NFL News & Notes

[Leader]

6 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Houston wasn't paying Clowney! They have to be regretting paying Watt at this point too. Look at the Rams this year too. They overpaid three positions, soon to be 4 with Ramsey, and are now strapped and will continue to decline.

From what I understand, the Rams are outliers. They've somewhat foregone the draft/develop method (and associated contract/salary structure and evolution) to signing top talent to top dollars.

Part of that is motivated by pure business reasons: they'll have a brand new stadium to draw fans to in a seriously difficult market for mediocre teams.

Will they get crunched? I think so too. To be seen still....but - they just made a SB run and are mounting a comeback to relevancy now. To be continued.

[Golfman]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

They swapped a pass rusher for a LT, they gave up massive capital and are going to pay Tunsil. 

Plus they got hosed in the Clowney deal. 

Houston has no GM, they have a HC on the bubble with no playoff success who's making the calls. Not the model you want to follow.

Teams don't win the Super Bowl without star players, if drafting were easy we'd have a league full of 10-6 to 6-10 ranged teams where luck is the most common driving factor of game results. Let's not pretend you can stop paying stars, trade them for picks and consistently improve via the draft. You'd need to hit it out of the park immediately or you'd be out of a job.

It is starting to change and you can see it by the amount of top tier talent that has been traded in the past 2 years. I don't see that trend changing. Only so much money to go around. Paying average QB's elite money because you are afraid to try and get a better one is fools gold. 

It's better to agree to disagree on this one! Respect your thought process even if I don't agree with it. 

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Paying average QB's elite money because you are afraid to try and get a better one is fools gold.

In a kinda sorta sense, this is the Kirk Cousin's experiment being played out now.

He wins a SB for MN? Case closed. The contract and cash was worth it.
He doesnt?

Flip side....Dak

Good stats. Good numbers (I'm refraining from saying "great" cause I'm not up to speed on his stats) - but an inability - a consistent inability - to beat the better teams. You wanna be the Owner that puts 40M a year on the table for a QB with that ceiling?

[coachbuns]

26 minutes ago, Golfman said:

It's gonna happen, but may not be Mahomes. At some point you have to understand analytics to understand the value in this thinking. You can't commit 15-20% of your cap to one guy, even at the most premium position, and expect to have enough pieces to win many Super Bowls. You may get lucky one year, but reality is you probably won't. 

Nope ... not messing with analytics ... hurts my brain.  Just going to watch the Packers, hope the brain trust does it's best and come on this site and pee and moan when they don't.

[Golfman]

Just now, Leader said:

In a kinda sorta sense, this is the Kirk Cousin's experiment being played out now.

He wins a SB for MN? Case closed. The contract and cash was worth it.
He doesnt?

Flip side....Dak

Good stats. Good numbers (I'm refraining from saying "great" cause I'm not up to speed on his stats) - but an inability - a consistent inability - to beat the better teams. You wanna be the Owner that puts 40M a year on the table for a QB with that ceiling?

You don't have to wait for a Dak deal. Wentz, Goff, Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, ect., etc., etc.....

[Leader]

Just now, Golfman said:

You don't have to wait for a Dak deal. Wentz, Goff, Dalton, Tyrod Taylor, ect., etc., etc.....

Dalton and Taylor dont belong in this comparison. Mediocre talents (IMO) who got nice paydays from mediocre organizations.

Dak and Wentz aren't finished products and are different salary discussions.
Wentz is relatively cheap and under contract thru 2024. Dak is the "Is he worth 40M" discussion.

Again - if EITHER Dak or Wentz lead either of their teams to the SB - and not even win it - they'll be worth their current salary. Hand down.
Does that make Dak worth 40M? I'm not so sure about that - but then - I'm not sure any QB is worth that.

[Golfman]

42 minutes ago, Leader said:

Dalton and Taylor dont belong in this comparison. Mediocre talents (IMO) who got nice paydays from mediocre organizations.

Dak and Wentz aren't finished products and are different salary discussions.
Wentz is relatively cheap and under contract thru 2024. Dak is the "Is he worth 40M" discussion.

Again - if EITHER Dak or Wentz lead either of their teams to the SB - and not even win it - they'll be worth their current salary. Hand down.
Does that make Dak worth 40M? I'm not so sure about that - but then - I'm not sure any QB is worth that.

Why because they didn't turn out well? How about Tannehill? How about Foles in Jacksonville? The list goes on and NO getting to a Super Bowl does not make the contract worth it. You are paying guys to WIN Super Bowls. No participation trophies here! 

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, Golfman said:

It is starting to change and you can see it by the amount of top tier talent that has been traded in the past 2 years. I don't see that trend changing. Only so much money to go around. Paying average QB's elite money because you are afraid to try and get a better one is fools gold. 

It's better to agree to disagree on this one! Respect your thought process even if I don't agree with it. 

We're not talking average QBs here, I agree that's the worst way to build a team. Matt Stafford level is about the worst QB I'd give a long term deal to, and I'd still explore trade options at that. Outpost is talking Mahomes, Watson, Lamar Jackson level talent here though, you have to pay those guys as a GM, you really have no choice.

[Golfman]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

We're not talking average QBs here, I agree that's the worst way to build a team. Matt Stafford level is about the worst QB I'd give a long term deal to, and I'd still explore trade options at that. Outpost is talking Mahomes, Watson, Lamar Jackson level talent here though, you have to pay those guys as a GM, you really have no choice.

From a job security standpoint, you are correct. From an analytics standpoint, you trade him if you can get enough in return. Also, he stated you draft their replacement in year 4. 

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Golfman said:

Why because they didn't turn out well? How about Tannehill? How about Foles in Jacksonville? The list goes on and NO getting to a Super Bowl does not make the contract worth it. You are paying guys to WIN Super Bowls. No participation trophies here! 

Okay Golf. Fine.

The entire discussion is predicated around "you cant pay a top dollar QB w/o sacrificing roster-wide talent that prevents the team from succeeding"

Now its become: "Even if you pay a top dollar QB - get to a SB with the roster wide talent - but if you lose.... - it proves the first point: you cant pay a top dollar QB w/o sacrificing roster-wide talent that prevents the team from succeeding"

Nope. Thats a bit too fine a point.

 

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Golfman said:

From a job security standpoint, you are correct. From an analytics standpoint, you trade him if you can get enough in return. Also, he stated you draft their replacement in year 4. 

No one is disagreeing here that this is correct. In a nutshell if you got a boatload of picks and hit on them, it's better than paying one guy a lot of money. The point is, if you'd probably be fired for it, why are we talking about it? Never going to happen. It's a scenario that only unfolds in Madden.

It's just @Outpost31 being @Outpost31. He needs to see himself as the lone prophet who's been blessed with the gift of being all knowing and it's his job to convince the masses on non-believers.

He won't let it go because he needs the feeling of being pointed at and laughed at to fuel his devotion to his cause. It's best we all just oblige.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Outpost is talking Mahomes, Watson, Lamar Jackson level talent here though, you have to pay those guys as a GM, you really have no choice.

You do have a choice though.  Your own damn team provided the blueprint for it.  They were just 4 years too early.  Tell me we shouldn't have traded Favre the year after we drafted Rodgers.  We could likely have gotten a 1st round pick for him instead of waiting 4 years and getting a third round pick for him.

Imagine 2006-2008 with Rodgers instead of Favre plus a first round pick. 

Imagine the Eagles right now with Nick Foles plus 3 extra 1st round picks since their Super Bowl win.
Imagine the Rams right now with Daniel Jones or Drew Lock and 3 extra first round picks to build around him.
Imagine us with Baker Mayfield plus 2 extra first round picks. 

70% of quarterbacks could win a Super Bowl on our team right now within 4 years with all that cap space and draft capital. 

 

 

[Packerraymond]

13 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

You do have a choice though.  Your own damn team provided the blueprint for it.  They were just 4 years too early.  Tell me we shouldn't have traded Favre the year after we drafted Rodgers.  We could likely have gotten a 1st round pick for him instead of waiting 4 years and getting a third round pick for him.

Imagine 2006-2008 with Rodgers instead of Favre plus a first round pick. 

Imagine the Eagles right now with Nick Foles plus 3 extra 1st round picks since their Super Bowl win.
Imagine the Rams right now with Daniel Jones or Drew Lock and 3 extra first round picks to build around him.
Imagine us with Baker Mayfield plus 2 extra first round picks. 

70% of quarterbacks could win a Super Bowl on our team right now within 4 years with all that cap space and draft capital. 

 

 

Yes using the blueprint of the 2nd team in NFL history to have back to back HOF QBs you plan works. See no way how that could fail.

How does your plan work if we drafted Jason Campbell at 24 and traded Favre?

[incognito_man]

12 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes using the blueprint of the 2nd team in NFL history to have back to back HOF QBs you plan works. See no way how that could fail.

How does your plan work if we drafted Jason Campbell at 24 and traded Favre?

Then you suck and get a good shot at a better QB in a year or two

[MacReady]

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes using the blueprint of the 2nd team in NFL history to have back to back HOF QBs you plan works. See no way how that could fail.

How does your plan work if we drafted Jason Campbell at 24 and traded Favre?

We’re the Packers, not the Redskins.  I’ve always put a disclaimer that you’ve got to be a good franchise.  This approach works for 20 teams in the NFL.  If you’re the Bengals, Lions, Jaguars, Redskins, Dolphins, Jets, Bills, etc, once you get a franchise QB you hold on for dear life.  That said, even the Redskins knew better than paying Cousins.  They just screwed up so badly they couldn’t take advantage of it.