Hot Take - Don’t pay Qbs

[nucci]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

 

 

Except me of course .... duh .....

of course, goes without sayin

[BuffaloBill]

6 minutes ago, nucci said:

of course, goes without sayin

 

You’re brilliance is most impressive good sir.....

[Straight Hucklebuck]

21 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

And for the record, I’m totally down with every player getting every cent they can.  But these contracts murder franchises.  

I think you’re right to acknowledge that these QBs are coming in and immediately putting up numbers. 
 

I would just think the danger is if you’re 6-10, not being high enough to get a good QB.

 

Then again Mahomes, Lamar and others fell. 

[Buffalo Junction]

22 hours ago, glazeduck said:

 

MOST even viable QBs are drafted out of the first round, usually in the top 10 picks, or so. So what you're not accounting for is using premium draft capital every couple years to make sure you've got a suitable replacement. And that's assuming you're even able to get high enough in the draft to get a guy you want. Then there's the development and progression -- not every QB pans out, so you're looking at some amount of loss with regard to those premium draft picks. On top of that, you have to account for the chemistry between QB and OL, QB and WR, QB and HC/OC -- QBs are absolutely vital to success in football, it's why they're paid what they're paid. 

The key is properly identifying and developing QB talent league wide. I’m not sure that any coaches other than Holmgren truly figured it out (Favre’s backups). It’s also likely impossible to duplicate that success with the current CBA. They need to make an exception to the coaching contact rules for developing QBs if they want to increase the league wide talent at QB, and a developmental league like NFL Europe needs to be formed. Developing QBs now is very difficult, but they often come into the NFL with higher floors thanks to the youth camps, etc. Any team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs -or other premium positions - has a serious competitive advantage over the long haul as they can exploit that development for draft capital. 

[Nextmanup]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not a born and bred Londoner but I have been here since 06. I won't leave until I am clapped out and retired when maybe I will fancy the quieter life. I grew up in a clapped out former industrial town in the north and I remember being in the car as an 8 or 9 year old with my mum and telling her I was not going to live there when I grew up and I was going to London. I actually had this conversation with work friends on a zoom last night because we were talking about whether we would be able to see family over Christmas and they refer to going back to see family as "going home" whereas I refer to London as home... I've never made a conscious decision to do that it is entirely subconscious.

I've see your username a lot over the years but never realized you were a Brit! 

 

The sun never sets on the Bills Fanbase!

 

 

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Nextmanup said:

LA is the kind of place where in order to do anything, you must first get in a car.

 

I hate that.

 

NYC can be walked.

 

 

You have to get used to that to be sure. But driving around LA is its own thing and kinda cool in a way. Plus it is extremely bikeable given the weather. Plus we lived in a neighborhood that was fairly walkable (Beverly-Fairfax, surrounded by La Brea, Beverly, Fairfax, and Melrose. 

[Mrbojanglezs]

I do agree that there should be a max contract amount within the team cap but agents and the NFLPA would probably never go for that.

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

I've see your username a lot over the years but never realized you were a Brit! 

 

The sun never sets on the Bills Fanbase!

 

 

 

I am indeed. 

[mjd1001]

I agree with the premise, but the problem is, what is considered overpaying?

 

If you have a guy you are confident is a top 1- QB year after year...sometimes a top 5 qb. You pay him. You overpay him. That is the kind of guy you can get to the playoffs with an probably win in the playoffs as long as you do a good job with the rest of the roster.

 

If you have no-one that fits the top 5 or top10 qb criteria....don't try to convince yourself he "might" get there or "IF" he just does a couple things different he will. If he isn't there already by the 2nd contract...then don't pay him that 2nd contract. If you don't have a top-5 guy (or top 10 at least), don't give that $15-$18 million dollar deal to a 'decent' starter...just start over and look for the next young guy.

[SoTier]

15 hours ago, NoSaint said:

We are probably about the best candidate possible for this conversation. Say josh has a pretty good but not exceptional season. 
 

if you could flip him to a team in the teens with a decent roster but aging qb... and package 2 firsts for the 2-3 qb off the board and keep 35m for cap space... equal parts tempting and terrifying.

 

What's "tempting" about this scenario?   Having a top QB is the key to building a winning team, so why would a team trade away a very promising young QB on a rookie contract like Allen to chase the 2nd or 3rd best QB from the next QB class when about half of first round QBs end up not becoming even average NFL starters?    Moreover, I can't see another team giving up a first rounder for a QB that his original team wants to send packing after three seasons.

 

15 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Apparently you didn't read the last part.  Players prefer a larger Market is fan myth.  Tre and Dawkins just took less money from a small market team.  How do the Jets and Giants rosters look.  This illusion that people prefer to live in big cities is funny.  Most people don't care for it but are stuck where they are.  There is nothing great about a big city unless you are homeless or party.

 

It's not the market size, but the quality/reputation of the organization that attracts top FAs.  All of the NFL teams are located in big metros.    "Big market" and "small market" is simply a divide between the largest metros and not-so-large metros.   In order to attract top FAs, crappy organizations have to overpay whether they're in big markets or small markets. 

 

1 hour ago, Buffalo Junction said:

The key is properly identifying and developing QB talent league wide. I’m not sure that any coaches other than Holmgren truly figured it out (Favre’s backups). It’s also likely impossible to duplicate that success with the current CBA. They need to make an exception to the coaching contact rules for developing QBs if they want to increase the league wide talent at QB, and a developmental league like NFL Europe needs to be formed. Developing QBs now is very difficult, but they often come into the NFL with higher floors thanks to the youth camps, etc. Any team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs -or other premium positions - has a serious competitive advantage over the long haul as they can exploit that development for draft capital. 

 

A team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs is a myth.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 10/29/2020 at 12:42 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

You shouldn’t overpay Qbs.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but look at the league now.  Lamar won a MVP in his 2nd season.  So did Mahomes. Joe Burrow, a good but not generational prospect, is on pass for 4,600 yards as a rookie!  Justin Herbert, who no one thought was close to an elite prospect, is at pace that if he started 16 games, he would throw for 5,000 yards.

 

fact is Qbs are completely overpaid and qb’s 2nd contracts kill your ability to build a roster.  It has never been easier to pay qb in the NFL and college guys translate easier than ever.  Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule (Seattle kinda sucks minus Wilson but he carries the team; Mahomes; Brady; Rodgers) but too many replaceable guys get paid too much.  Also if teams stopped handing out monster to Deals to average talents like Goff and Tannehill (during Miami), it would bring the salaries down.  
 

And for the record, I’m totally down with every player getting every cent they can.  But these contracts murder franchises.  

 

 

...no way to reverse the slippery slope now......the "bar of absurdity" will continue to go up exponentially........look at some of the "fine (COUGH) examples" of QB's still getting paid......

[ghostwriter]

You absolutely pay for a good QB, not just for an elite one.. Every snap goes through the QBs hands, they have the most say in the outcome of a game.. I think after that you must cherry pick whom else you are paying.. LT, C, WR, DE, MLB, CB & S.. Never pay a RB, never pay a DT.. RBs get hurt and their success is largely reliant on the OL.. DTs get lazy once you pay them.. You simply have to draft well and you must stockpile depth and talent and make trades so you can fill in the roster with cheap talent.. Trade down in the draft, groom backup QBs you can deal for high picks.. Good but not great players that are looking to get paid, you deal them for multiple picks so you can keep the cap down.. Playing the compensatory pick game, etc... Look no further than the Bucs... bottom feeders last year to overtaking the Saints for the NFC South..

[Buffalo Junction]

3 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

A team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs is a myth.

 

Is it? Let’s look at QBs groomed or “rehabilitated” and traded by Holmgren.

 

Mark Brunell: traded to Jaguars for a 3rd and 5th

Rick Mirer: traded to Jets for a 4th

Mark Hasselbeck: traded to Seahawks for a 1st & 3rd

Aaron Brooks: traded to Saints for a 3rd

Brock Huard: traded to Colts for a 5th

Trent Dilfer: traded to Browns for a 4th

Seneca Wallace: traded to Browns for 7th

 

Then there’s a bunch of guys like Detmer, Kitna and Doug Peterson who would have brought back high compensation picks now instead of the 90’s along with the no name QBs flopped for conditionals and 7th rounders. 
 

So is it a myth? No. Holmgren pulled it off. However, all the stars aligned for his success. To start with his coaching staff was tremendously successful, and when they left for OC and HC (Reid, Rhodes, Gruden, Mornhinweg, Mariucci, Jauron, etc) jobs they wanted QBs that could run their offense of choice. The front office staff was stacked with talent as well, Wolf, Thompson, McKenzie, Dorsey, Schneider, etc and they likely hit on talent more often than others. The west coast offense itself allows for less physically talented QBs to thrive as well. 

 

That success with developing QBs will probably never be duplicated. It’s a fantasy in the NFL now with modern FA, conditional picks, restricted off season contact between coaches and players, increased front office instability, no developmental league, early HC promotions for OCs, etc. The league itself will have to change for lighting to have a chance at striking again. 

[Hebert19]

On 10/29/2020 at 12:42 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

You shouldn’t overpay Qbs.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but look at the league now.  Lamar won a MVP in his 2nd season.  So did Mahomes. Joe Burrow, a good but not generational prospect, is on pass for 4,600 yards as a rookie!  Justin Herbert, who no one thought was close to an elite prospect, is at pace that if he started 16 games, he would throw for 5,000 yards.

 

fact is Qbs are completely overpaid and qb’s 2nd contracts kill your ability to build a roster.  It has never been easier to pay qb in the NFL and college guys translate easier than ever.  Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule (Seattle kinda sucks minus Wilson but he carries the team; Mahomes; Brady; Rodgers) but too many replaceable guys get paid too much.  Also if teams stopped handing out monster to Deals to average talents like Goff and Tannehill (during Miami), it would bring the salaries down.  
 

And for the record, I’m totally down with every player getting every cent they can.  But these contracts murder franchises.  

I actually agree.  With a couple changes.  

 

If they are top 5.  Yes.   You pay them.   The rest.  You redraft and rebuild.  

 

Mahomes.  You pay.  

 

Ryan, Stafford etc who have won nothing and were in the 5 to 10 range.  You don't pay.  Flacco.  Cousins etc.  You pay them and you are in for some bad years ahead.  Can not over pay for someone who's ceiling isn't top 5 in league.  Dak would have been in same category.  30+ mil for him.  Bad move. 

 

Rogers.  Paid and they are still good as an example.  

 

So my correction to this is if your QBs ceiling isn't top 5...move on and draft again or you will suffer mediocrity for the foreseeable future. 

[C.Biscuit97]

16 hours ago, Victory Formation said:

You absolutely pay for a good QB, not just for an elite one.. Every snap goes through the QBs hands, they have the most say in the outcome of a game.. I think after that you must cherry pick whom else you are paying.. LT, C, WR, DE, MLB, CB & S.. Never pay a RB, never pay a DT.. RBs get hurt and their success is largely reliant on the OL.. DTs get lazy once you pay them.. You simply have to draft well and you must stockpile depth and talent and make trades so you can fill in the roster with cheap talent.. Trade down in the draft, groom backup QBs you can deal for high picks.. Good but not great players that are looking to get paid, you deal them for multiple picks so you can keep the cap down.. Playing the compensatory pick game, etc... Look no further than the Bucs... bottom feeders last year to overtaking the Saints for the NFC South..

But the Bucs got the greatest qb of all time. If they signed Kirk Cousins, they probably make the playoffs with that roster, but that team falls apart in 2 years because they can’t pay get guys because of Cousins

16 hours ago, Hebert19 said:

I actually agree.  With a couple changes.  

 

If they are top 5.  Yes.   You pay them.   The rest.  You redraft and rebuild.  

 

Mahomes.  You pay.  

 

Ryan, Stafford etc who have won nothing and were in the 5 to 10 range.  You don't pay.  Flacco.  Cousins etc.  You pay them and you are in for some bad years ahead.  Can not over pay for someone who's ceiling isn't top 5 in league.  Dak would have been in same category.  30+ mil for him.  Bad move. 

 

Rogers.  Paid and they are still good as an example.  

 

So my correction to this is if your QBs ceiling isn't top 5...move on and draft again or you will suffer mediocrity for the foreseeable future. 

Completely agree. And you should draft a guy while you have a guy. So in a way get the GB thing but clearly Rodgers, one of the best ever, has a lot left and would have benefited from playing with Tee Higgins.

19 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

What's "tempting" about this scenario?   Having a top QB is the key to building a winning team, so why would a team trade away a very promising young QB on a rookie contract like Allen to chase the 2nd or 3rd best QB from the next QB class when about half of first round QBs end up not becoming even average NFL starters?    Moreover, I can't see another team giving up a first rounder for a QB that his original team wants to send packing after three seasons.

 

 

It's not the market size, but the quality/reputation of the organization that attracts top FAs.  All of the NFL teams are located in big metros.    "Big market" and "small market" is simply a divide between the largest metros and not-so-large metros.   In order to attract top FAs, crappy organizations have to overpay whether they're in big markets or small markets. 

 

 

A team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs is a myth.

 

Jimmy G?

[C.Biscuit97]

22 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

I think you’re right to acknowledge that these QBs are coming in and immediately putting up numbers. 
 

I would just think the danger is if you’re 6-10, not being high enough to get a good QB.

 

Then again Mahomes, Lamar and others fell. 

Minshew is putting up numbers as a late round pick that will blow Jim Kelly’s away.  It is such a different league.  It’s why teams give up on qbs so early.  Basically if you can’t play right away now, you probably aren’t good enough.

23 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

This was an excellent premise for a thread CB. I don't think that I am in 100% agreement mind you, but I do see your point and it is valid imo.

Thanks Bill.  As another posted out, maybe you don’t pay guys who at the absolute worst, don’t have top 5 potential.  
 

these contracts murder good nfl rosters.  The Fins are a powerhouse of Tua is healthy and good.  But if they signed Cousins and not drafted Tua, their future is completely cApped.

[Bill from NYC]

6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

.  The Fins are a powerhouse of Tua is healthy and good.  But if they signed Cousins and not drafted Tua, their future is completely cApped.

This is a great example. I don't know Tua's salary. Is it 6 or 7 million guaranteed? 30 or 35 mil. for 5 years? Cousins makes this much in one season, no? If Tua can't cut it, it wont cost so much to cut him. Cousins has a contract that is mostly guaranteed so you are stuck with him, and out millions of dollars in cash and cap space.

 

Again, good post. This topic will become more and more relevant to NFL Teams and fans as this situation plays out.

 

 

[SoTier]

10 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Jimmy G?

 

Are you referring to the Patriots trading away Garappolo (ie, flipping him)?   In the short term, it was a good move because the Pats won a SB and appeared in another one with Brady because I don't think that the Pats get to either of those SBs with Garappolo. 

 

However, Garappolo was never the starter in NE.   He was a backup QB who had a handful of decent games over three years and was just good enough to expect a big pay day and a starting gig in the near future.  Lots of teams have promising backup QBs (off limited samples of games) that they trade away for picks.

 

That's very different from what I took to be your original premise that teams shouldn't pay their starting QBs big bucks unless they're elite but trade them away and find another QB in the draft.    It makes sense if you subscribe to playing "money ball" but I haven't seen many examples of money ball actually working out.   Trading away a proven veteran worked out long term  for GB with Favre and Rodgers but Favre was at the end of his career not coming off his rookie contract. 

[NoSaint]

20 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

What's "tempting" about this scenario?   Having a top QB is the key to building a winning team, so why would a team trade away a very promising young QB on a rookie contract like Allen to chase the 2nd or 3rd best QB from the next QB class when about half of first round QBs end up not becoming even average NFL starters?    Moreover, I can't see another team giving up a first rounder for a QB that his original team wants to send packing after three seasons.

 

 

It's not the market size, but the quality/reputation of the organization that attracts top FAs.  All of the NFL teams are located in big metros.    "Big market" and "small market" is simply a divide between the largest metros and not-so-large metros.   In order to attract top FAs, crappy organizations have to overpay whether they're in big markets or small markets. 

 

 

A team that can figure out how to develop and flip QBs is a myth.

 

 

so I’m not actually advocating it, just partaking in the proposed thought exercise. Crazy, I know. 
 

But if Josh is say a 10-15 qb and instead of paying him 40m a year you could get another bite at the rookie QB cheap contract apple- there’s got to be at least a tiny flicker of curiosity about it instead of going down the path of having a decent qb with an ok roster for 10 years.

 

if you think he’s an elite guy, sure, absolute no brainer to sign him. 

[Shaw66]

On 10/29/2020 at 12:42 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

You shouldn’t overpay Qbs.  Obviously there are exceptions to the rule but look at the league now.  Lamar won a MVP in his 2nd season.  So did Mahomes. Joe Burrow, a good but not generational prospect, is on pass for 4,600 yards as a rookie!  Justin Herbert, who no one thought was close to an elite prospect, is at pace that if he started 16 games, he would throw for 5,000 yards.

 

fact is Qbs are completely overpaid and qb’s 2nd contracts kill your ability to build a roster.  It has never been easier to pay qb in the NFL and college guys translate easier than ever.  Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule (Seattle kinda sucks minus Wilson but he carries the team; Mahomes; Brady; Rodgers) but too many replaceable guys get paid too much.  Also if teams stopped handing out monster to Deals to average talents like Goff and Tannehill (during Miami), it would bring the salaries down.  
 

And for the record, I’m totally down with every player getting every cent they can.  But these contracts murder franchises.  

I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if others have said something similar.

 

I don't agree with this.  I mean, I absolutely agree that some QBs are way overpaid.  However, I don't agree that it's easy to play QB in the NFL or that teams can find serviceable QBs without paying so much. 

 

It is true that guys are coming into the league and having success early, but I don't think many of those guys will have long-term success.  The undeniable history of the league is that offenses and defenses keep getting more and more complicated in response to the other.  Teams need quarterbacks who can understand that complexity and react to it in real time, on the field.  We happen to be in a period when the offenses seem to have an advantage, when OCs can put a young qb on the field with a half dozen or more keys, and the combination of the QBs physical skills and his understanding of a few keys allows the QB to have success.   That will change.  Defenses will adjust to the Jacksons and Murrays of the world, and their continued success will depend on their ability to lead teams, run offenses, and make big-time throws.  That's been true of QB play since Otto Graham, and there's no indication it's going to change.  

 

Justin Herbert is the flavor of the month.   Wentz was a few years ago, but nobody's quite sure he's the savior any more.  Mayfield has been hopelessly up and down, despite all of the early hype.   Tua's been anointed essentially before he's done anything.   The truth is that when you look at QBs who have been in the league five years or more, there are only a half dozen who've been worth having long term.  That's going to continue to be the truth.  When you get one of those, you pay him. 

 

Sure, you can win a Super Bowl with a decent quarterback in a season when everything falls together just right - good supporting cast, great coaching, some very good players in key positions, but you're not going to compete year after year with that formula.   Foles and the Eagles, Flacco and the Ravens are examples of good QB play on teams that simply couldn't replicate the success with that QB.  Brady and Wilson and Rodgers and Brees threaten to take their team to the Super Bowl every preseason, simply because they have mastered the high-level fine points of quarterbacking.  

 

When you get the right guy, you pay him.  You're always looking for the right guy, because only the right guy will make you a contender every season.  Lamar Jackson may look like the right guy today, because teams have a lot of trouble stopping him, but he almost certainly won't be having success with that style of play in a few years.   If Jackson is a success in five years, it will because he's grown into Russell Wilson - a guy who can run the whole offense and beat you with his head and his arm as well as his legs.  

 

The real problem is when you get a Matt Ryan, who looks like he should be the complete package but somehow never quite gets there.  Or Matt Stafford.  They simply are not in the same class as the premier guys when it comes to being a field general.  But they seem awfully good, and they give you the feeling that of they just got on the field with the right guys, they'd win for you.  The truth is, however, that Ryan has been on the field with Julio Jones and a variety of excellent running backs and still never produced.    

 

So what should the Bills do about Allen?   Unless he collapses in the second half of this season, the Bills certainly will exercise the fifth-year option.  Again unless he collapses, the Bills are going to have to write a big contract to keep him.  That's absolutely the right thing to do, because as of now Allen seems to be progressing toward being that complete package.  He's certainly a leader, and he seems to be becoming an excellent decision-maker on the field.   The concern is that a guy like Allen might plateau like Ryan did, someplace close but short of being elite.   So I think in a perfect world you'd like to be able to cut him loose after year 7 or 8 without a massive cap hit - structure a big long-term deal for him with as little cap hit as possible on the back-end, so that it's possible to cut him without putting yourself into too much cap trouble.