Jump to content
Outpost31

Want To Win A Super Bowl? Don't Pay Your QB.

Recommended Posts

The key is to pay your QB but structure it so that you can get wiggle room in the last 2-3 years of the contract 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, this is why I think the quarterback market is going to crash some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

It’ll never be done, and I acknowledge that, but I am 100% convinced it is the best move.

What you need is to have a team owner who has a good enough relationship with his GM that he thinks long-term.  The owner needs to believe in the GM enough to go through the 2-3 years it will probably take until a young QB gets up to speed in the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
3
9 hours ago, 3rivers said:

It's been said that the QB's are getting paid too much, most of them. There are the ones that are legit and will play at the elite level in big games.  Thats what has happened and as a result I would d prefer the league have the QB's salary not a part of the cap.

5 RD1's, but there's no guarantee it will be another Hershel walker trade.  Mahomes is exceptional, just keep him and see if he wins with less talent.  Maybe he can make mediocre WR's really good and a good one elite. If there was a QB I had to pick to do that, it would be him and then prime Marino. 

This would work completely against the idea of parity.  There are only a handful of great quarterbacks as it is, and now the league is supposed to let those teams enjoy that advantage while not having it affect you adversely in any way?  That's pretty tough for the majority of teams left in the league who have average or below average QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Elky said:

Honestly, this is why I think the quarterback market is going to crash some time.

What do you think of a QB salary cap?  Hey they invoked a rookie cap. Remember when the No1 overall got TONS of freekin' money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Split the Sticks said:

What do you think of a QB salary cap?  Hey they invoked a rookie cap. Remember when the No1 overall got TONS of freekin' money?

I say let the market crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is some merit to what OP is saying, but this is such a multi-faceted thing that I don't think there is a golden rule any direction you go.

Franchise QB's do deserve to get paid. After all, you want a Mahomes over a Trubisky. BUT, that is also only true because you have the right QB, with the right coach, at the right time, with the right ingredients (of which there are many.)

With that said, I think QB's are probably starting to get paid too much. We're getting to the point where I think we're going to see the scale start tipping back the other way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hukos said:

I sort of agree/sort of disagree with this. Winning the super bowl is incredibly difficult because the playoffs have so much variance to them.

However, if you think getting to the playoffs and bowing out is a successful season... I don't know what to say to that, because that sounds ridiculous. Now, it can be a stepping stone to better seasons and can be viewed positively through that lens and I don't see anything wrong with that. It can also be comparatively better than what other teams are going through, but there's a reason that franchises that haven't won any championships are considered garbage/trash franchises.

An example would be my Falcons - they have made the Super Bowl in 2 of the last 3 decades and on average, get to the playoffs once every two seasons and usually max out at the second round when they do make the playoffs. That's good, right? Well, they're considered one of the worst franchises in the history of American professional sports, and not for no reason. There's a reason their name is a joke to most people. And they'll never, ever, change that perception without some hardware. It's not "fair", in a vacuum, but that's how it is. If you don't win a title, you're viewed as a failure, as trash. That's the nature of the beast.

So, does that mean not being trash requires you to be insanely lucky, due to the variance of the NFL post-season? Basically. It's definitely not a fair expectation, but don't tell me that kind of pressure doesn't come into consideration when dudes get hired/fired. Why do you think the "x player is being wasted" narratives pop up? It's not for no reason at all. There are dudes who grew up watching football in the 80's/90's who still think Marino was trash because he never won a title - or that John Elway was a gutless choker who needed an elite team to carry him. Those narratives are stupid, yes, but they're real and they do matter in the grand scheme of things.

If your definition of success in the NFL is only Super Bowls, it means that 31 teams must necessarily be unsuccessful in a given year. That's not how I choose to view it. And the Falcons haven't made the playoffs 1 out of every 2 years during their existence. If you're talking about the past decade, they have, but nobody would consider them one of the worst teams of the past decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tiered newer rookie contracts really helps go back as far as it does too. Imagine paying Jamarcus and Bradford that kind of money today...sight unseen. Draft a QB BUST high today and you can walk away after two years...but back then? Hit the five year reset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response to this topic is always the same. If one was hypothetically good enough to consistently evaluate and be in the position to draft high end QBs (good enough to win a Super Bowl), then they should be equally skilled to evaluate all the other positions on the field and field a dominate roster even with a big QB contract. In a hypothetical world you'd draft 4-5 pro-bowl talents every year and virtually never have to pay anyone. Short of this miraculous talent evaluation (no even College coaches are perfect at it), what you see much more often is that these rookie led teams tend to be very short lived and unsustainable, where as you see the highly paid QBs fall short because they generally are carrying more mediocre rosters further than they would otherwise go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

If your definition of success in the NFL is only Super Bowls, it means that 31 teams must necessarily be unsuccessful in a given year. That's not how I choose to view it. And the Falcons haven't made the playoffs 1 out of every 2 years during their existence. If you're talking about the past decade, they have, but nobody would consider them one of the worst teams of the past decade.

You're misunderstanding me. It doesn't matter what you or I think success is defined as. That's irrelevant. To the average person, success is defined by Super Bowl Championships. Head coaches, General Managers, etc. all get fired for failing to meet these expectations. Coaches have gotten fired because of the narrative that they were wasting a great QB's career before. I'm talking about general perception that if you're not first, you're last.

Why do you think Marino has the choker label? "Well winning a Super Bowl is hard." In a vacuum, that's true. You'd be correct. But very few people think about football in that way - narratives are way more important to your legacy than facts are. Hell, people consider Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees chokers even though we all know better. That's the power of narratives. Narratives don't have to be rational to be effective - in fact most narratives are pretty much never backed up by facts. That's what makes them so effective.

After the Falcons Super Bowl, there was a narrative that it would been better to go 0-16 than lose the Super Bowl. It's stupid and ridiculous, but you can absolutely find people that will defend and justify it (I run into them every day!). I still run into people that thought the franchise should have been entirely razed to the ground and moved to another city because of the Super Bowl loss. That's an irrational and illogical take, but I frequently run into people who say and believe that kind of stuff - and these are the kinds of people you have to impress to get them to buy tickets or else people will get canned. So the perception of my franchise is that of a gutless choker, and that's what people are going to think of when they think of the Falcons - trash. Hell, most people in Atlanta hate the Falcons right now and actively root against them simply because of that one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Niners paid Jimmy G and he is in the Superbowl.

The Chiefs will pay Mahomes and I have no doubt they will be continuously being in the AFCCG competing for the Superbowl.

The Seahawks paid Wilson and they are always in the playoffs with a strong chance of getting the Superbowl.

Even in a "terrible" season for the Rams they missed the playoffs by 1 game in the toughest division and was a missed GW FG away against the Seahawks for making the playoffs themselves and giving themselves another chance to defend their NFC crown to get back to the Superbowl. I have no doubt they are going anywhere and they paid their QB Goff.

The Saints paid Brees twice and they just went (13-3) back to back seasons and lost in the playoffs three straight years on the last play of the game. As long as Brees comes back I dont think the Saints are going anywhere.

The arrow is pointing in the right direction for the Eagles as long as they can stay healthy because the past two seasons they have been hit hard by the injury bug everywhere. They paid their QB Wentz.

The Cowboys are going to pay Dak and just about everyone will say they were a real coach away from getting over the hump and maybe McCarthy is that guy.

Like I can go on and on but my point is, in theory if you dont have to pay your QB then dont and you should be find to put alot of great pieces around them but with all those QBs I mentioned like they got paid or will get paid for a reason. That reason is they have showed to be a major reason for the team success. Coach and QB are tied together whether it be McVay/Goff, Reid/Mahomes, Carroll/Wilson, Pederson/Wentz, Payton/Brees, etc... Why would you want to get rid of those great relationships? We saw how the Kitchens/Mayfield went when Kitchens became the head coach. If you bring in a new QB consistently you could run into not just a downgrade in the talent and intangible but you could run into a problem in the head coach and QB relationship and that could be the downfall where a franchise would not recover. Its not easy to find the franchise QB. Just ask the Bills and Dolphins fans who have been looking for their next Kelly and Marino for ages. You cant be like the Colts who went from Peyton to Luck or the Packers who went from Favre to ARod. It doesnt work that way all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Split the Sticks said:

What do you think of a QB salary cap?  Hey they invoked a rookie cap. Remember when the No1 overall got TONS of freekin' money?

A separate QB cap, don't include it with the rest of the teams cap.  That was strange how the top picks in the draft were also some of the  highest paid players in the league.  A major flaw they finally fixed. Now we will see what they have learned over the last 10 years on what to fix when the new deal is signed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Split the Sticks said:

What do you think of a QB salary cap?  Hey they invoked a rookie cap. Remember when the No1 overall got TONS of freekin' money?

A separate QB cap, don't include it with the rest of the teams cap.  That was strange how the top picks in the draft were also some of the  highest paid players in the league.  A major flaw they finally fixed. Now we will see what they have learned over the last 10 years on what to fix when the new deal is signed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a really rainy game, then I pick the 49ers. If not, I pick the chiefs despite me preferring the 49ers style of play. I just think Mahomes is too much especially since his OL has been good at pass pro and he is mobile . It should be close and around 75 points . It should be a classic where strength meets strength, no history of cheating, and both teams are new to the SB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×