Jump to content

Is paying big money for a QB worth it?


Bolts223

Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2018 at 1:14 AM, lancerman said:

If you actually have an elite QB yes. Midtier franchise QB's, no. Stafford's the type of a guy a franchise gets stuck with when they realize he's way above what the rest of the options are but not a guy that can get it done for you. It's basically purgatory.

Eh I don't see any reason a guy like Stafford couldn't win a Super Bowl with a good supporting cast.  How much worse is he than the 3rd best QB, whoever that is?  

I think the issue is there aren't many good QBs (read: everyone but Tom Brady) wiling to take far below market salaries.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mission27 said:

Eh I don't see any reason a guy like Stafford couldn't win a Super Bowl with a good supporting cast.  How much worse is he than the 3rd best QB, whoever that is?  

I think the issue is there aren't many good QBs (read: everyone but Tom Brady) wiling to take far below market salaries.  

I mean on average the 3 best QB's right now are Brady/Rodgers/Brees. And yeah he's very far behind them. 

 Stafford's never had a single season passer rating in the 100's (to give you an idea Brady x6, Rodgers x7, Brees x7, then you have Wilson x2, Foles, Wentz, Ryan, Rivers x4, Goff, Palmer, Smith, Prescott). He's never won his division ever. He's made the playoff as a wildcard exactly 3 times and went one and done in all of them.

He's sort of like a Matt Ryan. He's a good bulk stats guy and has some qualities that help you win, but he's not elite. To win a Super Bowl you'd need to stack his team and hope he has an up year and is fortunate with the competition he faces. And you'll likely only get one shot at best.

I wouldn't pay a QB a ridiculous amount of money unless they are consistently getting in the playoffs every year. The good QB's do. Brady 15 playoff appearances, Brees 6 (and keep in mind how bad his defenses have been), Rodgers 9, Ben 10,  and Manning 15 when he's around. If you've been in the league nearly 10 years and you can't win your division once, you aren't worth the money.

The reason you search for a QB is because they make a difference and they help you win. I don't care how their stats are if they aren't winning. The elite QB's in this league translate to wins, divisional titles, and playoff appearances and if you can keep a competent team around them that will happen. If they do that, pay them. If they don't they are just sucking up cap.To be honest if I was a gm I'd rather forego a contract with someone like that and stack my team with preemium talent everywhere else where it's easier to hit and cycle through rookie QB's every two years and hope a couple of them are competent enough to game manage. And if one turns out to be elite, then sign them after a 4 year grace period and figure out the cap after. 

But no the market is incredibly inflated for QB's and a lot of teams are just kidding themselves with what they got. A guy like Rivers is probably the cutting off point imo. The Ravens went to hell fast once they paid Flacco. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

I mean on average the 3 best QB's right now are Brady/Rodgers/Brees. And yeah he's very far behind them. 

 Stafford's never had a single season passer rating in the 100's (to give you an idea Brady x6, Rodgers x7, Brees x7, then you have Wilson x2, Foles, Wentz, Ryan, Rivers x4, Goff, Palmer, Smith, Prescott). He's never won his division ever. He's made the playoff as a wildcard exactly 3 times and went one and done in all of them.

He's sort of like a Matt Ryan. He's a good bulk stats guy and has some qualities that help you win, but he's not elite. To win a Super Bowl you'd need to stack his team and hope he has an up year and is fortunate with the competition he faces. And you'll likely only get one shot at best.

I wouldn't pay a QB a ridiculous amount of money unless they are consistently getting in the playoffs every year. The good QB's do. Brady 15 playoff appearances, Brees 6 (and keep in mind how bad his defenses have been), Rodgers 9, Ben 10,  and Manning 15 when he's around. If you've been in the league nearly 10 years and you can't win your division once, you aren't worth the money.

The reason you search for a QB is because they make a difference and they help you win. I don't care how their stats are if they aren't winning. The elite QB's in this league translate to wins, divisional titles, and playoff appearances and if you can keep a competent team around them that will happen. If they do that, pay them. If they don't they are just sucking up cap.To be honest if I was a gm I'd rather forego a contract with someone like that and stack my team with preemium talent everywhere else where it's easier to hit and cycle through rookie QB's every two years and hope a couple of them are competent enough to game manage. And if one turns out to be elite, then sign them after a 4 year grace period and figure out the cap after. 

But no the market is incredibly inflated for QB's and a lot of teams are just kidding themselves with what they got. A guy like Rivers is probably the cutting off point imo. The Ravens went to hell fast once they paid Flacco. 

I forgot about Brees.  Still, point stands.  Other than those 3, who is there whose that much better than Stafford?  Wilson maybe?  

I'm not saying he's a top-5 QB.  Just saying outside of the top, top tier the next 10-12 guys are arguably pretty comparable.  Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are great but 90% of teams aren't going to have one of those guys.  If you don't, Stafford is plenty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mission27 said:

I forgot about Brees.  Still, point stands.  Other than those 3, who is there whose that much better than Stafford?  Wilson maybe?  

I'm not saying he's a top-5 QB.  Just saying outside of the top, top tier the next 10-12 guys are arguably pretty comparable.  Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are great but 90% of teams aren't going to have one of those guys.  If you don't, Stafford is plenty good.

But if you are paying a guy like Stafford the big bucks can you then surround him with enough parts to win if he isn't elite enough to elevate the players around him like a Brady, Brees or Rodgers?  It can be a double-edged sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many bad QBs or QBs without a hot streak in the playoffs have won the Superbowl lately? Manning a couple years ago, Big Ben back in 2005, Trent Dilfer in 2000, I don't remember Brad Johnson, so maybe him? 3 of those teams have historic defenses right? And then 2005 was just a really bad year.

So it seems to me like you either have to have a really, really good defense, or a great QB to win a Superbowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mission27 said:

I forgot about Brees.  Still, point stands.  Other than those 3, who is there whose that much better than Stafford?  Wilson maybe?  

I'm not saying he's a top-5 QB.  Just saying outside of the top, top tier the next 10-12 guys are arguably pretty comparable.  Brady, Rodgers, and Brees are great but 90% of teams aren't going to have one of those guys.  If you don't, Stafford is plenty good.

Being a top 5 or 7 or 8 is an irrelevant number when that QB can't elevate his team to the playoffs though. You can say he's the 8th best QB but if only QBs 1-4 are the ones that consistently get their team to the playoffs what does being 8th even really mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, before Stafford came along Detroit couldn't field a team worth dirt. Despite all those years not having a top quarterback to pay money. Still couldn't build a quality defense or offense. How about Detroit actually hit on some of their draft picks? They haven't had a true franchise runner since Sanders retired. Who has been their best defensive player the last decade plus? Suh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pugger said:

But if you are paying a guy like Stafford the big bucks can you then surround him with enough parts to win if he isn't elite enough to elevate the players around him like a Brady, Brees or Rodgers?  It can be a double-edged sword.

It is but what’s the alternative?  This year was a fluke.  Nick Foles type QBs don’t win.  12/15 last Super Bowls have been won by no doubt Hall of Fame QBs.  Maybe 13 depending on how Wilson’s career progresses.  Besides Foles the other outlier was Flacco, and look how durable that was.  They’ve been below .500 since winning it.  You have two options for building a team:

- Get and retain a franchise QB and hope he can rise to the occasion in big spots

- Build around a defense

I’d argue #2 is much less sustainable.  Paying one guy a ton is hard.  Paying 11 guys a ton is impossible.  Look at Seattle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mission27 said:

Eh I don't see any reason a guy like Stafford couldn't win a Super Bowl with a good supporting cast.  How much worse is he than the 3rd best QB, whoever that is?  

I think the issue is there aren't many good QBs (read: everyone but Tom Brady) wiling to take far below market salaries.  

It's also a fallacy to think that you can't build a good team and have a high cap hit for your QB.

A prime example of this is the 2015 Broncos, who had Peyton Manning with the 9th highest cap hit, but still had an elite team and defense around him and was able to win the SB. In 2013 Manning had the third-highest cap hit and DEN made it to the SB. Matt Ryan had the 3rd highest cap hit last year and ATL made the SB. Eli had the 11th highest cap hit in 2011 and NYG won the SB. Etc. Granted, 2013 Manning and 2016 Ryan were worth every penny of their cap hit in relation to their performance.

While it's obviously harder to craft a championship team when you have a QB taking a huge cap hit, it's far from impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lancerman said:

I mean on average the 3 best QB's right now are Brady/Rodgers/Brees. And yeah he's very far behind them. 

 Stafford's never had a single season passer rating in the 100's (to give you an idea Brady x6, Rodgers x7, Brees x7, then you have Wilson x2, Foles, Wentz, Ryan, Rivers x4, Goff, Palmer, Smith, Prescott). He's never won his division ever. He's made the playoff as a wildcard exactly 3 times and went one and done in all of them.

He's sort of like a Matt Ryan. He's a good bulk stats guy and has some qualities that help you win, but he's not elite. To win a Super Bowl you'd need to stack his team and hope he has an up year and is fortunate with the competition he faces. And you'll likely only get one shot at best.

I wouldn't pay a QB a ridiculous amount of money unless they are consistently getting in the playoffs every year. The good QB's do. Brady 15 playoff appearances, Brees 6 (and keep in mind how bad his defenses have been), Rodgers 9, Ben 10,  and Manning 15 when he's around. If you've been in the league nearly 10 years and you can't win your division once, you aren't worth the money.

The reason you search for a QB is because they make a difference and they help you win. I don't care how their stats are if they aren't winning. The elite QB's in this league translate to wins, divisional titles, and playoff appearances and if you can keep a competent team around them that will happen. If they do that, pay them. If they don't they are just sucking up cap.To be honest if I was a gm I'd rather forego a contract with someone like that and stack my team with preemium talent everywhere else where it's easier to hit and cycle through rookie QB's every two years and hope a couple of them are competent enough to game manage. And if one turns out to be elite, then sign them after a 4 year grace period and figure out the cap after. 

But no the market is incredibly inflated for QB's and a lot of teams are just kidding themselves with what they got. A guy like Rivers is probably the cutting off point imo. The Ravens went to hell fast once they paid Flacco. 

Brady and Brees are elite.  We agree.

I don't like 100.  It's a random grab so I'll do my own, 95.  Brady has two seasons over 95 in his first decade in the league.  Brees has four such seasons.

Stafford has three seasons over 95.  What does it mean?  Not much, except that those QBs have gotten better with age and it looks like Stafford is following the same path(better with age). 

The rest is just "WIns are a QB stat."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DLF54927 said:

Brady and Brees are elite.  We agree.

I don't like 100.  It's a random grab so I'll do my own, 95.  Brady has two seasons over 95 in his first decade in the league.  Brees has four such seasons.

Stafford has three seasons over 95.  What does it mean?  Not much, except that those QBs have gotten better with age and it looks like Stafford is following the same path(better with age). 

The rest is just "WIns are a QB stat."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You pay a QB to win. You don't pay a QB for stats. Stafford is a mid tier QB at best. He's someone who likely would only win or go to a Super Bowl if he was on a rookie contract and they loaded the talent up around him. Now he's sucking up cap space and making it harder to load up a team around him. He's the exact type of QB you don't want to get stuck with. Good enough to be afraid of ditching him, not great enough to elevate the team around him and consistently win games and win division titles, and win playoff games. In 10 years if you haven't won a playoff game you are unlikely to be the type of QB that ever will be on that elite level. There are very few QB's in the history of this game that have never won a playoff game in their first 10 years playing that went on to win a Super Bowl. 

 

My point with the 100 passer rating is that elite QB's tend to do it. The super elite QB's of this era Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Manning all did it 6 or 7 times. Each one did it at least once in their first 10 years. Most elite QB's do it at least once nowadays. 

 

My overall point is this. Too many franchises get hung up on paying Matt Ryan/Matt Stafford/ Tony Romo level guys who are not elite but good enough to be franchise. QB's aren't worth the money if they aren't elite. It's more of a symptom of teams being afraid of not having a franchise guy and going out looking for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's barely worth it for a QB like Brady, Rodgers or Brees.  It's certainly NOT worth it for the second tier of quarterbacks.  The only reason the Patriots are competitive each year is because Brady takes less than he's worth.  If Brady got as much as he should have the last few years, the Patriots don't make it to at least one of their last two Super Bowls.  I don't even think Patriots fans would disagree, and they disagree with everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

You pay a QB to win. You don't pay a QB for stats. Stafford is a mid tier QB at best. He's someone who likely would only win or go to a Super Bowl if he was on a rookie contract and they loaded the talent up around him. Now he's sucking up cap space and making it harder to load up a team around him. He's the exact type of QB you don't want to get stuck with. Good enough to be afraid of ditching him, not great enough to elevate the team around him and consistently win games and win division titles, and win playoff games. In 10 years if you haven't won a playoff game you are unlikely to be the type of QB that ever will be on that elite level. There are very few QB's in the history of this game that have never won a playoff game in their first 10 years playing that went on to win a Super Bowl. 

 

My point with the 100 passer rating is that elite QB's tend to do it. The super elite QB's of this era Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Manning all did it 6 or 7 times. Each one did it at least once in their first 10 years. Most elite QB's do it at least once nowadays. 

 

My overall point is this. Too many franchises get hung up on paying Matt Ryan/Matt Stafford/ Tony Romo level guys who are not elite but good enough to be franchise. QB's aren't worth the money if they aren't elite. It's more of a symptom of teams being afraid of not having a franchise guy and going out looking for one.

Right, which is why Brady is solely responsible for the SB loss.  

It's crazy, the last super-duper elite QB was drafted 13 years ago.  But yes, and Lions should cut bait and hope for the best. They could have paired the league's worst run game with a rookie QB or traded for 100 Foles.  Just saying that rings of division titles.

That passer rating is achieved by Stafford eating the ball 4 times this past season instead of throwing it away.  If that's one of the criteria you use to judge QBs, then be my guest.

Just so I know what the comparison is nowadays, is Stafford Culpepper or is it back to Cutler? 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

That is an awesome stat. Thanks for sharing. I expected something like this

These stats are a bit disingenuous though, How many QBs have won Superbowls recently that wouldn't be able to sign a top 3 contract ever when their next deal came up? These guys are still top 10 QBs getting top 10 money most often, they just don't necessarily win during their cap heavy years, and Brady skews the stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...