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

[CalBear]

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.

You think 19 TD/9 INT is closing the gap to 55TD/10 INT? Mike Glennon went 4-9 as a starter.

 

[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.

You think 19 TD/9 INT is closing the gap to 55TD/10 INT? Mike Glennon went 4-9 as a starter.

Now 55 TD's is the baseline, come on.

Tampa Bay was 0-3 without Glennon

4-9 with Glennon

In 8 of those games Tampa Bay gave up 27 or more points

Add in another 15 million dollars, I'd say they would be doing just fine.

 

[Genester]

I like where the OP was going. I do think there are other factor in play here. I'll mention two:

(1) Coaches. Who's to say Alex Smith or Kaepernick are average or better, if Harbaugh isn't there? What if Harbaugh was in Minnesota or Jacksonville - would that have improved production from their QBs?

(2) Ticket (jersey) sales and morale - high pick / big name QBs tend to energize the fan base and the corporate sponsors. If ticket sales improve, does this create a bias towards getting that big name QB? (Of course, winning does that even better, but that's neither her not there)...

So, I am not sure it is a pure choice the way it was presented. You have to look at your specific situation and assets, and decide what the right move for your franchise may be.

 

[Tool]

who was the last team with sub-par qb to win the super bowl (and lets leave Flacco out of this for the sake of argument)?

 

[tdmills]

who was the last team with sub-par qb to win the super bowl (and lets leave Flacco out of this for the sake of argument)?

That's a pretty small category, lets talk about making it to the super bowl.

What's par?

I would say non "elite" = Wilson, Big Ben, Flacco, Kaep, Eli, Grossman, Hasselbeck, Delhomme, Brad Johnson, Kerry Collins, Trent Dilfer

That's 11 of 30 QBs I would consider in the non-elite category since 2000.

 

[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.

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.

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.

They will suck because they dont have a good QB, but not suck bad enough to get a top pick. And these late 1st or 2nd round QBs you keep talking about arent good enough.

 

[amnesiac]

if you have Gabbert or Weeden as your starting QB, i guarantee your team is never going to the Super Bowl.

even on a vet minimum deal.

 

[Riversco]

You need to overpay on a QB and on your pass rush. Those are the two most important parts of your team. You can skimp elsewhere.

 

[coolnerd]

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

 

[tdmills]

if you have Gabbert or Weeden as your starting QB, i guarantee your team is never going to the Super Bowl.

even on a vet minimum deal.

I'm unsure why everyone goes to a complete extreme to disprove this theory.

In this scenario, you would have 2 young QB draft picks all the time. The odds of having both a Gabbert or Weeden at the same time is very low.

Lets look at just 2011-2013 years because they're on their rookie deals:

Here are all the young QBs that are near average or better under rookie deals: Luck, RGIII, Tannehill, Dalton, R. Wilson, Foles, Glennon, Kaepernick

Others who we don't know about: Geno Smith, EJ Manuel, Cousins, Osweiler, Ryan Mallet

Below average: Ponder, Locker

Busts: Weeden, Gabbert

"Busts" the public thinks:

Ponder- career QB rating is 77 with 38 TD and 34 INT. This QB isn't going to win you games, but considering the weapons/injuries this is a QB that could be used as a low end guy for a year or two with a decent supporting cast.

Locker- career QB rating is 81 with 22 TD and 15 INT. Same as Ponder above, Locker isn't going to carry a team on his back. But in this scenario, you don't need him to.

Weeden- career QB rating is 71 with 23 TD and 26 INT, can't use this QB for a full season at all. He is a bust.

Gabbert- career QB rating is 66 with 22 TD and 24 INT, can't use this QB for a full season at all. He is a bust.

Of the QBs that have time to prove how they can perform: you have a 66% of having average or better QB play. If we throw in Ponder/Locker, you have an 83% of having a below average, but above complete bust as your QB. When you factor in you have 2 of these on your roster at all times, odds are incredibly in your favor.

 

[amnesiac]

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.

well because you mentioned this worse case scenario.

 

[Bri]

We're blessed to be in an era with several awesome QBs. Pride and jealousy drive the other teams to want them and overstate/overpay the one's they have. It has inflated the market.

Peyton and Brady could be paid any number and someone could make it seem logical.

 

[GroveDiesel]

There's a massive difference between winning a lone Super Bowl and having a team that contends every single year but may only win one or two.

Which franchise would you have fathered own or be a fan of over the last 15 years: the Colts or the Bucs? They both won the same number of Super Bowls over that period. But I'd much rather own/be a fan of the Colts than the Bucs because Manning game them a solid chance of making the playoffs and maybe winning a Super Bowl every year. The Bucs didn't have that because of the garbage they had at QB.

Reducing the debate to Super Bowls doesn't really tell the whole story.

 

[tdmills]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

 

[CalBear]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

If you really think the way to build a team is to get good players, let them leave in free agency, and bring in third-round draft picks to replace them, I'd suggest you try another line of business.

 

[Tau837]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

If you really think the way to build a team is to get good players, let them leave in free agency, and bring in third-round draft picks to replace them, I'd suggest you try another line of business.

Also note the following about compensatory picks, from Wikipedia:

In addition to the 32 selections in each of the seven rounds, a total of 32 compensatory picks are awarded to teams that have lost more or better compensatory free agents than they signed in the previous year.[58] Teams that gain and lose the same number of players but lose higher-valued players than they gain also can be awarded a pick, but only in the seventh round, after the other compensatory picks. Compensatory picks cannot be traded, and the placement of the picks is determined by a proprietary formula based on the player's salary, playing time, and postseason honors with his new team, with salary being the primary factor. So, for example, a team that lost a linebacker who signed for $2.5 million per year in free agency might get a sixth-round compensatory pick, while a team that lost a wide receiver who signed for $5 million per year might receive a fourth-round pick.

All compensatory picks are awarded at the ends of Rounds 3 through 7.

Best case, a compensatory pick is at the end of the third round, but that is no guarantee.

 

[GregR]

If you are planning to stockpile money buy not paying QBs, and instead use it to lure free agents who are better players than normal, then you should expect to not see many compensatory picks. Each free agent you sign offsets a player you lost.

If you wanted to make gaining more compensatory picks than other teams a part of it, you would, as much as possible, need to limit that extra money to re-signing your own players, limit your signings to players who were cut as opposed to those whose contracts ran out normally, or on trading for players.

 

[tdmills]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

If you really think the way to build a team is to get good players, let them leave in free agency, and bring in third-round draft picks to replace them, I'd suggest you try another line of business.

If u read every post in this thread and came to that conclusion... I'd have other concerns.

My debate is not paying none elite(top 5 qbs) the $18 million + per year. Instead investing that money into the rest of the team and then collect that compensatory selection. Then draft a 1st or 2nd round qb every other year or so because under the new CBA players can't renegotiate their contracts until after year 3.

Take Chicago for example... they played great on offense without cutler. If they let him walk, save 18 million and use it on jarius Byrd and tj ward. Suddenly the weakness on the team is a strength. They still have millions left under the 18 million cutler would've cost, so they resign josh mccown. They still draft a DT like Aaron Donald, but in the 2nd round they take local product qb Jimmy garoppolo.

Cutler, 2nd round pick vs ward, Byrd, mccown, 3rd round comp pick + millions when signed free agent's contracts are up or released, yet cutler is still signed.

 

[IHEARTFF]

The new rookie pay scale should make taking shots on high upside QBs more frequent and cause their value to rise on draft boards in general. Having the situation that Seattle and SF have right now is a huge edge.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Further to the point, the risk is much less. If you take Bridgewater at 1 and he fails, your team has a minor setback, but you only owe the guy a few million bucks. Contrast that with the Rams and Sam Bradford or the Jets situation with Sanchez before that. Those guys made big bucks and the Rams are going to pay Bradford $17M to be a mediocre QB if they don't cut him and go young.

 

[tdmills]

Further to the point, the risk is much less. If you take Bridgewater at 1 and he fails, your team has a minor setback, but you only owe the guy a few million bucks. Contrast that with the Rams and Sam Bradford or the Jets situation with Sanchez before that. Those guys made big bucks and the Rams are going to pay Bradford $17M to be a mediocre QB if they don't cut him and go young.

I agree, luck is a bargain right now at his salary.

 

[GregR]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

If you really think the way to build a team is to get good players, let them leave in free agency, and bring in third-round draft picks to replace them, I'd suggest you try another line of business.

If u read every post in this thread and came to that conclusion... I'd have other concerns.

My debate is not paying none elite(top 5 qbs) the $18 million + per year. Instead investing that money into the rest of the team and then collect that compensatory selection. Then draft a 1st or 2nd round qb every other year or so because under the new CBA players can't renegotiate their contracts until after year 3.

Take Chicago for example... they played great on offense without cutler. If they let him walk, save 18 million and use it on jarius Byrd and tj ward. Suddenly the weakness on the team is a strength. They still have millions left under the 18 million cutler would've cost, so they resign josh mccown. They still draft a DT like Aaron Donald, but in the 2nd round they take local product qb Jimmy garoppolo.

Cutler, 2nd round pick vs ward, Byrd, mccown, 3rd round comp pick + millions when signed free agent's contracts are up or released, yet cutler is still signed.

You won't get a compensatory pick for Cutler in that situation. You signed 2 free agents and only lost 1.

 

[tdmills]

Another aspect I didn't think of initially is compensatory picks. With losing starting qbs to free agency, 3rd round comp picks would come in offsetting the cost of acquiring a new rookie.

If you really think the way to build a team is to get good players, let them leave in free agency, and bring in third-round draft picks to replace them, I'd suggest you try another line of business.

If u read every post in this thread and came to that conclusion... I'd have other concerns.My debate is not paying none elite(top 5 qbs) the $18 million + per year. Instead investing that money into the rest of the team and then collect that compensatory selection. Then draft a 1st or 2nd round qb every other year or so because under the new CBA players can't renegotiate their contracts until after year 3.

Take Chicago for example... they played great on offense without cutler. If they let him walk, save 18 million and use it on jarius Byrd and tj ward. Suddenly the weakness on the team is a strength. They still have millions left under the 18 million cutler would've cost, so they resign josh mccown. They still draft a DT like Aaron Donald, but in the 2nd round they take local product qb Jimmy garoppolo.

Cutler, 2nd round pick vs ward, Byrd, mccown, 3rd round comp pick + millions when signed free agent's contracts are up or released, yet cutler is still signed.

You won't get a compensatory pick for Cutler in that situation. You signed 2 free agents and only lost 1.

Good point

 

[LawFitz]

I kinda like this theory, but with a few adjustments -

1. NEVER let an elite player go. Cutler, Ryan maybe. Rodgers, Brees, Manning, Brady, Luck no way.

2. Only draft players that can start from day 1, so you can get a full three+ years of cheap production/evaluation.

3. Expand the scope to include other high dollar positions - pass rush, CB, LT.

4. Always seek a trade in the last year or two or the existing contract, rather than letting them walk as a FA. Didn't Cutler fetch two first rounders? Something like that.

 

[LawFitz]

5. Overspend on quality coaches and amenities, where there is no salary cap.

 

[coolnerd]

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

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/04/colin-kaepernick-extended-through-2020-season/

 

[renesauz]

OP has neglected to account for opportunity costs. To make the strategy work, a team would have to spend a top 35 pick on a QB every other year at least (assuming they hit on half of them). That's a premium pick that could have been used at another position. No NFL team can afford that many picks at one position and hope to adequately maintain the rest of the positions.

 

[tdmills]

OP has neglected to account for opportunity costs. To make the strategy work, a team would have to spend a top 35 pick on a QB every other year at least (assuming they hit on half of them). That's a premium pick that could have been used at another position. No NFL team can afford that many picks at one position and hope to adequately maintain the rest of the positions.

Why is it a top 35 pick every other year? We're not talking about the Oakland Raiders here.

The purpose is to not overpay on a position because the market says you need to. Again, this isn't include tier 1 QBs- Peyton/Brady/Rodgers/Luck/etc. This is the next few tiers(Cutler/Flacco/Ryan/Kaepernick/etc) and letting them walk vs paying them 18 million dollars.

Value above replacement player My argument is that the replacement players at QB(via College or free agency) is much better than acknowledged. Letting a team replace the QB and sign other players to fill key holes on their teams. A team could spend a 2nd round pick every other year in this strategy, it doesn't have to be a 1st round pick.

Look at what Tampa Bay is doing, drafted Glennon in the 2nd round and signed Josh McCown for 2 years at 5 million per year. Didn't McCown put up comparable numbers to Jay Cutler last year in the same offense? Cutler is going to average 18 million per year for the 1st three seasons. Is Jay Cutler worth 13 million more per season than McCown? Some Chicago fans wanted McCown to start over Cutler last season. While I think Cutler is the better QB, with that 13 million(every season) Tampa Bay can improve the rest of the team more than Chicago can. The price they pay is a 1st or 2nd round draft pick every other year and looking like the Billy Beane of football...

 

[cstu]

OP has neglected to account for opportunity costs. To make the strategy work, a team would have to spend a top 35 pick on a QB every other year at least (assuming they hit on half of them). That's a premium pick that could have been used at another position. No NFL team can afford that many picks at one position and hope to adequately maintain the rest of the positions.

The perfect strategy IMO is what the Vikings did to get Bridgewater. They gave up the #40 and #108 and not only got the QB they wanted but also the extremely valuable 5th year option.

While there is opportunity cost the outcome of getting a starting QB on a 4 year/$6M deal is worth it. When other teams are paying $20M to their QB and you are only paying $2M that is a huge competitive edge.

 

[12punch]

Yeah, broncos should've never signed manning.

Probably would've won the superbowl if they stuck with brock osweiler or wtf his name is

 

[Pots]

Yeah, broncos should've never signed manning.

Probably would've won the superbowl if they stuck with brock osweiler or wtf his name is

You know, it's really easy to pick out the people who are stinking up the sharkpool by posting in a topic they clearly haven't read.

 

[12punch]

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

 

[tdmills]

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

Here's the short notes:

-QB is the most important position

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

 

[CalBear]

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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

 

[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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

 

[cstu]

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

Here's the short notes:

-QB is the most important position

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

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

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

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

I'll add in this one:

- If you are taking a QB at the beginning of the 2nd, trade up into the 1st to get a 5th year option.

 

[CalBear]

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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

 

[John 14:6]

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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

Yeah,a big party of this strategy assumes there's a boatload of talent available out there to spend all this cap money on. But usually the best talent will already be wrapped up by teams, so you're left with a cheap QB, a bunch of cap space, and/or several overpaid players at other positions...

 

[CalBear]

Yeah,a big party of this strategy assumes there's a boatload of talent available out there to spend all this cap money on. But usually the best talent will already be wrapped up by teams, so you're left with a cheap QB, a bunch of cap space, and/or several overpaid players at other positions...

Yes, part of the untested assumption is that the amount you have to overpay decent QBs is greater than the amount you have to overpay decent free agents at other positions. I'm not at all sure that's true.

 

[cstu]

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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

Yeah,a big party of this strategy assumes there's a boatload of talent available out there to spend all this cap money on. But usually the best talent will already be wrapped up by teams, so you're left with a cheap QB, a bunch of cap space, and/or several overpaid players at other positions...

Assuming the team drafts well besides the franchise QB they hit on, they will need to extend other player's contracts to keep them from hitting free agency.

 

[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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

Was Tampa Bay horrible because of Mike Glennon or despite him?

My strategy doesn't include:

-Having one of the worst coaches in the NFL(who has more career losing seasons than winning seasons). I'm sure he contributed to the 3rd most penalties in the league as well.

-Losing your best player(doug martin) less than a third of the way through the season.

-Having an MRSA outbreak that cost several players games played. Including Pro Bowler Carl Nicks

-Lost Mike Williams for 2/3 of the season

If the quarterback was Joe Flacco or Jay Cutler or Colin Kaepernick it wouldn't have mattered for the 2013 Bucs.

 

[cstu]

Yeah,a big party of this strategy assumes there's a boatload of talent available out there to spend all this cap money on. But usually the best talent will already be wrapped up by teams, so you're left with a cheap QB, a bunch of cap space, and/or several overpaid players at other positions...

Yes, part of the untested assumption is that the amount you have to overpay decent QBs is greater than the amount you have to overpay decent free agents at other positions. I'm not at all sure that's true.

Flacco at $20M is the poster boy for this problem. No other free agents are getting paid that much (Revis got a one year, $12M deal).

Sometimes though a team gets lucky - like with Kaepernick's extremely team friendly contract which averages $13M the first 3 years and allows the 49ers to get out of it anytime they want.

 

[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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

Yeah,a big party of this strategy assumes there's a boatload of talent available out there to spend all this cap money on. But usually the best talent will already be wrapped up by teams, so you're left with a cheap QB, a bunch of cap space, and/or several overpaid players at other positions...

Assuming the team drafts well besides the franchise QB they hit on, they will need to extend other player's contracts to keep them from hitting free agency.

True, but i'd rather extend contracts of players than overpay for a middle tier QB. For instance, I think the 49ers, Ravens, and Bears should've let their QBs walk vs paying them as much as they did.

Why do people think that only a couple of QBs are actually worth a damn?

25 QBs posted an 81.6 QB rating or better last season with a minimum attempts of 200(I believe, it could be higher than 200). This doesn't even account for Josh McCown, etc. QBs under that threshold: Eli, Flacco. Both are overpaid and it's killing their teams.

 

[josefrees]

I've been thinking about this for a while--second contract QBs in the new CBA basically force a rebuild if you go for it all (ravens, falcons) or to exhibit frugality leading up to the new contract and ride your QB on their rookie deal (colts) The Ravens road is going to be a lot more difficult now.

One thing this thread doesn't mention is the potential returns you could get for these QBs. Let's say at the end of this year the Eagles are pretty good but not great and Nick Foles is very productive. What would a terrible team without a QB give up for Foles? A first rounder plus one of their best players? A couple first rounders?

All of the young QBs that had playoff success weren't carrying their teams. They all had great defenses and at least a modicum of a running game.

But yes this would never happen. Not only would fans be going bonkers but the risk is probably not worth it.

I have a question--is there only being 20 or so quality QBs a product of terrible QBs or a product of terrible teams?

 

[GregR]

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.

Nick Foles and Mike Glennon worked out just fine for this strategy last year. Hence showing that college QBs past the top 5 draft picks can come in and be moderately successful in the NFL.

Mike Glennon went 4-9 on a team that went 7-9 last year, if you call that "working out just fine."

83.9 QB rating, 19 TD to 9 INT on a horrible team, yes I think Mike Glennon worked out just fine in this strategy. Again, add 17 million around Mike Glennon and he puts up much better numbers in his rookie season. Add in that he's locked into his salary for a minimum of 2 more years and i'll take Glennon and his mid 80's QB rating on the cheap vs paying 18 million for Flacco(73 rating last year) or Cutler(89 rating with great weapons).

Tampa Bay, as far as I can tell, executed exactly this strategy, jettisoning a potentially overpriced mediocre QB for an unproven rookie, and in doing so, went from 7-9 to 4-12, even though that rookie didn't totally suck. At the very least, that has to be counted as a failure for the strategy, not a success. It might call into question the validity of the strategy, even with just one data point; it certainly can't be used as an example of the strategy working.

I still have extreme reservations about what he's suggesting, but I don't think this is a fair statement for the issue. The crux is overpaying a QB and getting other players with the money saved. The Bucs got rid of the overpaid QB midway through the season, but their 2013 season does not reflect getting other players with money saved on the QB.

It also isn't evidence it works, obviously.

I do agree with your point in a later post about many of the free agents at other positions are also overpaid. That is a big issue if you're still not getting your money's worth but just shifting the overspend to a less important position.

 

[CalBear]

Flacco at $20M is the poster boy for this problem. No other free agents are getting paid that much (Revis got a one year, $12M deal).

Sometimes though a team gets lucky - like with Kaepernick's extremely team friendly contract which averages $13M the first 3 years and allows the 49ers to get out of it anytime they want.

How many other players do you need to sign to make up for the impact of a QB? Tampa Bay got rid of their QB and went out and got the supposedly best non-QB on the market in 2013, and went from 7-9 to 4-12. So, they only paid Revis $12M instead of $20M for Flacco, and they got worse. And the team with Flacco won twice as many games as Tampa Bay. There is absolutely no way you can use Tampa Bay as an example of the success of this strategy.

 

[tdmills]

They didn't implement the strategy, not only did they pay 12 million for revised but they gave up draft picks.

 

[CalBear]

They didn't implement the strategy, not only did they pay 12 million for revised but they gave up draft picks.

Wait, so you're saying going out and paying money for top non-QBs is not consistent with this strategy? So in addition to getting rid of your QB, you have to avoid getting any other good players?

Then you're right, Tampa Bay is doing great with it.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

personally, I advocate the strategy of hiring pete carroll and building a great defense, but this strategy of only paying and drafting good players could also be viable.