QB Debate: 3 Questions that need answers

[Matts4313]

I have been having a debate for 2 years with some fellow Cowboys fans and Its time to get some outside perspective. The basis of this debate is in todays NFL how important is a QB on a franchise contract. So lets set up:

Franchise QB baseline: For Cowboys fans this is obviously Dak, but you can use any QB that you think fits the criteria:

• Considered a top 10 QB
• Probowl caliber/winner
• 1st extension
• Will be paid top 5

So that could be Jackson for Ravens fans. Murray for Cards fans. Mayfield for Browns fans. Allen for Bills fans. Goff/Wentz for Rams/Eagles fans (try to consider the thinking at the time you signed). And I guess in the future Herbert/Burrow/Tau/etc. You get the point. A franchise QB.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 1: Its better to pay a cheap QB and use the money to bolster your roster than to pay your top 10 QB top 5 money. 

Example: Paying Cam Newton or Andy Dalton less than $3m, so that you can use the other $35m on free agents.

Question 1: If it was your team, do you believe your team would be better off not extending your QB and using the money on free agents? With the goal being a superbowl.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 2: "QBs are a dime a dozen" - in todays NFL its easy to find a franchise QB in the draft.

Example: Your team consistently has mid-round (~#16ish) picks with fluke years that are drastically higher/lower. 

Question 2: Do you think you can replace your QB every ~5ish years in the draft and eventually get to a superbowl? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 3: QBs should be judge on the their record.

Example: Franchise QB plays a good playoff team and loses. Lesser QB plays a terrible team and wins. Both QBs play well, lets say a 300/2td/0int game.

Question: Do you judge QBs by the quality of their individual play with context? Or do you judge it on if the team wins/loses? 

 

I'm going to stay out of the debate aside from answering questions. But I will be very excited to hear what you all say!

Edited December 30, 2020 by Matts4313

[bigbadbuff]

If there is any hesitation whatsoever that your QB isn’t MVP any given year, you don’t pay them.

“Top 10” is relative depending on how deep the league is at that position.

If Josh Allen plays like this again next year we have no choice, we have to pay him.

If Dak had a season based on the trajectory he was on to start this year...you pay him.

I’m NEVER going with the first scenario. It’s so rare for that to happen, i.e lightning in a bottle with Foles. It’s a Quarterback league. That’s what dynasties are made of. Period.

Scenario 2 is interesting, but you would have to have a front office with proven success and a long leash because you aren’t going to hit on qb’s that often, if I’m going that route I’m drafting multiple qbs like Washington did with RG3 and Cousins, and try to better my odds.

 

I think it’s quite simple, even if i feel like my hands are tied with a fat QB contract, if i have a Russ, Rodgers, Mahomes type i feel like I’m in it every single year, and it’s “easier” for me to draft other positions and sign cast offs and strike gold that way than playing with the fire that is trying to win with a guy you’re not confident in.

 

I will use the Bills as an example, because that’s my favorite team and the one I know most about. Yes we haven’t had to deal out a monster QB contract yet, but Brandon Beane has found key pieces that were cast offs that have helped tremendously (Beasley, Hyde, Poyer etc). With him at the helm i feel comfortable about him bargain shopping and hitting knowing i have a franchise, MVP caliber QB on my team.

 

 

[Bearerofnews]

Pay Herbert whatever he wants. Chargers are bottom 3 in YPC in rushing offense, 24th ranked scoring defense and bottom 5 oline in pressure rate, with the worst ST's and has kept Chargers in just about every game but the Pats. As a rookie with no preseason and a duration of camp being done virtually. You gotta pay that.

[beekay414]

I'm of the belief that only a handful of these guys are worth mortgaging cap space for. Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, Watson, prime Brees, Brady, Luck, those types. When you choose to invest high draft capital in someone and then double down and pay them big money (Goff, Wentz) just because you spent that capital will never make sense to me. Then guys like Cousins, Foles, etc getting $20-30 Million. The desperation to find a QB leads to drastic mistakes far more often than it does actual success. It's not really black or white. There's so much gray area in that decision. Context matters and you have to break down so many factors.

[Malfatron]

colorful

[Scoundrel]

I’d pay you to take Drew Lock

[JAF-N72EX]

3 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 1: Its better to pay a cheap QB and use the money to bolster your roster than to pay your top 10 QB top 5 money. 

Example: Paying Cam Newton or Andy Dalton less than $3m, so that you can use the other $35m on free agents.

Question 1: If it was your team, do you believe your team would be better off not extending your QB and using the money on free agents? With the goal being a superbowl.

Scenario 1:  If you have a top-10 QB then you pay him, regardless, because those are VERY hard to find.  That said, whether or not said QB is truly considered a "top10 QB" is of course very subjective.  You should never rely on broken QBs like Newton to carry your team to a SB (who has shown for years that his body is giving up) because it's only a matter of time.  

Answer to Q1: Yes. But our QB is closer to a top-10 backup QB in the league than he is a top-10 starting QB.

3 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 2: "QBs are a dime a dozen" - in todays NFL its easy to find a franchise QB in the draft.

Example: Your team consistently has mid-round (~#16ish) picks with fluke years that are drastically higher/lower. 

Question 2: Do you think you can replace your QB every ~5ish years in the draft and eventually get to a superbowl? 

Scenario 2:  It is absolutely NOT easy to find a franchise QB in the draft.  It's almost luck. 

Answer Q2: I think so.  I am never one to crown a QB after 1 good year or even 2,  like so many others tend to do so prematurely.

Here is how I look at QB's and whether or not they are worth investing more time in.   

I am still very old-school with the idea that it still takes 5 years to truly judge a QB, and I stand by that notion, but only IF that QB has shown me enough within the first 3 years to be willing to give him more time.  But if he has been absolutely terrible in his first 3 years and shown no progression at all, then chances are he is not ever going to be a QB capable of elevating a team enough to win a SB and it's time move on.

4 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 3: QBs should be judge on the their record.

Example: Franchise QB plays a good playoff team and loses. Lesser QB plays a terrible team and wins. Both QBs play well, lets say a 300/2td/0int game.

Question: Do you judge QBs by the quality of their individual play with context? Or do you judge it on if the team wins/loses? 

Scenario 3: Never. The NFL is the ultimate team sport. The QB position may be the most important position, and there may be times where your QB has to step up to help your team win, but it's still a team game. 

Example:  Mitch Trubisky currently has a 29-20 career record---in spite of his play for the most part.  Now raise your hand if you think Mitch is a SB caliber QB? It's okay....God willing, I'll still be alive 20 years from now so I'll wait. 

Answer to Q3: ALWAYS individual play with context. 

 

[Matts4313]

1 hour ago, beekay414 said:

I'm of the belief that only a handful of these guys are worth mortgaging cap space for. Mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, Watson, prime Brees, Brady, Luck, those types. When you choose to invest high draft capital in someone and then double down and pay them big money (Goff, Wentz) just because you spent that capital will never make sense to me. Then guys like Cousins, Foles, etc getting $20-30 Million. The desperation to find a QB leads to drastic mistakes far more often than it does actual success. It's not really black or white. There's so much gray area in that decision. Context matters and you have to break down so many factors.

I tried to give a bunch of examples of guys as well as criteria to allow people to answer. I am assuming Foles is not in your top 10, right? So he doesnt apply to these questions.

54 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

colorful

Thanks. Now answer you silly goose.

52 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I’d pay you to take Drew Lock

See the above answer. These questions are about good QBs friendo.

[Malfatron]

12 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Thanks. Now answer you silly goose.

just find a franchise qb.

eventually he will win the big one.

Dont overpay on qbs though, or you will be in qb purgatory like vikings, rams, and lions

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

just find a franchise qb.

eventually he will win the big one.

Dont overpay on qbs though, or you will be in qb purgatory like vikings, rams, and lions

From the guy who just told another dude you like lengthy answers, this was right to the point and didnt even really address the questions fully. Thats a double fail. 

lynch malf 

 

PS - only 29 QBs in NFL history have won a superbowl. There have been a lot more than 29 franchise QBs.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Matts4313

[Malfatron]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

From the guy who just told another dude you like lengthy answers, this was right to the point and didnt even really address the questions fully. Thats a double fail. 

lynch malf 

 

PS - only 29 QBs in NFL history have won a superbowl. There have been a lot more than 29 franchise QBs.

get a guy on a cheap deal.

if hes not top 8, move on and dont overpay

[RandyMossIsBoss]

I'm thinking only the elite are worth the record breaking contracts. Either you have a Wilson/Mahomes/Rodgers or you don't. If you think you have a top 5ish QB, perennial MVP candidate, or on their way to being that, then pay them the money. If there's any hesitation, keep looking. To me, if every QB under 35, and in year 3+, was an FA in 2021, that would translate to only following guys getting fat stacks:

• Wilson
• Mahomes
• Watson (pretty much there)
• Allen (think he's on his way to being elite)
• Lamar (^^^)
• Tannehill (bit of an enigma. I feel like nobody wants to entertain him as upper echelon QB because he so firmly established himself as... not that in Miami, but reality is for 1.5 years now he has been as good as anyone not vying for an MVP)

Everyone else w/ a QB under 35, past year 3? Keep looking, don't tie yourself up to your non-elite QB. Now we've seen how volatile QB play can be in this league, so this is FAR from an exact science. Plenty of teams will give out contracts that I would consider good at the time, but poor in hindsight, under this philosophy, and I'm largely ignoring context here. I mean SBs are hard to come by, if you are on the cusp of a SB, but your non elite franchise QB (say a Stafford or Matt Ryan) is expiring? I'm throwing my own philosophy out the window and re-signing them to the necessary mega deal, you can't afford to squander any SB window in this league. That's where in practice I probably only end up advocating for very few franchise level QBs to not get extended, because so many teams can reasonably argue they are on the cusp. 

 

This isn't the early 2000s when rookies took years to really be... good. For various reasons, rookies can be net positive QBs from day 1 in the NFL now. Declining to extend your franchise QB and opting for a rookie QB does not mean you are throwing in the towel for the upcoming season like it may have several years ago. You are taking on that risk no doubt, as you enter unfamiliar territory whenever you move on from a QB, but it's not certain doom and you may be surprised.

 

Let's look at some extensions since 2017 of guys not listed above and, at the time whether I'm giving them out or not, just to see how much this sort of philosophy actually changes things in practice when context is there.

 

• Stafford 2017 extension: Stafford is certainly a franchise QB at this point, debatably top 10, late 20s, but he's given you maybe 1 pro bowl caliber season in the 4 years since his last extension. Has never put together any sort of MVP level year. Seems less and less likely he will lever be elite. The Lions are coming off a playoff appearance... but they were 9-7 and an easy out in the postseason. There's no SB on the horizon here even among Lion's most delusional fans. Instead of making Stafford the most highly paid QB in football, and banking on poor supporting casts being the only thing keeping him from elite status, just move on. Do a soft rebuild, use that cap to build a quality roster, etc.
• Derek Carr 2017 extension: Maybe my most controversial take here. So Raiders are coming off a 12-4 year, and over the past 2 seasons Carr is averaging 31 TDs to 10 INTs.  With those numbers, it's certainly reasonable to have viewed him on an elite trajectory, and at 12-4, a SB window... but I just never saw that. I thought Carr was playing above his numbers, benefitting from sneaky good support system. The Raiders? Frauds, they were narrowly winning games that year and it just seemed like a lucky year. Maybe I'm being blinded by hindsight here? Who knows... but to my memory I don't think this team was on the cusp for a ring, and I don't think Carr showed enough to warrant making him the highest paid QB (for a month). I wait the extra year I am afforded of him under contract to see if he gives me confidence in his elite potential or see if we have real SB contenders on our hands.
• Kirk Cousins 2018 deal: This one is interesting, but I still like it even with my "strict" criteria. The bottom line is you just went 13-3 with Case Keenum. You have every right to think you will be contending for another SB in 2018, and rather than relying on a career journeyman to repeat magic (not to mention you'd have to pay him, not Kirk money but 2/3s of it), roll with the safest option out there: An established top 15 QB. It's just 3 years, make the most of your SB window.
• Matt Ryan 2018 extension: MVP winner 2 years earlier, firmly established as a top 8 QB but from my memory not in the elite conversation and at 33 probably was never going to be there. Falcons were coming off back to back playoff seasons, but Ryan and the offense took a step back in 2017. Still, your 2 years removed from a SB you won in 99/100 alternate universes, it is very reasonable to consider a SB run as possibility in 2018.
• Carson Wentz 2019 extension: MVP caliber season 2 years earlier. Mid 20s. Good not great 2018. 2 years ended on IR. Ideally you wait until the next season to make this extension, but given the QB arms race the Eagles want to get out in front and make it happen, which implies no worry about the injuries. You're 2 years removed from a SB win, you just narrowly lost in the divisional playoffs. I think you have reason to believe Wentz can be elite, AND that you are on cusp of SB.
• Jared Goff 2019 extension: Another extension that ideally you waited a bit for, but that arms race makes it tough to wait since the price jumps every year. Played firmly at a top 10 level between 2017 and 1st half of 2018. Mid 20s. Not sure how much confidence you can have in him being an elite QB in this league at this point, but you just went to the SB. Now is not the time to play QB musical chairs.
• Kirk Cousins 2020 extension: Foolish. This team was not on the cusp of a SB, coming off a good season sure but not exactly a SB window in my eyes. Cousins at this point has made it clear he is at best a top 10 QB. He will never be elite, and probably not even capable of an MVP campaign even if the perfect pieces were there (which most top 10 guys are capable of). 

The Jimmy G deal I won't include because that's a bit of an odd circumstance. By making the trade you have locked yourself into re-signing him at market value. So maybe I don't make the trade? Considering his youth and inexperience, the 49ers essentially "drafted" Jimmy G except there was no rookie wage scale to bind him and they had to pay ludicrous amount of money for an unproven commodity. I just go ahead and draft a QB in 2018 instead. In hindsight, that very well may have been the poor move since with Jimmy you are a few bounces from a SB ring, and if I hadn't made it clear, SB ring trumps everything.

 

So in this little exercise, we still end up with 4 QBs who I don't consider elite or on an elite trajectory getting paid top tier money (which is against my philosophy) in 2020+. The point? Context just matters almost too much to answer this kind of question.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

3 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Pay Herbert whatever he wants. Chargers are bottom 3 in YPC in rushing offense, 24th ranked scoring defense and bottom 5 oline in pressure rate, with the worst ST's and has kept Chargers in just about every game but the Pats. As a rookie with no preseason and a duration of camp being done virtually. You gotta pay that.

Only one year though. Luckily for the Chargers he's on that rookie deal. 

[BigTrav]

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 1: Its better to pay a cheap QB and use the money to bolster your roster than to pay your top 10 QB top 5 money. 

Example: Paying Cam Newton or Andy Dalton less than $3m, so that you can use the other $35m on free agents.

Question 1: If it was your team, do you believe your team would be better off not extending your QB and using the money on free agents? With the goal being a superbowl.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

KC fans should be exempt, because we have broken QBing. We've completed it. But I like debates so here goes;

There's only 1 scenario where I think this should be used, and it's to put the pieces in place (Offensive Line, Receivers) before you eventually get your franchise, well paid, QB. Those two you've used as examples are an advertisement why this scenario sucks. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

Scenario 2: "QBs are a dime a dozen" - in todays NFL its easy to find a franchise QB in the draft.

Example: Your team consistently has mid-round (~#16ish) picks with fluke years that are drastically higher/lower. 

Question 2: Do you think you can replace your QB every ~5ish years in the draft and eventually get to a superbowl? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you probably can because diamonds in the rough exist. I mean, Dak is an example of a good QB who was found outside the top half of round 1. If you had other things in place that more successful teams do, you may have won a superbowl with him by now. It's not a very pro-active approach, but you probably can be successful once every so many years

 

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 3: QBs should be judge on the their record.

Example: Franchise QB plays a good playoff team and loses. Lesser QB plays a terrible team and wins. Both QBs play well, lets say a 300/2td/0int game.

Question: Do you judge QBs by the quality of their individual play with context? Or do you judge it on if the team wins/loses? 

 

 

 

Can you not factor both in? I guess I'd say the former and you pay a QB to his ability, but this scenario sort of proves scenario 1 correct? Clearly the other team had a better overall roster and isn't paying the QB much, and they win? I dunno, I think you've got to lock that franchise QB up, or someone else will. 

 

Cowboys should lock Dak up with whatever it takes, tbh. He's good enough to win a SB with that offensive roster. Other things need more attention

[diamondbull424]

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 1: Its better to pay a cheap QB and use the money to bolster your roster than to pay your top 10 QB top 5 money. 

Example: Paying Cam Newton or Andy Dalton less than $3m, so that you can use the other $35m on free agents.

Question 1: If it was your team, do you believe your team would be better off not extending your QB and using the money on free agents? With the goal being a superbowl.

Perhaps there’s some argument to be made here as the Ravens won the SB in 2000 with Dilfer and 2012 with Flacco. Yet, neither of those squads were sustainably great. Guys are always going to want to get paid their fair due, especially if the team is having success. Other teams will throw plenty of money at them and you’re always revamping your roster. If you’re not paying your QB, then you’re paying your lockdown corners.

What’s more, what fundamentally puts me on the side of paying the franchise QB top 5 money is that the guy who is a top 10 QB, will allow the team to recruit team talent that otherwise might’ve been unavailable to them. Terrell Owens was supposed to be a Baltimore Raven prior to going to the Eagles, yet he refused his trade because he would’ve been playing with a crappy QB. While he agreed to play for the Eagles because McNabb was a top 10 QB, we missed out on talent we otherwise would've been able to bring in because the destination wasn’t attractive enough. Another example would be all the “reclamation projects” or “not yet past their prime” veterans that have flocked over to the top NFL teams over the years for less than they could make elsewhere in order to ring chase. Without a franchise QB, guys are less likely to believe you’re a contender and thus less likely to sign for less than their market value to ring chase with your squad.

So again, I think paying the QB is offset some by the decreased market value guys are willing to accept by playing alongside said QB.

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 2: "QBs are a dime a dozen" - in todays NFL its easy to find a franchise QB in the draft.

Example: Your team consistently has mid-round (~#16ish) picks with fluke years that are drastically higher/lower. 

Question 2: Do you think you can replace your QB every ~5ish years in the draft and eventually get to a superbowl? 

If your team is constantly finishing in the middle of the draft round and you’ve yet to pay your QB, it sounds to me like the QB isn’t likely a top 10 option OR the front office/coaching staff isn’t particularly good. If a QB is truly that good and the front office/coaching is of reasonable quality, the QB should be finishing far closer to the bottom 20s outside of an injury lose season.

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Scenario 3: QBs should be judge on the their record.

Example: Franchise QB plays a good playoff team and loses. Lesser QB plays a terrible team and wins. Both QBs play well, lets say a 300/2td/0int game.

Question: Do you judge QBs by the quality of their individual play with context? Or do you judge it on if the team wins/loses? 

I mean, I think it’s both. QBs should be judged on their record. The ultimate goal of the NFL isn’t to put up cute stats, but win football games. If someone told me I could either have a QB that would break every single passing record in NFL history and such records would never be broken OR I could have a QB that was of average stats, but won every single game in his 10 year career, finishing with 10 SB rings... I would quite easily take the latter.

Yet it’s more nuanced then either example because in professional sports everyone loses. So if a guy loses but plays well, I’m not going to lambast said player for not doing his part to win. However if QB#2 plays and has a similar performance against a terrible team, I’m also not lambasting him for not having done more. You can only play who’’s on your schedule. That said, I’m still giving this tie to the player who won against the terrible team because he found a way to win and getting wins at the professional level isn’t easy. Whether its a terrible team or not, we’ve seen terrible teams upset good teams plenty of times. So finding a way to win, at the end of the day, is what matters most IMO.

So wins first, context a close second....