New strategy for handling the QB position? What NFL teams should do. (1 Viewer)

[habsfan]

I scanned and didn't really see these somewhat "un-monetizable" points discussed:

How realistic is it to truly get three effective years out of a rookie QB?

How much do you need to adjust the strategy when you can't land an effective day one starter?

How do you measure/factor in the effect of "rebooting" the backbone of your offense/franchise every three years?

Good to great QBs with continuity on a team eventually acquire OC-like qualities. What's the positive affect of that on the offense?

 

[cstu]

I scanned and didn't really see these somewhat "un-monetizable" points discussed:

How realistic is it to truly get three effective years out of a rookie QB?

How much do you need to adjust the strategy when you can't land an effective day one starter?

How do you measure/factor in the effect of "rebooting" the backbone of your offense/franchise every three years?

Good to great QBs with continuity on a team eventually acquire OC-like qualities. What's the positive affect of that on the offense?

The OP was advocating not paying average QB's $20M, not letting a Russell Wilson go.

The argument is that the Ravens would have been better off by not re-signing Flacco. There's a lot of value in maintaining the consistency at QB but the salary cap implications are real. IMO drafting Geno or Glennon last year and with an extra $19M a year they have a better chance at winning a SB than they do now.

 

[12punch]

Is it too early for the what happened to the shark pool threads?

 

[tdmills]

I'm bumping this philosophy. Now that Cutler bombed...the Ravens/49ers may not make it into the playoffs after paying their QBs...paying Andy Dalton looks like a mistake as well.

 

[jurb26]

I'm bumping this philosophy. Now that Cutler bombed...the Ravens/49ers may not make it into the playoffs after paying their QBs...paying Andy Dalton looks like a mistake as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dalton's contract isn't that hard to get out of is it?

 

[Riversco]

I just noticed this thread and my only question is:

people seriously thought Kapernick was EVER a good QB? Seriously? I was way down on him even last year.

Kapernick and RG3 are the busts. Russell Wilson is the guy who makes it. I woulda said the same two years ago.

 

[lod01]

It's taken what seems like forever but the NFL has, for the most part, finally realized that playground QBs don't cut it in the NFL. You have to be able to read defenses and throw from the pocket.

Teams are forced to pay guys like Flacco and Cutler because they have no options. There just are not 32 NFL caliber starting QBs on the planet.

 

[tdmills]

It's taken what seems like forever but the NFL has, for the most part, finally realized that playground QBs don't cut it in the NFL. You have to be able to read defenses and throw from the pocket.

Teams are forced to pay guys like Flacco and Cutler because they have no options. There just are not 32 NFL caliber starting QBs on the planet.

Not if you continue to play the game the same way...then sure you need a great qb.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Honestly some of these teams struggle-busing along need to start going against the grain, taking good RB prospects somewhere in the 2nd-4th rounds every year to keep the talent train rolling, invest in the OL and just become teams that win games the way Dallas has much of this year. Control the clock, keep the elite QB's you play off the field, set up a deadly play-action passing game that any QB can execute, and don't spend big on above average QB talent. Spend that money on your OL and DL and win games the gritty way.

A shift needs to happen, locking up huge chunks of cap space in these average QB's is getting these teams into trouble.

 

[GregR]

Sort the NFL by record and the majority of the bottom teams are those who went with cheap QBs, whether veterans like Fitzpatrick or McCown, or younger players who are still on cheap rookie contracts.

The Colts, Seahawks and Eagles are playoff teams who have the benefit this year of a cheap QB. The Panthers may make the playoffs but given their sub-500 status I can't see calling them a successful example of it.

The Texans are in the hunt but won't get in without losses by two of those teams with well-paid QBs.

The rest of the cheap QB teams (Dolphins, Jets, Raiders, Jaguars, Titans, Bills, Browns, Bucs, Vikings, Redskins) failed to make the playoffs, and they make up the majority of the bottom half of the league including the bottom 6 teams.

 

[dollarbill13]

These are the points that I think need to be considered more carefully in this thread:

- The OP references a hit rate of nearly 50% on QBs. The exact percentage was closer to 41% and is also enhanced by using several top ten QBs as hits. Andrew Luck and RG3 (regardless of what you think of the latter) were not available to most teams unless you wanted to spend a kings ransom to trade up. We should probably be focusing of the QBs that were picked a little lower (say after #10 or 15) as a team is more likely to have the ability to actually draft these players. Without doing the math, let's just say that lowers the hit rate to 33%

- If you spend a 1st or 2nd rounder every other year on a QB with a hit rate of 33%, you can't expect to get a useful one more than once every six drafts. You are also foregoing the ability to draft other positions with those picks. Seattle and San Francisco have been notable for building through the draft and spending this many picks on QBs hurts that possibility.

- A QB rating of 75-80 is pretty poor in this day and age.

- Some QBs have succeeded out of the gate but I'd argue that due to the complexity of the QB position, fewer rookies are able to play at a passable level than most other positions.

- Spending on free agency is genter ally not the most efficient way to build a team. There are plenty of land mines and you often end up paying for past production. QBs tend to maintain their level of production longer than most other positions so you can rely more on historical performance to project future performance.

 

[tdmills]

Sort the NFL by record and the majority of the bottom teams are those who went with cheap QBs, whether veterans like Fitzpatrick or McCown, or younger players who are still on cheap rookie contracts.

The Colts, Seahawks and Eagles are playoff teams who have the benefit this year of a cheap QB. The Panthers may make the playoffs but given their sub-500 status I can't see calling them a successful example of it.

The Texans are in the hunt but won't get in without losses by two of those teams with well-paid QBs.

The rest of the cheap QB teams (Dolphins, Jets, Raiders, Jaguars, Titans, Bills, Browns, Bucs, Vikings, Redskins) failed to make the playoffs, and they make up the majority of the bottom half of the league including the bottom 6 teams.

Fitzpatrick has a 95.3 QB rating, which is .1 below Luck.

You can't look at the records this year and say "this didn't work for those teams" I don't think they really embraced this is a philosophical shift that a team would have to employ and it's not going to fix everything overnight. But if teams stopped building their teams to win because of a great QB, they would have an advantage. Not all teams can win that way...only those with elite QBs(which has been stated multiple times as not having many).

 

[TDorBust]

Sry, what was the topic -- don't grossly overpay mediocre players?

Here's the short notes:

-QB is the most important position

-Therefore NFL teams are overpaying for it. The elite(Peyton/Brady/Rodgers/etc) should be paid top dollar. But Flacco/Cutler shouldn't get 18 million per year.

-The CBA doesn't allow for contract renegotiations before year 3 in a rookie contract

-Add to that college QBs are coming into the NFL more ready and non top 5 draft picks are playing well: Tannehill, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton, Foles, etc

-The strategy would be to draft a QB in round 1 or 2 every other season and use the remaining $$$ for other positions

You mean like this team?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/draft.htm

Case and point that you can miss on pretty much every QB you draft leaving you in a state of horribleness. Teams would rather overpay to keep a QB they believe can take them to the Super Bowl than take a chance on 4-6 rookies over that same amount of time(12-18years).

 

[tdmills]

These are the points that I think need to be considered more carefully in this thread:

- The OP references a hit rate of nearly 50% on QBs. The exact percentage was closer to 41% and is also enhanced by using several top ten QBs as hits. Andrew Luck and RG3 (regardless of what you think of the latter) were not available to most teams unless you wanted to spend a kings ransom to trade up. We should probably be focusing of the QBs that were picked a little lower (say after #10 or 15) as a team is more likely to have the ability to actually draft these players. Without doing the math, let's just say that lowers the hit rate to 33%

- If you spend a 1st or 2nd rounder every other year on a QB with a hit rate of 33%, you can't expect to get a useful one more than once every six drafts. You are also foregoing the ability to draft other positions with those picks. Seattle and San Francisco have been notable for building through the draft and spending this many picks on QBs hurts that possibility.

- A QB rating of 75-80 is pretty poor in this day and age.

- Some QBs have succeeded out of the gate but I'd argue that due to the complexity of the QB position, fewer rookies are able to play at a passable level than most other positions.

- Spending on free agency is genter ally not the most efficient way to build a team. There are plenty of land mines and you often end up paying for past production. QBs tend to maintain their level of production longer than most other positions so you can rely more on historical performance to project future performance.

Point 1: True those players weren't available to everyone, but that's 1 year in a vacuum as well. Other years QBs have slipped(Bridgewater). If you want to move it to 33%, sure. But also double it to 66%. What you're not factoring into that is an increased supporting cast due to the $$$ that can be spent. Derek Carr would look quite good if he had Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb to throw to, which I think increases the hit rate.

Point 2 & Point 5: (you're contention) It's not good to draft QBs continually and it's not good to spend $$$ on free agent players...this is the NFL right now. Not everyone can have an elite QB and build through the draft, even though every franchise wishes. The truth of the matter is a RB, LT, LB, DE, whomever could all be a bust, not just QBs. The same could be said of resigning your own players to their 2nd contract or signing free agents. Are some teams dumb and spend through the nose...sure. If you look at this theory and pin every QB bust and FA bust to it...sure it won't work.

Also if you draft a QB in round 1, that's a 4 year contract. So with that in mind...you would only draft a QB in 2 of 4 years in that scenario.

Point 3 & 4: In 2014, Austin Davis has a QB rating of 85.1, Bridgewater 84.9, Derek Carr 77.7, Bortles 70.8, Johnny Football(who knows it's bad). That's most of the young QBs that had their 1st opportunity to start this year....60% hit rate? I believe that QBs are coming into the league better prepared than in previous years. Now that's not saying every year, but you also don't have to draft a QB every year.

Lets take Derek Carr for example. He's on a cheap 2nd round pick contract and just had a 20/11 TD/INT ratio....I think he's played well with little around him. In this theory, Oakland could've signed Golden Tate 6 million and lets say Eugene Monroe at LT for 7 milion. Now would you rather have Dalton/Cutler with the Raiders or the Carr/Tate/Monroe?

 

[tdmills]

Sry, what was the topic -- don't grossly overpay mediocre players?

Here's the short notes:

-QB is the most important position

-Therefore NFL teams are overpaying for it. The elite(Peyton/Brady/Rodgers/etc) should be paid top dollar. But Flacco/Cutler shouldn't get 18 million per year.

-The CBA doesn't allow for contract renegotiations before year 3 in a rookie contract

-Add to that college QBs are coming into the NFL more ready and non top 5 draft picks are playing well: Tannehill, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton, Foles, etc

-The strategy would be to draft a QB in round 1 or 2 every other season and use the remaining $$$ for other positions

You mean like this team?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/draft.htm

Case and point that you can miss on pretty much every QB you draft leaving you in a state of horribleness. Teams would rather overpay to keep a QB they believe can take them to the Super Bowl than take a chance on 4-6 rookies over that same amount of time(12-18years).

Was it better for them to draft Justin Gilbert at #9 overall and he got benched this year? Any player can bust.

It's better to not dedicate your whole team philosophy on a QB winning you games because so few can do that.

 

[TDorBust]

Sry, what was the topic -- don't grossly overpay mediocre players?

Here's the short notes:

-QB is the most important position

-Therefore NFL teams are overpaying for it. The elite(Peyton/Brady/Rodgers/etc) should be paid top dollar. But Flacco/Cutler shouldn't get 18 million per year.

-The CBA doesn't allow for contract renegotiations before year 3 in a rookie contract

-Add to that college QBs are coming into the NFL more ready and non top 5 draft picks are playing well: Tannehill, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton, Foles, etc

-The strategy would be to draft a QB in round 1 or 2 every other season and use the remaining $$$ for other positions

You mean like this team?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/draft.htm

Case and point that you can miss on pretty much every QB you draft leaving you in a state of horribleness. Teams would rather overpay to keep a QB they believe can take them to the Super Bowl than take a chance on 4-6 rookies over that same amount of time(12-18years).

Was it better for them to draft Justin Gilbert at #9 overall and he got benched this year? Any player can bust.

It's better to not dedicate your whole team philosophy on a QB winning you games because so few can do that.

http://www.footballperspective.com/which-positions-are-the-safest-to-draft-in-the-first-round/

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/analyzing-the-nfl-draft-the-safest-positions-to-target-in-the-first-round/

Have a read of the above.

I am not saying anyone can't bust but if you bust on your #2 ILB or LG in the first round you likely can be drafting someone who can breakout in the 5-7th rounds. With a QB your not finding multiple acceptable QBs later in the draft every single year like you do with other positions. This is really my point that busting on a QB will MAKE YOU bad where busting on another position can be overcome with game planning.

 

[lod01]

Honestly some of these teams struggle-busing along need to start going against the grain, taking good RB prospects somewhere in the 2nd-4th rounds every year to keep the talent train rolling, invest in the OL and just become teams that win games the way Dallas has much of this year. Control the clock, keep the elite QB's you play off the field, set up a deadly play-action passing game that any QB can execute, and don't spend big on above average QB talent. Spend that money on your OL and DL and win games the gritty way.

A shift needs to happen, locking up huge chunks of cap space in these average QB's is getting these teams into trouble.

They should but the coaching staffs and front offices are under so much pressure to win now. Garrett was lucky he lasted long enough to see the end results.

 

[coolnerd]

In terms of a long-term viable strategy, we really won't know until we see how Seattle/49ers handle the 2nd contract of Wilson/Kaep. yes, they are taking advantage of getting their starter on his rookie contract, but until they don not pay those dudes 100 million in a couple of years, the argument can be made they are just taking advantage of good fortune instead of intentionally drafting 2nd/3rd/4th round Qbs to exploit the rest of the free agent market.

Yes, I am being that guy (quoting himself), but this is now played out that there was not a new strategy in place by NFL teams...now if there should be makes for worthwhile discussion