Rise of the Contrarian Teams?

[Mikie2times]

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

[DCofNC]

I have been calling for the Bills to do it for 10 years, then they landed Allen and I still think it’s the way to go.  Build the Rex Ryan “Bully”.  Go Big on O, take advantage of the teams that got small and fast to counter the  passing teams.  Pound them into submission and torch them over the top.  There’s never been a time that it made more sense.  To an extent, that’s what Tenn and Indy have done, now imagine them with Josh at QB, good gawd.  It’s what Carolina did when they went 15-1 with Tess Ginn as their best WR.  NE is trying to do it, but they don’t have the deep threat. 
 

Side watch out for the Raiders if they get their run game rolling, they are built to beat pretty much anyone with that O.  They should have great balance. 

[BullBuchanan]

There's an opportunity for it. In some games, like poker, you want to be doing what other players aren't doing. I don't see any reason we couldn't see a shift in football, except that it's hard to switch philosophy drastically year to year. The patriots have been able to do it, but not too many other teams. the rise of wide open passing offenses has led to an emphasis on smaller and more nimble players.

That can certainly be exploited if a team was able to pair a big bruising back with a competent offense and a great defense. That's been the Titans model. Unfortunately for them, i think they just ran into bad timing in the league. They're good enough to win lots of games, but not win the ones they need to. If they can add some wrinkles to their offense, maybe it'll be enough.

[4merper4mer]

7 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

Based on the evolving rules and the ratings driven by them I think this is an uphill battle.  Given that, teams don’t have an immediate alternative so I think your premise has some merit.  I don’t think it will work but I could see a team trying it.  IMO an NFC team might be a better candidate given the gap at QB might be small enough there to allow them a playoff berth.  They won’t have a weekly gauntlet of Allen, Mahomes, Burrow etc.  Get to the playoffs with the contrarian style and go from there.  It sounds crazy but I see Detroit as a viable candidate..

 

One team seems to be trying to “middle” this.  Indy.  It failed in 21 because Carson Wentz sucked really bad.  I think they were trying to get ok QB played and they failed.  They’re trying again.

[Richard Noggin]

It CAN work, and HAS worked, every now and then. It might become less likely to work, however, as dynamic, QB-driven attacks proliferate. As @4merper4mer points out, though, there is some opportunity in the near future for an NFC team to pull off this approach. In a one-game Super Bowl, they might catch one of those AFC QBs on an off-night, or be able to disrupt them just enough. Doing that for two or three consecutive playoff games, to get out of the AFC tourny, is far less likely. 

 

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

Teams like the Titans, Colts, Ravens, and Browns have been able to run dominantly because defenses have shifted to smaller defensive tackles to get more of a pass-rush in a qb-driven league.

[Governor]

The Pats usually shift resources/money as certain positions become more or less expensive over time. 

[billybrew1]

58 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

Other teams getting great QBs is just complete BS. For 20+ years we have waited for a QB and now that we finally have one, everybody else is finding one. There used to be two, three QBs in the league, Now that we have one, it’s just BS that’s all!

Total BS!

[Governor]

1 minute ago, billybrew1 said:

Other teams getting great QBs is just complete BS. For 20+ years we have waited for a QB and now that we finally have one, everybody else is finding one. There used to be two, three QBs in the league, Now that we have one, it’s just BS that’s all!

Total BS!

I wonder how many of today’s QB’s would be great in the old league with the old rules.

 

Probably 2 or 3.

[hjnick]

1 hour ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

I mean, you have to rate your chances of just getting lucky vs putting together a super team sans QB.

 

When you look at the history of the NFL, particularly in the last 20 years, there are a handful of teams without “elite” QB’s that won titles. Some of them had good teams with solid QB’s who got hot, some had incredible defenses with bad QB’s. 
 

Would the Giants have been better off trying to find a better QB than Eli? A guy who, outside of two historic playoff runs, was maybe a little bit better than Derek Carr level QB? Is there a universe where a little less luck has Eli being a better version of Jimmy G who got his team close but ultimately lost to the better QB?

 

Joe Flacco has as many Super Bowls as Russell Wilson, but he wasn’t the same caliber of QB. Joe Flacco wasn’t close to as good as Rivers and Rivers never sniffed a SB.

 

IMO, teams that have a “good enough” QB should do exactly what they do in the NFL. Build the best possible team around them, hope they get some luck and string together a few wins in the postseason. Lamar is good enough.  Jimmy G was good enough (when healthy).

 

Every team can’t tank until they get a top 3 QB. Every team can’t punt on the season just because better QB’s exist. Look at the Raiders. Some folks say “why are they trading for Adams when they have the worst QB in the division?” And my response  would be, what else are they supposed to do? Just forfeit til Mahomes and Herbert retire?

The Bills are unique in the sense that we went from “no QB” to “great QB,” after 20 years of waiting. Most NFL teams don’t do that. Most teams eventually have starter quality QB’s over a period of 10 years, that can win games with a good enough team around them. The 49ers had Smith and Jimmy in the last 20. The Ravens had Flacco and Lamar. The Bengals had Palmer then Dalton then Burrow. Cowboys had Romo then Dak.

 

The Bills strategy is the exact strategy you don’t want. They would have been in the exact same boat Pre Josh Allen if they drafted a QB every year. Except they may have actually made the playoffs more than once.

Edited March 30, 2022 by FireChans

[Richard Noggin]

25 minutes ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

In a vacuum, I can see the wisdom to this team-building strategy. Draft a QB annually and plug him (or a recently drafted prospect who outperforms him) into a loaded roster. Rinse (trade or release) and repeat to remain stocked with cap space and draft assets. 

 

But what coach/GM combo has the job security to willingly employ it? If said coach/GM combo has 40+ mill to work with in a given offseason, what is incentivizing them to NOT pursue EVERY possible scenario to bring in an ELITE QB? Or, to utilize premium draft assets to acquire one (either by drafting or by trading for one)? In a given offseason, by the time they potentially realize they're shut out of acquiring their QB savior, then they've missed out on many of the defensive and offensive FAs who could help to carry out the proposed plan for the rest of roster. And coaches/GMs don't often get more than one crack at the QB lottery. 

 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, DCofNC said:

I have been calling for the Bills to do it for 10 years, then they landed Allen and I still think it’s the way to go.  Build the Rex Ryan “Bully”.  Go Big on O, take advantage of the teams that got small and fast to counter the  passing teams.  Pound them into submission and torch them over the top.  There’s never been a time that it made more sense.  To an extent, that’s what Tenn and Indy have done, now imagine them with Josh at QB, good gawd.  It’s what Carolina did when they went 15-1 with Tess Ginn as their best WR.  NE is trying to do it, but they don’t have the deep threat. 
 

Side watch out for the Raiders if they get their run game rolling, they are built to beat pretty much anyone with that O.  They should have great balance. 

pittsburgh with power runners and deep threats was a great example. 
 

but the good examples that win most consistently are doing it with a qb with that framework still

 

as expensive as a qb is - 11 elite defenders, and a great line is even pricier and you’ll still be paying a qb fast if you have any success 

[DCofNC]

Just now, NoSaint said:

pittsburgh with power runners and deep threats was a great example. 
 

but the good examples that win most consistently are doing it with a qb with that framework still

 

as expensive as a qb is - 11 elite defenders, and a great line is even pricier and you’ll still be paying a qb fast if you have any success 

You are right on that, the question is, do you have to pay a QB or can you find a reasonable fit and keep rolling.  Tannehill got paid for executing what Tenn wanted.  Would Fitz have taken them just as far for 1/2, I would argue, yes.  Could they have gone to a Ryan this year? Probably.  
 

The counter point is the Colts who keep searching for a guy to get it done.  Anybody dumb enough to go w Wentz deserves the problems they had.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

 

 

I think you mis-state how the Ravens approached Jackson. There's no particular reason to think they weren't intending to run a traditional NFL offense with a bit more running. Not that year, of course, but they have moved in that general direction ever since, towards developing Lamar as a guy with more and more traditional pocket abilities and chances every year. 

 

Using a baby-friendly QB system the QB's rookie year and working him towards a full pocket system is nothing new. Balt and NE both are working their QBs towards a full traditional system with a few twists and bells and whistles. It's not all that new. More QB runs is a newer development, and we've done it ourselves, but it works incredibly well with a functional and dangerous pocket pass game but not quite so well without it.

 

Lamar Jackson only had eleven more runs than Josh did last year.

 

I don't think there's ever been a guy not using primarily a pocket passing system who's won a Super Bowl. Plenty have tried. A few have come pretty close, not least Jackson and the Ravens in 2019, but also Slash with the Steelers, Mike Vick, and I think a few others qualify depending on what you mean by "close". But none have managed it. 

 

We've seen some QBs who weren't very good win Lombardis. After Simms' injury, Hostetler managed to get the Giants a trophy. But Hostetler was working a traditional system. Same with guys like Doug Williams, Dilfer, etc. All were running from traditional systems.

 

We'll see teams try alternative ways when they can't get a guy who can succeed in a pocket passing system. You can't just give up. But if those same teams get  a chance to bring in a guy with the ability to operate from the pocket, IMO they'll do it in a second once they decide their athletic guy can't develop into efficient use of pocket passing.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Ethan in Cleveland]

6 hours ago, Governor said:

I wonder how many of today’s QB’s would be great in the old league with the old rules.

 

Probably 2 or 3.

Probably would depend on how you define great. I think it would be near impossible for guys like Jackson and Murray to survive the style of football played from the 70’s until the early 200’0’s.  Then again those defenses never saw the speed and running ability of some of these QBs. Accuracy numbers are higher now but I think those numbers are inflated because of the number of WR screens and easy completions QBs get now including the shovel pass and little touch pass they do on Jet sweeps.

[cage]

6 hours ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

 

Isn't that the strategy that we mostly navigated through the drought?  Fitzpatrick and Tyrod scream out as the types of QB that it could theoretically work with.  We had the best rushing attack in the league for a few years with Shady + Tyrod.  But we ended up with .500 teams with just Tyrod barely making playoffs once, because of Dalton/Boyd heroics.... and then 1 and done in playoffs.  

 

I think the strategy could get you to a fringe wild-card team, but not much further.  Even if they had beaten Jacksonville in playoffs, I have a hard time believing they had any shot at winning SB

Edited March 30, 2022 by cage

[SoTier]

9 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

It CAN work, and HAS worked, every now and then. It might become less likely to work, however, as dynamic, QB-driven attacks proliferate. As @4merper4mer points out, though, there is some opportunity in the near future for an NFC team to pull off this approach. In a one-game Super Bowl, they might catch one of those AFC QBs on an off-night, or be able to disrupt them just enough. Doing that for two or three consecutive playoff games, to get out of the AFC tourny, is far less likely. 

 

 

I agree.   I think that the key to the success of a "contrarian" offense would still be having a good QB just not an elite one.  Lamar Jackson would be a good example of the kind of QB needed: he's smart and a great leader even if he's not a great passer.   He is so good, however, that he will probably command top QB money.  The advantage that Baltimore has, however, is that they have their QB and can build around his unusual skill set.

 

I think that SF under Garappolo is another good example.  Garappolo had the lowest percentage of downfield throws of all NFL QBs in 2021.  SF's biggest problem has been that Garappolo can't stay healthy.   Mike McDaniel, former SF assistant, seems to be trying to build a similar short pass/heavy run offense in Miami with Tua.

 

Both Pittsburgh and Indianapolis are going to try contrarian offenses this coming season.   The Steelers made the playoffs with Roethlisberger barely able to throw.  Now they've added Trubisky who might be good enough to actually give them some playoff success.   Matt Ryan isn't in his prime any more, but he seems capable of doing what Wentz failed to do: get the Colts into the playoffs.   He's not going to make the stupid plays that lost the Colts games that Wentz did in 2021, allowing the Colts' runners and defenders to carry the load.

 

The biggest drawback for contrarian offenses finding success, IMO, is juggling all the moving pieces.   These teams need to have a strong running game, which also means a strong OL, to control the ball and make the most of their possessions.   They also need to have strong defenses to limit higher powered offenses' ability to move the ball and score.  Even then, they may have a hard time going toe-to-toe with the Bills or Chiefs when Allen or Mahomes are on their games.

[hondo in seattle]

Good topic...   Something I've wondered about myself.  There aren't not enough Joshes and Patricks for all 32 teams.   So in the absence of a franchise QB, what do you do?  How do you win?

 

On the one hand, if you want to build a running offense you need a running back.  It's not the glory days of the rushing attack anymore.  Most of the best athletes nowadays become WRs and CBs.  College football doesn't produce Jim Browns, OJs, Walter Paytons, and Barry Sanders like it used to.

 

On the other hand...

 

In 1975, the OJ-led Bills scored 30 points a game against defenses better equipped to stop the run that today's Ds.  RB-centric offenses can score points.

 

As Sun Tzu said, “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”  Today's defenses are built to stop the pass.  Good RBs, particularly power backs, can thrive in this environment by attacking the weakness of contemporary defenses.  

 

Imagine getting a QB on the cheap who isn't all-around great but does throw a nice deep ball.  So you complement your running game with some speedy receivers to stretch the field and discourage the opposing defense from loading the box.  

 

If I was a GM, I don't think I'd bet my career on a run-first offense.  But it would be interesting to watch a GM/HC combo who did.  

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by hondo in seattle

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

 

So, you think that the Bills should have traded Allen rather than extending him?    Right.  In case you didn't notice, great/good QBs don't come along nearly as frequently as great/good RBs come along.  The Jests haven't had an elite QB since Joe Namath retired more than 40 years ago, and it's not for not using resources to find one.  The Bears haven't had a QB better than average in decades.  The Bills went almost 20 years without having even a good QB. 

 

The problem with your plan is that if your current QB on his rookie contract isn't so obviously good that you absolutely want to keep him no matter what the price, why would some other team be willing to give you a proverbial "boat load of picks" for him?  The Jests didn't get a boatload of picks for Darnold.   The Browns aren't going to get a boatload of picks for Mayfield. 

 

FTR, teams seldom trade their RBs coming off their rookie contracts.  They simply let them walk in free agency if they aren't willing to re-sign at reasonable prices. 

 

 

8 hours ago, FireChans said:

I mean, you have to rate your chances of just getting lucky vs putting together a super team sans QB.

 

When you look at the history of the NFL, particularly in the last 20 years, there are a handful of teams without “elite” QB’s that won titles. Some of them had good teams with solid QB’s who got hot, some had incredible defenses with bad QB’s. 
 

Would the Giants have been better off trying to find a better QB than Eli? A guy who, outside of two historic playoff runs, was maybe a little bit better than Derek Carr level QB? Is there a universe where a little less luck has Eli being a better version of Jimmy G who got his team close but ultimately lost to the better QB?

 

Joe Flacco has as many Super Bowls as Russell Wilson, but he wasn’t the same caliber of QB. Joe Flacco wasn’t close to as good as Rivers and Rivers never sniffed a SB.

 

IMO, teams that have a “good enough” QB should do exactly what they do in the NFL. Build the best possible team around them, hope they get some luck and string together a few wins in the postseason. Lamar is good enough.  Jimmy G was good enough (when healthy).

 

Every team can’t tank until they get a top 3 QB. Every team can’t punt on the season just because better QB’s exist. Look at the Raiders. Some folks say “why are they trading for Adams when they have the worst QB in the division?” And my response  would be, what else are they supposed to do? Just forfeit til Mahomes and Herbert retire?

The Bills are unique in the sense that we went from “no QB” to “great QB,” after 20 years of waiting. Most NFL teams don’t do that. Most teams eventually have starter quality QB’s over a period of 10 years, that can win games with a good enough team around them. The 49ers had Smith and Jimmy in the last 20. The Ravens had Flacco and Lamar. The Bengals had Palmer then Dalton then Burrow. Cowboys had Romo then Dak.

 

The Bills strategy is the exact strategy you don’t want. They would have been in the exact same boat Pre Josh Allen if they drafted a QB every year. Except they may have actually made the playoffs more than once.

 

The Bills strategy prior to the firing of Russ Brandon in 2018 was to maximize profits rather than winning football games, so they hardly present a blueprint for how to build a winning football team.   Even so, they drafted first round QBs in 2004 and in 2013 and again in 2018.