Is paying big money for a QB worth it?

[MWil23]

It's definitely not worth it.

More teams should emulate what the Browns and Bills have done, which is refuse to invest in the position altogether, overdraft players in the first round, and hope to hit on a bunch of mid-tier level QB prospects to hope that you hit the jackpot. Also, they should do it for a 20-30 year period of time. That's definitely a no brainer.

[eagles18]

so the real question is how are the patriots keeping tom's cap hit so low? 

[DontTazeMeBro]

If you draft a QB like Russell Wilson, Carson Wentz etc. you can have a really talented roster by not having a ton of money tied up at the QB position. But what are you going to do? Get a new QB every 5 years? It’s hard to find those QBs. You screw up and draft Blaine Gabbert your done. I wasn’t for paying QBs like Stafford and Cousins. But then I saw Matt Ryan almost win a Super Bowl 

[winitall]

To further address those tweets, let's look at the Super Bowl winning QB's over the last 7 years:

 

2011: Eli Manning (Cap hit was 11.8% of the cap)

2012: Joe Flacco (On rookie contract)

2013: Russell Wilson (On rookie contract)

2014: Tom Brady (Cap hit was 11.1% of the cap)

2015: Peyton Manning (Cap hit was 12.2% of the cap)

2016: Tom Brady (Cap hit was 8.9% of the cap)

2017: Nick Foles (1% of the cap, Wentz is on rookie deal)

 

Conclusion: Those tweets are extremely misleading.  They cherry-picked percentages of the cap to make the facts appear a certain way.  Take Eli for example, the difference between 11.8% and 14% of the cap in 2011 was $2.64 million.  Are we really trying to say that Eli making $3 million less a season is why they were able to win a championship?  The rest of the guys were either on a rookie contract which sets how much they can make, named Tom Brady who has shown no interest in being the top paid QB, or happened to be a backup QB that somehow caught fire.  The odds of landing any of those three things is slim if you are a GM trying to build a team.  

[squire12]

8 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

I'm going to push back on this data set you are using as clear evidence against paying a top QB his top QB-level money

The time frame chosen was somewhat arbitrary, but not really. 7 years is a small sample, but its also important to cut it off at 7 years...

Because if you look at the QBs who won the SB just before this magical 7 year cutoff....it paints a completely different picture

They conveniently eliminated the SB wins by Rodgers, Payton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees and Ben Rothlisberger-  all top notch QBs earning top notch pay and winning Super Bowls.

Over The Cap wrote a lengthy article on this topic and their conclusion was that there are (2) distinct and successful methods to building a Champion - one method if you have a Top QB and the other if you don't. But they did not conclude that paying a Top QB top cash was a bad strategy, just that it requires different tactics.

I say "no sale" on this specifically sorted dataset and its biased conclusions. And we also need to remember that as an entertainment enterprise, the NFL owners want to win a Super Bowl, but they need to make money. And nothing earns money like having a star QB to sell tix, jerseys and hope.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/super-bowl/

My guess is the 7 year cutoff is the new CBA.   The new rookie wage scale changed the dynamics of the first round rookie cap hits and relates to if teams can hit on the rookie QB at $2-5M/ year, that team has a bigger pool of $$ to add other pieces during that window.    Again, it is just a guess on why the 7 year cutoff.

[Buddyboy]

Al Davis won two SBs with Jim Plunkett. All of the early AFL QBs were veterans of the NFL. Davis even got good value out of good old George Blanda.

Before Brett Favre brushed off Aaron Rogers, he did the same with Kurt Warner.

[BroncoSojia]

This discussion is why the salary cap needs to be done away with. The cap essentially penalizes teams for drafting well and developing players. Paying players what they're worth shouldn't be a detriment to teams. The discussion "is paying big money for _______ worth it" always comes up when players (regardless of position, but specifically QB) are about to break the bank and I think something is wrong with that.

[cddolphin]

1 minute ago, BroncoSojia said:

This discussion is why the salary cap needs to be done away with. The cap essentially penalizes teams for drafting well and developing players. Paying players what they're worth shouldn't be a detriment to teams. The discussion "is paying big money for _______ worth it" always comes up when players (regardless of position, but specifically QB) are about to break the bank and I think something is wrong with that.

RIP small market teams

[Buddyboy]

1 hour ago, eagles18 said:

so the real question is how are the patriots keeping tom's cap hit so low? 

Deflated sportsware.

[squire12]

1 minute ago, Buddyboy said:

1 hour ago, eagles18 said:

so the real question is how are the patriots keeping tom's cap hit so low? 

Deflated sportsware.

Gisele Bundchen

Quote

According to Celebrity Net Worth, Brady's total wealth amounts to approximately $180 million -- only about half of Gisele's! The supermodel cashes in at a staggering $360 million.

 

[cddolphin]

6 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Gisele Bundchen

The Patriots have also hired firms owned by Brady and/or Gisele previously. So there's a revenue stream that doesn't show up on the cap.

This article is behind a paywall unfortunately: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/12/19/patriots-pay-business-owned-tom-brady-and-partner-with-dubious-past/C4zMzcPDgU62WMMg10qeBL/story.html

[Packerraymond]

The problem is teams paying mediocre QB's.

Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Big Ben, Carson Wentz, Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck (pre-injury), Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers. That's the list of QB's I'd give an extension to without hesitation. There's guys like Stafford, Cam, Carr who are right on that cutoff who I'd be leery giving an extension to. Anyone else no thanks (obviously there are guys like Goff, Dak, Jimmy G who need a larger sample size) If they aren't elite you might as well trade them (as teams give up a ton of value for a decent QB) and try again instead of locking yourself into a long-term deal with a guy that things are going to have to go a certain way to win it all.

I wouldn't touch Winston or Mariota with a contract extension from what I've seen so far.

 

[cddolphin]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The problem is teams paying mediocre QB's.

Daily reminder the 16th-highest paid QB in terms of annual average is Tom Brady ($20.5m).

17th is Ryan Tannehill ($19.3m).

The only notable QBs below them (who aren't on rookie deals) are Andy Dalton ($16m) and Tyrod Taylor ($15.3m).

[Carmen Cygni]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

My guess is the 7 year cutoff is the new CBA.   The new rookie wage scale changed the dynamics of the first round rookie cap hits and relates to if teams can hit on the rookie QB at $2-5M/ year, that team has a bigger pool of $$ to add other pieces during that window.    Again, it is just a guess on why the 7 year cutoff.

Bingo. Good guess.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, cddolphin said:

Daily reminder the 16th-highest paid QB in terms of annual average is Tom Brady ($20.5m).

17th is Ryan Tannehill ($19.3m).

The only notable QBs below them (who aren't on rookie deals) are Andy Dalton ($16m) and Tyrod Taylor ($15.3m).

It's not even the AAV every time. I just wouldn't make any sort of long term commitment now or in the past to Tannehill, Flacco, Dalton, Taylor, Cousins, Cutler, Bortles, Keenum, Winston, Mariota, Alex Smith, etc.

Then you have the smaller sample size guys like Goff, Dak, Jimmy G and all of last years rookies who need more starts.

Stafford, Cam, Carr, past Carson Palmer and Eli Manning those are like the worst QB's I'd think of extending. They can't carry the team like the elites but they're good enough to win with a well built team around them.