What happens when a qb contract cripples a team?

[Ray Reed]

On 7/21/2024 at 11:14 AM, AngusMcFife said:

Flacco's mega contract and subpar play crippled the Ravens from 2013-2017. The only positive year was when Kubiak was onboard as a highly overqualified OC (2014).

I mean, “crippled” is a bit hyperbolic here in this case.

2013 they were 8-6 going into the last two games of the season, which they lost. But they were in playoff contention until the final game of the regular season.

2014 they made it to the divisional round of the playoffs and were 3 pts away from an AFC Championship game

2015 the entire team was hurt and they sucked and went 5-11

2016 they were 8-6 in playoff position going into the final 2 games then lost the crazy Pittsburgh Christmas game in PIT to end their playoff chances, but again were competing for the playoffs until the last week of the season.

2017 they were 9-6 and lost the 4th and 12 insane last play TD to the Bengals to drop us from a 5 seed to out of the playoffs in 1 final play and finished 1 game out at 9-7.

Every one of those seasons besides 2015 with the desecration of injuries the Ravens were in the playoff picture or in the playoffs entering the final 2 weeks of the season. That’s not exactly “crippling”. They didn’t have the success they had the prior 5 years but it’s hard to replicate 3 AFC Championship games in 5 years and a SB win…anything less than that was going to be a disappointment sure, but this is an odd case to bring up when the operative term in this thread is “crippling a franchise”

Edited July 24 by Ray Reed

[squire12]

2 hours ago, thrILL! said:

What year will we see the first $100m/yr QB?   Someone is going to top $60m/yr in the next year or 2.   3 years ago we didn't have a $50m/yr QB yet.

2 years ago the cap was nearly 20% less than what it is in 2024.    The jump in QB salaries from $50M/ year to $60M per year is tracking with the % increase in the salary cap.

[AngusMcFife]

33 minutes ago, Ray Reed said:

I mean, “crippled” is a bit hyperbolic here in this case.

2013 they were 8-6 going into the last two games of the season, which they lost. But they were in playoff contention until the final game of the regular season.

2014 they made it to the divisional round of the playoffs and were 3 pts away from an AFC Championship game

2015 the entire team was hurt and they sucked and went 5-11

2016 they were 8-6 in playoff position going into the final 2 games then lost the crazy Pittsburgh Christmas game in PIT to end their playoff chances, but again were competing for the playoffs until the last week of the season.

2017 they were 9-6 and lost the 4th and 12 insane last play TD to the Bengals to drop us from a 5 seed to out of the playoffs in 1 final play and finished 1 game out at 9-7.

Every one of those seasons besides 2015 with the desecration of injuries the Ravens were in the playoff picture or in the playoffs entering the final 2 weeks of the season. That’s not exactly “crippling”. They didn’t have the success they had the prior 5 years but it’s hard to replicate 3 AFC Championship games in 5 years and a SB win…anything less than that was going to be a disappointment sure, but this is an odd case to bring up when the operative term in this thread is “crippling a franchise”

Ok fair critique, I will elaborate.

He crippled them by being a below average QB who held a playoff team back from making the playoffs in 4 out of 5 years. It was both his contract and the fact that he regressed as a player.

It's great the Ravens were 8-6 going in to the final weeks in 2013, but Flacco sucked all year. He was 32nd in passer rating after taking the biggest contract in NFL history. If he could have just mustered average QB production that's easily a playoff team. He was below-average in 2015-17 as well.

So I do consider it a crippling contract insofar the Ravens were a consistent playoff team that made deep runs from 2008-2012, then signed Flacco whose play and contract turned them into a mediocre team that couldn't make the playoffs.

Then once they dumped Flacco and got a good QB immediately went back to a dominating regular season team that consistently makes the playoffs. Flacco's 2013-2018 is a pretty ugly stretch.

[wackywabbit]

1 hour ago, AngusMcFife said:

Ok fair critique, I will elaborate.

He crippled them by being a below average QB who held a playoff team back from making the playoffs in 4 out of 5 years. It was both his contract and the fact that he regressed as a player.

I don't think the contract was a big factor in the decline of the team to close to average. The team had pretty mediocre drafts for that stretch and didn't really have true blue chip talent outside Justin Tucker. It's not like cap space would made the drafts between 2012 and 2016 better. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/draft.htm

So it's not the contract that "crippled" the team. It was mediocre QB play with mediocre talent that got average-ish results. 

By the time they picked up a couple blue chips (Stanley, Humphrey, Z. Smith developing late), and had an all-time great draft in 2018 things obviously turned around. Flacco's contract on the books didn't prevent that either. They were able to trade him and move on just fine.

[11sanchez11]

On 7/21/2024 at 11:50 AM, Kiwibrown said:

They have very little difelrerende between the two.

AZ gutted their roster and tanked last year cause Kyler was hurt and they still basically went .500 in the games Kyler played (Prater missed 2 game winning fgs to preserve the tank in the last game of the szn otherwise they would've went 4-4). 

This is with Greg Dortch as his #1 WR. And playing in a system he has never played in before. After coming back from an ACL.

Their #1 WR is on a rookie contract for 5 more years. #2 WR is on a rookie contract for 3 more years. LT is on a rookie contract for 4 more years. TE is on a rookie contract for 2 more years and is a TE so his contract will be bargain for how good he is. 

They have iirc 35 million in cap space rn and like 85 million in cap space this offseason. 

I wouldn't classify that as being in a crippled roster situation.

[warfelg]

8 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I don't think the contract was a big factor in the decline of the team to close to average. The team had pretty mediocre drafts for that stretch and didn't really have true blue chip talent outside Justin Tucker. It's not like cap space would made the drafts between 2012 and 2016 better. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/draft.htm

So it's not the contract that "crippled" the team. It was mediocre QB play with mediocre talent that got average-ish results. 

By the time they picked up a couple blue chips (Stanley, Humphrey, Z. Smith developing late), and had an all-time great draft in 2018 things obviously turned around. Flacco's contract on the books didn't prevent that either. They were able to trade him and move on just fine.

Very much correct. The QB contract alone doesn't "cripple" the team. It's when the team has that contract and doesn't produce that good blue chip talent. Additionally the way the rookie wage contract operates, it's when that QB contract cripples along with the 2-3 other contracts that hit you. You tend then to more rookie wage contracts to fill out the bottom of your roster over some team with a cheaper QB option who can afford to pay more of the "NFL middle class" type players.

For Baltimore the contract "crippled" them because it made it hard to move on from him when you had mediocre QB play with mediocre talent. But even with that if they had 2 solid drafts in a row and hit on a RD1 WR, got some other blue chips, you don't look at Flacco's contract as "crippling".

Really the bigger issue, and it will be interesting to see what team changes their strategy, is that teams do the trade down to collect picks to get players. I want to see a team that ends up trading back one year for future picks, then uses those to jump up to get another blue chip player while the QB is on their big contract. The other interesting one I would love to see a team do is not just front load contracts for the non-QB while he's on the rookie wage, but then front load that QB when they are due for an extension so by year 2-3 of the contract they can go out and get FA's again.

Anyways, the main point here - agree with you, the issue is how teams react after getting that QB contract, and unfortunately too many teams operate with the same MO. Hack we might see a point here now where LAC, Jax, DET, BUF start down that track now that their QB's either just signed or they hit the cap crunch of a big QB contract.

[candyman93]

It’s only crippling if:

 

1. The NFL stops making insane $$$$

2. Your GM can’t draft
 

You’d be screwed regardless 

[squire12]

Having a high draft pick and selecting a QB that doesn't become a long-term starter can be crippling as well

[Ray Reed]

16 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

Ok fair critique, I will elaborate.

He crippled them by being a below average QB who held a playoff team back from making the playoffs in 4 out of 5 years. It was both his contract and the fact that he regressed as a player.

It's great the Ravens were 8-6 going in to the final weeks in 2013, but Flacco sucked all year. He was 32nd in passer rating after taking the biggest contract in NFL history. If he could have just mustered average QB production that's easily a playoff team. He was below-average in 2015-17 as well.

So I do consider it a crippling contract insofar the Ravens were a consistent playoff team that made deep runs from 2008-2012, then signed Flacco whose play and contract turned them into a mediocre team that couldn't make the playoffs.

Then once they dumped Flacco and got a good QB immediately went back to a dominating regular season team that consistently makes the playoffs. Flacco's 2013-2018 is a pretty ugly stretch.

The problem here is that during several of those playoff runs that came before Flacco got paid, the Ravens’ regular season record wasn’t all that different from the records I explained above.

In 2009 they went 9-7, made the playoffs, and blew out the Pats in the WC round. They went 9-7 in 2017 post-Flacco contract but just happened to miss the playoffs.

The SB year in 2012 they went 10-6.

So again, it’s just odd to say that his contract “crippled” the franchise when on average they weren’t really losing many more games than some pre-contract playoff years.

Esepcially when this thread is using examples like the Russell Wilson Broncos and Kyler Murray Cardinals.

Agree to disagree I guess. I would point towards that mini-dip being MUCH more indicative of the awful drafts we had during that time.

 

Edited July 24 by Ray Reed

[AngusMcFife]

14 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

I don't think the contract was a big factor in the decline of the team to close to average. The team had pretty mediocre drafts for that stretch and didn't really have true blue chip talent outside Justin Tucker. It's not like cap space would made the drafts between 2012 and 2016 better. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/draft.htm

So it's not the contract that "crippled" the team. It was mediocre QB play with mediocre talent that got average-ish results.

Agree that the Ravens did not have true "blue chip" talent, but I feel you are underrating the quality of the teams 2013-2017. They were consistently a top-10 defense and top-5 special teams. All the need was Flacco to play like a top-10 QB and they'd be in playoffs, but Flacco couldn't muster that.

Quote

By the time they picked up a couple blue chips (Stanley, Humphrey, Z. Smith developing late), and had an all-time great draft in 2018 things obviously turned around. Flacco's contract on the books didn't prevent that either. They were able to trade him and move on just fine.

2018 was really the first year that they could get out of Flacco's contract, so I'm not sure about this point.

Also Flacco was 4-5 in 2018 and rookie Lamar was 6-1 when Lamar wasn't even that good yet. That seems crippling. The one position that was holding the team back was Flacco at QB.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

If your owner is fine with ponying up the dough, cant you eat a massive cap hit like the Matt Ryan contract and be fine soon?

[squire12]

35 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

If your owner is fine with ponying up the dough, cant you eat a massive cap hit like the Matt Ryan contract and be fine soon?

the owner can't circumvent the salary cap.  

[JaguarCrazy2832]

46 minutes ago, squire12 said:

the owner can't circumvent the salary cap.  

Right, i mentioned the cap hit

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

Right, i mentioned the cap hit

the owner doesn't pay the cap hit.  that is from the revenue sharing.  

[AngusMcFife]

10 hours ago, Ray Reed said:

The problem here is that during several of those playoff runs that came before Flacco got paid, the Ravens’ regular season record wasn’t all that different from the records I explained above.

In 2009 they went 9-7, made the playoffs, and blew out the Pats in the WC round. They went 9-7 in 2017 post-Flacco contract but just happened to miss the playoffs.

The SB year in 2012 they went 10-6.

So again, it’s just odd to say that his contract “crippled” the franchise when on average they weren’t really losing many more games than some pre-contract playoff years.

IDK, I think you are underselling the difference between the eras. Also the 2009 team was clearly superior to the 2017, just had an unlucky regular season (they were +130).

2008-2012
54-26
5 playoff appearances
9 playoff wins
1 SB

2013-2018 (first half)
44-45
1 playoff appearance
1 playoff win

Of course I agree there was some roster degradation post Super Bowl, but Flacco's failure to develop as a QB after signing the biggest deal ever at the time was "debilitating" if not "crippling".