What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Which quarterback would you rather have? (1 Viewer)

Which quarterback would you rather have

  • Your choice of any NFL quarterback, at the highest salary in the NFL

    Votes: 48 64.9%

  • The 1.1 in next year's draft on a rookie deal

    Votes: 26 35.1%
  • Total voters
    74
bostonfred

bostonfred

Footballguy
Would you rather have the best quarterback in the NFL, but they are tyr highest paid player in the league,  or the best prospect in a strong quarterback class, on the rookie contract a 1.1 gets? 

For comparison - Russell Wilson just got 35 million a year for 4 years with 107 million guaranteed. Kyler murray just got 35 million for his rookie deal with a little over 23 million guaranteed. So basically the top quarterback gets the same or more per year as the top rookie gets for his entire contract.  

Someone suggested that Seattle could have traded wilson for 3 first round picks.  I don't know if that's true, but let's say it is.  Let's also assume that we know for a fact that the team that owns 1.1 next year will trade it for exactly those 3 firsts. Again, that might not be true in practice, but for this question we assume that it is.  Period. End of story.  Next off season, before signing your veteran qb - so there's no cap hit for trading him - you get offered both deals, and your owner lets you pick on the condition that you have to take one or the other.  I don't care which qb you pick - could be Brady Brees or Rodgers, or Wilson Luck or Mahomes, or whomever you prefer. 

Which would you take? 

 
Building a long term franchise is not based on 1 player and 35-40% of your Cap.  Give me the young player who is clearly the future.  Give him time to mature, grow & develop and still be able to put weapons & stability around him.  

 
Birdie048 said:
Building a long term franchise is not based on 1 player and 35-40% of your Cap.  Give me the young player who is clearly the future.  Give him time to mature, grow & develop and still be able to put weapons & stability around him.  
Click to expand...
And by the time he develops he's ready for his next contract. So you're hoping for a mediocre QB at 1.1 so you don't have to pay him on his next contract? Give me the hall of famer right now please and thank you. 

 
I'll take the hands down best QB in the NFL.......you have no idea if the 1.1 will hit......QB is too important in winning these days....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its sorta of an imperfect exercise though, because you don't know how that 1.1 pick will fair. Like if you were asking Mayfield v Rodgers, at their current contracts I'd take Mayfield, but there isn't a Mayfield in every draft. Side note, I might take Mayfield over Rodgers regardless of contract.

I think it also depends on the team make up, is this a veteran team that has a small window, in which case maybe the high paid option would be extra valuable since they don't need developmental time, or is the entire team young, in which case more patience can be afforded.

I think an elite QB is the most valuable thing in football(after an elite Head Coach) but the younger and cheaper the better. I can say for certain that I'd rather have a high-end prospect on a rookie deal, than a non-elite QB for big money, even if its a guy who is highly thought of. Like a specific example is, I'd rather have Will Grier at a 3rd round rookie deal than Kirk Cousins for his monster deal. 

But if the question is unknown rookie QB or Mahomes with a record setting contract, I'll take Mahomes. I'd probably take Luck as well, but after them, it gets harder to make the argument. Brady/Brees are almost done, Rodgers is getting up there, Ryan and Wilson aren't quite that level, so it really becomes a case by case basis, with a short list of worthy cases.

As for the original example, I come in on the Kyler Murray over Russell Wilson side of the equation, but I'm not a huge fan of Wilson.

 
Depends what my roster looks like and what the QB class looks like.

In most cases though I want the established stud QB

 
Sebowski said:
And by the time he develops he's ready for his next contract. So you're hoping for a mediocre QB at 1.1 so you don't have to pay him on his next contract? Give me the hall of famer right now please and thank you. 
Click to expand...
But if the 1.01 pick is a HOF himself, you deny the rest of the team the funds to build other offensive weapons, higher caliber players, Def studs, etc.  It's a kobayashi maru scenario....  no winner due to the variables in play.   Having the $$$ Stud QB for 1 or 2 years with no $ for OL cripples the QB and whole offense thus denying you any chance at championships.  But having a good coach who can get the most out of the highly values 1.01 QB, I think long term, I want the 1.01 QB.  

 
How many teams in the NFL wouldn’t get better by having Mahomes even if he was making Russell Wilson money? I take the best young player at the most important position and figure the rest out later

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting question.  Like others, I think too many other factors come into play to make a decision black and white.  I think you have to go for the HOF'er though, unless next year's QB is a Luck type prospect.  Having all that extra money for extra positions doesn't always pan out... some could get injured... the team might not gel... or what if you waste another huge chunk of that on the top rb and top wr in the league and then you have a maybe-great qb and an awful defense?  

 
I'd pay big $$$$$ to a guy who has won a SB, owns a slew of NFL records and firsts like Russell Wilson.  I would never pay big $$$$$ for just potential.

 
ZenoRazon said:
I'd pay big $$$$$ to a guy who has won a SB, owns a slew of NFL records and firsts like Russell Wilson.  I would never pay big $$$$$ for just potential.
Click to expand...
I think that's the point OP is making.  You wouldn't have to pay bit $$$$$ for the potential guy.  You'd have tons of money to spend elsewhere.

 
To put names in this in hindsight, do you want the past few years of Tom Brady at a higher salary, or Jared Goff? 

I'll take Brady with the benefit of hindsight.

I'll take Mahomes over Tua, Herbert or Fromm. 

 
Ilov80s said:
How many teams in the NFL wouldn’t get better by having Mahomes even if was making Russell Wilson money? I take the best young player at the most important position and figure the rest out later
Click to expand...
I was kind of talking about this yesterday with a buddy of mine- we are lions fans and both think stafford is at least a decent qb, but his contract (along with other top picks megatron and suh) has been tough to deal with the whole time. If we aren’t relevant this year, or at least fighting for a playoff spot near the end, id rather we suffer a 3 win season, get a new qb, trade stafford and work on building the way it seems the modern nfl rebuild is trending. 

As as far as the op, I suppose it depends. If I can get Peyton Manning in his prime for 3 years at top money I’m taking it all day. Seems logical to take the proven commodity over the dart throw, we make these decisions all the time in ffl. 

 
Snorkelson said:
I was kind of talking about this yesterday with a buddy of mine- we are lions fans and both think stafford is at least a decent qb, but his contract (along with other top picks megatron and suh) has been tough to deal with the whole time. If we aren’t relevant this year, or at least fighting for a playoff spot near the end, id rather we suffer a 3 win season, get a new qb, trade stafford and work on building the way it seems the modern nfl rebuild is trending. 

As as far as the op, I suppose it depends. If I can get Peyton Manning in his prime for 3 years at top money I’m taking it all day. Seems logical to take the proven commodity over the dart throw, we make these decisions all the time in ffl. 
Click to expand...
The way the question is posed, we could have the elite QB for as long as we could keep re-signing him. I can't imagine KC deciding to trade Mahomes in a year for the 1.01 just to avoid having to pay him top money. If I am KC, I am delighted at the prospect of signing Mahomes for 2 or 3 more max deals. As for the Lions and Stafford, this is like Caldwell all over again. After years of failures and train wrecks at HC and QB, we finally get someone who is competent and leading the team to the playoffs and people want to run them out of town. I don't get it.

 
Next year's draft... I'd take the first choice, NFL star QB.  2021 draft I'd go with 1.1 on a rookie deal.  

 
Ilov80s said:
The way the question is posed, we could have the elite QB for as long as we could keep re-signing him. I can't imagine KC deciding to trade Mahomes in a year for the 1.01 just to avoid having to pay him top money. If I am KC, I am delighted at the prospect of signing Mahomes for 2 or 3 more max deals. As for the Lions and Stafford, this is like Caldwell all over again. After years of failures and train wrecks at HC and QB, we finally get someone who is competent and leading the team to the playoffs and people want to run them out of town. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Not the thread for it but real quick here’s a link of all the crap qbs before stafford. 

Lions starting qb

if you ever hear talk radio ragging on stafford email them this link. 

 
Kevin Clark from The Ringer put it better and more succinctly than I ever could:

It’s pretty simple: The best thing to have in sports is a great quarterback making very little money, and the second-best thing is a great quarterback making a lot of money.
Click to expand...
You know you're getting a great NFL QB in Wilson, or Mahomes, or whichever stud floats your boat in this hypothetical. You have no idea whether you're getting a great NFL QB with the 1.1 pick. The choice is (or at least should be) obvious.

 
So even if the rookie pans out as a stud, it very likely wont be year 1. So you get they guy cheap for 2-3 years before a mega extension is due.  

Also, the #1 pick isnt exactly super cheap.  What is the difference in pay between a top paid QB and a #1 pick?  Say 20-25 million?  So two "good" players on the roster?

Give me the proven stud QB in a landslide in almost every possible scenario

 
Young player for me. 

So many teams seem to reach that sweet spot when their qb is on the last 2 years of their deal. Then they sign a big contract and maybe 2 years into that deal they've lost their muster.

This isnt to say a guy like Wilson kr Rodgers doesnt make your team better; they single handedly make their teams playoff teams and super bowl possibles. But, they certainly der that teams ability to also lock up good talent at edge rusher, LT, and so forth with other typically expensive positions. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
So even if the rookie pans out as a stud, it very likely wont be year 1. So you get they guy cheap for 2-3 years before a mega extension is due.  

Also, the #1 pick isnt exactly super cheap.  What is the difference in pay between a top paid QB and a #1 pick?  Say 20-25 million?  So two "good" players on the roster?

Give me the proven stud QB in a landslide in almost every possible scenario
Click to expand...
20-25 million is about the cost of the #2 and #3 highest players on many teams. Hardly chump change, and usually those are "great" players, or guys who are extremely valuable (LT, DE)

 
The only way I go with the pick is if it is a Luck type prospect and my team is currently not good. 

I think people views became a bit skewed with the Russell Wilson thing.  The team was stacked well beyond two extra good-great players

 
Since 2000 how many QBs on cheap deals have won a super bowl?  A couple?  Can we really count the Eagles 2 years ago? If we count the eagles when we have to change the question entirely.

So once in 20 years?  There is a reason for that

I guess maybe that is skewed also cause those teams taking the QBs early were probably less than average teams

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
Since 2000 how many QBs on cheap deals have won a super bowl?  A couple?  Can we really count the Eagles 2 years ago? If we count the eagles when we have to change the question entirely.

So once in 20 years?  There is a reason for that

I guess maybe that is skewed also cause those teams taking the QBs early were probably less than average teams
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question but I'd also ask how many QBs were top 5 paid at their position have won superbowls? I dont know the answer but this would be an interesting conparison

Results will be skewed due to NE and Bradys pay cut, so if we count him as an outlier and look at the other winners. 

 
#1 pick QBs in the last 21 years:

  • P Manning
  • Vick
  • David Carr
  • Carson Palmer
  • E. Manning
  • Alex Smith
  • JaMarcus Russell
  • Stafford
  • Bradford
  • Newton
  • Luck
  • Winston
  • Goff
  • Mayfield
Made it 21 just to include Peyton, but how many of these would you be happy with? Maybe Peyton, Vick, Newton, and Luck? Too early to call on Goff and Mayfield, and the best QB is not always taken first, but generally someone thought these were all the best player. Peyton jumps to Denver and they go from 4-12 and 8-8 to 4 years straight of 12 or 13 wins and a SB. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
Since 2000 how many QBs on cheap deals have won a super bowl?  A couple?  Can we really count the Eagles 2 years ago? If we count the eagles when we have to change the question entirely.

So once in 20 years?  There is a reason for that

I guess maybe that is skewed also cause those teams taking the QBs early were probably less than average teams
Click to expand...
Since 1998

6 titles have been won by the 3 quarterbacks who have won it all after being drafted 1.1 - Elway, peyton and eli. (Only one of them was caught receiving HGH at his house but retired before he was investigated.)

6 titles were won by rookie quarterbacks... sort of. Kurt Warner was a rookie but he was backup to trent green who was paid like a starter.  Same goes for brady 2001, and he got a contract extension that offseason.  Roethlisberger, eli and Russell wilson each won one on their first contracts, as did wentz, although it was the veteran backup foles who started every game in the playoffs 

Brady is such an outlier i don't think it's fair to make the case that a highly paid veteran qb is the way to go when he's atypical in both skill and contract demands.  

That leaves rodgers,  brees, flacco, dilfer, Roethlisberger, and brad johnson as the superbowl winning quarterbacks who weren't drafted 1.1, weren't on their rookie deals and weren't tom brady.  And i'd say rodgers brees and ben are good arguments in favor of paying up at qb, while flacco, dilfer and brad johnson are good examples of why you don't have to. You could also add foles to this list if you think he fits better here.

I don't know if that's the best way to break it down, but it seems pretty even to me. One thing worth noting - warner, brady, ben, eli and wilson all won titles on their rookie deals, and all of them look like hall of famers. Eli is the only one who was drafted 1.1. Could be a coincidence - cam and goff both got to the superbowl on their original 1.1 contracts.  

 
bostonfred said:
Since 1998

6 titles have been won by the 3 quarterbacks who have won it all after being drafted 1.1 - Elway, peyton and eli. (Only one of them was caught receiving HGH at his house but retired before he was investigated.)

6 titles were won by rookie quarterbacks... sort of. Kurt Warner was a rookie but he was backup to trent green who was paid like a starter.  Same goes for brady 2001, and he got a contract extension that offseason.  Roethlisberger, eli and Russell wilson each won one on their first contracts, as did wentz, although it was the veteran backup foles who started every game in the playoffs 

Brady is such an outlier i don't think it's fair to make the case that a highly paid veteran qb is the way to go when he's atypical in both skill and contract demands.  

That leaves rodgers,  brees, flacco, dilfer, Roethlisberger, and brad johnson as the superbowl winning quarterbacks who weren't drafted 1.1, weren't on their rookie deals and weren't tom brady.  And i'd say rodgers brees and ben are good arguments in favor of paying up at qb, while flacco, dilfer and brad johnson are good examples of why you don't have to. You could also add foles to this list if you think he fits better here.

I don't know if that's the best way to break it down, but it seems pretty even to me. One thing worth noting - warner, brady, ben, eli and wilson all won titles on their rookie deals, and all of them look like hall of famers. Eli is the only one who was drafted 1.1. Could be a coincidence - cam and goff both got to the superbowl on their original 1.1 contracts.  
Click to expand...
Eli will probably be a hall of famer, but shouldn't be. I just had to say it.

 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Kevin Clark from The Ringer put it better and more succinctly than I ever could:

You know you're getting a great NFL QB in Wilson, or Mahomes, or whichever stud floats your boat in this hypothetical. You have no idea whether you're getting a great NFL QB with the 1.1 pick. The choice is (or at least should be) obvious.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's totally obvious as it handicaps you in other areas.  There's been lots of talk on this board and around the league that the IDEAL way to build a team is getting one of those stud qbs on their rookie deal and building around them.  I know the odds of those guys hitting are low, and in theory you obviously want the better qb, but the dream scenario is a good qb on their rookie contract (See Wentz, Mahommes, Wilson, Goff to an extent, Etc). 

If you have a Luck type prospect (or even Lawrence in 2021), it's not totally crazy to want the 1.01 and an extra 25 M/year to spend on other guys.

 
Deamon said:
I don't think it's totally obvious as it handicaps you in other areas.  There's been lots of talk on this board and around the league that the IDEAL way to build a team is getting one of those stud qbs on their rookie deal and building around them.  I know the odds of those guys hitting are low, and in theory you obviously want the better qb, but the dream scenario is a good qb on their rookie contract (See Wentz, Mahommes, Wilson, Goff to an extent, Etc). 

If you have a Luck type prospect (or even Lawrence in 2021), it's not totally crazy to want the 1.01 and an extra 25 M/year to spend on other guys.
Click to expand...
A little bit of a tangent, but it appears that the length of time that teams can capitalize on the rookie deals is decreasing. Wentz signed an extension prior to his 4th NFL season and after playing only 40 games over the previous three years. No doubt this will soon be the norm.

 
Stephen Holloway said:
A little bit of a tangent, but it appears that the length of time that teams can capitalize on the rookie deals is decreasing. Wentz signed an extension prior to his 4th NFL season and after playing only 40 games over the previous three years. No doubt this will soon be the norm.
Click to expand...
The Wentz deal is a true extension meaning he will still be playing 2019 and 2020 under the terms of his rookie deal so I'm not sure the timing changes things that much for the Eagles.

 
Stephen Holloway said:
A little bit of a tangent, but it appears that the length of time that teams can capitalize on the rookie deals is decreasing. Wentz signed an extension prior to his 4th NFL season and after playing only 40 games over the previous three years. No doubt this will soon be the norm.
Click to expand...
Wentz' rookie deal didn't go away.  He's still on the same rookie deal for the full term plus 5th year option.  They just announced the extension early.

 
The report I read indicated $66 Million due at signing. Has another rookie got that in the middle of his current contract?

 
You know you can get OTHER great players on their rookie deals also, and those players are generally easier to predict than a stud QB.  

 
Stephen Holloway said:
The report I read indicated $66 Million due at signing. Has another rookie got that in the middle of his current contract?
Click to expand...
That was a little misleading. The $66 million wasn’t paid at signing, it represents the amount of the extension fully guaranteed at signing. The remaining $41 million of “guaranteed” money is not fully guaranteed against all 3 of injury, cap and Performance. 

 
Option 1 will guarantee a playoff birth.

Option 2 may lead to a Super Bowl or disaster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123 said:
Seems a bit high
Click to expand...
It is. With a 188.2 million salary cap. Wilson's average salary will be 35 million, which is 18.6 percent of cap. 

Wentz is getting slightly more per year but against a future cap that's likely to be much higher.  

It's also a bit confusing because we don't know exactly what's on the other side of the next CBA. If the cap goes up by some huge amount, or something crazy happens like the players agree on some kind of "max contract" like the NBA, or some other game changing terms, the answer in this thread might change a lot.  

For now let's assume that the current CBA is just extended with no major salary cap changes.  

 
bostonfred said:
It is. With a 188.2 million salary cap. Wilson's average salary will be 35 million, which is 18.6 percent of cap. 

Wentz is getting slightly more per year but against a future cap that's likely to be much higher.  

It's also a bit confusing because we don't know exactly what's on the other side of the next CBA. If the cap goes up by some huge amount, or something crazy happens like the players agree on some kind of "max contract" like the NBA, or some other game changing terms, the answer in this thread might change a lot.  

For now let's assume that the current CBA is just extended with no major salary cap changes.  
Click to expand...
I saw $39m as the number.  Either way... a lot for one guy of 53.

 
I dunno I am starting to come around.

Your QB isn't one of 53, he is one of 22.  He is a fixture.

 
matuski said:
You are right.. Wilsons contract is 20%.  A fifth of your money on one player.

Point remains.
Click to expand...
The average cap hit of a superbowl winning quarterback the last 20 years is probably over 15 percent, and only a few titles were won by teams that went cheap at the position.  The first year Brady won, drew Bledsoe was still under his big contract, and in 2007, eli was at the end of his rookie contract so he wasn't that cheap.  Kurt Warner, Roethlisberger, Wilson and Foles/wentz are the best examples of teams winning with bargain qbs - everyone else has been paying a big chunk of cap. 

 
bostonfred said:
The average cap hit of a superbowl winning quarterback the last 20 years is probably over 15 percent, and only a few titles were won by teams that went cheap at the position.  The first year Brady won, drew Bledsoe was still under his big contract, and in 2007, eli was at the end of his rookie contract so he wasn't that cheap.  Kurt Warner, Roethlisberger, Wilson and Foles/wentz are the best examples of teams winning with bargain qbs - everyone else has been paying a big chunk of cap. 
Click to expand...
Yea, like I posted right above, I am coming around to this perspective.

Assuming you know what the QB is, cool.

Giving this money to the likes of MM or Dak - I'm still against it because it seems a losing bet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So basically you choose the possibility of one great year (year 3 of the rookie QB) and also hope the rest of your team is awesome for that one year, or you get a guaranteed stud QB giving you the potential to go far 15 years in a row.

Hmmm

Keep in mind you can also do a rebuild tank for a couple years when you have a stud QB and try to give yourself cheap studs at other positions.  

 
Best QB at highest salary.  In 3-4 years they'll 10-15th highest and the cap will be significantly higher too.

 
Mahomes vs unknown =. Mahomes 

and then deal with other draft/signings/contracts after that....that is why you hire most of your staff/ employees/scouts......to figure that other #### out....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll
Would you rather have Zack Moss or Chase Brown?
Replies
13
Views
640
SuperFantasyFootballGuy
S
Ministry of Pain
Do the Miami Dolphins have a right to ask Tua Tags to play under a 5th year option?
2
Replies
99
Views
2K
msudaisy26
msudaisy26
-OZ-
  • Poll
Flashback 10 years. 2014 draft - who would you have rather your team drafted? (Pick 3)
Replies
27
Views
776
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top