NFL News & Notes

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Which is why you, or anyone who would, will never get the opportunity. 

Wrong.

The first domino to fall was Montana.

Then Favre.

Russell Wilson was the third.

It will happen eventually.

It will probably reset the QB market a little bit.

Just look at the league as it is right now. You've got Rush looking like a competent QB. Kirk Cousins was really the first hint of how things were going to be with all these rule changes benefiting the offense. There will always be 3-4 Kirk Cousin quarterbacks in the league. Guys who can come in and look like a franchise QB.

So if you can load up on receivers and offensive line and pay a 4th round QB 4th round money for 4 years...

[Packerraymond]

13 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Wrong.

The first domino to fall was Montana.

Then Favre.

Russell Wilson was the third.

It will happen eventually.

It will probably reset the QB market a little bit.

Just look at the league as it is right now. You've got Rush looking like a competent QB. Kirk Cousins was really the first hint of how things were going to be with all these rule changes benefiting the offense. There will always be 3-4 Kirk Cousin quarterbacks in the league. Guys who can come in and look like a franchise QB.

So if you can load up on receivers and offensive line and pay a 4th round QB 4th round money for 4 years...

You'll make the playoffs and not make the Super Bowl unless that QB plays at an elite level.

[MacReady]

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You'll make the playoffs and not make the Super Bowl unless that QB plays at an elite level.

As opposed to making the playoffs only to rely on that elite QB not being able to play at an elite level because he doesn't have any help or a defense because he's taking too much money?

The Rams are an outlier. They went a different way, pushed all their money forward, traded all of their assets and also made an all-time great draft selection. They're proof that you can mortgage the future and get a Super Bowl. They're not going to compete for one for the next 8 years.

Rams - Stafford at 10.7%
Buccaneers - Brady.
Chiefs - Mahomes rookie contract (remember when the Chiefs were going to be the next dynasty?)
Patriots - Brady.
Eagles - QB on rookie contract plus backup.
Patriots - Brady.
Broncos - Peyton Manning at 11.7% of the cap and a literal noodle arm.
Patriots - Brady.
Seahawks - Rookie contract.
Ravens - Rookie contract.
Giants - Manning at 11.7%.
Packers - Uncapped year, Rodgers on a contract before he became Rodgers.
Saints - Drew Brees at 8.7% of the salary cap.

You can essentially count Aaron as a rookie contract QB. So that's 4 Brady, 3 quarterbacks when their contract allows it and the rest rookie contract/average QB contracts.

# of times all-time great quarterbacks took over 12.2% of the salary cap:
Tom Brady - 2 (injury season, then lost a Championship game).
Brees - 5 (lost divisional, lost divisional, missed playoffs, missed playoffs,lost championship)
Peyton - 9 (Missed playoffs, lost wild card, lost championship, lost wild card, lost Super Bowl, injury, and in three years over 12.2 with the Broncos they won 2 games to get destroyed in the Super Bowl, but lost their first playoff game the other two years).

Whatever. It's pretty obvious. I know teams think they can be different, but it's just a little too convenient for me that since the salary cap existed, nobody's gotten over that 12.2% barrier.
 

[PossibleCabbage]

Let's not forget that the reason the Broncos gave up so much for Russell Wilson is they have been trying (and failing) to land a quarterback who's good enough to win with for over a decade.  They got a brief rental of a gently used Peyton Manning, but other than that it's been a series of Tebow, Osweiler, Lynch, and Lock.  I have to imagine the the move for Wilson was informed somewhat by desperation on the Broncos side of things (this was the team everybody said "the offense is a QB away", which was apparently false.)

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, PossibleCabbage said:

Let's not forget that the reason the Broncos gave up so much for Russell Wilson is they have been trying (and failing) to land a quarterback who's good enough to win with for over a decade.  They got a brief rental of a gently used Peyton Manning, but other than that it's been a series of Tebow, Osweiler, Lynch, and Lock.  I have to imagine the the move for Wilson was informed somewhat by desperation on the Broncos side of things (this was the team everybody said "the offense is a QB away", which was apparently false.)

They had Vic Fangio as a head coach and they drafted Drew Lock and Paxton Lynch. I've already acknowledged you'll need to have a year drafting in about the top 15 to be sure of getting a QB you can feel safe with. I've granted that.

Still, it's the Bronco's fault on their QB search.

They hired Gary Kubiak as their head coach and then went to Vic Fangio. Two old school coaches with old school mentalities, not a McVay, LaFleur, etc.

They ended 2017 with Paxton Lynch and Brock Ossweiler on their roster. They kept Vance Joseph as their head coach. They drafted Bradley Chubb and watched Josh Allen go to the Bills.

Lynch, Lock, Tebow, Osweiler, Lock... Those were all developmental quarterbacks they had the bright idea of throwing right into the action.

The only teams who struggle to find a quarterback are incompetent. That's... What I've been saying.

[spilltray]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

Wrong.

The first domino to fall was Montana.

Then Favre.

Russell Wilson was the third.

It will happen eventually.

It will probably reset the QB market a little bit.

Just look at the league as it is right now. You've got Rush looking like a competent QB. Kirk Cousins was really the first hint of how things were going to be with all these rule changes benefiting the offense. There will always be 3-4 Kirk Cousin quarterbacks in the league. Guys who can come in and look like a franchise QB.

So if you can load up on receivers and offensive line and pay a 4th round QB 4th round money for 4 years...

There is a big difference from trading an aging vet vs a young qb.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm of the opinion that in any given season there are significantly fewer than 32 playoff calibre quarterbacks, and that teams struggle to find one for them because such a player does not exist.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Outpost31 said:

As opposed to making the playoffs only to rely on that elite QB not being able to play at an elite level because he doesn't have any help or a defense because he's taking too much money?

The Rams are an outlier. They went a different way, pushed all their money forward, traded all of their assets and also made an all-time great draft selection. They're proof that you can mortgage the future and get a Super Bowl. They're not going to compete for one for the next 8 years.

Rams - Stafford at 10.7%
Buccaneers - Brady.
Chiefs - Mahomes rookie contract (remember when the Chiefs were going to be the next dynasty?)
Patriots - Brady.
Eagles - QB on rookie contract plus backup.
Patriots - Brady.
Broncos - Peyton Manning at 11.7% of the cap and a literal noodle arm.
Patriots - Brady.
Seahawks - Rookie contract.
Ravens - Rookie contract.
Giants - Manning at 11.7%.
Packers - Uncapped year, Rodgers on a contract before he became Rodgers.
Saints - Drew Brees at 8.7% of the salary cap.

You can essentially count Aaron as a rookie contract QB. So that's 4 Brady, 3 quarterbacks when their contract allows it and the rest rookie contract/average QB contracts.

# of times all-time great quarterbacks took over 12.2% of the salary cap:
Tom Brady - 2 (injury season, then lost a Championship game).
Brees - 5 (lost divisional, lost divisional, missed playoffs, missed playoffs,lost championship)
Peyton - 9 (Missed playoffs, lost wild card, lost championship, lost wild card, lost Super Bowl, injury, and in three years over 12.2 with the Broncos they won 2 games to get destroyed in the Super Bowl, but lost their first playoff game the other two years).

Whatever. It's pretty obvious. I know teams think they can be different, but it's just a little too convenient for me that since the salary cap existed, nobody's gotten over that 12.2% barrier.
 

All those teams got elite QB play, outside of Manning. Again it's common sense that elite QB play on a rookie contract is the easiest way to win a SB. 

How many Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, Blake Bortles type QBs have made it to the playoffs on a cheap deal, only to be bounced because the playoffs are about good defense and elite QB play?

[PACKRULE]

It's so easy and yet Billionaires who pay Millionaires struggle to do this every year:). I mean do the Owners and or boards of the Packers not read this forum..........and OP's posts. 

[vegas492]

14 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

The difference is this isn’t something I’m saying now in hindsight.

I was saying it at the time.

For both Wentz and Goff.

Mahomes and Allen I’m not even sure I would have the balls to do, but those others?

Yeah.

Allen/Mahomes before their next contract? Yeah.

Yes.  I do remember you saying these things when Wentz was an Eagle.  No doubt about it.

But the Wentz situation is the perfect one to fit your thought process, because we've seen it play out now.

We've even "kind of " seen it with Goff.  New QB (and an EDGE rusher) = Trophy.

I think you would have kept Mahomes, easily, and tried to ink him to his current deal to maximize your window of low cap for QB.  That's a total Outpost move.

You would have traded Josh Allen.  Took too long for him to show it, and he's a runner, so he's exposed to more injury risk.

...and you'd move Lamar in a heartbeat!

[Green19]

I think we are also being super simple in thinking the Super Bowl is the goal each and every year for ever franchise. Like Outpost said about the Rams… they got their Super Bowl but are likely not seriously competing for one for the next 8 years.

I think GB philosophy is and has been, they understand the rookie contract and cap percentage numbers. But they care about being good every year. Getting to the playoffs every year… regardless if they win it all or not. And with this in mind one of those times things will break and they will win it all.

Thats why i think GB will always take QB development serious… and draft them early to sit. Because at least with Ted and now Brian… the focus seems to be on being a playoff team for 15 years straight. Rather than selling out anyone season.

I also think the setup with the community and other factors goes into making sure the packers are always relevant. and this is a strong under current of the franchise. I mean before Favre there was talks about moving the team etc. Chris Cristol wrote about it, and that’s why Favre will always be a unique figure in Packer history… because he literally changed the course of the franchise.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Green19

[JaireAlex]

This is quite wrong in the thinking. A LOT of winning the superbowl is luck. plain and simple.

2014 was the Packers' year, and they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Last year again was the Packers' year. Injuries (Z, Ja, Jenkins, Bakh, Tonyan, MVS, even Dillon) did them in.

Still, there is always some luck in winning. 2010 was not their most talented roster, but they were hot at the right time.

The Chiefs could have won it all last year, or the 49ers as well: it was a pretty even playing field with the Pack so banged up. 

 

(edit: let's not mention how the referees can sway outcome. Vegas and $$$ are a problem.)

Edited September 27, 2022 by JaireAlex

[JaireAlex]

36 minutes ago, Green19 said:

I think we are also being super simple in thinking the Super Bowl is the goal each and every year for ever franchise. Like Outpost said about the Rams… they got their Super Bowl but are likely not seriously competing for one for the next 8 years.

I think GB philosophy is and has been, they understand the rookie contract and cap percentage numbers. But they care about being good every year. Getting to the playoffs every year… regardless if they win it all or not. And with this in mind one of those times things will break and they will win it all.

Thats why i think GB will always take QB development serious… and draft them early to sit. Because at least with Ted and now Brian… the focus seems to be on being a playoff team for 15 years straight. Rather than selling out anyone season.

I also think the setup with the community and other factors goes into making sure the packers are always relevant. and this is a strong under current of the franchise. I mean before Favre there was talks about moving the team etc. Chris Cristol wrote about it, and that’s why Favre will always be a unique figure in Packer history… because he literally changed the course of the franchise.

Yeah. This is the right approach. The only approach esp because of injuries.

 

Still, they did go "all in" last year. If not for injuries, it was theirs. But Gute did a relatively smart "all in." Mercelus and the other FA's were the sign of it. They also almost had Beckham (who said it was very close between GB and LA) -- and they have a good shot at Beckham again, depending imo on whether the Rams collapse this year: they are not the same as last year at the least.

If the Pack can stay healthy, I give them the front runner position (with Beckham-- could also use another edge). 

[MacReady]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

All those teams got elite QB play, outside of Manning. Again it's common sense that elite QB play on a rookie contract is the easiest way to win a SB. 

How many Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, Blake Bortles type QBs have made it to the playoffs on a cheap deal, only to be bounced because the playoffs are about good defense and elite QB play?

Those quarterbacks weren't at salaries commensurate with their performance.

Derek Carr should be getting paid 7% of the cap. This year he's at 9.3. Next two he's at 14.9 and 17.1

That's a trainwreck.

Derek Carr could 100% win a Super Bowl if he took a straight 7% of the cap deal and he had a McVay/LaFleur/Shanahan.

Jimmy G. was at 12.9% two years ago and 13.7% last year and he got further than Rodgers did. He's been to a Super Bowl. Jimmy G is not all that much better than Carr, and I'd probably take Carr over him. So yeah, if Carr was getting paid commensurate with his talent, he could win a Super Bowl.

The fact that Blake Bortles SHOULD have gone to the Super Bowl at 4.7% over Tom Brady in that championship game... I mean, that's a pretty good point for my argument. Blake Bortles... You shouldn't have brought him up.

In 2018, he was getting paid 4.7% of the cap. That was the game where I think Fowler or someone got screwed out of a TD and the Jaguars were that bad call away from beating the Patriots and there you'd have Blake Bortles going to the Super Bowl.

If I was a GM, I guess the absolute best thing to do with a Mahomes/Rodgers/Allen or any prime QB is to just get it all in the front of the contract. Only because they wouldn't do it towards the back.

So I wonder why that hasn't been done.

Just pay the QB some absurd amount in year one so they're making like 50% of the salary cap, and then have the rest of their contract at like 7% of the cap.

I just solved it.

[Green19]

8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Those quarterbacks weren't at salaries commensurate with their performance.

Derek Carr should be getting paid 7% of the cap. This year he's at 9.3. Next two he's at 14.9 and 17.1

That's a trainwreck.

Derek Carr could 100% win a Super Bowl if he took a straight 7% of the cap deal and he had a McVay/LaFleur/Shanahan.

Jimmy G. was at 12.9% two years ago and 13.7% last year and he got further than Rodgers did. He's been to a Super Bowl. Jimmy G is not all that much better than Carr, and I'd probably take Carr over him. So yeah, if Carr was getting paid commensurate with his talent, he could win a Super Bowl.

The fact that Blake Bortles SHOULD have gone to the Super Bowl at 4.7% over Tom Brady in that championship game... I mean, that's a pretty good point for my argument. Blake Bortles... You shouldn't have brought him up.

In 2018, he was getting paid 4.7% of the cap. That was the game where I think Fowler or someone got screwed out of a TD and the Jaguars were that bad call away from beating the Patriots and there you'd have Blake Bortles going to the Super Bowl.

If I was a GM, I guess the absolute best thing to do with a Mahomes/Rodgers/Allen or any prime QB is to just get it all in the front of the contract. Only because they wouldn't do it towards the back.

So I wonder why that hasn't been done.

Just pay the QB some absurd amount in year one so they're making like 50% of the salary cap, and then have the rest of their contract at like 7% of the cap.

I just solved it.

But this doesn’t factor in what the player wants and how they want the contract structure. What’s great for the team, often is terrible for the individual player.

Wasnt this the big issue for Davante? He wanted guarantees past year 1. For any player they want these contracts to be structured a certain way to lock teams into them. So there can’t be any funny business.

So this makes sense in theory… until you add a human’s wants, desires, ego, insecurities, etc into.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Green19