struggled last year but believe me much of that was on coaching. The scheme got figured out and McVay struggled big time to adjust. Finally after the humiliation by the Ravens he did adjust. They abandoned the stretch zone for the most part, went to more of a man blocking power scheme up front and a traditional play action pass game. Goff threw half of his season tally of touchdowns in those last 5 games. Before that the offense was fundamentally broken and while I don't absolve Goff from any of the blame the majority of it belonged on coaching. Matt Patricia hasn't proven much yet as an NFL Head Coach but he was the man who found the recipe to stopping McVay's offense. The Bears and then ultimately the Patriots in the Superbowl were building on the Patricia blueprint. And once the book is out there on you in the NFL.... that is when the challenge begins. We will see how Lamar and the Ravens offense fairs next year because the Bills and McDermott found a blueprint to slowing them too and then the Titans refined it to perfection in the playoffs. Teams will keep using it until the Ravens can overcome.

 

Yeah - there's always a blueprint to stopping an offense.  The execution of that blueprint separates good teams from bad ones.  Disguising rushers, and bringing pressure in unique ways will tank the rams offense.  Teams also had a lot less to worry about with Gurley, so the play action game wasn't as effective.

 

The Ravens are stopped by good secondaries and good front 4's.  If you're disciplined in your rush lanes, and disciplined in your gap integrity - you force him to step up and make the throws.  If they can't run the ball, they'll struggle since its largely a vertical passing attack.  You just have to keep at it even in the 3rd and longs because if he breaks contain he can make it happen.  

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Yeah - there's always a blueprint to stopping an offense.  The execution of that blueprint separates good teams from bad ones.  Disguising rushers, and bringing pressure in unique ways will tank the rams offense.  Teams also had a lot less to worry about with Gurley, so the play action game wasn't as effective.

 

The Ravens are stopped by good secondaries and good front 4's.  If you're disciplined in your rush lanes, and disciplined in your gap integrity - you force him to step up and make the throws.  If they can't run the ball, they'll struggle since its largely a vertical passing attack.  You just have to keep at it even in the 3rd and longs because if he breaks contain he can make it happen.  

 

With the Rams the secret sauce seemed to be the jet motion. Let them have the first down the 4 or 5 times a game they actually hand it off to the motion guy. Just ignore it and on the rest of the snaps you will realise that their offense suddenly becomes a lot more easy and predictable to diagnose. 

 

With the Ravens it is clog the middle. Take Ingram and the traditional run game away and take away those middle of the field passing lanes for Jackson. Make him throw outside the numbers to beat you. 

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

 

I agree that Goff in large part benefitted from having so much talent around him in 2017 and 2018. But at least Goff had 2 seasons where he sustained a high level of play, Tannehill was given only 6 million less for half an above average season. In my mind Goff was a mistake that one could see coming but at least had some semblance of sense to it. Tannehill was a mind numbing mistake that had no logic at the time nor makes any sense long term. 

 

I think teams are too afraid of losing a QB who is decent. I get that decent QB play is not so easy to find but I don’t think the Redskins really regret not paying Cousins 90 million guaranteed. Whereas the Titans will regret that Tannehill contract soon and the Rams are already hamstrung by that Goff contract. And I think Goff is a good QB (Probably would rank him between 10-12 in terms of QB's) but you can't pay a good QB like a top 3 QB, the Rams probably would slot him in the 28 million range which would have freed up 8 million in space that could have been used to sign a couple of decent starters. 

[Rochesterfan]

20 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

I guess that was my point @JetsFan20 and @T master although I should point out what we pay them should be proportionate to the team salary cap.

 

I just think the idea of holding on to a QB will be impossible moving forward unless you are willing to allocate more money than team's previously had who didn't have studs. The Goffs, Prescotts, and Wentzs of NFL give you a shot to be entertaining and potentially in the playoffs annually but they can never be winners without getting more talent.

 

It's a weird situation. Obviously I don't have the time or desire to do a full analysis but it was interesting that McVay said the best time to win was under Goff's rookie deal. Looking at it now it only makes sense if above average QBs went from 10% of the salary cap to to 12%. While it seems marginal it's the difference in $4 million annually to extend to other talent you want to retain.

 

If someone did a full return on investment analysis based on metrics from cap spend that would be fascinating. I'm sure GMs have this hidden metric, but it's obviously the reason why teams aren't signing Winston. There is some hidden metric they have that says they can only allocate X budget to a player if they hit some formula. I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

 

I just think some of your premise is way off base.  The change you are talking about is minor for mid-level starters.  Do you actually believe that 2% or about 4 million dollars is the difference for an average QB to suddenly win a SuperBowl?  
 

The difference is not a very low end starter at RB, or a #3 WR.  The team doesn’t win a Super Bowl because they can afford a low end Guard or a back-up level tackle.  The addition of a back-up at DT or DE or maybe a low end starter at LB (think Kiko Alonso) or even a low end #3 CB or safety does not drive the team to a super bowl.

 

The fact that mid level starting QBs saw a 2% increase is not the reason.  How much of an increase has mid level OT increased, or DEs, or even CBs.  Many positions have seen similar increases compared to the cap for mid level players.  Depth across the league is way down because the starter levels get paid many times more than they are worth.  For example - Shaq Lawson.  Many people wanted to give him the 5th year option at just over 10 million.  That is over 2 million more than the Bills valued him at or 1% for a rotational DE.  Now let’s say they had used the option - then his starting request after that as a FA is most likely an increase to 12 million - another 1% increase covering the same difference as your mid level QB.

 

Now the difference between a QB on a Rookie Deal and the second deal.  Now you are talking some money.  The difference for Mahomes is going to be like 30-35 million dollars (15 - 18% of the cap) or essentially 2-3 all pro players at any other position.  That is a huge difference.  Once you start to lop off top end talent around your roster - the QB better be elite and make others better or you are going to struggle.  The Rams tried to keep their elite talent and downgraded a huge percentage of their roster instead - enough that they took a huge step backwards.  I think some of it was that teams started to figure McVay out and some was their talent especially on the O-line and LBs took big steps back.