Would you fire Dan Quinn if you were the owner? (2 Viewers)

[Insein]

As an Eagles fan, I hope Dan Quinn is the Commie coach for the next decade.

 

[dgreen]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

 

[Snotbubbles]

As an Eagles fan, I hope Dan Quinn is the Commie coach for the next decade.

I don't want any of the other NFC East coaches fired. I think they're all doing a hell of a job.

 

[Snotbubbles]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

 

[Joe Bryant]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

Given the way the games turn, I don't see much of this happening with an entire 4th quarter to play.

Sure, at some point. If you're down 3 scores and an old fragile QB that can't move, maybe he's pulled in the last few minutes.

But the swings in win probability for games now is so wild, I tend to doubt we'll see coaches conceding games very early.

 

[Joe Bryant]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

Right. By and large, players play. Compared to load management with the NBA and the farce of college football nonplayoff bowls, this feels like a pretty strong point for the NFL. The one caveat seems to be resting week 18 games to get ready for the playoffs, but even that has pros and cons.

 

[dgreen]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

I'm saying it should be studied and given further consideration. I'd extend it as far as it makes sense to extend it given your goals as a team. Rather than just go by the feel of the coach within the game, I think teams should develop "give up" analytics.

 

[dgreen]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

Given the way the games turn, I don't see much of this happening with an entire 4th quarter to play.

Sure, at some point. If you're down 3 scores and an old fragile QB that can't move, maybe he's pulled in the last few minutes.

But the swings in win probability for games now is so wild, I tend to doubt we'll see coaches conceding games very early.

I agree. I'm not sure I see it happening either because of the football mindset/culture I mentioned. I'm just suggesting maybe it should be up for discussion.

 

[Chaka]

And, if Quinn pulls Daniels with 12:30 left in the fourth quarter two weeks after Denver put up 24 points in 10:30 people would be calling him a quitter and demanding he be fired.

Literally no one would

Daniels off an injury, no healthy wr on their team and Seattle is not the Giants

Are you ok with them running out the last. 3 minutes if that’s the take? Hey you’re only down 3 scores

Have you met the internet?

 

[massraider]

There were a bunch of blowouts last week, how many QBs got pulled? How many threads were started about how each of those coaches (who left their starter in the game in a blowout) should be fired?

Same people who wait till a 4th down play doesn't work, then say they shouldn't have gone for it.

Let's hope whoever replaces Dan Quinn doesn't ALSO make one single error that everyone disagrees with, we gonna have to fire that guy, too! Probably the best thing for Daniels to cycle through a new staff as often as possible, to find one who won't make mistakes.

 

[bolzano]

That is, I think we’re gonna start to see players not playing through minor injuries, taking longer recovery times, and even sitting with phantom ones for load management reasons.

I would find that hard to believe because they don't play 82 games like NBA does. Every game in the NFL matters. They cannot take a game off because it will likely cost them a higher seed/playoff spot. Big difference in how much a single game matters in NBA vs NFL.

I dunno. IMO, the NFL has been gradually moving in that direction as it’s become more player friendly. Per usual, the NBA is the pioneer on the labor front, and it’s already rubbed off on the MLB. NFL is the worst in that area, so they will be last. But they’re getting there.

Look at Shanny’s post game presser where he said that they really wanna get Purdy close to 100%, or see how the Vikes dealt with McCarthy’s HAS. This kinda thing didn’t happen a decade or two ago.

What I would say is that there should be a happy medium. It’s good that the NFL is shifting away from a culture that cripples people. But, it would definitely suck for it to go full-on NBA.

 

[dgreen]

BTW, this is actually something I've thought of before and isn't just a fan's reaction to Daniels' injury. I think football coaches and players tend to be more unrealistic than other sports. Prior to his injury, I wasn't adamant that he should be taken out. I thought the game scenario was borderline and totally understood why he was still playing. Again, I'm just raising whether or not the decision point is way too far in one direction.

 

[Snotbubbles]

That is, I think we’re gonna start to see players not playing through minor injuries, taking longer recovery times, and even sitting with phantom ones for load management reasons.

I would find that hard to believe because they don't play 82 games like NBA does. Every game in the NFL matters. They cannot take a game off because it will likely cost them a higher seed/playoff spot. Big difference in how much a single game matters in NBA vs NFL.

I dunno. IMO, the NFL has been gradually moving in that direction as it’s become more player friendly. Per usual, the NBA is the pioneer on the labor front, and it’s already rubbed off on the MLB. NFL is the worst in that area, so they will be last. But they’re getting there.

Look at Shanny’s post game presser where he said that they really wanna get Purdy close to 100%, or see how the Vikes dealt with McCarthy’s HAS. This kinda thing didn’t happen a decade or two ago.

What I would say is that there should be a happy medium. It’s good that the NFL is shifting away from a culture that cripples people. But, it would definitely suck for it to go full-on NBA.

The NBA has a major problem in this area. How does the consumer purchase tickets to an NBA game in hopes of seeing Star X play? You literally have to wait until a few hours before the game to determine if it's worth going. I doubt the NFL ever gets there. I can handle week 18, when you have your seed locked in, but a week 10 game sitting healthy guys. I don't know how I'd handle that.

 

[bolzano]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

This is literally what bad NBA teams do in March and April. Their vets get shut down with phantom injuries and the teams play the youngsters ROS. If you do the analytics around it (like dgreen mentioned), I bet the results are compelling (player health and development, tanking, financial reasons, etc.).

 

[Snotbubbles]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

This is literally what bad NBA teams do in March and April. Their vets get shut down with phantom injuries and the teams play the youngsters ROS. If you do the analytics around it (like dgreen mentioned), I bet the results are compelling (player health and development, tanking, financial reasons, etc.).

I'm a Sixers fan so our players are usually hurt by November or December so I don't really see a difference.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

There were a bunch of blowouts last week, how many QBs got pulled? How many threads were started about how each of those coaches (who left their starter in the game in a blowout) should be fired?

Same people who wait till a 4th down play doesn't work, then say they shouldn't have gone for it.

Let's hope whoever replaces Dan Quinn doesn't ALSO make one single error that everyone disagrees with, we gonna have to fire that guy, too! Probably the best thing for Daniels to cycle through a new staff as often as possible, to find one who won't make mistakes.

Except in this instance the media backlash has been overwhelming, calling for Quinn's head and questioning what he was doing with his star QB in the game that late down 38-7
You make the intent of the thread sound so evil with your sarcasm, appreciate the salt and pepper
The real mistake was not the launching this thread but Quinn's inability to protect his Quarterback during a meaningless end to the game

 

[Joe Bryant]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

Given the way the games turn, I don't see much of this happening with an entire 4th quarter to play.

Sure, at some point. If you're down 3 scores and an old fragile QB that can't move, maybe he's pulled in the last few minutes.

But the swings in win probability for games now is so wild, I tend to doubt we'll see coaches conceding games very early.

I agree. I'm not sure I see it happening either because of the football mindset/culture I mentioned. I'm just suggesting maybe it should be up for discussion.

Sure. Anything is up for discussion.

I do think part of why the NFL is different is the super small number of games. Conceding a game is a HUGE deal. Conceding a NBA game where there are so many is different. And MLB obviously even more so with so many games.

 

[dgreen]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

 

[Smack Tripper]

And, if Quinn pulls Daniels with 12:30 left in the fourth quarter two weeks after Denver put up 24 points in 10:30 people would be calling him a quitter and demanding he be fired.

Literally no one would

Daniels off an injury, no healthy wr on their team and Seattle is not the Giants

Are you ok with them running out the last. 3 minutes if that’s the take? Hey you’re only down 3 scores

Have you met the internet?

Do you think there's a thread here if he sat him? Do you think there's national discussion if he sat him? A few Skins fans might grumble on a team message board but its largely ignored and even praised.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

Why would he even admit this?

 

[Smack Tripper]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

How far are you extending that? Say the Commanders are 3-10 next year, are you shutting Daniels down for the last month of the season? Could you imagine a player with performance bonuses being held out of games because of some fear of injury? This is their profession, they get paid to play.

This is literally what bad NBA teams do in March and April. Their vets get shut down with phantom injuries and the teams play the youngsters ROS. If you do the analytics around it (like dgreen mentioned), I bet the results are compelling (player health and development, tanking, financial reasons, etc.).

It happens in the NFL too. With Cincy basically being done now, do we think Burrow is rushing back this season?

 

[Smack Tripper]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

Given the way the games turn, I don't see much of this happening with an entire 4th quarter to play.

Sure, at some point. If you're down 3 scores and an old fragile QB that can't move, maybe he's pulled in the last few minutes.

But the swings in win probability for games now is so wild, I tend to doubt we'll see coaches conceding games very early.

I think specific situations are key in these discussions. They were losing by 31 points with 12 minutes left in the game when the drive started. But now all 31 point deficits are created equal.

If you're down 55-24 by some crazy happenstance, if you're shown some ability to move the ball, I think thats a different discussion. But you've put up 7 points in 47 minutes to a defense who's been good this year. It's over.

Likewise is a personnel situation. No Terry, Deebo on a bad wheel, McCaffery out for the game, Ertz is a statue. Burks off the street catching passes. If you had your full compliment of players and just had a bad start, thats worth a discussion maybe. These were just dregs out there. A comeback was not in the cards here.

You play to win. But that also means winning the season. He just knee capped their chances trying to win a pointless battle.

You can drive a ferrari in the snow but its not the smartest idea. I see playing Daniels here the same way.

 

[Chaka]

And, if Quinn pulls Daniels with 12:30 left in the fourth quarter two weeks after Denver put up 24 points in 10:30 people would be calling him a quitter and demanding he be fired.

Literally no one would

Daniels off an injury, no healthy wr on their team and Seattle is not the Giants

Are you ok with them running out the last. 3 minutes if that’s the take? Hey you’re only down 3 scores

Have you met the internet?

Do you think there's a thread here if he sat him? Do you think there's national discussion if he sat him? A few Skins fans might grumble on a team message board but its largely ignored and even praised.

Do you think there would be a thread if Daniels finished the game, didn't get hurt and still lost 38-14?

There is a thread here because a fantasy asset is out for the year. We're a reactionary, shrinking violet bunch in here when it comes to our fantasy assets. There would be discussion in the Commanders thread and the "Post here when coaches do something you disagree with thread".

Nationally there would absolutely be pundits talking about how they have a dynamic QB and they just quit with 12:30 left in the game, people would absolutely be questioning that. They would be asking if Quinn lost the locker room by quitting. They would be making comparisons to Payton and Nix telling us "That's how great coaches win and great players are made". etc.

Hindsight is useless in the present and it's a weak tool for building arguments.

 

[dgreen]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

Why would he even admit this?

Well, I think I prefer him admitting they weren't going to win vs him being unrealistic as if they had a shot. But, it begs the question: Then what was the point of that drive? I assume it was to try to end with something productive and hopefully carry over that success into next week. But I doubt that has much merit.

 

[Smack Tripper]

And, if Quinn pulls Daniels with 12:30 left in the fourth quarter two weeks after Denver put up 24 points in 10:30 people would be calling him a quitter and demanding he be fired.

Literally no one would

Daniels off an injury, no healthy wr on their team and Seattle is not the Giants

Are you ok with them running out the last. 3 minutes if that’s the take? Hey you’re only down 3 scores

Have you met the internet?

Do you think there's a thread here if he sat him? Do you think there's national discussion if he sat him? A few Skins fans might grumble on a team message board but its largely ignored and even praised.

Do you think there would be a thread if Daniels finished the game, didn't get hurt and still lost 38-14?

There is a thread here because a fantasy asset is out for the year. We're a reactionary, shrinking violet bunch in here when it comes to our fantasy assets. There would be discussion in the Commanders thread and the "Post here when coaches do something you disagree with thread".

Nationally there would absolutely be pundits talking about how they have a dynamic QB and they just quit with 12:30 left in the game, people would absolutely be questioning that. They would be asking if Quinn lost the locker room by quitting. They would be making comparisons to Payton and Nix telling us "That's how great coaches win and great players are made". etc.

Hindsight is useless in the present and it's a weak tool for building arguments.

I disagree with any semblance of national discussion about him pulling Daniels. Because we all know the result of the game was fairly certain at that point.

I dont even think there's a fantasy discussion about it given Daniels recent injury but we can disagree there.

If thats your thinking, why isn't removing a player at any time in a blow out game, on either end, questioned? Should Darnold have finished that game? If not, why not? Why aren't fantasy folks discussing that? Maybe he puts up 6 TDs

 

[TampaMike19]

He probably should’ve read the room and realized his franchise qb was getting rushed and pummeled all night. But the franchise qbs weakness is that he’s not that big and tends to escape the pocket and make plays with his legs. It’s basically the double edged sword the team is dancing with when they have a game breaker like Daniels

 

[bolzano]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

Why would he even admit this?

Well, I think I prefer him admitting they weren't going to win vs him being unrealistic as if they had a shot. But, it begs the question: Then what was the point of that drive? I assume it was to try to end with something productive and hopefully carry over that success into next week. But I doubt that has much merit.

I think you nailed it in your first post. Anyone who has ever played football knows it’s a cultural thing. Zero zero, never quit, etc.

 

[massraider]

You make the intent of the thread sound so evil with your sarcasm

Apologies. Let's keep it on topic. Here's my questions again:

There were a bunch of blowouts last week. How many QB got pulled? Any of those coaches get questioned?

Did any coach who didn't pull his QB and not get asked why not have their team in the NFC title game last year? Cause I know a coach in WAS who DID take a rookie QB to one game from the Super Bowl.

How many times have you seen a KC blowout, and discussed why Reid didn't pull Mahomes? Have you seen that a lot?

Almost 8 minutes left in the game? The guy should get fired for having his starting QB in the game with 7:39 left?

These are not rhetorical questions.

 

[Tau837]

The game was a blowout and Dan Quinn should have been protecting his franchise QB, now the season is over
Washington has only one full season left without having to extend Jayden Daniels to the tune of about $60M+ per year
What was Dan Quinn thinking last night? As a new owner, I would make an example out of him quickly.
Sure they made the NFCC last season but that had little to do with Quinn and everything to do with Jayden Daniels,
Is the Washingoton Defense all that good after 18 months as Head Coach?
We know the best thing would be a more offensive minded head football coach to maximize Daniels the next couple years
Quinn will be fired at some point in coming seasons and this thread will be bumped

Fire Dan Quinn and do it right now, he's a good DC but a lousy head football coach

Any Daniels extension won't kick in for 3 more years. The big question is, can the kid stay healthy? Doesn't look like he can.

He's in Year 2, only a fool would play for a 5th year option
Hurts 36 months
Burrow 36 months
Herbert 36 months
TLaw 36 months

To my knowledge most of the better perceived QBs in the NFL regardless of Playoff wins, they get big money right after Year 3, they do have to play Year 4 of the rookie deal but they get that signing bonus in their bank account as soon as the ink is dry

Most high quality QBs drafted in the first round have their 5th year option exercised in the offseason after their 3rd season. Then they sign an extension which tacks years onto their current contract starting year 6. The really big money doesn't usually hit until year 6. Yes, they get a signing bonus at time of extension, which is great for them... I'm talking about the big salaries and cap hits, which don't start until year 6, generally speaking.

You can't use Hurts as a comp because he was a 2nd round pick, so there was no 5th year option available to the Eagles.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The game was a blowout and Dan Quinn should have been protecting his franchise QB, now the season is over
Washington has only one full season left without having to extend Jayden Daniels to the tune of about $60M+ per year
What was Dan Quinn thinking last night? As a new owner, I would make an example out of him quickly.
Sure they made the NFCC last season but that had little to do with Quinn and everything to do with Jayden Daniels,
Is the Washingoton Defense all that good after 18 months as Head Coach?
We know the best thing would be a more offensive minded head football coach to maximize Daniels the next couple years
Quinn will be fired at some point in coming seasons and this thread will be bumped

Fire Dan Quinn and do it right now, he's a good DC but a lousy head football coach

Any Daniels extension won't kick in for 3 more years. The big question is, can the kid stay healthy? Doesn't look like he can.

He's in Year 2, only a fool would play for a 5th year option
Hurts 36 months
Burrow 36 months
Herbert 36 months
TLaw 36 months

To my knowledge most of the better perceived QBs in the NFL regardless of Playoff wins, they get big money right after Year 3, they do have to play Year 4 of the rookie deal but they get that signing bonus in their bank account as soon as the ink is dry

Most high quality QBs drafted in the first round have their 5th year option exercised in the offseason after their 3rd season. Then they sign an extension which tacks years onto their current contract starting year 6. The really big money doesn't usually hit until year 6. Yes, they get a signing bonus at time of extension, which is great for them... I'm talking about the big salaries and cap hits, which don't start until year 6, generally speaking.

You can't use Hurts as a comp because he was a 2nd round pick, so there was no 5th year option available to the Eagles.

I want to believe you, I've been curious myself

Justin Herbert Contract Details, Salary Cap Charges, Bonus Money, and Contract History | Over The Cap

Justin Herbert contract and salary cap details, including signing bonus, guaranteed salary, dead money, roster bonuses, and contract history

overthecap.com

$56M went to him in Year 5, yes/no? Herbert got like $15M-$20M signing bonus, that reflects in his prorated bonus column
I don't want to get in a tug of war over it, I'm respectful of other posters.
His base salary from his rookie deal would have been roughly $1M in Year 4, yet he made $17M that season and then $56M in Year 5, that certainly trumped the 5th year option

I think it looks similar to other QBs that signed around the time or year that Herbert was extended
Year4 $17M...this could have been a lot more had Herbert demanded more singing bonus like other QBs got
year 5 $56M...I don't think most QBs who get a 2nd contract have to wait until Year 6 but that's based on what i read on OTC

-What's this got to do with Dan Quinn?

 

[miqws]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

 

[fatness]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

That's not my takeaway. "I'm going to pull Jayden and some other guys after this drive " may well have changed if they scored a TD and XP.

 

[Da Guru]

I had Dak Prescott for years on my FF teams. There have been so many games Cowboys were losing big and Dak ended with throwing 2-3 TDs in the final 15-18 minutes. Cowboys still lost but they made a game of it.

These guys are football players and they compete.

If anything, Quinn should be fired for wearing his hat backwards!

 

[bolzano]

I had Dak Prescott for years on my FF teams. There have been so many games Cowboys were losing big and Dak ended with throwing 2-3 TDs in the final 15-18 minutes. Cowboys still lost but they made a game of it.

These guys are football players and they compete.

This.

From my experience both playing and watching football, coaches are more likely to pull starters when they’re winning big, not losing. While they should contemplate the wisdom of playing their important guys in those kinda situations (and perhaps this event will do that), what Quinn did wasn’t abnormal at all.

 

[Largent]

If the Seahawks weren't driving the Commander o-line into the backfield on every play, then sure, let him stay in and get some rhythm. About 2 plays before he got hurt, I said to my son sitting next to me, "he's going to get hurt if they let him stay in here, and he's my FF QB (on the bench last night) so let's not do anything stupid here"....bam.

 

[fatness]

If the Seahawks weren't driving the Commander o-line into the backfield on every play, then sure, let him stay in and get some rhythm. About 2 plays before he got hurt, I said to my son sitting next to me, "he's going to get hurt if they let him stay in here, and he's my FF QB (on the bench last night) so let's not do anything stupid here"....bam.

What they could have done prior to the game to help Daniels would have been putting some actual wide receivers on the field. He has few people open to throw to, so of course he holds the ball too long on some plays. McLaurin's going to be out again next week and perhaps through the bye, Noah Brown's gone forever it seems, and McCaffrey's gone for the year. Mariota's going to have the same problem.

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

 

[warpig33]

At the highest levels of the game, I think they really do have the attitude of: "Not much you can do. This is football. Next man up." Which approach is right?

What would be the alternative to this?

Every coach realizes there are game situations that call for removing the starters. The alternative is to consider whether or not that decision should be made earlier. With analytics playing such a big role in sports, I wonder if we'll start to see a shift in how coaches approach this. When you're 3-5, being dominated by a 5-2 team, down 31 to start the fourth quarter, have already suffered a bunch of injuries this season (including two season-ending injuries previously in this game), just got your franchise QB back from an injury, he's been under pressure all night, and you know his instincts are to try to make the most of every play, you have to consider the value of what you're trying to accomplish at that point of the game.

Given the way the games turn, I don't see much of this happening with an entire 4th quarter to play.

Sure, at some point. If you're down 3 scores and an old fragile QB that can't move, maybe he's pulled in the last few minutes.

But the swings in win probability for games now is so wild, I tend to doubt we'll see coaches conceding games very early.

Can't blame the coach. What's the winning play here? You pull him and what message does that send to your team? You play to win the game and there is ALWAYS a chance! Yeah, it sucks because JD got hurt. Just dumb luck...it happens a lot. If I were the owner, I wouldn't be mad at the coach. Those guys are paid gobs of money. You play them UNLESS you are ahead by 50 with 2 minutes left. How often, IF EVER, did Brady come off the field?

 

[Brunell4MVP]

I can't believe this is a question. The guy took a team with limited talent to the NFC championship last year. He has an injured 2nd year QB with a bright long term future and numerous injured players. Regression was expected from any sane person even without those injuries. Going for it on 4th? Lots of coaches do it.

So for what, playing JD5? Is the kid gonna learn watching from the bench? Since the season is over for the team, if he wasn't injured do you expect him to bench JD5 the rest of the season?

Because that's essentially your question. Would a good coach bench a healthy JD5 for the rest of the year? I hope not. JD5 should be out there all game every game that he can be.

 

[dgreen]

Quinn said in his presser today that Daniels (and a few others) were going to be pulled after that drive. So, that tells me the purpose of that drive wasn't to try to win the game.

That's not my takeaway. "I'm going to pull Jayden and some other guys after this drive " may well have changed if they scored a TD and XP.

True. I would have appreciated a follow-up question from a reporter on that, but that didn't happen. All I really know right now is that he said his plan was for that to be their last drive. Sure, it makes sense that he might leave them in longer if they score and then maybe get the ball back quickly. But, on the flip side, they clearly weren't' in a hurry on that drive. They ran the ball several times and weren't snapping it until the last few seconds of the play clock. Nothing about that scenario communicated to me that the point of that drive was to try to win that game.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I would say yes, but he isn't the only one doing it. Dan Campbell has done this twice this year. He did it against the Bears and Packers. One time nothing happened the other time Marcus Davenport got hurt and has missed like five games.

In Campbell's defense, Davenport can get injured getting out of bed in the morning. Him going on IR was inevitable regardless of anything Campbell did

 

[massraider]

Hey fellas keep trying your hardest, never say die, that's what we coach here. RAH RAH SIS BOOM BAH!!!!!

Hey, we're gonna pull the top players so they don't get hurt. No no no, you can stay out there! It's cool if YOU get hurt. Give it your all, team.

What a top message to send to your team, and so easily defensible!

 

[Lehigh98]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

Worked for KC this week.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

 

[renesauz]

silly discussion. IMO, the only time to pull a guy is when you ARE going somewhere, or when you honestly want the backup to get some work. Protecting from injury only matters if you are competing for a title....which would be a dubious claim for the Commanders. Players get better by playing, not so much by watching

 

[bolzano]

Would we be discussing firing Quinn if it were another franchise QB? Or, does this just reflect how fragile we all see Daniels?

I ask because we’ve seen Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Bo Nix, Cam Ward, and others playing in garbage time losses in the past and nobody said a thing.

 

[dgreen]

Would we be discussing firing Quinn if it were another franchise QB? Or, does this just reflect how fragile we all see Daniels?

I ask because we’ve seen Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Bo Nix, Cam Ward, and others playing in garbage time losses in the past and nobody said a thing.

It's getting discussion not because of who it is, but because he actually was injured. The grotesqueness of the injury is also part of why it is being discussed so much. Had he not been injured, any discussion would have been limited to a few "why is he still in the game" posts in the game thread.

 

[msudaisy26]

I would say yes, but he isn't the only one doing it. Dan Campbell has done this twice this year. He did it against the Bears and Packers. One time nothing happened the other time Marcus Davenport got hurt and has missed like five games.

In Campbell's defense, Davenport can get injured getting out of bed in the morning. Him going on IR was inevitable regardless of anything Campbell did

The Davenport part is true, but there is no need to throw him back out into a game after he was already in and out with an injury in a game they were up in three scores for the entire second half.

 

[bolzano]

Would we be discussing firing Quinn if it were another franchise QB? Or, does this just reflect how fragile we all see Daniels?

I ask because we’ve seen Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Bo Nix, Cam Ward, and others playing in garbage time losses in the past and nobody said a thing.

It's getting discussion not because of who it is, but because he actually was injured. The grotesqueness of the injury is also part of why it is being discussed so much. Had he not been injured, any discussion would have been limited to a few "why is he still in the game" posts in the game thread.

Right. But, he’s basically being accused of negligence, which doesn’t pass the sniff test when you consider that he did what virtually every other coach would’ve (and has) done.

Regarding the people in the game thread questioning whether Daniels should still be in there, that’s reflecting how fragile they perceive Daniels. Indeed, I rarely see them doing that with other QBs. Let’s be real here… we all hold our breaths when Daniels drops back or takes off running and it’s because we’re afraid he’s gonna get hurt.

 

[beef]

Washington has only one full season left without having to extend Jayden Daniels to the tune of about $60M+ per year

Something is nothing mathing here. Daniels is under contract for 2026, 2027, and a probable 5th year option in 2028.