Who Is Worth 40M a Year Today?

[SpacemanSpiff]

If the goal is to win the Super Bowl, ask yourself this question:

How many QBs being paid even half the 40M price tag have actually won the Super Bowl? 

One.

Wanna know how many being paid over 30 have made the Super Bowl? 

Zero. 

No one is worth this money if your goal is to win the championship. 

[wackywabbit]

10 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Seeing as though this is a four year deal: I think it will be valuable to have QBs that will still likely be either in their primes or still heavily thriving over that span of time so I would say QBs worth the IDEA of $40m: Patrick Mahomes, Russell Wilson, Lamar Jackson, Deshaun Watson, and Kyler Murray as tier one options.

Tier Two options would include guys who I’d feel a little more nervous about spending such cash on for one reason or another, but in a competitive league it would be better to “fail” at over paying than settling for a far more average talent at the position: Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Dak Prescott, Carson Wentz, Matthew Stafford, Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins, Drew Lock, Baker Mayfield, and Sam Darnold.

After that I think it’s reasonable that most of the QBs will each either age out or I don’t have nearly as good a feel about the QB. It may be shocking that I have Lock, Darnold, and Baker on here but I think their potential are all high enough that they could increase their value... and I’d rather take one of those guys rather than settle for less.

I'll throw this out there too: I'd rather have Joe Burrow on a 4 year $140M contract, never having seen him take an NFL snap, than Gardner Minshew on a 4 year $20M contract.

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by wackywabbit

[DannyB]

3 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

If there was true open bidding, probably more than 16 quarterbacks would and should get that. That's only 20% of the cap now and the difference improved QB play makes is far more useful than anything else you can do with that money.

What possible evidence is there that any single player is worth "only" 20% of the cap??

I believe the highest percent of the cap ever dedicated to a QB that won the Super Bowl is just over half of that, like 11%.

When they won the Super Bowl together, Jerry Rice and Steve Young took up almost 19% of the cap combined. And half of those players are Jerry Rice.

[DannyB]

The answer to this question is, IF ANYBODY, Mahomes. But it might very well be, nobody.

[diamondbull424]

1 minute ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

If the goal is to win the Super Bowl, ask yourself this question:

How many QBs being paid even half the 40M price tag have actually won the Super Bowl? 

One.

Wanna know how many being paid over 30 have made the Super Bowl? 

Zero. 

No one is worth this money if your goal is to win the championship. 

True. But I’m sure we can say the same for a team with most any player making elite cash. I just took a quick look at the top 25 paid defensive players in the NFL and only one was making their “elite” money while also winning a SB that year, unless I’m misremembering when a few guys got paid vs getting their rings. It was 6 total who won a SB, but most hadn’t yet been paid huge money to that point.

Which moreso tells me that the NFL Super Bowl is just a crapshoot where you need to meet specific qualifiers to have a shot at winning a SB. If you don’t meet those qualifiers you have no shot than anything else. Your scenario also supposes the current NFL as currently formatted.

But if everyone were released and everyone had to start over and draft all of their talent over in a sort of franchise draft... I’m spending my cap money first on answering the QB issue or else you spend all your years in purgatory under possible piss poor QB performances while the rest of your team is forced to shoulder the incredible load.

In the league as it’s currently outfitted, are their 15-16 QBs worth $40m? Probably not. But considering that 7 teams make the playoffs now and the incredible importance of the QB position, if I have one of the 16 or so best QBs or ones that have a combination of being the best and the longevity to reach out their four year contract; that’s a gamble you’ve got to take as it would place you firmly in that playoff contender realm which in turn makes you at least have an outside shot of being a SB contender via the Law Of Averages.

When Joe Flacco won a SB he might not have been an “elite” QB, but he was a QB that belong to that top 12-15 range of QBs. Jimmy G and Kirk Cousins are guys you can potentially win with as they can get you to the dance, you just have to get more lucky.

1 minute ago, wackywabbit said:

I'll throw this out there too: I'd rather have Joe Burrow on a 4 year $140M contract than Gardner Minshew on a 4 year $20M contract.

Completely forgot about the current rookie class. Yeah Burrow makes sense as well.

[diamondbull424]

9 minutes ago, DannyB said:

What possible evidence is there that any single player is worth "only" 20% of the cap??

I believe the highest percent of the cap ever dedicated to a QB that won the Super Bowl is just over half of that, like 11%.

When they won the Super Bowl together, Jerry Rice and Steve Young took up almost 19% of the cap combined. And half of those players are Jerry Rice.

 

8 minutes ago, DannyB said:

The answer to this question is, IF ANYBODY, Mahomes. But it might very well be, nobody.

There wouldn’t be any evidence of such as we’re talking a hypothetical scenario where you’re removing all the players off of a team and then buying back all the players via a sort of auction.

It’s like a fantasy draft in auction, sure you could say... who would pay x amount of dollars on a RB, but in fantasy the way it is scored RBs are kings and quite frequently the top RBs will go for astronomical figures.

If this were a scenario where the goal was to win in real life (vs fantasy sports) than its very likely the strategies would be similar. Players would be more likely to auction a higher percentage of their cap space to solidify a player for their dynasty league. Players might be far more likely to gamble on assembling a roster with a quality option at QB and veteran minimum for all your backup players than spending half that amount on your QBs and giving your backup players $6-7m.

Edited May 26, 2020 by diamondbull424

[DannyB]

20 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

I'll throw this out there too: I'd rather have Joe Burrow on a 4 year $140M contract, never having seen him take an NFL snap, than Gardner Minshew on a 4 year $20M contract.

 

.....WHAT!? Your takes are bananas in this thread. I don't recall them always being this insane.

You would rather have a rookie quarterback at $35 million per year, than some middling rando at only $5 per year!?

Tell you what, if I'm an NFL owner I'd rather dump $20 millions dollars in a room, light it on fire, and watch it burn, than get locked into that big of a contract for a quarterback that has never even been to an NFL training camp yet.

[SpacemanSpiff]

6 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

True. But I’m sure we can say the same for a team with most any player making elite cash. I just took a quick look at the top 25 paid defensive players in the NFL and only one was making their “elite” money while also winning a SB that year, unless I’m misremembering when a few guys got paid vs getting their rings. It was 6 total who won a SB, but most hadn’t yet been paid huge money to that point.

I think the larger point is that paying this kind of money is just bad team-building strategy to QB or any position. I mention QB specifically because the contract arms race at this position has been the single largest contributor to the problem. 

[DannyB]

5 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

There wouldn’t be any evidence of such as we’re talking a hypothetical scenario where you’re removing all the players off of a team and then buying back all the players via a sort of auction.

It’s like a fantasy draft in auction, sure you could say... who would pay x amount of dollars on a RB, but in fantasy the way it is scored RBs are kings and quite frequently the top RBs will go for astronomical figures.

If this were a scenario where the goal was to win in real life (vs fantasy sports) than its very likely the strategies would be similar. Players would be more likely to auction a higher percentage of their cap space to solidify a player for their dynasty league. Players might be far more likely to gamble on assembling a roster with a quality option at QB and veteran minimum for all your backup players than spending half that amount on your QBs and giving your backup players $6-7m.

I feel the exact opposite. If EVERY player was available in the open market, and I'm confident in my coaches, training staff, and scouts, I'm not blowing that much on one player. This isn't fantasy football, I've got 50-60 spots to fill, and I need to account for subs, packages, schemes, injuries, and so on. Mahomes won't mean jack if I can't afford a respectable defense and pass protection.

People constantly and consistently underrate depth in this sport.

[diamondbull424]

17 minutes ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

I think the larger point is that paying this kind of money is just bad team-building strategy to QB or any position. I mention QB specifically because the contract arms race at this position has been the single largest contributor to the problem. 

True. But the important thing is this is a scenario where all teams find themselves with zero players. I’ve played plenty of auction drafts and the guys who hold onto all their money, in the end have A LOT of money to spend, but players not worth the value of spending the money on.

Sure we might say, but what NFL player would want to play for “only” $1-2m as a starter? Rookies are doing it as we speak until they earn their paychecks. We saw players likely talented enough to play in the NFL playing on the XFL for half a million dollars.

So in the event where no team has any players at all, you spend your money on supplying your team with as many game changing talents at the most important positions on the field as you can and then everyone else has to settle for what’s left of the respective caps.

Now sure you would still need to scout out potential value additions such as a really good LB with cheap value such as a Josh Bynes for the Ravens in 2019 or perhaps a value OG option, backup DTs, etc. But you’re not trying to build the best 52 man roster from top to bottom, but the most impactful group of players in the league... which might only look like the best roster from 1-25, with simply “quality” options at the backup positions.

19 minutes ago, DannyB said:

.....WHAT!? Your takes are bananas in this thread. I don't recall them always being this insane.

You would rather have a rookie quarterback at $35 million per year, than some middling rando at only $5 per year!?

Tell you what, if I'm an NFL owner I'd rather dump $20 millions dollars in a room, light it on fire, and watch it burn, than get locked into that big of a contract for a quarterback that has never even been to an NFL training camp yet.

Before we got the rookie cap, teams were willing to shell out tons of money to rookie players as it was the nature of the beast. In an NFL where all teams now found themselves in a position with ZERO players, the arms race would be for QB talent and with that being the case, the value would most assuredly go up in comparison to the value of other positions.

I mean if you’re going to overpay a position would you rather it be your #2 RB or your starting QB? Your #1 corner or your backup OG? There are more instances of street level FAs coming in and completing a championship caliber team at less valuable positions than random options doing the same at the top most valuable positions in the sport.

Edited May 26, 2020 by diamondbull424

[wackywabbit]

27 minutes ago, DannyB said:

.....WHAT!? Your takes are bananas in this thread. I don't recall them always being this insane.

You would rather have a rookie quarterback at $35 million per year, than some middling rando at only $5 per year!?

Tell you what, if I'm an NFL owner I'd rather dump $20 millions dollars in a room, light it on fire, and watch it burn, than get locked into that big of a contract for a quarterback that has never even been to an NFL training camp yet.

Yep. I'd take Burrow at 40M a year and hope that he's immediately serviceable and has a 20-40% of being a top 10 QB in the 3rd and 4th year. The alternative is a QB I don't think will reach average and an extra $35M in cap space.

My opinion is that you and many others are bananas to think that $35M is so crucial.

As an example: Burrow + 2 vet min players vs Minshew, Byron Jones and DeForest Buckner at their current AAV. This is option 1 and not even close for me and wouldn't be for any GM in the league.

I'm trying to win a championship and $35M is not even close to letting me build a team that doesn't need a stretch of elite QB play.

Edited May 26, 2020 by wackywabbit

[DannyB]

4 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

Before we got the rookie cap, teams were willing to shell out tons of money to rookie players as it was the nature of the beast.

Yes, and teams HATED it. It disincentivized having the first overall pick. Teams stopped wanting it as much as they did before. Therefore bad teams were stuck with crappy contracts, which was the opposite of the intention of giving the worst teams the best picks. It was rectified BECAUSE it was a problem.

[Vorsutus]

50 minutes ago, DannyB said:

What possible evidence is there that any single player is worth "only" 20% of the cap??

I believe the highest percent of the cap ever dedicated to a QB that won the Super Bowl is just over half of that, like 11%.

When they won the Super Bowl together, Jerry Rice and Steve Young took up almost 19% of the cap combined. And half of those players are Jerry Rice.

Didn't they fudge tge cap? Or was that the Broncos?

[diamondbull424]

18 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Yes, and teams HATED it. It disincentivized having the first overall pick. Teams stopped wanting it as much as they did before. Therefore bad teams were stuck with crappy contracts, which was the opposite of the intention of giving the worst teams the best picks. It was rectified BECAUSE it was a problem.

Okay... and in this scenario it seems to be that $40m is our sort of maximum cap allotted.

If teams suddenly find themselves in need of QBs, do you think QBs aren’t going to sit back and set their market value at that $40m Max? Do top players in the NBA not take the max deal even if taking less may make them a more competitive team? Top players in the MLB? Top players in MLS? Top players in the NHL? Do top players in the NFL generally not take “the max deal” (they can find) even when that might not be best for the team’s chances of winning? Do NFL teams pay specific players beyond what their worth is if they need to change a specific element of their franchise around?

This isn’t as simple as teams saying, I want x player and the will pay him “x amount”, this is a scenario where teams will have no players and will have a sort of career day with talents. If the max is $40m, players are going to negotiation their deals with that thought in consideration. The Seahawks could’ve let Russell Wilson leave, but they didn’t. The Packers could’ve let Aaron Rodgers leave, but they didn’t. Same with Brees and the Saints. Rivers and the Chargers. The teams who drafted #1 COULD have chosen to just not sign the player asking for too much money. It eventually got out of hand because the players had the leverage in those situations.

What makes this scenario any different? It’s a giant NFL draft... only the players have to AGREE to sign with said team. Sure the first few QBs likely sign to a team with the best organizational track record (because they choose where they want to go), but after that money and opportunity will incentivize the next wave of QBs for sure.

Edited May 26, 2020 by diamondbull424

[DannyB]

2 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Yep. I'd take Burrow at 40M a year and hope that he's immediately serviceable and has a 20-40% of being a top 10 QB in the 3rd and 4th year. The alternative is a QB I don't think will reach average and an extra $35M in cap space.

My opinion is that you and many others are bananas to think that $35M is so crucial.

As an example: Burrow + 2 vet min players vs Minshew, Byron Jones and DeForest Buckner at their current AAV. This is option 1 and not even close for me and wouldn't be for any GM in the league.

If you think nothing of throwing around 17.5% of your cap willy nilly, there's nothing I can really say to you.

You take Burrow and two garbage scrubs, I'll take Minshew, throw him on the bench, and start Drew Brees or Tom Brady, and, like, Calais Campbell for example.