thebestever6 Posted January 19, 2021 Share Posted January 19, 2021 53 minutes ago, SkippyX said: Wentz had good numbers in 2018 but made 2 boneheaded decisions at the end of games so he was 5-6 instead of 7-4. Wentz was pretty awesome in 2019 with a crappy team (his numbers should have been better with 3 or 4 really awful game changing drops) He had 48 TDs to 14 picks in 27 games between 2018-19 (96.7 rate) He was like a Dak Prescott 8-8 with that 14-13 record those years. Wentz was horrific last year and there is no excuse. If you are paying him you hope you can fix what went wrong last year and put a team around him. Well farve said rodgers makes average joe's no one and someone and wasn't Fulgum their number one wr who didn't even make the Packers roster this same year? I think there's no excuses for this roster howie put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilenFroggen Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 On 1/18/2021 at 6:25 PM, SkippyX said: This is the classic Ryan Howard's (Phillies slugger) contract is outrageous! Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant the temp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 2 hours ago, EvilenFroggen said: Thanks for the clarification. I thought you meant the temp. He's still the only thing keeping Creed off the internet 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 On 1/18/2021 at 7:47 PM, FrantikRam said: This right here. I wanted the Rams to be the first team to say 'no' to an apparent "franchise QB". The data is pretty clear - when you pay a QB, the supporting cast suffers. Brees had what seemed like an endless list of league worst defenses which led to a stream of non playoff seasons. Rodgers offensive talent went from the best to the near the worst over a slow painful period of time, which somehow saw the NFCs best QB for the past 10 years not once host an NFCCG and only make one Super Bowl. And those guys are two of the top five QBs ALL TIME. People say "this is the best QB we've had in years" but in the Rams case it's also (or was) the best supporting cast, best defense and best coach. On 1/18/2021 at 8:01 PM, Tk3 said: This has LONG been my belief If you can swap a "top 10-15" QB for a pick that lands you a replacement rookie-contract QB, plus additional picks that land you a starter or two, plus saves you the cap that allows you to have 2-3 elite players at other positions - that always felt worth it And then Josh Allen happened to me, and I cannot for the life of me imagine going back to not having a QB I'm painfully worried about what happens when we have $30 million less to work with Ultimately, I think roster construction just has to be much more intentional, and you HAVE to have an elite GM who can do that properly On 1/16/2021 at 5:38 AM, Matts4313 said: 9 of the top 10 QBs on second contracts. Allen will make it 10/10 in a month or so. 11 of the 14 playoff teams had QBs on second contracts (Bills, Ravens, Browns the exclusions, all will have contracts this offseason) The majority of good defenses in the NFL have highly paid QBs. Someone explain to me how paying your top 10 QB makes your team suck again? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Paying your QB only bites you in the arse in the following scenarios: The QB was mediocre to begin with (Flacco) The QB suffers injuries Your team sucks at drafting and developing talent. If you have a good QB, you pay him. You trust your scouting department to be able to control the cost of the other 50+ players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTrav Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 6 hours ago, Matts4313 said: Paying your QB only bites you in the arse in the following scenarios: The QB was mediocre to begin with (Flacco) If you have a good QB, you pay him. You trust your scouting department to be able to control the cost of the other 50+ players. Los Angeles Rams, a case study. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 6 hours ago, Matts4313 said: Paying your QB only bites you in the arse in the following scenarios: The QB was mediocre to begin with (Flacco) If you have a good QB, you pay him. You trust your scouting department to be able to control the cost of the other 50+ players. I don't agree with this telling of what happened to the Ravens after signing Flacco. The talent of the other 50+ players is not really dependent on cap space, you need to keep drafting well. MOST of the good players on your team should always be on rookie deals. The Ravens in their 2008-2012 run had a couple first ballot HoFs (Lewis and Reed) and few guys who are on a tier below that in their prime (Yanda, Suggs, Ngata..). The Ravens were in a draft slump (definitely by their standards) after that. The best players on the team from 2013-2017 were literally a nose tackle and a kicker. Cap space isn't getting you top tier difference makers, teams don't let them go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 40 minutes ago, wackywabbit said: I don't agree with this telling of what happened to the Ravens after signing Flacco. The talent of the other 50+ players is not really dependent on cap space, you need to keep drafting well. MOST of the good players on your team should always be on rookie deals. The Ravens in their 2008-2012 run had a couple first ballot HoFs (Lewis and Reed) and few guys who are on a tier below that in their prime (Yanda, Suggs, Ngata..). The Ravens were in a draft slump (definitely by their standards) after that. The best players on the team from 2013-2017 were literally a nose tackle and a kicker. Cap space isn't getting you top tier difference makers, teams don't let them go. I was just using Flacco as an example, not the Ravens. Would you prefer if I had said Eli Manning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) Wrong thread Edited January 20, 2021 by childofpudding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 1 hour ago, Matts4313 said: I was just using Flacco as an example, not the Ravens. Would you prefer if I had said Eli Manning? Flacco is the most common example given for "After they paid him, the stopped competing for a SB". I was more addressing that idea, than your post specifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 Honestly, I feel like too much is made of QB contracts specifically when this debate comes up. Realistically, the same things you can say of QB contracts can be true of just about any positions 2nd contracts. Like, I've heard so much about how hard it will be for the Chiefs to remain competitive paying Mahomes 20% of the cap. How we're going to lose players and it will be hard to maintain the roster. But this has really already been the case for us for years, when we were paying Tamba Hali 11% of the cap and Eric Berry 9%. Or when we were paying Jamaal Charles 7% and Justin Houston 13%. Like, you've gotta pay the money to someone. The reality is, it's expensive to keep a talented roster. It always has been. The Chiefs have lost almost an entire starting roster worth of players to free agency since Reid showed up, before paying Mahomes. Because that 20% still went to the top guy or two on the roster anyway. Whether you have 80% of your cap to pay 51 players or 52 players doesn't make as big of a difference as people think. The crucial element is always going to be the team's ability to draft, regardless of where the big money on the roster is going. It's easy to point to the Eagles overpaying Wentz, but that's not why they sucked this year. They sucked because the last pro-bowler they drafted not named Wentz was Lane Johnon and Zach Ertz in 2013. You take away Wentz, throw $35M at free agent contracts, that doesn't fix that. Nothing is going to fix drafting poorly. Ever. I also feel the discussion gets too tied up in what said QB "deserves." Does Goff "deserve" $33M? Or Wentz or Jackson or Mayfield or etc. I guarantee the question from a front office perspective is much simpler. I guarantee it's, are you better off going into the offseason with Goff at QB at $33M, or with no one at QB but $33M in cap space. And I just don't think there are many seasons where you can justify the latter. Like, if you're the Cowboys, and you don't want to pay Dak $35M or $40M or whatever he asks for, what do you spend that money on that matches Dak's impact? Even if he isn't as good as Mahomes or Watson or Allen or Rodgers, what combination of players that they'll lose or on the market make that team better than Dak? Unless you really believe in a QB who is going to be there at 10. But not many GMs/HCs survive a bust at QB. And you're spending draft capital then. And you need to either make it further with that rookie on their rookie deal than you would with Dak, or you're in the same spot in a few years. And that's if they pan out. Moving on from that above average QB is honestly just more likely to make your team worse and get you fired. It's the safe, potentially lower ceiling move, but that's the reality. Also, smaller note, but the more teams are paying big money to QBs, the less it impacts the teams that are doing so. If you reach a point where like 80% of the league is paying >12% of their cap space to their QB, the impact becomes virtually non-existent, because it's a more or less even playing field. And we're not far from that. I think 20 teams had a QB on a $20M per or greater contract this past season. Could stay flat if any of Jackson/Mayfield/Allen get extensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tk3 Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 9 hours ago, Matts4313 said: Paying your QB only bites you in the arse in the following scenarios: The QB was mediocre to begin with (Flacco) The QB suffers injuries Your team sucks at drafting and developing talent. If you have a good QB, you pay him. You trust your scouting department to be able to control the cost of the other 50+ players. 3 hours ago, BigTrav said: Los Angeles Rams, a case study. So these two posts kind of bring me back to the original point of my post I don't think it's a bad thing to pay a QB. Mahomes, Watson, Rodgers.. these guys can support their salaries But the Rams made the move with Goff and it didn't pay out. Same with the Eagles and Wentz (although I would argue he earned it and then regressed). The point is it seems like if a QB is "above average" they are getting the "elite" contract Which puts the 3 teams in question (Bills/Browns/Ravens) in the predicament of figuring out if its the right call or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tk3 Posted January 20, 2021 Author Share Posted January 20, 2021 2 hours ago, Matts4313 said: I was just using Flacco as an example, not the Ravens. Would you prefer if I had said Eli Manning? Goff is the correct QB contract scapegoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 20, 2021 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, Tk3 said: So these two posts kind of bring me back to the original point of my post I don't think it's a bad thing to pay a QB. Mahomes, Watson, Rodgers.. these guys can support their salaries But the Rams made the move with Goff and it didn't pay out. Same with the Eagles and Wentz (although I would argue he earned it and then regressed). The point is it seems like if a QB is "above average" they are getting the "elite" contract Which puts the 3 teams in question (Bills/Browns/Ravens) in the predicament of figuring out if its the right call or not Give it a couple years and Goff/Wentz will look like mediocre contracts. Its the way of the NFL. That said - I think my stance is fairly well known on both those QBs, so ill leave my bias out of it. Edited January 21, 2021 by Matts4313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolmesPriest Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 we paid Patrick Mahomes II around half a billion dollars, so far it seems to be working out ok 🥰 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.