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

[tdmills]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now, I think one thing is certainly flying under the radar and this may be a strategy NFL teams may do moving forward.

First lets look at some recent NFL QB extensions:

Joe Flacco- 6 year deal for 120.6 million. 52 million guaranteed

Drew Brees- 5 year deal for 100 million. 60 million guaranteed

Aaron Rodgers- 7 year deal for 130 million. 54 million guaranteed

Matt Ryan- 5 year deal for 103.75. 59 million guaranteed

Mark Sanchez- 3 year deal for 58 million. 20.5 million guaranteed

While some of these QBs certainly are the best in the game, I think that some are overpaid.

Russell Wilson- 4 year deal for 3 million. .619 million guaranteed

Colin Kaepernick- 4 year deal for 5.1 million. 3.8 million guaranteed

Andy Dalton- 4 year deal for 5.2 million. 4 million guaranteed

Andrew Luck- 4 year deal for 22 million. 22 million guaranteed

RGIII- 4 year deal for 21 million. 21 million guaranteed

Ryan Tannehill- 4 year deal for 12 million. 12 million guaranteed

Rodgers/Brees are some of the best QBs in the game and have proven it over a long period of time. But are Flacco/Ryan that much better than the youngsters?

Key point: Under the new CBA, players can't renegotiate their contract until after year 3.

No matter what, Russell Wilson will play for 526,000 in 2013, even if Seattle wanted to pay him more. Andy Dalton takes Cinci to the playoffs his rookie/2nd year and still won't get a pay raise until after 2013.

Seattle could afford to go pay: Percy Harvin, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Antoine Winfield, etc because they know they have a super cheap QB for two more years.

49ers went out and are paying Boldin, Nhamdi, Glenn Dorsey and they extended a few players. They still have Kaep on the cheap for 2013 at least.

Granted I know you must draft a QB and he must play well, which is difficult. But is it more cost efficient to draft a new QB than to resign a vet for a max deal? Then use that money saved to address the needs you would've with that draft pick.

For example: Chicago Bears are going to be in this predicament after 2013 when Jay Cutler is an UFA. Do they pay Cutler 12 million? 15 million, 18 million per year? I don't think he's worth it. Lets say Chicago goes 8-8, which takes them out of the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes. In round one they could take a Tahj Boyd/David Fales type of QB. Then in round two take a Jeff Mathews/Devin Gardner type of QB. Cost would be around 4-5 Million per year for both QBs for at least 3 years. Then use the rest of that money to sign players for need(they're established so less of a bust) and resign key players.

The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

 

[kutta]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

 

[tdmills]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

Yes a chance of Wilson/Kaep or Gabbert/Leinart, but you also get to a 12 million more to spend on your team. You don't think it's worth that chance?

2012 QB rating: Flacco 87.7, Ponder 81.2, Gabbert 77.4

 

[kutta]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

Yes a chance of Wilson/Kaep or Gabbert/Leinart, but you also get to a 12 million more to spend on your team. You don't think it's worth that chance?

2012 QB rating: Flacco 87.7, Ponder 81.2, Gabbert 77.4

No, I don't. Here is a list of QB's with multiple Superbowl starts (meaning they've been to the Superbowl more than once):

5 - Brady

5 - Elway

4- Bradshaw

4- Staubach

4- Kelly

3 - Aikman

3 - Griese

3 - Roethlisberger

3 - Warner

3 - Tarkenton

2 - Starr

2 - Plunkett

2 - Eli Manning

2 - Dawson

2 - Favre

2 - Peyton Manning

2 - Morton

It's hard to find a good QB. When you do, you have to keep him. They don't come around very often.

 

[tdmills]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

Yes a chance of Wilson/Kaep or Gabbert/Leinart, but you also get to a 12 million more to spend on your team. You don't think it's worth that chance?

2012 QB rating: Flacco 87.7, Ponder 81.2, Gabbert 77.4

No, I don't. Here is a list of QB's with multiple Superbowl starts (meaning they've been to the Superbowl more than once):

5 - Brady

5 - Elway

4- Bradshaw

4- Staubach

4- Kelly

3 - Aikman

3 - Griese

3 - Roethlisberger

3 - Warner

3 - Tarkenton

2 - Starr

2 - Plunkett

2 - Eli Manning

2 - Dawson

2 - Favre

2 - Peyton Manning

2 - Morton

It's hard to find a good QB. When you do, you have to keep him. They don't come around very often.

This idea isn't about Super Bowl QBs, what about Jay Cutler pay him? Josh Freeman is entering the last year of his deal as well.

 

[Irish13]

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/40340/60/2nd-round-qb-success-rate

3 of 22 2nd round QBs became solid starters since 1991. 6 QBs were taken in the 3rd round between 2006 and 2011, not one developed into a solid starter. Of the 4 notable 2nd and 3rd round QBs (Favre, Brees, Dalton and Wilson, and hell toss in Montana for fun) Favre had first round talent and dropped out of the 1st round because of maturity issues (and was traded before he developed into Brett Favre) Brees and Wilson had first round talent but were considered to short, Dalton lacks ideal arm strength and the jury is still out on his long term future and Montana happened to fall into the perfect system for his skill set. If Montana had come along 5 years earlier he would've bounced out of the league before anyone heard the term "west coast offense) because he lacked the classic NFL deep ball skill set.

There were 31 QBs drafted in the first round between 2001 and 2011 and only 14 of them turned into viable NFL starters (assuming Freeman, Alex Smith and Bradford are viable starters). So the NFL won't adopt your strategy because all the skill position talent in the world won't help you win a Super Bowl if you have Jason Campbell, JP Losman or Brady Quinn throwing them the ball, but a middle of the road talent like Joe Flacco can win a Superbowl if you give them time to learn and settle into a system.

 

[tdmills]

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/40340/60/2nd-round-qb-success-rate

3 of 22 2nd round QBs became solid starters since 1991. 6 QBs were taken in the 3rd round between 2006 and 2011, not one developed into a solid starter. Of the 4 notable 2nd and 3rd round QBs (Favre, Brees, Dalton and Wilson, and hell toss in Montana for fun) Favre had first round talent and dropped out of the 1st round because of maturity issues (and was traded before he developed into Brett Favre) Brees and Wilson had first round talent but were considered to short, Dalton lacks ideal arm strength and the jury is still out on his long term future and Montana happened to fall into the perfect system for his skill set. If Montana had come along 5 years earlier he would've bounced out of the league before anyone heard the term "west coast offense) because he lacked the classic NFL deep ball skill set.

There were 31 QBs drafted in the first round between 2001 and 2011 and only 14 of them turned into viable NFL starters (assuming Freeman, Alex Smith and Bradford are viable starters). So the NFL won't adopt your strategy because all the skill position talent in the world won't help you win a Super Bowl if you have Jason Campbell, JP Losman or Brady Quinn throwing them the ball, but a middle of the road talent like Joe Flacco can win a Superbowl if you give them time to learn and settle into a system.

Considering Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Big Ben, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson have accounted for exactly 50% of Super Bowl victories since the year 2000. Is it really that difficult to get a viable(average) starter?

Lets look at your #'s and who fits into the viable starter, which is all i'm looking for in a QB for this strategy. This QB just has to be near average or better because the supporting cast will be better due to the extra money.

2012:

Luck- he fits

RGIII- he fits

Tannehill- he fits

Weeden- below average

Osweiler- never given a chance

2011:

Newton- He fits

Locker- Below average

Gabbert- Below average

Ponder- Below average

Dalton- He fits

Kaepernick- He fits

2010:

Bradford- he fits

Tebow- made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs as a starter, but no

Clausen- no

2009:

Stafford- He fits

Sanchez- below average

Freeman- he fits

Pat White- gimmick player, no

2008:

Ryan- he fits

Flacco- he fits

Brohm- bust

Henne- below average

2007:

Russell- haha no

Quinn- nope

Beck- no

Kolb- below average

Stanton- nope

2006:

Young- nope

Leinart- nope

Cutler- he fits

Clemens- nope

T. Jackson- below average

2005:

Alex Smith- he fits

Rodgers- he fits

Campbell- nope

2004:

Eli- he fits

Rivers- he fits

Big Ben- he fits

Losman- nope

2003:

Palmer- he fits

Leftwich- nope

Boller- nope

Grossman- nope(although he made it to a super bowl)

2002:

Carr- nope

Harrington- nope

Ramsey- nope

2001:

Vick- he fits

Brees- he fits

Q. Carter- nope

M. Tuiasasopo- nope

2000:

Pennington- he fits

21 out of 51= 41.1% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better.

-Note this puts Ponder/Locker/Gabbert not into this category, so it's on the safe side.

Furthermore, my contention that college QBs are more NFL ready is also correct.

Since 2008, 50% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better(still without Ponder/Gabbert/Locker)

2000-2007, 34.4% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better

 

[kutta]

So maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Are you saying that in three years, RG3, Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Cam should all be cut and the teams should draft a new QB?

 

[tdmills]

So maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Are you saying that in three years, RG3, Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Cam should all be cut and the teams should draft a new QB?

If they're not top 10 at their position, yes. I feel that teams are overpaying for these middle tier QBs(flacco/cutler/etc), when rookies come in and are very close to them.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Find a really good player. Don't pay him that much. Got it. BRILLIANT!

 

[The Westin]

I get where you're coming from.

Teams like the Niners can go on a spending spree if they feel the need because they're spending about $20mil less on the quarterback position than teams like GB or Baltimore. Kaepernick is an insane bargain at that price and this allows the Niners to go for it in Free Agency if they want to.

Meanwhile, GB has a QB who takes up almost 20% of the cap. It's difficult to build a solid team around Rodgers with that, let alone guys like Ryan or Flacco.

But it's worth it, because although those two aren't elite, they are good enough to get you to the playoffs year in and year out. And if you're in the playoffs, you always have a chance to win it all.

Now if you get rid of Ryan, and draft some kid who has a 60% chance of failing...you could enter a decade or more of losing seasons and wish you had a guy like Matt Ryan still playing.

It comes down to risk, really. A good QB with a crappy team can still stay competitive. A crappy QB with a good team will likely not.

 

[Resident A]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

Yes a chance of Wilson/Kaep or Gabbert/Leinart, but you also get to a 12 million more to spend on your team. You don't think it's worth that chance?

2012 QB rating: Flacco 87.7, Ponder 81.2, Gabbert 77.4

No, I don't. Here is a list of QB's with multiple Superbowl starts (meaning they've been to the Superbowl more than once):

5 - Brady

5 - Elway

4- Bradshaw

4- Staubach

4- Kelly

3 - Aikman

3 - Griese

3 - Roethlisberger

3 - Warner

3 - Tarkenton

2 - Starr

2 - Plunkett

2 - Eli Manning

2 - Dawson

2 - Favre

2 - Peyton Manning

2 - Morton

It's hard to find a good QB. When you do, you have to keep him. They don't come around very often.

How did Montana get left off this list?

 

[bostonfred]

Why not do the same thing with backup QBs? Offer journeyman QBs a two year deal that pays them backup QB money. There are plenty of cheap backup QBs around the NFL who would love a chance to start. Every year there are guys who washed out of their current teams, or didn't find a chair when the music stops. And every year, teams go after the biggest QB name in free agency and pay them well. Screw that. Spend well on the other 52 positions on your team, then offer a cheap two year deal and a chance to start at QB in the NFL. Hold tryouts. You'll never get the big name guy or the big ego guy but you'll get some guys who deserve another shot. Tim Tebow, Tavaris Jackson, Jason Campbell type guys who would play free for a chance to start. Don't overpay for Matt Flynn or Kevin Kolb, commit to the cheap QB.

 

[Warrior]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now, I think one thing is certainly flying under the radar and this may be a strategy NFL teams may do moving forward.

First lets look at some recent NFL QB extensions:

Joe Flacco- 6 year deal for 120.6 million. 52 million guaranteed

Drew Brees- 5 year deal for 100 million. 60 million guaranteed

Aaron Rodgers- 7 year deal for 130 million. 54 million guaranteed

Matt Ryan- 5 year deal for 103.75. 59 million guaranteed

Mark Sanchez- 3 year deal for 58 million. 20.5 million guaranteed

While some of these QBs certainly are the best in the game, I think that some are overpaid.

Russell Wilson- 4 year deal for 3 million. .619 million guaranteed

Colin Kaepernick- 4 year deal for 5.1 million. 3.8 million guaranteed

Andy Dalton- 4 year deal for 5.2 million. 4 million guaranteed

Andrew Luck- 4 year deal for 22 million. 22 million guaranteed

RGIII- 4 year deal for 21 million. 21 million guaranteed

Ryan Tannehill- 4 year deal for 12 million. 12 million guaranteed

Rodgers/Brees are some of the best QBs in the game and have proven it over a long period of time. But are Flacco/Ryan that much better than the youngsters?

Key point: Under the new CBA, players can't renegotiate their contract until after year 3.

No matter what, Russell Wilson will play for 526,000 in 2013, even if Seattle wanted to pay him more. Andy Dalton takes Cinci to the playoffs his rookie/2nd year and still won't get a pay raise until after 2013.

Seattle could afford to go pay: Percy Harvin, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Antoine Winfield, etc because they know they have a super cheap QB for two more years.

49ers went out and are paying Boldin, Nhamdi, Glenn Dorsey and they extended a few players. They still have Kaep on the cheap for 2013 at least.

Granted I know you must draft a QB and he must play well, which is difficult. But is it more cost efficient to draft a new QB than to resign a vet for a max deal? Then use that money saved to address the needs you would've with that draft pick.

For example: Chicago Bears are going to be in this predicament after 2013 when Jay Cutler is an UFA. Do they pay Cutler 12 million? 15 million, 18 million per year? I don't think he's worth it. Lets say Chicago goes 8-8, which takes them out of the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes. In round one they could take a Tahj Boyd/David Fales type of QB. Then in round two take a Jeff Mathews/Devin Gardner type of QB. Cost would be around 4-5 Million per year for both QBs for at least 3 years. Then use the rest of that money to sign players for need(they're established so less of a bust) and resign key players.

The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

You're totally ignoring a key point. By using those high draft picks on cheap rookie QBs, you can't use them on cheap rookies at a different position of need. So it's not 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB', it's 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB + cheap rookie at other position of need'

 

[bigums]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now, I think one thing is certainly flying under the radar and this may be a strategy NFL teams may do moving forward.

First lets look at some recent NFL QB extensions:

Joe Flacco- 6 year deal for 120.6 million. 52 million guaranteed

Drew Brees- 5 year deal for 100 million. 60 million guaranteed

Aaron Rodgers- 7 year deal for 130 million. 54 million guaranteed

Matt Ryan- 5 year deal for 103.75. 59 million guaranteed

Mark Sanchez- 3 year deal for 58 million. 20.5 million guaranteed

While some of these QBs certainly are the best in the game, I think that some are overpaid.

Russell Wilson- 4 year deal for 3 million. .619 million guaranteed

Colin Kaepernick- 4 year deal for 5.1 million. 3.8 million guaranteed

Andy Dalton- 4 year deal for 5.2 million. 4 million guaranteed

Andrew Luck- 4 year deal for 22 million. 22 million guaranteed

RGIII- 4 year deal for 21 million. 21 million guaranteed

Ryan Tannehill- 4 year deal for 12 million. 12 million guaranteed

Rodgers/Brees are some of the best QBs in the game and have proven it over a long period of time. But are Flacco/Ryan that much better than the youngsters?

Key point: Under the new CBA, players can't renegotiate their contract until after year 3.

No matter what, Russell Wilson will play for 526,000 in 2013, even if Seattle wanted to pay him more. Andy Dalton takes Cinci to the playoffs his rookie/2nd year and still won't get a pay raise until after 2013.

Seattle could afford to go pay: Percy Harvin, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Antoine Winfield, etc because they know they have a super cheap QB for two more years.

49ers went out and are paying Boldin, Nhamdi, Glenn Dorsey and they extended a few players. They still have Kaep on the cheap for 2013 at least.

Granted I know you must draft a QB and he must play well, which is difficult. But is it more cost efficient to draft a new QB than to resign a vet for a max deal? Then use that money saved to address the needs you would've with that draft pick.

For example: Chicago Bears are going to be in this predicament after 2013 when Jay Cutler is an UFA. Do they pay Cutler 12 million? 15 million, 18 million per year? I don't think he's worth it. Lets say Chicago goes 8-8, which takes them out of the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes. In round one they could take a Tahj Boyd/David Fales type of QB. Then in round two take a Jeff Mathews/Devin Gardner type of QB. Cost would be around 4-5 Million per year for both QBs for at least 3 years. Then use the rest of that money to sign players for need(they're established so less of a bust) and resign key players.

The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

You're totally ignoring a key point. By using those high draft picks on cheap rookie QBs, you can't use them on cheap rookies at a different position of need. So it's not 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB', it's 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB + cheap rookie at other position of need'

Yeah, but the expensive QBs could be the same price as 2-3 really great "other" position needs. 7 of the top 10 contracts in the NFL are QB. I can see his argument more like:

$$$$$$$$$QB + rookieOther

OR

rookieQB + $$$Other + $$$Other + $$$Other

You might still be getting top 10 guys at those other positions for the cost of 1 elite QB.

I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the math.

 

[tdmills]

I get where you're coming from.

Teams like the Niners can go on a spending spree if they feel the need because they're spending about $20mil less on the quarterback position than teams like GB or Baltimore. Kaepernick is an insane bargain at that price and this allows the Niners to go for it in Free Agency if they want to.

Meanwhile, GB has a QB who takes up almost 20% of the cap. It's difficult to build a solid team around Rodgers with that, let alone guys like Ryan or Flacco.

But it's worth it, because although those two aren't elite, they are good enough to get you to the playoffs year in and year out. And if you're in the playoffs, you always have a chance to win it all.

Now if you get rid of Ryan, and draft some kid who has a 60% chance of failing...you could enter a decade or more of losing seasons and wish you had a guy like Matt Ryan still playing.

It comes down to risk, really. A good QB with a crappy team can still stay competitive. A crappy QB with a good team will likely not.

Yes it does, by numbers I calculated a few posts above: 50% chance of getting a close to average NFL starter since 2008(not counting Ponder/Locker/Gabbert) if drafted in round 1 or 2.

 

[tdmills]

Why not do the same thing with backup QBs? Offer journeyman QBs a two year deal that pays them backup QB money. There are plenty of cheap backup QBs around the NFL who would love a chance to start. Every year there are guys who washed out of their current teams, or didn't find a chair when the music stops. And every year, teams go after the biggest QB name in free agency and pay them well. Screw that. Spend well on the other 52 positions on your team, then offer a cheap two year deal and a chance to start at QB in the NFL. Hold tryouts. You'll never get the big name guy or the big ego guy but you'll get some guys who deserve another shot. Tim Tebow, Tavaris Jackson, Jason Campbell type guys who would play free for a chance to start. Don't overpay for Matt Flynn or Kevin Kolb, commit to the cheap QB.

This is another strategy, I doubt you would get a middle tier QB this way though. It would be a very low level starter(probably bottom 5 QB starter) almost every year.

 

[tdmills]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now, I think one thing is certainly flying under the radar and this may be a strategy NFL teams may do moving forward.

First lets look at some recent NFL QB extensions:

Joe Flacco- 6 year deal for 120.6 million. 52 million guaranteed

Drew Brees- 5 year deal for 100 million. 60 million guaranteed

Aaron Rodgers- 7 year deal for 130 million. 54 million guaranteed

Matt Ryan- 5 year deal for 103.75. 59 million guaranteed

Mark Sanchez- 3 year deal for 58 million. 20.5 million guaranteed

While some of these QBs certainly are the best in the game, I think that some are overpaid.

Russell Wilson- 4 year deal for 3 million. .619 million guaranteed

Colin Kaepernick- 4 year deal for 5.1 million. 3.8 million guaranteed

Andy Dalton- 4 year deal for 5.2 million. 4 million guaranteed

Andrew Luck- 4 year deal for 22 million. 22 million guaranteed

RGIII- 4 year deal for 21 million. 21 million guaranteed

Ryan Tannehill- 4 year deal for 12 million. 12 million guaranteed

Rodgers/Brees are some of the best QBs in the game and have proven it over a long period of time. But are Flacco/Ryan that much better than the youngsters?

Key point: Under the new CBA, players can't renegotiate their contract until after year 3.

No matter what, Russell Wilson will play for 526,000 in 2013, even if Seattle wanted to pay him more. Andy Dalton takes Cinci to the playoffs his rookie/2nd year and still won't get a pay raise until after 2013.

Seattle could afford to go pay: Percy Harvin, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Antoine Winfield, etc because they know they have a super cheap QB for two more years.

49ers went out and are paying Boldin, Nhamdi, Glenn Dorsey and they extended a few players. They still have Kaep on the cheap for 2013 at least.

Granted I know you must draft a QB and he must play well, which is difficult. But is it more cost efficient to draft a new QB than to resign a vet for a max deal? Then use that money saved to address the needs you would've with that draft pick.

For example: Chicago Bears are going to be in this predicament after 2013 when Jay Cutler is an UFA. Do they pay Cutler 12 million? 15 million, 18 million per year? I don't think he's worth it. Lets say Chicago goes 8-8, which takes them out of the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes. In round one they could take a Tahj Boyd/David Fales type of QB. Then in round two take a Jeff Mathews/Devin Gardner type of QB. Cost would be around 4-5 Million per year for both QBs for at least 3 years. Then use the rest of that money to sign players for need(they're established so less of a bust) and resign key players.

The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

You're totally ignoring a key point. By using those high draft picks on cheap rookie QBs, you can't use them on cheap rookies at a different position of need. So it's not 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB', it's 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB + cheap rookie at other position of need'

I thought it was implied, lets use Tampa Bay for an example.

They let Josh Freeman walk after 2013.

2014 draft they grab Tahj Boyd and Braxton Miller in rounds 1 and 2.

2014 Free agency, they sign a stud LB, upgrade at TE, and resign everyone. Essentially round 1/2 picks are the LB/TE.

However, that 12-15 Million they save happens each and every year because it's flexible. If they sign a player long term, sure it doesn't work. But they could upgrade multiple spots by grabbing players on 1 year(prove it) contracts.

Just by looking at 2013 free agents:

Mendenhall 2.5 million for 1 year(to backup Dougie)

Wes Welker 6 million at 2 years(to play the slot with Vjax/MW outside)

Brandon Myers 2.5 million for 1 year(upgrade is needed)

Tyson Clabo 3.5 million for 1 year

Eric Winston vet minimum for 1 year

That's 15 million in signings and made Tampa much better. Recycle repeat if they don't do well but it seems much better than paying Josh Freeman to be the man, if he really isn't the man.

 

[tdmills]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now, I think one thing is certainly flying under the radar and this may be a strategy NFL teams may do moving forward.

First lets look at some recent NFL QB extensions:

Joe Flacco- 6 year deal for 120.6 million. 52 million guaranteed

Drew Brees- 5 year deal for 100 million. 60 million guaranteed

Aaron Rodgers- 7 year deal for 130 million. 54 million guaranteed

Matt Ryan- 5 year deal for 103.75. 59 million guaranteed

Mark Sanchez- 3 year deal for 58 million. 20.5 million guaranteed

While some of these QBs certainly are the best in the game, I think that some are overpaid.

Russell Wilson- 4 year deal for 3 million. .619 million guaranteed

Colin Kaepernick- 4 year deal for 5.1 million. 3.8 million guaranteed

Andy Dalton- 4 year deal for 5.2 million. 4 million guaranteed

Andrew Luck- 4 year deal for 22 million. 22 million guaranteed

RGIII- 4 year deal for 21 million. 21 million guaranteed

Ryan Tannehill- 4 year deal for 12 million. 12 million guaranteed

Rodgers/Brees are some of the best QBs in the game and have proven it over a long period of time. But are Flacco/Ryan that much better than the youngsters?

Key point: Under the new CBA, players can't renegotiate their contract until after year 3.

No matter what, Russell Wilson will play for 526,000 in 2013, even if Seattle wanted to pay him more. Andy Dalton takes Cinci to the playoffs his rookie/2nd year and still won't get a pay raise until after 2013.

Seattle could afford to go pay: Percy Harvin, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, Antoine Winfield, etc because they know they have a super cheap QB for two more years.

49ers went out and are paying Boldin, Nhamdi, Glenn Dorsey and they extended a few players. They still have Kaep on the cheap for 2013 at least.

Granted I know you must draft a QB and he must play well, which is difficult. But is it more cost efficient to draft a new QB than to resign a vet for a max deal? Then use that money saved to address the needs you would've with that draft pick.

For example: Chicago Bears are going to be in this predicament after 2013 when Jay Cutler is an UFA. Do they pay Cutler 12 million? 15 million, 18 million per year? I don't think he's worth it. Lets say Chicago goes 8-8, which takes them out of the Teddy Bridgewater sweepstakes. In round one they could take a Tahj Boyd/David Fales type of QB. Then in round two take a Jeff Mathews/Devin Gardner type of QB. Cost would be around 4-5 Million per year for both QBs for at least 3 years. Then use the rest of that money to sign players for need(they're established so less of a bust) and resign key players.

The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

You're totally ignoring a key point. By using those high draft picks on cheap rookie QBs, you can't use them on cheap rookies at a different position of need. So it's not 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB', it's 'Cheap QB + free agent player of need' vs 'expensive QB + cheap rookie at other position of need'

Yeah, but the expensive QBs could be the same price as 2-3 really great "other" position needs. 7 of the top 10 contracts in the NFL are QB. I can see his argument more like:

$$$$$$$$$QB + rookieOther

OR

rookieQB + $$$Other + $$$Other + $$$Other

You might still be getting top 10 guys at those other positions for the cost of 1 elite QB.

I don't necessarily agree, but I can see the math.

You got it, that's the basic premise

 

[kutta]

So maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Are you saying that in three years, RG3, Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Cam should all be cut and the teams should draft a new QB?

If they're not top 10 at their position, yes. I feel that teams are overpaying for these middle tier QBs(flacco/cutler/etc), when rookies come in and are very close to them.

I think you are vastly underestimating how hard it is to find a good QB, and how long it usually takes before they are successful in the NFL. Look around the league. There are what, maybe 20 really quality QB's? That means there's another 12 teams that can't even find a really good starting QB right now? Imagine if all these teams were recycling every few years. The good teams would snatch up the good QB's, and the others would be left trying to draft rookies that might pan out or they might not.

It's easy to look at a couple cases (Seattle and San Fran) and say it would work. But there are 30 other teams in the league who also have to be considered.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

With the outrageous contracts being handed out to the QB position right now,

They are probably worth even more.

Let a Luck type leave college and be free to work wherever he chooses.

 

[tdmills]

So maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

Are you saying that in three years, RG3, Luck, Kap, Wilson, and Cam should all be cut and the teams should draft a new QB?

If they're not top 10 at their position, yes. I feel that teams are overpaying for these middle tier QBs(flacco/cutler/etc), when rookies come in and are very close to them.

I think you are vastly underestimating how hard it is to find a good QB, and how long it usually takes before they are successful in the NFL. Look around the league. There are what, maybe 20 really quality QB's? That means there's another 12 teams that can't even find a really good starting QB right now? Imagine if all these teams were recycling every few years. The good teams would snatch up the good QB's, and the others would be left trying to draft rookies that might pan out or they might not.

It's easy to look at a couple cases (Seattle and San Fran) and say it would work. But there are 30 other teams in the league who also have to be considered.

In post #7, I found that to get a close to average or better QB since 2008 was at 50%. If you drafted a QB in round 1 or 2 every other year, then you're almost locked to have a solid player at the position and 12 millionish to help improve your team vs overpaying for an average QB.

I didn't cherry pick Seattle San Fran, I used every draft pick(even the Pat White's of the world were calculated in).

Andy Dalton, Tannehill, etc are other recent examples that are cheap and fit the bill.

 

[Ilov80s]

Last year was a major fluke man. There is almost never a year where 3 rookie QBs come in and play really well. Look at this year? There isn't a guy that is a real viable starter now and I'm not sure next they will ever turn into viable starters. You are saying taking a rookie QB is good because you get 3 cheap years. If you went with this strategy in 2010, you would have spent the last 3 years with Tebow, Bradford, Claussen, Colt McCoy or John Skelton as your starter. We have seen how that worked out. I think each class and each player has to be judged uniquely. Tossing aside a pretty good veteran QB just because a rookie will be cheaper isn't a good strategy. You do that because that particular rookie has the tools to surpass the veteran.

 

[bostonfred]

Why not do the same thing with backup QBs? Offer journeyman QBs a two year deal that pays them backup QB money. There are plenty of cheap backup QBs around the NFL who would love a chance to start. Every year there are guys who washed out of their current teams, or didn't find a chair when the music stops. And every year, teams go after the biggest QB name in free agency and pay them well. Screw that. Spend well on the other 52 positions on your team, then offer a cheap two year deal and a chance to start at QB in the NFL. Hold tryouts. You'll never get the big name guy or the big ego guy but you'll get some guys who deserve another shot. Tim Tebow, Tavaris Jackson, Jason Campbell type guys who would play free for a chance to start. Don't overpay for Matt Flynn or Kevin Kolb, commit to the cheap QB.

This is another strategy, I doubt you would get a middle tier QB this way though. It would be a very low level starter(probably bottom 5 QB starter) almost every year.

That's true of rookie QBs, too. There's a very short list of rookie QBs who produce right away. Ask Jacksonville what they think about hanging on to their stud QB throughout his rookie contract.Speaking of which, Tebow was also a first round pick - and is now available on the scrap heap. Matt Leinart was supposed to be a stud QB prospect but he needed to mature. Maybe he's ready at this point. He's looked OK in spot duty and his ego must have taken a hit. Guys like this are everywhere, and chomping at the bit for a chance to get back into a starting job. Would that make them bottom five guys? Maybe, but it's not like they're totally without potential. And at least you're not wasting a year every three seasons grooming a new rookie. These guys are ready to go.

 

[tdmills]

Last year was a major fluke man. There is almost never a year where 3 rookie QBs come in and play really well. Look at this year? There isn't a guy that is a real viable starter now and I'm not sure next they will ever turn into viable starters. You are saying taking a rookie QB is good because you get 3 cheap years. If you went with this strategy in 2010, you would have spent the last 3 years with Tebow, Bradford, Claussen, Colt McCoy or John Skelton as your starter. We have seen how that worked out. I think each class and each player has to be judged uniquely. Tossing aside a pretty good veteran QB just because a rookie will be cheaper isn't a good strategy. You do that because that particular rookie has the tools to surpass the veteran.

Obviously foresight would be needed. Such as everyone knows a lot of talented QB prospects will be available in 2013 along with some stud WRs. This isn't a guessing game, scout and determine every other year the QB you want at a good price.

My strategy isn't to draft one QB, but two. It greatly improves the odds, which are 50% since 2008 of getting a middle tier QB. So in your example, lets say we drafted Clausen in 2010. But followed it up the next year with an Andy Dalton, well I think we're sitting just fine and that's right at the 50% hit rate.

But now I also saved 12 million+ each year by not forking out a ton by overpaying a QB that many rookie QBs are showing they're more than ready.

-Luck, RGIII, Wilson proved that.

-But so did Andy Dalton with a QB rating of 80.4 as a rookie and 87.4 in year 2.

-Tannehill, Freeman, Cam Newton, Matt Ryan have shown enough in year 1 to not warrant paying a ton for a vet.

 

[cheese]

Interesting. 1 other problem I see is that you're counting picks from all over the 1st round in your hit rate. If a team has a good starter around his 4th year that they are letting walk due to big money demands, chances are good they're drafting late. If you even just remove picks #1 and #2 from your analysis, I think the hit rate changes.

 

[tdmills]

Interesting. 1 other problem I see is that you're counting picks from all over the 1st round in your hit rate. If a team has a good starter around his 4th year that they are letting walk due to big money demands, chances are good they're drafting late. If you even just remove picks #1 and #2 from your analysis, I think the hit rate changes.

I agree. If I had to overall guess, the worst case scenario for a QB rating is mid 70's-low 80's that's where Locker, Gabbert, Weeden, Ponder. I don't think those guys win you games, but with the extra money it certainly helps and that's the worst case scenario.

Maybe I think these college QBs are more NFL ready than the rest of you.

 

[Ilov80s]

The major flaw in this logic is the NFL is business and the people drafting and signing players have jobs they want to keep. Dumping a pretty good veteran QB for an unproven rookie is a good way to lose that job and anger said fans. Imagine Atlanta GM says, "sorry Matt Ryan, you are too expensive. We are going to try and draft Teddy Bridgewater next year and roll with him since he is so much cheaper." Teddy has normal rookie struggles and ATL misses the playoffs. Matt Ryan signs with the Vikings and throws for 4000 yards an 35 TDs again. You think Arthur Blank doesn't fire you and the people of Atlanta forever remember you as the guy that destroyed a potential SB team?

 

[Ilov80s]

Interesting. 1 other problem I see is that you're counting picks from all over the 1st round in your hit rate. If a team has a good starter around his 4th year that they are letting walk due to big money demands, chances are good they're drafting late. If you even just remove picks #1 and #2 from your analysis, I think the hit rate changes.

I agree. If I had to overall guess, the worst case scenario for a QB rating is mid 70's-low 80's that's where Locker, Gabbert, Weeden, Ponder. I don't think those guys win you games, but with the extra money it certainly helps and that's the worst case scenario.

Maybe I think these college QBs are more NFL ready than the rest of you.

You also mentioned veterans making too much money like Brees, Rodgers, and Ryan. Their QB ratings last year were 108, 99, and 96. Now we know that this past year we had record level production from rookie QBs. Cam Newton was his rookie year, but he only had a QB rating of 84. Rookie QBs having 90+ ratings is something you just don't see normally.

You said getting a rookie QB, your worst case scenario is a QB rating in the mid 70s? No. Gabbert (65), Ponder (70), Skelton (68), and Bradford(70) were all rookie or 2nd year QBs and they represented 4 of the 5 worst QB ratings in the NFL in 2011. They were all outplayed by journeymen QBs like Hasselbeck, Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson and Kyle Orton.

 

[tdmills]

The major flaw in this logic is the NFL is business and the people drafting and signing players have jobs they want to keep. Dumping a pretty good veteran QB for an unproven rookie is a good way to lose that job and anger said fans. Imagine Atlanta GM says, "sorry Matt Ryan, you are too expensive. We are going to try and draft Teddy Bridgewater next year and roll with him since he is so much cheaper." Teddy has normal rookie struggles and ATL misses the playoffs. Matt Ryan signs with the Vikings and throws for 4000 yards an 35 TDs again. You think Arthur Blank doesn't fire you and the people of Atlanta forever remember you as the guy that destroyed a potential SB team?

Fans care about 1 thing=winning.

Yes they care about players, but if they're winning they quickly forget.

It wasn't popular when the 49ers got rid of Montana, but in the long run it was better for the organization. It wasn't popular when GB and Favre parted ways, but it was best for the organization.

My contention is that with an extra 12 million laying around, teams could solidify their team and it would more than offset the difference in gambling with 2 young QBs vs overpaying one mediocre one.

****This strategy doesn't fit if you have a top 10 or top 5 QB(Matt Ryan). Pay them because they will win games for your team. Middle tier are more replaceable IMO.

 

[tdmills]

Interesting. 1 other problem I see is that you're counting picks from all over the 1st round in your hit rate. If a team has a good starter around his 4th year that they are letting walk due to big money demands, chances are good they're drafting late. If you even just remove picks #1 and #2 from your analysis, I think the hit rate changes.

I agree. If I had to overall guess, the worst case scenario for a QB rating is mid 70's-low 80's that's where Locker, Gabbert, Weeden, Ponder. I don't think those guys win you games, but with the extra money it certainly helps and that's the worst case scenario.

Maybe I think these college QBs are more NFL ready than the rest of you.

You also mentioned veterans making too much money like Brees, Rodgers, and Ryan. Their QB ratings last year were 108, 99, and 96. Now we know that this past year we had record level production from rookie QBs. Cam Newton was his rookie year, but he only had a QB rating of 84. Rookie QBs having 90+ ratings is something you just don't see normally.

You said getting a rookie QB, your worst case scenario is a QB rating in the mid 70s? No. Gabbert (65), Ponder (70), Skelton (68), and Bradford(70) were all rookie or 2nd year QBs and they represented 4 of the 5 worst QB ratings in the NFL in 2011. They were all outplayed by journeymen QBs like Hasselbeck, Grossman, Tarvaris Jackson and Kyle Orton.

Veterans making too much money isn't referencing the top 5 QBs in the game. One could argue Tony Romo's, but i'm talking QB11 and on.

Rookie QB ratings: I wasn't talking about just their rookie just over a 3 year span, they would be in that range as a worst case scenario. They will continually get better and I would guess that would be the average. Ponder was 70 + 81 = 75.5 + year 3.

John Skelton shouldn't be mentioned, weren't not hinging the franchise around a late round pick hoping he will replace the veteran.

 

[Ilov80s]

You are the one that listed Ryan as an example in your first post. Also, your Montana and Favre comments aren't the same as cutting a guy in his prime. Montana was hurt for almost two whole seasons and Young played well as his replacement. Also, Young was not a young QB, when they traded Joe, Young was already in his 6th or 7th year of pro football. As for Favre, he did a lot of jerking GB around with his retire or don't retire charade.

 

[tdmills]

You are the one that listed Ryan as an example in your first post. Also, your Montana and Favre comments aren't the same as cutting a guy in his prime. Montana was hurt for almost two whole seasons and Young played well as his replacement. Also, Young was not a young QB, when they traded Joe, Young was already in his 6th or 7th year of pro football. As for Favre, he did a lot of jerking GB around with his retire or don't retire charade.

You're correct, I don't have recent examples of franchises doing this because it's a NEW IDEA. My idea. Therefore, I have to reference other times when something similar has happened.

I listed all of those big contracts as a reference, then continually have stated questions about Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler/Josh Freeman being worth contracts close to them. Do you think they're worth it?

Or would you rather the 2 rookie QBs every 3-4 years + save 12 million per year?

 

[Tau837]

The major flaw in this logic is the NFL is business and the people drafting and signing players have jobs they want to keep. Dumping a pretty good veteran QB for an unproven rookie is a good way to lose that job and anger said fans. Imagine Atlanta GM says, "sorry Matt Ryan, you are too expensive. We are going to try and draft Teddy Bridgewater next year and roll with him since he is so much cheaper." Teddy has normal rookie struggles and ATL misses the playoffs. Matt Ryan signs with the Vikings and throws for 4000 yards an 35 TDs again. You think Arthur Blank doesn't fire you and the people of Atlanta forever remember you as the guy that destroyed a potential SB team?

Fans care about 1 thing=winning.

Yes they care about players, but if they're winning they quickly forget.

It wasn't popular when the 49ers got rid of Montana, but in the long run it was better for the organization. It wasn't popular when GB and Favre parted ways, but it was best for the organization.

My contention is that with an extra 12 million laying around, teams could solidify their team and it would more than offset the difference in gambling with 2 young QBs vs overpaying one mediocre one.

****This strategy doesn't fit if you have a top 10 or top 5 QB(Matt Ryan). Pay them because they will win games for your team. Middle tier are more replaceable IMO.

These are terrible examples.

1. You cherry picked two examples where HOF QBs were being backed up by HOF caliber backups.

2. You cherry picked two examples where the HOF QB that departed was a top 5-10 QB, which contradicts how you say your idea would work.

3. You cherry picked one example (Favre) where he retired initially, leading the team to commit to his backup, and another (Montana) where he had been injured for two years and his backup had just been NFL MVP.

Then you threw in a mention that you wouldn't do this with a guy like Ryan, despite the fact that you said earlier in the thread that you would.

 

[tdmills]

1 football season later and both Seattle and SF are excelling because of this.

The Dolphins shelled out money on UFA's because of Tannehill's contract.

The Eagles with Foles can do the same thing.

 

[massraider]

1 football season later and both Seattle and SF are excelling because of this.

The Dolphins shelled out money on UFA's because of Tannehill's contract.

The Eagles with Foles can do the same thing.

Curtis Conway was on NFLN, and hit on this point. His question was:

"Brees/Rodgers/Brady/Manning carry their teams. The teams win because of their QB. When it comes time to pay Wilson/Kaepernick/Newton, are these QBs worth it?"

 

[GregR]

...The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

As it turns out, taking the QBs you were suggesting did turn out to be a worst case.

 

[tdmills]

...The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

As it turns out, taking the QBs you were suggesting did turn out to be a worst case.

Would you rather have Cutler or 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + Revis?

That's the debate

 

[GregR]

...The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

As it turns out, taking the QBs you were suggesting did turn out to be a worst case.

Would you rather have Cutler or 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + Revis?

That's the debate

That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. To get the players on the right hand side you had to spend a top ten pick plus a late 1st / early 2nd. Where are the equivalent players on the Cutler side of the ledger?

 

[tdmills]

...The other reason I like this new strategy is because young QBs are more NFL ready. Think about the worst case scenario here. You have 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + 12 million more to spend on the needs of your team. Or you could have Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler...seems like an easy call to me.

As it turns out, taking the QBs you were suggesting did turn out to be a worst case.

Would you rather have Cutler or 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + Revis?

That's the debate

That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. To get the players on the right hand side you had to spend a top ten pick plus a late 1st / early 2nd. Where are the equivalent players on the Cutler side of the ledger?

Doesn't have to be a top ten pick...the theory is a team invests a 1st or 2nd round pick in a QB every couple of years.

Lets look at your #'s and who fits into the viable starter, which is all i'm looking for in a QB for this strategy. This QB just has to be near average or better because the supporting cast will be better due to the extra money.

2012:

Luck- he fits

RGIII- he fits

Tannehill- he fits

Weeden- below average

Osweiler- never given a chance

2011:

Newton- He fits

Locker- Below average

Gabbert- Below average

Ponder- Below average

Dalton- He fits

Kaepernick- He fits

2010:

Bradford- he fits

Tebow- made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs as a starter, but no

Clausen- no

2009:

Stafford- He fits

Sanchez- below average

Freeman- he fits

Pat White- gimmick player, no

2008:

Ryan- he fits

Flacco- he fits

Brohm- bust

Henne- below average

2007:

Russell- haha no

Quinn- nope

Beck- no

Kolb- below average

Stanton- nope

2006:

Young- nope

Leinart- nope

Cutler- he fits

Clemens- nope

T. Jackson- below average

2005:

Alex Smith- he fits

Rodgers- he fits

Campbell- nope

2004:

Eli- he fits

Rivers- he fits

Big Ben- he fits

Losman- nope

2003:

Palmer- he fits

Leftwich- nope

Boller- nope

Grossman- nope(although he made it to a super bowl)

2002:

Carr- nope

Harrington- nope

Ramsey- nope

2001:

Vick- he fits

Brees- he fits

Q. Carter- nope

M. Tuiasasopo- nope

2000:

Pennington- he fits

21 out of 51= 41.1% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better.

-Note this puts Ponder/Locker/Gabbert not into this category, so it's on the safe side.

Furthermore, my contention that college QBs are more NFL ready is also correct.

Since 2008, 50% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better(still without Ponder/Gabbert/Locker)

2000-2007, 34.4% of those draft picks became close to average starters or better

Here's another stat for you

2013 Playoffs:

QBs on non-rookie contracts: GB, Saints, Broncos, Patriots, Chiefs, Chargers

QBs on rookie contracts: Philly, 49ers, Panthers, Seattle, Bengals, Colts

50% of teams had QBs on rookie contracts

2012:

QBs on non-rookie contracts: GB, Patriots, Denver, Houston

QBs on rookie contracts: ATL, Washington, Seattle, 49ers, Minnesota, Bengals, Colts, Baltimore

66% of teams had QBs on rookie contracts

 

[GregR]

If Flacco and Ryan are not worth big money as you say in the OP, then there's certainly not more than 10 QBs who are worthy of it, and the number is probably less than 10 most of the time, right? Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Ben. Eli and Stafford but it's getting more arguable now. Is a Rivers, Romo, that much better than Ryan or Flacco? Is Luck there yet? I don't think so, he will probably get there, but not based on last season.

But let's call it 10 franchise QBs that are clearly better than our average QBs. The 16th and 17th QBs would by definition be average so we can't get much further down than 10 franchise QBs that deserve big money.

So you have 22 teams that don't have a big money QB that you are advocating draft a 1st or 2nd round QB every couple of years and jettison the old rather than pay him. If you go every 3 years, that's 7 teams on average drafting one each year and you need 91 QBs in the 13 year span you examined and found 51 drafted in the first 2 rounds. Make it draft one every 4 years and you are still advocating teams counting on drafting 70 QBs in a span there were only 51.

There aren't enough draftable QBs to be taken as often as you're suggesting they should be taken. And remember that's just talking about being able to draft from a group that includes busts. If you go back to you only had 21 that you felt comfortable with, that means the expectation for those 22 teams is that they would find a suitable QB from the draft only once per 13 years. And only a quarter or so of your 21 move up into the franchise group, so most teams only have that average QB for a 4-5 year span before you're having them not pay him and look back in the draft.

I agree what you have to pay a Flacco or Ryan is higher than you want to pay. But the change in the CBA doesn't change that there is an overall shortage of QBs of enough quality for the teams in the league. That shortage is what drives the contracts of veterans by teams who realize the numbers don't work out to do what you say. Some teams have to re-sign those QBs who are good but not great.

The CBA change just means that the guys picked in the top 5 overall picks might now outperform their contract while before that was almost impossible because the contracts were so large. So yes, your chance of finding someone who outperforms for his first 4-5 years has increased. But your chance of finding an above average QB has not gone up just because of the contract change, you just get him for cheap a few more years if you do find one.

There is also a salary floor that the league has to pay, so even though the Andrew Luck's make less early on, the pay of QBs on their second contract (guys like Flacco and Ryan) are going to go up. And while yes, some of that money will be spread to other positions, the bulk of the money is going to go to the top players, not be evenly distributed amongst guys making the vet minimum. Which is going to give a lot of it to those QBs.

Teams who don't have one at all, I'd agree should take multiple shots when they aren't picking at the top with a great candidate available at their pick. All the teams this year qualify because of the pool of QBs in my opinion. Seattle made this work with taking multiple shots at Whitehurst, Flynn, Wilson, etc while they built up the rest of their team by drafting well. But there isn't such a mass of quality QBs that allow teams to just jettison proven QBs believing they will find more in the draft.

 

[ghostguy123]

Havent read all the posts just the OP, but no, I don't agree at all.

You need that rookie to be REALLY good to get to and win a super bowl, which generally takes some time.

People are looking at Seattle as some "model", which isn't a good idea. The stars kind of aligned for them. They drafted a rookie QB in the 3rd and have him for super cheap, and he is playing very well. That is rare. Even the QBs taken at the top of the draft are rare to be playing that well right away (plus you need to have the pick to get them, also rare). They managed to have excellent players at basically every position, and on top of that collectively their contracts are such that they can keep all of their good players together for last year, this year, and maybe one more year after that (except Lynch probably).

When it works it looks really good, but so did Denver with Manning and his huge deal. So did a lot of other teams with their QBs on huge deals.

So many things need to line up for this to happen that I think it would make it real, real difficult to do if you go into it with this strategy.

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem is that there are not that many good QB's to go around. You might hit on a Kap or Wilson, but you also might end up with a Leinart, Gabbert, etc. And if a few teams try to do this, the QB pickings will only get worse.

Yes a chance of Wilson/Kaep or Gabbert/Leinart, but you also get to a 12 million more to spend on your team. You don't think it's worth that chance?

2012 QB rating: Flacco 87.7, Ponder 81.2, Gabbert 77.4

The good QBs MORE than make up for a few players you can get with 12 million more to spend.

 

[ghostguy123]

This idea isn't about Super Bowl QBs, what about Jay Cutler pay him? Josh Freeman is entering the last year of his deal as well.

If you are saying not to pay guys like Cutler, Freeman, and FLacco some huge deal then yeah, not many will disagree.

The proven QBs at the top end have to be retained, and paid to be retained.

 

[ghostguy123]

Only way I can see trying this strategy is if you have a top pick cause your team sucked, and you can draft someone like Luck, RG3, Stafford, Cam, or a guy coming in that is NFL ready that you are pretty darn sure can play pretty decent for you maybe in his rookie year, probably in his 2nd year, and definitely by year 3.

If thats the case and you can get that guy, then yes, build your team with as much talent as you can with 3 year deals to top free agents and load your team up as best you can that way.

In those three years, maybe in years 2 and 3 you compete and go deep in the playoffs. Big maybe though, cause the reason you had a top pick in the first place is because your team sucked.

Now if you want to try this every 3 years with a 2nd round QB or late 1st round QB type, you are going to suck a LOT of the time, and might not attract any good FAs like, ever.

Only way this strategy seems like it would work is on accident (or a lot of luck), which means its not a strategy at all.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would you rather have Cutler or 2 of Locker, Ponder, Weeden, Osweiler + Revis?

That's the debate

If that is what it HAS to be, then Cutler, and it's not really much of a debate.

 

[ghostguy123]

You can try to color the metrics any way you want, but at the end of the day NFL teams are trying to win Super Bowls. Only four QBs in the history of the game have won a Super Bowl in their first three seasons: Montana, Brady, Roethlisberger, and now Wilson. Do you really think GMs should be operating around those statistics?

While I don't agree with the OP's strategy, this particular stat isn't as relevant as you might think, considering this number would likely change if the OP's strategy was put into place.

 

[tdmills]

If Flacco and Ryan are not worth big money as you say in the OP, then there's certainly not more than 10 QBs who are worthy of it, and the number is probably less than 10 most of the time, right? Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Ben. Eli and Stafford but it's getting more arguable now. Is a Rivers, Romo, that much better than Ryan or Flacco? Is Luck there yet? I don't think so, he will probably get there, but not based on last season.

But let's call it 10 franchise QBs that are clearly better than our average QBs. The 16th and 17th QBs would by definition be average so we can't get much further down than 10 franchise QBs that deserve big money.

So you have 22 teams that don't have a big money QB that you are advocating draft a 1st or 2nd round QB every couple of years and jettison the old rather than pay him. If you go every 3 years, that's 7 teams on average drafting one each year and you need 91 QBs in the 13 year span you examined and found 51 drafted in the first 2 rounds. Make it draft one every 4 years and you are still advocating teams counting on drafting 70 QBs in a span there were only 51.

There aren't enough draftable QBs to be taken as often as you're suggesting they should be taken. And remember that's just talking about being able to draft from a group that includes busts. If you go back to you only had 21 that you felt comfortable with, that means the expectation for those 22 teams is that they would find a suitable QB from the draft only once per 13 years. And only a quarter or so of your 21 move up into the franchise group, so most teams only have that average QB for a 4-5 year span before you're having them not pay him and look back in the draft.

I agree what you have to pay a Flacco or Ryan is higher than you want to pay. But the change in the CBA doesn't change that there is an overall shortage of QBs of enough quality for the teams in the league. That shortage is what drives the contracts of veterans by teams who realize the numbers don't work out to do what you say. Some teams have to re-sign those QBs who are good but not great.

The CBA change just means that the guys picked in the top 5 overall picks might now outperform their contract while before that was almost impossible because the contracts were so large. So yes, your chance of finding someone who outperforms for his first 4-5 years has increased. But your chance of finding an above average QB has not gone up just because of the contract change, you just get him for cheap a few more years if you do find one.

There is also a salary floor that the league has to pay, so even though the Andrew Luck's make less early on, the pay of QBs on their second contract (guys like Flacco and Ryan) are going to go up. And while yes, some of that money will be spread to other positions, the bulk of the money is going to go to the top players, not be evenly distributed amongst guys making the vet minimum. Which is going to give a lot of it to those QBs.

Teams who don't have one at all, I'd agree should take multiple shots when they aren't picking at the top with a great candidate available at their pick. All the teams this year qualify because of the pool of QBs in my opinion. Seattle made this work with taking multiple shots at Whitehurst, Flynn, Wilson, etc while they built up the rest of their team by drafting well. But there isn't such a mass of quality QBs that allow teams to just jettison proven QBs believing they will find more in the draft.

Now you're going pretty extreme here Mr. Russell.

If 22 NFL teams employed this strategy then no it won't work. Just like if all NFL defenses went to the 3-4 the Steelers wouldn't have been as successful in grabbing scheme players cheaply(which is rearing it's head now). Just like if all MLB teams went with the Moneyball system in the early 2000's Billy Beane would've found less bargains.

I also believe the league is filled with solid QBs. Lets just look at some QBs that emerged this season with solid play: The Bears played just fine with Josh McCown, the Browns with Brian Hoyer, Thad Lewis had a QB rating over 81, Matt Flynn rating of 85, Matt Cassel 81, Case Keenum/Kellen Clemens had some decent stretches, Mike Glennon 83 rating, Nick Foles. None of those guys should cost more than 3 Million per year. So add in 15 million dollars worth of talent around them or on defense and it's a completely different story.

Baltimore paid Flacco, couldn't surround him with talent...and it didn't turn out well.

 

[tdmills]

Havent read all the posts just the OP, but no, I don't agree at all.

You need that rookie to be REALLY good to get to and win a super bowl, which generally takes some time.

People are looking at Seattle as some "model", which isn't a good idea. The stars kind of aligned for them. They drafted a rookie QB in the 3rd and have him for super cheap, and he is playing very well. That is rare. Even the QBs taken at the top of the draft are rare to be playing that well right away (plus you need to have the pick to get them, also rare). They managed to have excellent players at basically every position, and on top of that collectively their contracts are such that they can keep all of their good players together for last year, this year, and maybe one more year after that (except Lynch probably).

When it works it looks really good, but so did Denver with Manning and his huge deal. So did a lot of other teams with their QBs on huge deals.

So many things need to line up for this to happen that I think it would make it real, real difficult to do if you go into it with this strategy.

This was originated prior to this football season, so Seattle isn't the exact model. But looking at them. Due to the extra money: Traded and paid for Harvin, bought Michael Bennett, bought Cliff Avril. Those moves helped a ton(16.5 sacks worth), even with Harvin missing almost the entire year.

 

[tdmills]

Only way I can see trying this strategy is if you have a top pick cause your team sucked, and you can draft someone like Luck, RG3, Stafford, Cam, or a guy coming in that is NFL ready that you are pretty darn sure can play pretty decent for you maybe in his rookie year, probably in his 2nd year, and definitely by year 3.

If thats the case and you can get that guy, then yes, build your team with as much talent as you can with 3 year deals to top free agents and load your team up as best you can that way.

In those three years, maybe in years 2 and 3 you compete and go deep in the playoffs. Big maybe though, cause the reason you had a top pick in the first place is because your team sucked.

Now if you want to try this every 3 years with a 2nd round QB or late 1st round QB type, you are going to suck a LOT of the time, and might not attract any good FAs like, ever.

Only way this strategy seems like it would work is on accident (or a lot of luck), which means its not a strategy at all.

Why can't you make the priority of your team defense, OL, weapons on offense and then draft young QBs often?

Why would a team with a good defense and good weapons suck a lot of the time?

I don't believe that only a few QBs can lead teams to the playoffs and I think that's the differential here. I think the gap has closed from solid to good QBs and it's partly due to the passing game evolving in HS/college. More pro ready prospects....Mike Glennon drafted in round 2 had 19 TDs/9 INT....he fits right into this strategy.