Are teams too quick to "pay" young QBs? Small study of current QB contracts

[BStanRamFan]

We will see in the next few years a team take a stand on paying their QB coming off a rookie deal and trade them simply due to the influx of talent at the position and the easier transition these QB's are having in the NFL early in their career. 

I always thought the Cowboys would be the first with Dak. They still could, but it likely will be someone else given the optics of trading someone coming off an injury (I'd still do it if I were them).

 

The Goff bashing is warranted, but coming off a Superbowl loss where he played very well in the playoffs, can you blame them in the moment? You can't project the regression we've seen the last 2 years (2019 was a BAD O-line and you see what's now left of Gurley). 

[sledgehammer]

I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. 

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

The Goff bashing is warranted, but coming off a Superbowl loss where he played very well in the playoffs, can you blame them in the moment? You can't project the regression we've seen the last 2 years (2019 was a BAD O-line and you see what's now left of Gurley). 

My concern/hesitation at the time was that you still had a few years left (same thing I argued with Wentz) on that deal to make him THAT highly paid. A moderate extension would have been warranted/understandable. You'd have had a potential bargain/not a cap hit and he's happy because he gets guaranteed big money with the possibility of a mega-deal 3rd contract a few years later.

JMHO

[BStanRamFan]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

My concern/hesitation at the time was that you still had a few years left (same thing I argued with Wentz) on that deal to make him THAT highly paid. A moderate extension would have been warranted/understandable. You'd have had a potential bargain/not a cap hit and he's happy because he gets guaranteed big money with the possibility of a mega-deal 3rd contract a few years later.

JMHO

Yeah it's true. Rams have a history of paying people prematurely (Gurley and Cooks). Thank god we can draft well. And for all of Snead's mistakes, he makes things work otherwise. Kupp, Ramsey, Woods, and Donald are all locked in for the future. Corbett was a great trade. Rams were crucified going into the season that we were in cap hell, too much dead money with Gurley and Cooks, too tough of a division to compete in 2020....playoff win and divisional round appearence. 

 

[MWil23]

5 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Corbett was a great trade

Yeah, that's one that the Browns gave up on too early, but he sucked here in Cleveland. Plus, we ended up using essentially the return from that trade to land Wyatt Teller, arguably the best OG in the NFL this year...so everyone won I guess.  

[FrantikRam]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

Fans are allowed to have "outside the box" opinions when it comes to QBs. They aren't putting their jobs on the line. When it comes to QBs, it's this simple: If you have one who can win you football games and you let him walk, you better be able to find another who can win you games. Because if you don't, you get fired. It's easy to understand why these guys get paid. In any given year, there aren't 32 starting caliber QBs. You don't want to be one of the teams left without a starting caliber QB. Thus, they'd rather be competitive with a middle of the road starter than below average or bad with a backup caliber QB. It's easy for fans who have no skin in the game to say, "I wouldn't pay X QB."

 

What does "starting caliber" mean though? Mahomes with 10 of us would appear to be the worst QB in the league.

Mahomes drafted by the Bears might not be that great. Aaron Rodgers first overall to the Niners might have no rings. JaMarcus Russell on the Patriots might be a hall of famer.

There's an argument to be made that any player that is drafted is capable of becoming a starter, but so many fail due to the circumstances around them. If the Rams had kept Jeff Fisher, Goff might look like the biggest bust in NFL history right now. If Brady goes to another team, he might not be the GOAT - he may have gotten cut and not even had an NFL career.

We can watch Mahomes play and deduce that he'd be great anywhere - but you never really know.

When 32 teams, media, talking heads and fans all agree that a player should be a first round pick and he ends up a bust, it seems more likely that it was the environment than 99% of the NFL community being wrong.

So from that perspective, I'd pay Mahomes, Rodgers, Brees, Watson, Allen and a few others - that's it IF I have elite units around the QB. I'd be more confident in the supporting cast bringing up the QB than the QB bringing up the supporting cast, because there are only a handful that can do it. And one of the guys I would pay, Watson, went 4-12 this year with one of the worst non-QB rosters in the NFL, which shows that the QB can only do so much.

[FrantikRam]

50 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

We will see in the next few years a team take a stand on paying their QB coming off a rookie deal and trade them simply due to the influx of talent at the position and the easier transition these QB's are having in the NFL early in their career. 

I always thought the Cowboys would be the first with Dak. They still could, but it likely will be someone else given the optics of trading someone coming off an injury (I'd still do it if I were them).

 

The Goff bashing is warranted, but coming off a Superbowl loss where he played very well in the playoffs, can you blame them in the moment? You can't project the regression we've seen the last 2 years (2019 was a BAD O-line and you see what's now left of Gurley). 

 

My hesitation in paying him then was that he showed some red flags in the playoffs, particularly in the Super Bowl. The Patriots defense dominated us in every way - not just Goff - but I left that game, and then thought back to the Bears game and other bad games he had and thought, there's a pattern there - top defenses. And his supporting cast would literally never be better than it was that season since we knew Saffold would be leaving.

That's not to say I DIDN'T want to pay him, but it definitely would have made me wait to give him the extension. If a QB struggles under pressure as much as he does, then paying him and letting a borderline elite guard go seems a bit odd to me.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

 

 

I doubt a single soul actually said it'd be hard for the Chiefs to remain competitive. They'll ALWAYS be competitive.

But then so have the Packers and Saints for the most part.

There are only two different situations that we've really seen: great team with QB on rookie deal succeeds and then QB gets paid.

Mahomes, Allen - not in this conversation - but Mayfield - the question I have is this: when the Browns inevitably pay him, their supporting cast will get worse - and when that happens, the team will suffer. I contend that a QB of Mayfield's caliber is a product of the cast, and as such, the team would be better off moving on. The thing is, we've NEVER seen a team do this that was an actual Super Bowl contender (not sure if the Browns even fit that criteria).

It's back to Rams fans saying "Goff is the best QB we've had since Warner", ignoring that McVay is the best coach we've had.........ever?

Back to Mahomes - you pay him, obviously. But the Saints and Packers are great case studies for what may happen to the Chiefs. Again, Mahomes is worth every bit and more - but then so was Rodgers. I've said this a few times but it's mind blowing to me: Rodgers has only won the NFC once, has only won multiple playoff games in his career TWICE, and he's never played Brees, Manning or Brady in the playoffs - which means he was the better QB in every playoff game.

Seattle with Wilson and the LOB, the Packers after their Super Bowl win, Saints after theirs, and going back further, the Rams in the 1999 season which I remember vividly - all young teams with up and coming and/or MVP level QBs, and all thought "multiple Super Bowl wins!" - and only the Rams and Seahawks were taken out by Brady - other than that these potential dynasties withered and died despite what we thought at the time was a surefire dynasty with how young the team and/or QB was.

So it's not that the Chiefs won't remain competitive - but based on what we've seen, it's possible Mahomes never wins another Super Bowl.

For clarity, when I say competitive in this context, I mean like superbowl competitive. Obviously they'll have winning seasons more often than not, but there's a big gap between being competitive like the Pats with Brady and being competitive the Saints with Brees, over the last decade or so.

Your post really doesn't refute any of what I said though. Yeah, there's plenty of examples of teams signing QBs and then not winning much more. It all still just comes back to drafting. The Chiefs have been losing major guys in free agency for years, and have still been fine with or without Mahomes because we've drafted well enough to maintain that talent level, and we've chosen well (at least post-Dorsey) who to give what money we have to. Those are the keys. Like, honest question. Who did the Packers lose in free agency in the years following paying Rodgers, that would have made the difference for them? Because if we're saying the talent level falls because the QB gets paid, that's what you're saying. But is it that they lost talent because they paid their QB and couldn't afford to pay others, or is it that they just weren't consistently acquiring enough talent naturally in the first place? Because those are two very different issues.

I maintain my point. It is going to be no harder to maintain the talent level of the roster paying Mahomes 20% of the cap (or whatever) than it was when we were paying Berry and Houston 20% of the cap. It's the same issue (losing drafted talent that bad teams will outbid you on) with the same solution (continue drafting well enough and retaining the right guys to lower the impact of the losses.) Losing Hudson didn't matter because we had Morse, losing Albert didn't matter because we had Fisher, losing Conley and Wilson didn't matter because we had Hardman and Robinson, losing Fuller didn't matter because we got Sneed, losing Peters and Nelson didn't matter because we had Ward and Fenton. And so on, and so on. And all that predated paying Mahomes. We have always lost players to free agency under Reid because we draft and develop talent well. We have always been fine because we continued to draft and develop talent well. And if we win more superbowls under Mahomes, it will because we continued further to draft and develop talent well. It really is that simple. This offseason, if we can't retain Sammy Watkins and Daniel Sorensen and Austin Reiter, it won't matter if we get Byron Pringle and Juan Thornhill and Nick Allegretti to step up. Or if we draft replacements, or find bargain free agents that can fill their roles. It only matters if you can't pay the guys if you also can't replace them. And I'm not saying that will happen. I'm just saying, paying a QB isn't this "roster instantly gets worse" button everyone thinks it.

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, FrantikRam said:

 

What does "starting caliber" mean though? Mahomes with 10 of us would appear to be the worst QB in the league.

Mahomes drafted by the Bears might not be that great. Aaron Rodgers first overall to the Niners might have no rings. JaMarcus Russell on the Patriots might be a hall of famer.

There's an argument to be made that any player that is drafted is capable of becoming a starter, but so many fail due to the circumstances around them. If the Rams had kept Jeff Fisher, Goff might look like the biggest bust in NFL history right now. If Brady goes to another team, he might not be the GOAT - he may have gotten cut and not even had an NFL career.

We're not living in a world of what ifs. We're living in reality. Goff is a starting caliber QB who has led the team to a 42-20 record over the past four years and zero losing seasons. If you're going to walk away from a guy like that, you better have somebody capable of doing the same ready as a replacement. And no, there really isn't an argument that any QB is capable of becoming a starting caliber QB. Sean Mannion still sucked when he was playing for Sean McVay. That guy never was going to be a starting caliber QB. Nick Mullens and C.J. Beathard have not managed to look like starting caliber QBs playing for Kyle Shanahan. It's not an abstract issue. It's not nearly the difficult question you are trying to portray it to be.

Quote

 

We can watch Mahomes play and deduce that he'd be great anywhere - but you never really know.

When 32 teams, media, talking heads and fans all agree that a player should be a first round pick and he ends up a bust, it seems more likely that it was the environment than 99% of the NFL community being wrong.

 

For a smallish minority, it's environment. For the majority, it's other issues. 

Quote

So from that perspective, I'd pay Mahomes, Rodgers, Brees, Watson, Allen and a few others - that's it IF I have elite units around the QB. I'd be more confident in the supporting cast bringing up the QB than the QB bringing up the supporting cast, because there are only a handful that can do it. And one of the guys I would pay, Watson, went 4-12 this year with one of the worst non-QB rosters in the NFL, which shows that the QB can only do so much.

Easy to say this when you have no skin in the game. Let's just say that I don't think you'd hold onto your job very long unless you were one of the best QB evaluators to grace the game or lucked into an elite QB. (It's also interesting that you have Josh Allen on that list.)

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, BStanRamFan said:

We will see in the next few years a team take a stand on paying their QB coming off a rookie deal and trade them simply due to the influx of talent at the position and the easier transition these QB's are having in the NFL early in their career. 

I always thought the Cowboys would be the first with Dak. They still could, but it likely will be someone else given the optics of trading someone coming off an injury (I'd still do it if I were them). 

If anything, this season strongly evidences what a bad strategy that would have been. When it comes to cheaper, replacement QBs, Dalton is definitely pretty close to the top of that list, yet the Cowboys passing game and offense fell off a cliff when compared to Dak. And Dalton had one of the NFL's best WR corps and one of the NFL's best HBs around him.

[BStanRamFan]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

If anything, this season strongly evidences what a bad strategy that would have been. When it comes to cheaper, replacement QBs, Dalton is definitely pretty close to the top of that list, yet the Cowboys passing game and offense fell off a cliff when compared to Dak. And Dalton had one of the NFL's best WR corps and one of the NFL's best HBs around him.

Andy Dalton 4-5 as a starter

Dak Prescott 2-3 as a starter

That defense was ***.

If you trade Dak, you're presumably getting a first round pick (minimum), so you wouldn't be moving forward with Andy Dalton the following season. You get 4-5 years of affordable QB play from a rookie then the start the cycle over again. Now if that young QB does not pan out, you're picking in the top 10 again. Continue to swing.

2020 Justin Herbert #7: Hit

2019 Daniel Jones #6: Likely a miss. Picking in top 11 now. Try again

2018 Josh Allen #7: Hit

2018 Josh Rosen #10: Miss, tried again and got Kyler the following year

2017 Mitch Trubisky#2: Miss. Road it long enough but still managed the playoffs in 2 of his 4 years.

2017 Mahomes #10: Hit

2017 Watson #12: Hit

 

 

[jrry32]

6 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Andy Dalton 4-5 as a starter

Dak Prescott 2-3 as a starter

That defense was ***.

If you trade Dak, you're presumably getting a first round pick (minimum), so you wouldn't be moving forward with Andy Dalton the following season. You get 4-5 years of affordable QB play from a rookie then the start the cycle over again. Now if that young QB does not pan out, you're picking in the top 10 again. Continue to swing.

2020 Justin Herbert #7: Hit

2019 Daniel Jones #6: Likely a miss. Picking in top 11 now. Try again

2018 Josh Allen #7: Hit

2018 Josh Rosen #10: Miss, tried again and got Kyler the following year

2017 Mitch Trubisky#2: Miss. Road it long enough but still managed the playoffs in 2 of his 4 years.

2017 Mahomes #10: Hit

2017 Watson #12: Hit

 

 

In Dak's five starts, they scored 17 (vs. us), 40, 31, 38, and 37. In Dalton's nine starts, they scored 10, 3, 31, 16, 17, 30, 41, 37, and 19. Their defense was bad, but it was less bad after the first six games. Simply put, it was a great example of why it would be a massive waste of talent to refuse to pay anybody who isn't great/elite at QB.

Also, your plan has some glaring flaws. Occasionally, a QB is inept enough as a rookie that you feel comfortable moving on from him. But most rookie QBs are neither totally inept or great. So you're either going to be forced to wait, or you'll keep giving up on guys who might actually pan out. And then if you keep using your firsts on QBs, you can't also use those picks on players at other positions, which weakens your team. And there's also the fact that there's no guarantee that you're in position to get a QB you like every year and no guarantee there's even a good class of QBs every year. 

I'm going to take certainty over throwing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks.

[BStanRamFan]

5 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

In Dak's five starts, they scored 17 (vs. us), 40, 31, 38, and 37. In Dalton's nine starts, they scored 10, 3, 31, 16, 17, 30, 41, 37, and 19. Their defense was bad, but it was less bad after the first six games. Simply put, it was a great example of why it would be a massive waste of talent to refuse to pay anybody who isn't great/elite at QB.

Also, your plan has some glaring flaws. Occasionally, a QB is inept enough as a rookie that you feel comfortable moving on from him. But most rookie QBs are neither totally inept or great. So you're either going to be forced to wait, or you'll keep giving up on guys who might actually pan out. And then if you keep using your firsts on QBs, you can't also use those picks on players at other positions, which weakens your team. And there's also the fact that there's no guarantee that you're in position to get a QB you like every year and no guarantee there's even a good class of QBs every year. 

I'm going to take certainty over throwing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks.

It hasn't been done before because it carries a great amount of risk and as you pointed out, these people are making decisions for their jobs. What you need to be certain of is your ability to scout talent, your coaches ability to coach it up, and spending the abundance of FA money wisely to fill out a team around that rookie QB. It's not a coincedence that we've seen teams with rookie QB's have alot of success over the last 5 years. Someone is going to take a risk with the "betting on the come" approach. It may pay off, it may not, but that's what the people in the MLB did with money ball; tried a new approach to the financial management of a sports team.

There is no certainty outside of the very few elite talents and they are the exception. The "next man up to be paid" approach to QB's who prove they are mediocre has to stop because it's putting teams in very difficult situations. Eventually you're left with teams that cannot put good enough team together around an average QB because of the amount of cap tied to them and the rest of the team falls flat. 

Mahomes/Russ/Rodgers/Watson/ soon to be Josh Allen deserve these monster contracts. The rest should be paid as average starting QB's, but they wont be. Lamar and Baker will break the bank and let's see where that leaves Baltimore and Cleveland.

[jrry32]

2 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

It hasn't been done before because it carries a great amount of risk and as you pointed out, these people are making decisions for their jobs. What you need to be certain of is your ability to scout talent, your coaches ability to coach it up, and spending the abundance of FA money wisely to fill out a team around that rookie QB. It's not a coincedence that we've seen teams with rookie QB's have alot of success over the last 5 years. Someone is going to take a risk with the "betting on the come" approach. It may pay off, it may not, but that's what the people in the MLB did with money ball; tried a new approach to the financial management of a sports team.

There is no certainty outside of the very few elite talents and they are the exception. The "next man up to be paid" approach to QB's who prove they are mediocre has to stop because it's putting teams in very difficult situations. Eventually you're left with teams that cannot put good enough team together around an average QB because of the amount of cap tied to them and the rest of the team falls flat. 

Mahomes/Russ/Rodgers/Watson/ soon to be Josh Allen deserve these monster contracts. The rest should be paid as average starting QB's, but they wont be. Lamar and Baker will break the bank and let's see where that leaves Baltimore and Cleveland.

It's interesting how many people keep saying Josh Allen deserves a monster contract. As far as it putting teams in difficult situations, I'm far from sold on that. San Francisco made a Super Bowl run while paying Jimmy G. The Steelers and Rams won 10+ games and made the playoffs this year while paying Ben and Goff big money. The Vikings won with Cousins last year. The Titans won with Tannehill this year. 

[FrantikRam]

On 1/21/2021 at 4:43 PM, jrry32 said:

We're not living in a world of what ifs. We're living in reality. Goff is a starting caliber QB who has led the team to a 42-20 record over the past four years and zero losing seasons. If you're going to walk away from a guy like that, you better have somebody capable of doing the same ready as a replacement. And no, there really isn't an argument that any QB is capable of becoming a starting caliber QB. Sean Mannion still sucked when he was playing for Sean McVay. That guy never was going to be a starting caliber QB. Nick Mullens and C.J. Beathard have not managed to look like starting caliber QBs playing for Kyle Shanahan. It's not an abstract issue. It's not nearly the difficult question you are trying to portray it to be.

For a smallish minority, it's environment. For the majority, it's other issues. 

Easy to say this when you have no skin in the game. Let's just say that I don't think you'd hold onto your job very long unless you were one of the best QB evaluators to grace the game or lucked into an elite QB. (It's also interesting that you have Josh Allen on that list.)

 

 

Everytime you draft or sign a player it's a world of what ifs before they step into a field. Just projecting.

It's foolish IMO to refuse to upgrade a position because you've been winning but you never know if it's going to be an upgrade until they actually play

Edited January 24, 2021 by FrantikRam