Dak - Grown Man

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

Excellent question. I think that’s the real quandary. If you don’t pay them, they walk and you’re screwed (100% probability of failure). If you pay them, they soak up a ton of cap space leaving fewer players to retain, so you’re likely screwed (something less than 100% probability of failure) You almost have to keep them, because the math tells you take the deal which provides lowest probability of failure.

That being said, the way that QB salaries have grown (% against the cap, and relative to the escalating salaries at other positions), it almost encourages the Players Union to try to leverage the QBs’ salaries either into its own salary cap (independent that of the other positions) or eliminate the cap (which the owners, as a whole, won’t support). It’s getting to the point where their salaries are unsustainable against the cap due to the rising salaries of other positions. It suggests that they either make too much (which I can’t defend as a capitalist), or, that the salary cap is too low relative to all salaries due to rising demand for NFL talent (more likely). Even though I don’t believe Quincy is worth $25-30M per year, the market rate for QBs is what it is, reasonable or not. 

If it were up to me, I’d fight to change the method which QB salaries are counted against the cap. This way, one could take the risk of signing a QB to a lucrative deal without it negatively impacting the team for the next 3-5 years.

I disagree strongly. All you are giving is the "haves" an incredible amount of leverage against the "have nots". 

What you all call hampering, I call parity. If Rodgers didnt count against the cap, why even play the season? He would win the Superbowl every year. And you know how I know? Its already happened the last 15 years in New England. 

[Texas_OutLaw7]

31 minutes ago, 5x10 said:

Now compare td passes between the two

No thanks.

[plan9misfit]

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I disagree strongly. All you are giving is the "haves" an incredible amount of leverage against the "have nots". 

What you all call hampering, I call parity. If Rodgers didnt count against the cap, why even play the season? He would win the Superbowl every year. And you know how I know? Its already happened the last 15 years in New England. 

I get that, but I don’t care about parity. In fact, I despise it. All a salary cap does, much like taxation, is punish a team for being successful. The better you are, the fewer opportunities you have to maintain your success because the league doesn’t allow you to reward your players for their contributions. I’ve never agreed with it, and I likely never will.

The league already structures its draft to support the less successful teams with better draft picks, which is reasonable. But it then undercuts the active players as well by limiting what they can make on their current team. That, I disagree with.

[5x10]

12 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

For their first 3 years they have identical total TDs. 

 

The fumble quote only accounted for the last two years

in the last 2 years, Wilson has 29% more tds than Dak Prescott ( 56 vs 72)

i even threw in rushing tds

 

if you back out rushing tds, and just look at passing, he’s thrown for 57% more tds (44 vs 69)

 

 

[Matts4313]

17 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

I get that, but I don’t care about parity. In fact, I despise it. All a salary cap does, much like taxation, is punish a team for being successful. The better you are, the fewer opportunities you have to maintain your success because the league doesn’t allow you to reward your players for their contributions. I’ve never agreed with it, and I likely never will.

The league already structures its draft to support the less successful teams with better draft picks, which is reasonable. But it then undercuts the active players as well by limiting what they can make on their current team. That, I disagree with.

My solution has always been to allow teams a 10% discount on players that were drafted by a team. Reward good drafting teams with a built in hometown discount. But I like the NFL how its is right now, so I wouldnt want to rock the boat too much.

14 minutes ago, 5x10 said:

The fumble quote only accounted for the last two years

in the last 2 years, Wilson has 29% more tds than Dak Prescott ( 56 vs 72)

i even threw in rushing tds

 

if you back out rushing tds, and just look at passing, he’s thrown for 57% more tds (44 vs 69)

 

 

Wilson is a better QB right now in every aspect of the game, so these numbers make sense. Im assuming Wilson also has a lot more attempts as well, which would be a factor in this. 

 

EDIT - Wow, Wilson has barely thrown the ball at all this year. Bananas. 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

9 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

Excellent question. I think that’s the real quandary. If you don’t pay them, they walk and you’re screwed (100% probability of failure). If you pay them, they soak up a ton of cap space leaving fewer players to retain, so you’re likely screwed (something less than 100% probability of failure) You almost have to keep them, because the math tells you take the deal which provides lowest probability of failure.

That being said, the way that QB salaries have grown (% against the cap, and relative to the escalating salaries at other positions), it almost encourages the Players Union to try to leverage the QBs’ salaries either into its own salary cap (independent that of the other positions) or eliminate the cap (which the owners, as a whole, won’t support). It’s getting to the point where their salaries are unsustainable against the cap due to the rising salaries of other positions. It suggests that they either make too much (which I can’t defend as a capitalist), or, that the salary cap is too low relative to all salaries due to rising demand for NFL talent (more likely). Even though I don’t believe Quincy is worth $25-30M per year, the market rate for QBs is what it is, reasonable or not. 

If it were up to me, I’d fight to change the method which QB salaries are counted against the cap. This way, one could take the risk of signing a QB to a lucrative deal without it negatively impacting the team for the next 3-5 years.

So you hate the system and are just here to complain? I think we have to at least ground the conversation on the fact that decision makers are not able to just change the rules at any given moment, and we have to judge their decisions based on the restrictions they face.

You are right, this is a league where regular failure is a near guarantee. So if you can't land a truly generational QB like Brady or Peyton Manning, how do you get enough of an edge that you just might succeed once or twice?

In my opinion, the biggest competitive advantage is to have a good young quarterback on a rookie contract. Surround him with studs and see what you can do. But that is not a long-term sustainable option. Eventually, that good young quarterback will have to get paid or leave.

The second best way is to find a QB who you can keep for a decade. You may have to overpay him, but so be it, he keeps you competitive enough to make the playoffs or close to it in most years. Some seasons will be worse than others. You give yourself a 5-10% chance to win a Super Bowl every year, and hopefully, over the course of a decade, those odds work out in your favor. 

The worst way to win a Super Bowl is to pay a guy you think is in that 2nd category but is not (i.e. Andy Dalton, Derek Carr).

So, in my opinion, the argument should be whether Dak falls in category 2 or 3 on a $25M salary. But the whole "paying QBs causes you to miss the playoffs" argument seems silly to me.

[plan9misfit]

21 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

So you hate the system and are just here to complain? I think we have to at least ground the conversation on the fact that decision makers are not able to just change the rules at any given moment, and we have to judge their decisions based on the restrictions they face.

You are right, this is a league where regular failure is a near guarantee. So if you can't land a truly generational QB like Brady or Peyton Manning, how do you get enough of an edge that you just might succeed once or twice?

In my opinion, the biggest competitive advantage is to have a good young quarterback on a rookie contract. Surround him with studs and see what you can do. But that is not a long-term sustainable option. Eventually, that good young quarterback will have to get paid or leave.

The second best way is to find a QB who you can keep for a decade. You may have to overpay him, but so be it, he keeps you competitive enough to make the playoffs or close to it in most years. Some seasons will be worse than others. You give yourself a 5-10% chance to win a Super Bowl every year, and hopefully, over the course of a decade, those odds work out in your favor. 

The worst way to win a Super Bowl is to pay a guy you think is in that 2nd category but is not (i.e. Andy Dalton, Derek Carr).

So, in my opinion, the argument should be whether Dak falls in category 2 or 3 on a $25M salary. But the whole "paying QBs causes you to miss the playoffs" argument seems silly to me.

How was my post complaining? You just supported my point. I wasn’t complaining about anything. I was pointing out the challenges that a salary cap creates, especially as it relates to a QB and a team’s overall oppotunity for success, and offered a potential solution to help reduce it. Nothing more.

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

3 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

How was my post complaining? You just supported my point. I wasn’t complaining about anything. I was pointing out the challenges that a salary cap creates, especially as it relates to a QB and a team’s overall oppotunity for success, and offered a potential solution to help reduce it. Nothing more.

That post wasn't complaining. Your previous ones were.

Your previous posts were an argument against paying QBs. I asked you what you thought those teams should do, and you said, basically, "well they shouldn't really pay them, but they also shouldn't let them walk, because of the way the league is set up. We should change the rules".

When you come from the premise that there basically is no right decision, every time you criticize a decision, it's just complaining. 

[plan9misfit]

30 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

My solution has always been to allow teams a 10% discount on players that were drafted by a team. Reward good drafting teams with a built in hometown discount. But I like the NFL how its is right now, so I wouldnt want to rock the boat too much.

I guess my question is how would you account for the 10% discount? Would it be a reduced value to the player’s contract (5 year/$135M [$27M/year cap hit] to the original team vs 5 year/ $150M [$30M/ year cap hit] to the new team), or does the 10% discount get taken off the top of the salary cap, so the 90% remaining contract value is what hits the cap like this:

$190M salary cap

$30M overall salary

$27M salary cap charge

$163M remaining cap space

[Matts4313]

Just now, plan9misfit said:

I guess my question is how would you account for the 10% discount? Would it be a reduced value to the player’s contract (5 year/$135M [$27M/year cap hit] to the original team vs 5 year/ $150M [$30M/ year cap hit] to the new team), or does the 10% discount get taken off the top of the salary cap, so the 90% remaining contract value is what hits the cap like this:

$190M salary cap

$30M overall salary

$27M salary cap charge

$163M remaining cap space

Only 90% of the players contract counts if on the first team the player ever played for -  a Romo or Bease for example would count as well. So signing Dak for $25m would only count for $22.5m, for example. 

It creates a loyalty from the team to the player and the player to that community. It also gives you a chance to keep your superstars (Looking at you, Demarucs Ware). 

[plan9misfit]

2 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

That post wasn't complaining. Your previous ones were.

Your previous posts were an argument against paying QBs. I asked you what you thought those teams should do, and you said, basically, "well they shouldn't really pay them, but they also shouldn't let them walk, because of the way the league is set up. We should change the rules".

When you come from the premise that there basically is no right decision, every time you criticize a decision, it's just complaining. 

I’m not against paying QBs. I’m against giving Quincy franchise QB money. There are massive risks with the decision based on his limitations and the general limitations that paying them creates. That’s not complaining. It’s merely pointing out the economic constraints with the existing salary cap structure.

[plan9misfit]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

Only 90% of the players contract counts if on the first team the player ever played for -  a Romo or Bease for example would count as well. So signing Dak for $25m would only count for $22.5m, for example. 

It creates a loyalty from the team to the player and the player to that community. It also gives you a chance to keep your superstars (Looking at you, Demarucs Ware). 

I can see that scenario. It doesn’t prohibit the player from receiving a maximum value contract, but minimizes the cap impact. It’s not terribly dissimilar to mine, where the QB salary is managed in a separate pool. Either way, I’d like to see teams have an opportunity to retain their home grown talent rather than continually lose them to free agency. 

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

1 minute ago, plan9misfit said:

I’m not against paying QBs. I’m against giving Quincy franchise QB money. There are massive risks with the decision based on his limitations and the general limitations that paying them creates. That’s not complaining. It’s merely pointing out the economic constraints with the existing salary cap structure.

If your argument against Dak is that "look, all these high paid QBs missed the playoffs", tell me what those teams with high paid quarterbacks, like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and Ryan, should have done instead of paying those guys. 

If your argument against Dak is that he's in Carr/Dalton territory and not Wilson/Ryan territory, then I think that's a fair argument to have.

But those 2 things are not the same.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

If your argument against Dak is that "look, all these high paid QBs missed the playoffs", tell me what those teams with high paid quarterbacks, like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and Ryan, should have done instead of paying those guys. 

If your argument against Dak is that he's in Carr/Dalton territory and not Wilson/Ryan territory, then I think that's a fair argument to have.

But those 2 things are not the same.

And a third point to add in, just from my perspective, a lot of those guys that fall in the "Ryan/Wilson" category were much worse in year 3. So people are viewing them with the advantage of hindsight. I mean, on this very site, we had threads of if Matt Ryan was a bust early in his career. 

[plan9misfit]

1 minute ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

If your argument against Dak is that "look, all these high paid QBs missed the playoffs", tell me what those teams with high paid quarterbacks, like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, and Ryan, should have done instead of paying those guys. 

If your argument against Dak is that he's in Carr/Dalton territory and not Wilson/Ryan territory, then I think that's a fair argument to have.

But those 2 things are not the same.

My argument is that he’s in the Andy Dalton / Derek Carr / Kirk Cousins “not worth the high contract” territory. High contract QB salaries do inhibit a team’s ability to be successful, but my opinion is rooted more on him rather than his overall impact to the team. He hasn’t shown a consistant ability to place a team on his shoulders and win with limited talent around him, so paying him is a risk.

And you’re 100% correct: teams are seeing more success with QBs on rookie deals, which partially correlates to having the opportunity to pay more surrounding talent. But, isn’t that the core concept which supports the “team game” philosophy that we all know, anyway?