Is Baker Mayfield worth an extension

[Ryan_W]

1 hour ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Russell Wilson's contract has sank the Seahawks.

I think it took a lot more than just his contract to sink the ship.

coaching, injuries, draft whiffs, trade debacles

paying RW was the one thing they've never did wrong

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

44 minutes ago, Ryan_W said:

I think it took a lot more than just his contract to sink the ship.

coaching, injuries, draft whiffs, trade debacles

paying RW was the one thing they've never did wrong

Paying your QB isn't wrong, it just severely limits what you can do as a franchise. The Seahawks have also made a multitude of other mistakes (highlighted above), but when you're also paying your QB $100M, it seriously amplifies and limits what you can do.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

 

47 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

The Steele signed Big ben to a 6/25 deal w/10M gtd from 2004-2009 and they still went 73-33 during that time frame including; 3 division championships, 4 playoff appearances, 1 AFCC appearance, 2 SB appearances, and 1 SB win. This includes the 2009 season when they faced alot of injuries including Troy P.  

Then they gave Ben another 6/90 extension during the 2008 offseason starting in 2010-2015 they went 64-39 during this stretch that included 2 division championships, 4 playoffs appearances, and another SB appearance.

I could include others but this was the one that initially came to mind.

Correlating QB contracts to teams wins is a silly thing to do for so many reasons.

Who else could you include? So far we've got Ben Roethlisberger and like maybe Peyton Manning?

[JAF-N72EX]

10 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

 

Who else could you include? So far we've got Ben Roethlisberger and like maybe Peyton Manning?

You asked to name a QB and I gave you one.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

8 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

You asked to name a QB and I gave you one.

You said there were others, too. I'm just curious. This argument is not something I'm 100% on, but someone mentioned it like a couple years ago here and ever since then I've been paying attention to it and it's pretty solid. Idk maybe Ben was an anomaly?

[JAF-N72EX]

36 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

You said there were others, too. I'm just curious. This argument is not something I'm 100% on, but someone mentioned it like a couple years ago here and ever since then I've been paying attention to it and it's pretty solid. Idk maybe Ben was an anomaly?

Would you agree that every team loss is not on the QB? That was a rhetorical question (because I know you're smarter than that) but one that should answer your question.

There is so much more that goes into building that is outside of the QBs control. Just ask Elway, Brees, Rodgers, etc. It could be poor drafting, poor coaching development, poor usage of cap in FA, or no FA signing at all --as was the case with ROdgers under ted Thomson who refused to sign FA's).

Rodgers and Brees, for example, made MILLIONS and played up to thier contracts to tone of being a first ballot hall of famers and yet they only have 1 SB appearance to show for it. Why do you think that is?

DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT's why.  And it's not like they didn't try to address it in the draft or have the money either (look it up it's amazing---CBs like Heyward were average in GB but suddenly flourished with the Chargers).

The GM/HC just simply failed to at recognizing talent and/or the staff failed to development them. Look at the Packers. They have spent an abundance of draft capital AND money for the last 10 years or so and Rodgers STILL doesn't have a good defense despite changing regimes. Look at Brees......how many years did his offense carry that team?

Brees finally won a SB when his defense finally carried their weight (albeit only being an opportunist defense) and Rodgers finally won his SB during the only year he had a good defense (Although Nick Collins suffering a career ending injury really derailed this).

Again man, any team can have sustainable success in this league but winning is hard. And just because a team loses does not suddenly mean that it's because X team paid Y QB Z amount. That's ridiculous to me.

Edited October 31, 2021 by JAF-N72EX

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

5 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Would you agree that every team loss is not on the QB? That was a rhetorical question (because I know you're smarter than that) but one that should answer your question.

It's more than that, and even more simple though. Attributing X cap space to your QB means you have less room for error to fill out the rest of the roster (usually you have to become draft heavy and if you miss on draft picks, those misses become amplified). So after you pay a QB, I would say when your team begins to weaken and you start losing more games, it's not the fault of the QB directly.

5 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

There is so much more that goes into building that is outside of the QBs control. Just ask Elway, Brees, Rodgers, etc. It could be poor drafting, poor coaching development, poor usage of cap in FA, or no FA signing at all --as was the case with ROdgers under ted Thomson who refused to sign FA's).

Rodgers and Brees, for example, made MILLIONS and played up to thier contracts to tone of being a first ballot hall of famers and yet they only have 1 SB appearance to show for it. Why do you think that is?

Because their franchises could not build a competent team around them, which you could largely argue is due to the lack of cap space and missed draft picks.

5 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

DEFENSE!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT's why.  And it's not like they didn't try to address it in the draft or have the money either (look it up it's amazing---CBs like Heyward were average in GB but suddenly flourished with the Chargers).

Teams certainly try, they just fail because when you tie up so much money in your QB you simply cannot spend competitively at the same rate as the rest of the league, especially teams with QB's on rookie deals.

 

[JAF-N72EX]

3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

It's more than that, and even more simple though. Attributing X cap space to your QB means you have less room for error to fill out the rest of the roster (usually you have to become draft heavy and if you miss on draft picks, those misses become amplified). So after you pay a QB, I would say when your team begins to weaken and you start losing more games, it's not the fault of the QB directly.

It's not that simple and you're actually inadvertently saying the same thing without realizing it. The onus is still on the FO to find the talent to build around the QB.

9 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Because their franchises could not build a competent team around them, which you could largely argue is due to the lack of cap space and missed draft picks.

Exactly. Now how do you correlate this directly to QB contracts when there is so many hands in the cookie jar?

Teams struggle to build around mediocre QBs who are playing for pennies. By this logic, those teams should have the upper hand and be able to build pretty quickly, right? As a Bears fan.....I can't tell you how wrong that is lol.

9 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Teams certainly try, they just fail because when you tie up so much money in your QB you simply cannot spend competitively at the same rate as the rest of the league, especially teams with QB's on rookie deals.

The Packers just spent ~100M a couple years ago to sign both Smith's in free agency and Amos. And that's not counting extended Kenny Clark and Arron Jones. Nor is it counting the fact they have drafted about 40 defensive players in the 4 rounds in the last 10 years......and despite all of this....the defense is still crap.

It had nothing to do with money. The organization has failed to recognize talent and develop them in order to build around Rodgers. Just like NO did with Brees.

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

 

Who else could you include? So far we've got Ben Roethlisberger and like maybe Peyton Manning?

Might depend how far you want to go back. Since 1994 when the salary cap was introduced? I do remember Steve Young signed a mega deal I believe in 1993, and the team was pretty successful until a year after he signed his next contract in I think 1997. Every year a Super Bowl contender. Favre had mega contracts signed with lengths of 94-98, 97-2003, and 2001 to 2010. Packers fans probably don't regret it, as that organization almost every year was a Super Bowl contender. 

Personally I'm in the camp of just bowing down to a quarterback's demands if they show with a big enough sample size they're at least fringe 10 ten level performers in addition to being able to stay healthy. It's the organization's job to help mitigate the financial damage by finding guys in the draft that can turn into quality players. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by TecmoSuperJoe

[candyman93]

8 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Paying your QB isn't wrong, it just severely limits what you can do as a franchise. The Seahawks have also made a multitude of other mistakes (highlighted above), but when you're also paying your QB $100M, it seriously amplifies and limits what you can do.

I think teams are going to be forced to build their teams how Dallas and Kansas City have. Just go completely all in on offense and forget the defense. Maybe you get lucky like Dallas and hit on some defensive players in the draft.

[MWil23]

It’s so hard to use this era as justification though, because almost every quarterback in the past 20 years to win a Super Bowl was named Manning, Brady, or Ben. You have outliers like Brees, Wilson, Flacco, and Mahomes, but it could absolutely also be the TB12 effect too. Let’s not pretend like a guy who has been to 10 of the past 20 Super Bowls hasn’t also greatly skewed that metric. Correlation doesn’t always equal causation.

[HerbertGOAT]

Baker is not elite, but he is absolutely worth an extension. The Browns spent 20 years looking for ANYBODY of competency, and now they have one. He loves Cleveland, and they love him. He wouldn't be worth an extension by most other teams that would have drafted him, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. He's good enough to win you some games, and not bad enough to lose most of them. Given his production, I find it hard to believe he gets the 35+ per year that has been rumored.

[iknowcool]

12 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

The Joe Flacco contract signing directly screwed us cap wise for many years.

I mean, let's be real.  It was Joe Flacco.  No disrespect to Flacco but a fan had to be fooling themselves to think that contract was sensible.  

I think everyone would agree you shouldn't be paying average QBs $100m.  He had an historically great postseason run, but like I said... let's be real.  We all knew who Joe Flacco was.

[Flounch]

The issue in NFL is that QB tends to get a contract that is bigger than the last QB contract even if this QB is no better than him.

They should set a high bar like, hey Tom Brady/Mahomes etc... gets 25 milllions, you are not playing at their level, you will get less. That is how GM should play it. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

13 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

It's not that simple and you're actually inadvertently saying the same thing without realizing it. The onus is still on the FO to find the talent to build around the QB.

Yeah? When you have a rookie QB, it's much easier to do that.

13 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Exactly. Now how do you correlate this directly to QB contracts when there is so many hands in the cookie jar?

My entire argument is that franchises should not pay QB's top dollar at this point if they want to compete for Superbowls. QB's should absolutely get their money, but if you're a franchise looking to win a Superbowl, you're doing it on a rookie QB contract and maybe the first 1-2 years after you pay a QB. That's it. 

13 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Teams struggle to build around mediocre QBs who are playing for pennies. By this logic, those teams should have the upper hand and be able to build pretty quickly, right? As a Bears fan.....I can't tell you how wrong that is lol.

The Bears have a horrible coach and also didn't have a QB. They have literally everything else.

5 hours ago, iknowcool said:

I mean, let's be real.  It was Joe Flacco.  No disrespect to Flacco but a fan had to be fooling themselves to think that contract was sensible.  

I think everyone would agree you shouldn't be paying average QBs $100m.  He had an historically great postseason run, but like I said... let's be real.  We all knew who Joe Flacco was.

Yeah, and so let's circle back around to Baker Mayfield here and apply this logic. Do you really want to pay a guy like Baker $100M or $40M/year when it's almost a proven fact it's going to hinder your team and force you to build around him? I don't think the Browns have a choice because he's the best QB they've had in decades, but their team is still winning games because they have a great OL and Chubb/Hunt, not because of Baker.