NFL Quarterback Trap - and the mental gymnastics to justify it

[jenkins.math]

For those that are saying to just simply draft a quarterback in the first, here is something for you to consider..

First round quarterbacks since 2008 are (brackets are exact pick): Flacco (18), Ryan (3), Freeman (17), Sanchez (5), Stafford (1), Tebow (25), Bradford (1), Ponder (12), Gabbert (10), Locker (8), Cam (1), Weeden (22), Tannehill (8), Griffin (2), Luck (1), Manuel (16), Bridgewater (32), Manziel (22), Bortles (3), Mariota (2), Winston (1), Lynch (26), Wentz (2), Goff (1), Watson (12), Mahomes (10), Trubisky (2), LJax (32), Rosen (10), Allen (7), Darnold (3), Mayfield (1), Haskins (15), Jones (6), Murray (1)

Aside from some guys drafted at the very top of the class (and even some of those are ugly), it is a very ugly list with the rare exception thrown in.

I think you need to break this list down into 2 separate groups. The bolded QBs are off of their rookie deal while the others are either on their rookie deal or 5th year option from being a first rounder.

There are 19 QBs in group 1 (bold) and 16 in group 2. 3 of those 16 are this year's rookies and have yet to take a professional snap but I'll keep them in anyway.

Group 1 has 5 QBs that I would call successful: Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Cam, and Luck. Flacco is the only one to win a SB and he did it on his rookie deal. Cam and Matt Ryan made the SB, but their teams have largely been above average over their careers. Stafford has been in no man's land his entire career. Luck is the best of this group by far, but has yet to make a SB.

Group 2 currently has 4 QBs that I would call successful right now: Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes. Wentz probably would have bee MVP 2 seasons ago if he didn't get injured. Mahomes was MVP as a rookie. Goff has been to a SB and Watson has been very good when healthy.

If you are good with those numbers, then would have a 26% hit rate in that first group and a 25% hit rate in group 2. However, if you remove the 3 rookies that puts the hit rate at just under 31%. If Baker has another good year he goes on this list. You would probably have to do the same for Trubisky if he succeeds next year as well. If 2 more QBs make the jump that would put your hit rate at 37.5% for that group. That is a very large jump from group 1. Teams would have to ask themselves if this is just a good crop of QBs or was the previous group bad. Or have teams started to do things the last 5 years to help their QBs transition better? Or maybe with all the new rules to help out the passing game it has made it easier for young QBs to be successful? Lots of variables and factors here, but if you have another jump like that over the next 5 years, it will be easier to just treat the QB like other positions and recycle with young talent. I'm not saying the league is there yet, but I won't be shocked if some organization tries this strategy within the next 5 years or so.

[FantasyFreak]

For those that are saying to just simply draft a quarterback in the first, here is something for you to consider..

First round quarterbacks since 2008 are (brackets are exact pick): Flacco (18), Ryan (3), Freeman (17), Sanchez (5), Stafford (1), Tebow (25), Bradford (1), Ponder (12), Gabbert (10), Locker (8), Cam (1), Weeden (22), Tannehill (8), Griffin (2), Luck (1), Manuel (16), Bridgewater (32), Manziel (22), Bortles (3), Mariota (2), Winston (1), Lynch (26), Wentz (2), Goff (1), Watson (12), Mahomes (10), Trubisky (2), LJax (32), Rosen (10), Allen (7), Darnold (3), Mayfield (1), Haskins (15), Jones (6), Murray (1)

Aside from some guys drafted at the very top of the class (and even some of those are ugly), it is a very ugly list with the rare exception thrown in.

I think you need to break this list down into 2 separate groups. The bolded QBs are off of their rookie deal while the others are either on their rookie deal or 5th year option from being a first rounder.

There are 19 QBs in group 1 (bold) and 16 in group 2. 3 of those 16 are this year's rookies and have yet to take a professional snap but I'll keep them in anyway.

Group 1 has 5 QBs that I would call successful: Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Cam, and Luck. Flacco is the only one to win a SB and he did it on his rookie deal. Cam and Matt Ryan made the SB, but their teams have largely been above average over their careers. Stafford has been in no man's land his entire career. Luck is the best of this group by far, but has yet to make a SB.

Group 2 currently has 4 QBs that I would call successful right now: Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes. Wentz probably would have bee MVP 2 seasons ago if he didn't get injured. Mahomes was MVP as a rookie. Goff has been to a SB and Watson has been very good when healthy.

If you are good with those numbers, then would have a 26% hit rate in that first group and a 25% hit rate in group 2. However, if you remove the 3 rookies that puts the hit rate at just under 31%. If Baker has another good year he goes on this list. You would probably have to do the same for Trubisky if he succeeds next year as well. If 2 more QBs make the jump that would put your hit rate at 37.5% for that group. That is a very large jump from group 1. Teams would have to ask themselves if this is just a good crop of QBs or was the previous group bad. Or have teams started to do things the last 5 years to help their QBs transition better? Or maybe with all the new rules to help out the passing game it has made it easier for young QBs to be successful? Lots of variables and factors here, but if you have another jump like that over the next 5 years, it will be easier to just treat the QB like other positions and recycle with young talent. I'm not saying the league is there yet, but I won't be shocked if some organization tries this strategy within the next 5 years or so.

Nor would I. It really depends how big the contracts for QB's get, relative to the cap. I wasn't trying to single out Dak because I don't like him, in my earlier posts, but rather that he is just an above average QB that is trying to command elite QB money, simply because he is "next up". If QB contracts continue to do this, then there may well come a time soon where this strategy is implemented.

[Phaded]

For those that are saying to just simply draft a quarterback in the first, here is something for you to consider..

First round quarterbacks since 2008 are (brackets are exact pick): Flacco (18), Ryan (3), Freeman (17), Sanchez (5), Stafford (1), Tebow (25), Bradford (1), Ponder (12), Gabbert (10), Locker (8), Cam (1), Weeden (22), Tannehill (8), Griffin (2), Luck (1), Manuel (16), Bridgewater (32), Manziel (22), Bortles (3), Mariota (2), Winston (1), Lynch (26), Wentz (2), Goff (1), Watson (12), Mahomes (10), Trubisky (2), LJax (32), Rosen (10), Allen (7), Darnold (3), Mayfield (1), Haskins (15), Jones (6), Murray (1)

Aside from some guys drafted at the very top of the class (and even some of those are ugly), it is a very ugly list with the rare exception thrown in.

I think you need to break this list down into 2 separate groups. The bolded QBs are off of their rookie deal while the others are either on their rookie deal or 5th year option from being a first rounder.

You may have noticed when you were bolding it and that it was the first half of the list; the list starts with the 2008 class and works all the way through to the 2019 class. I would have assumed people would have noticed that this was in chronological order..

Also - I get the argument for not paying some of these mid-tier quarterbacks, but there is just as much risk (if not more risk) in not paying them.

There is risk to paying players of any position - my issue with this thread is that it is singling out the quarterback position but you could make the same argument for any position in the NFL.

Just as an example - the top 10 highest paid DEs in the league in 2019 will be Melvin Ingram, Chandler Jones, Olivier Vernon, JJ Watt, Cameron Heyward, JPP, Dee Ford, Calais Campbell, Leonard Williams & Cameron Jordan.

I am sure all these guys are enjoying those Super Bowl rings..

My point is, you could make a similar list for any position and come to a similar conclusion as many here are coming to with quarterbacks.

Teams usually become a Super Bowl winning team when they hit on multiple young players, or underpaid guys who break out. Not just quarterbacks.

[Lumps]

Gurley led his team to the Super Bowl?
I am not sure if you are being naive or dumb - but that is not even remotely true.

My point is - many of you are redundantly and ridiculously chastising a single position to use the "Super Bowl" as a benchmark.
That is an absolutely ridiculous benchmark to use.

You asked. I answered. Keep moving those goal posts though.

Also, nice to see the old ways of DLF tossing insults are still around. In the short time I've been back to post here, it's very clear you take things extremely personally and respond in antagonistic ways.

[Phaded]

Gurley led his team to the Super Bowl?
I am not sure if you are being naive or dumb - but that is not even remotely true.

My point is - many of you are redundantly and ridiculously chastising a single position to use the "Super Bowl" as a benchmark.
That is an absolutely ridiculous benchmark to use.

You asked. I answered. Keep moving those goal posts though.

Also, nice to see the old ways of DLF tossing insults are still around. In the short time I've been back to post here, it's very clear you take things extremely personally and respond in antagonistic ways.

I'm not making it personal - you made a naive/dumb comment and I simply called you out on it.

Or maybe those 13 yards he put up against the Saints really did lead his team to the Super Bowl, what do I know?

[Phaded]

Group 1 has 5 QBs that I would call successful: Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Cam, and Luck. Flacco is the only one to win a SB and he did it on his rookie deal. Cam and Matt Ryan made the SB, but their teams have largely been above average over their careers. Stafford has been in no man's land his entire career. Luck is the best of this group by far, but has yet to make a SB.

Group 2 currently has 4 QBs that I would call successful right now: Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes. Wentz probably would have bee MVP 2 seasons ago if he didn't get injured. Mahomes was MVP as a rookie. Goff has been to a SB and Watson has been very good when healthy.

Of the 9 QBs you mentioned; 6 were drafted in the top 3. The other 3 were drafted at 10, 12 & 18. So again; unless you are drafting in the top 3 like I mentioned - your odds are very low of successfully drafting a QB.

Ignoring rookies for 2019 as it remains to be seen - that means 3 quarterbacks outside of the top 3 in the 1st round were hits in a 10 year span; or one every 3.3 years on average.

Again - not promising.

[Lumps]

For those that are saying to just simply draft a quarterback in the first, here is something for you to consider..

First round quarterbacks since 2008 are (brackets are exact pick): Flacco (18), Ryan (3), Freeman (17), Sanchez (5), Stafford (1), Tebow (25), Bradford (1), Ponder (12), Gabbert (10), Locker (8), Cam (1), Weeden (22), Tannehill (8), Griffin (2), Luck (1), Manuel (16), Bridgewater (32), Manziel (22), Bortles (3), Mariota (2), Winston (1), Lynch (26), Wentz (2), Goff (1), Watson (12), Mahomes (10), Trubisky (2), LJax (32), Rosen (10), Allen (7), Darnold (3), Mayfield (1), Haskins (15), Jones (6), Murray (1)

Aside from some guys drafted at the very top of the class (and even some of those are ugly), it is a very ugly list with the rare exception thrown in.

This is a fun list, because you are using this to illustrate your point, but it cuts both ways. The desperation caused by the mindset caused a lot of that list. When Freeman, Tebow, Ponder, Gabbert, Locker, Weeden, Tannehill, Manuel, Manziel, Bortles, and Lynch (I'm gonna leave off the young guys) got drafted.. were they praised as amazing prospects or even good picks? Did someone say they got the steal of the draft when they took Bortles at 3? A LOT of these picks were laughed at.

So, chicken or the egg? What if said teams DIDN'T draft those catastrophes at those slots, drafted the players whose talent was deserving of that draft slot and grabbed these guys later on? Man recalling that Locker/Gabbert/Ponder CF of a draft is just as cringe worthy now as it was then.

I'm not making it personal - you made a naive/dumb comment and I simply called you out on it.

Or maybe those 13 yards he put up against the Saints really did lead his team to the Super Bowl, what do I know?

I didn't realize that the season started after Gurley got hurt or that his 1800+ yards and 21 TDs didn't count. Does anyone argue whose team the Rams are? Do you think the playoffs and SB would look different with Gurley on the team and not a 20% heavier than usual CJA?

Just as an example - the top 10 highest paid DEs in the league in 2019 will be Melvin Ingram, Chandler Jones, Olivier Vernon, JJ Watt, Cameron Heyward, JPP, Dee Ford, Calais Campbell, Leonard Williams & Cameron Jordan.

I am sure all these guys are enjoying those Super Bowl rings..

My point is, you could make a similar list for any position and come to a similar conclusion as many here are coming to with quarterbacks.

I agree with you that you could make a similar list with any position. Overpaying any position is going to put you in a worse off spot. No one argued that at all.

As soon as teams want to give the Dak Prescott of DEs $30 million and put him in the same conversation as Aaron Donald, that will be the same argument.

[jenkins.math]

You may have noticed when you were bolding it and that it was the first half of the list; the list starts with the 2008 class and works all the way through to the 2019 class. I would have assumed people would have noticed that this was in chronological order..

Also - I get the argument for not paying some of these mid-tier quarterbacks, but there is just as much risk (if not more risk) in not paying them.

There is risk to paying players of any position - my issue with this thread is that it is singling out the quarterback position but you could make the same argument for any position in the NFL.

I noticed that it was chronological, but by splitting the data the way I did, it shows a pretty realistic possibility of a 50% increase in successful QBs within the group currently on their rookie deal when compared to the others. The reason(s) behind that would certainly be worth investigating to determine if this QB group is an outlier or if we are at the forefront of a new trend. I figured splitting the data there would be pretty obvious considering the conversation is based on cheap QB contracts. Guess you missed it.

[jenkins.math]

Group 1 has 5 QBs that I would call successful: Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Cam, and Luck. Flacco is the only one to win a SB and he did it on his rookie deal. Cam and Matt Ryan made the SB, but their teams have largely been above average over their careers. Stafford has been in no man's land his entire career. Luck is the best of this group by far, but has yet to make a SB.

Group 2 currently has 4 QBs that I would call successful right now: Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes. Wentz probably would have bee MVP 2 seasons ago if he didn't get injured. Mahomes was MVP as a rookie. Goff has been to a SB and Watson has been very good when healthy.

Of the 9 QBs you mentioned; 6 were drafted in the top 3. The other 3 were drafted at 10, 12 & 18. So again; unless you are drafting in the top 3 like I mentioned - your odds are very low of successfully drafting a QB.

Ignoring rookies for 2019 as it remains to be seen - that means 3 quarterbacks outside of the top 3 in the 1st round were hits in a 10 year span; or one every 3.3 years on average.

Again - not promising.

Now you are really moving the goal posts by changing the conversation entirely. You now have to weigh in the cost to move up to a top 3 pick vs paying your QB 30 million. That's an entirely different ball of wax. I get that you disagree and that's fine, but I can tell you are set in your mind on this so I don't really see the point of taking it further. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

[Phaded]

This is a fun list, because you are using this to illustrate your point, but it cuts both ways. The desperation caused by the mindset caused a lot of that list. When Freeman, Tebow, Ponder, Gabbert, Locker, Weeden, Tannehill, Manuel, Manziel, Bortles, and Lynch (I'm gonna leave off the young guys) got drafted.. were they praised as amazing prospects or even good picks? Did someone say they got the steal of the draft when they took Bortles at 3? A LOT of these picks were laughed at.

So, chicken or the egg? What if said teams DIDN'T draft those catastrophes at those slots, drafted the players whose talent was deserving of that draft slot and grabbed these guys later on? Man recalling that Locker/Gabbert/Ponder CF of a draft is just as cringe worthy now as it was then.

...are you even reading your own thread? Or do you actually not understand why I posted this?

There are multiple people in here suggesting that you could draft a first round pick QB and build a team around them. The reason I posted all of the first round picks is simply to illustrate that it is not a viable strategy at all - and unless you are picking in the top 3, your odds of hitting on a quarterback are insanely reduced.

I didn't realize that the season started after Gurley got hurt or that his 1800+ yards and 21 TDs didn't count. Does anyone argue whose team the Rams are? Do you think the playoffs and SB would look different with Gurley on the team and not a 20% heavier than usual CJA?

There is a big difference in between led to the playoffs and being led to the Super Bowl. For example; you quoted Joe Flacco & the Ravens earlier. He was mediocre in the regular season but when playoff time came, he was lights out and literally led them to the Super Bowl.

I agree with you that you could make a similar list with any position. Overpaying any position is going to put you in a worse off spot. No one argued that at all.

As soon as teams want to give the Dak Prescott of DEs $30 million and put him in the same conversation as Aaron Donald, that will be the same argument.

Nice to agree on something at least, now to change that..

Except you have to scale positional importance accordingly to the pay scale. A good defensive end will never be paid as much as a good quarterback; and rightfully so.

For example - a guy like Olivier Vernon being in the top 3 highest paid DEs I would say is worse than Dak being in the top 5 paid QBs. Just as an example.

High contracts are hard to stomach, regardless. However; of all impact positions - quarterback is the most justifiable to shell out a large amount of money for.

I noticed that it was chronological, but by splitting the data the way I did, it shows a pretty realistic possibility of a 50% increase in successful QBs within the group currently on their rookie deal when compared to the others. The reason(s) behind that would certainly be worth investigating to determine if this QB group is an outlier or if we are at the forefront of a new trend. I figured splitting the data there would be pretty obvious considering the conversation is based on cheap QB contracts. Guess you missed it.

The problem is that you are limiting a larger scale sample size to try to validate a point. The law of large numbers, the larger the sample size the higher the probability of an accurate projection.

And how many of those first round quarterbacks that I mentioned in the last ten years have actually won a Super Bowl (since that is what we are apparently measuring the validity of highly paid quarterbacks by)?

Spoiler: 1 of them; that was drafted 11 years ago. Again, it is not as simple as it many are making it sound to draft a quarterback, plug him in and go win a championship. I am confident that this will continue to be proven true.

[Phaded]

Group 1 has 5 QBs that I would call successful: Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Cam, and Luck. Flacco is the only one to win a SB and he did it on his rookie deal. Cam and Matt Ryan made the SB, but their teams have largely been above average over their careers. Stafford has been in no man's land his entire career. Luck is the best of this group by far, but has yet to make a SB.

Group 2 currently has 4 QBs that I would call successful right now: Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes. Wentz probably would have bee MVP 2 seasons ago if he didn't get injured. Mahomes was MVP as a rookie. Goff has been to a SB and Watson has been very good when healthy.

Of the 9 QBs you mentioned; 6 were drafted in the top 3. The other 3 were drafted at 10, 12 & 18. So again; unless you are drafting in the top 3 like I mentioned - your odds are very low of successfully drafting a QB.

Ignoring rookies for 2019 as it remains to be seen - that means 3 quarterbacks outside of the top 3 in the 1st round were hits in a 10 year span; or one every 3.3 years on average.

Again - not promising.

Now you are really moving the goal posts by changing the conversation entirely. You now have to weigh in the cost to move up to a top 3 pick vs paying your QB 30 million. That's an entirely different ball of wax. I get that you disagree and that's fine, but I can tell you are set in your mind on this so I don't really see the point of taking it further. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

How am I changing the conversation entirely? That is literally the exact same conversation, it is simply something that many of you throwing out this concept did not consider.

A lot of people in this thread are saying you can build a team, then draft a quarterback and plug & play him.
I am merely illustrating that it is nowhere near that simple, something that many of you keyboard GMs do not seem to understand.

If you can point me to an example of one team in the history of the NFL that has cycled through QBs and had continual long term success, I'll listen. That seems to be the strategy that many here are suggesting - cycle through drafting quarterbacks instead of paying them.

It is a horrible idea.

[jenkins.math]

Of the 9 QBs you mentioned; 6 were drafted in the top 3. The other 3 were drafted at 10, 12 & 18. So again; unless you are drafting in the top 3 like I mentioned - your odds are very low of successfully drafting a QB.

Ignoring rookies for 2019 as it remains to be seen - that means 3 quarterbacks outside of the top 3 in the 1st round were hits in a 10 year span; or one every 3.3 years on average.

Again - not promising.

Now you are really moving the goal posts by changing the conversation entirely. You now have to weigh in the cost to move up to a top 3 pick vs paying your QB 30 million. That's an entirely different ball of wax. I get that you disagree and that's fine, but I can tell you are set in your mind on this so I don't really see the point of taking it further. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

How am I changing the conversation entirely? That is literally the exact same conversation, it is simply something that many of you throwing out this concept did not consider.

A lot of people in this thread are saying you can build a team, then draft a quarterback and plug & play him.
I am merely illustrating that it is nowhere near that simple, something that many of you keyboard GMs do not seem to understand.

If you can point me to an example of one team in the history of the NFL that has cycled through QBs and had continual long term success, I'll listen. That seems to be the strategy that many here are suggesting - cycle through drafting quarterbacks instead of paying them.

It is a horrible idea.

You first referenced all first round QBs of the last 10 years. Ok, I used your list, broke the data down in a way that suggested there may be something to the idea of not paying a QB big money if the success rate has gone up 50% in comparison of the 2 groups. Which if that trend continues over the next 5 years and there is another 50% increase or similar jump in all first round QBs; what do you think will happen? I will wager any sum of money that you want that a team will trade off a Dak level QB instead of paying him and try and keep the rest of their team intact around a rookie QB.

Changing the parameters (the parameters you led with btw) to now only look at top 3 picks and compare that success rate to the rest of the first is entirely different. At that stage you are going to have to compare cost to move into the top 3 if that is your new success rate you are gauging. That is a brand new variable. How do you not get that?

Your bolded statement has never been done, which everyone here has acknowledged including myself. However, to act like there is 0 chance of it happening is silly. Perhaps we are just in a nice era of young QBs and a great cycle of talent. That is very possible. However, it is also possible that as advanced analytics and data have taken over combined with rule changes that favor the passing game, young QBs will continue to be more successful early and a higher hit rate in the first round. To deny it simply because no team has done it is very close minded. You have to evolve or you eventually die. This may not be the league changing, but unless you have a crystal ball you don't know.

I don't think anybody has suggested it was simple, but if the data suggests paying a QB more than 13.3% of you salary cap means you won't win a Super Bowl, why would you still do it? Just because that is what everyone else would do and what everyone has done in the past? Man that's an awesome recipe for success. The more data and analytics are used the more the game and the moves that are made change.

[Phaded]

Serious question - why the insanely arbitrary cut off of 13.3%? Brady won the Super Bowl just last year while taking up 12.2% of the salaries on the team.

Also; I never changed any parameters. I have simply been statistically backing up why it is not as simple as "do not pay your QB, just draft a new one each time" as many of you in here have been alluding to. In my initial post I explicitly state that the odds dramatically change outside the top 3; go back and re-read if necessary.

It has not been done, exactly. There is a reason for that. It is a stupid idea that sounds good on paper but would never work as a plan.

[jenkins.math]

Serious question - why the insanely arbitrary cut off of 13.3%? Brady won the Super Bowl just last year while taking up 12.2% of the salaries on the team.

Also; I never changed any parameters again. I have simply been statistically backing up why it is not as simple as "do not pay your QB, just draft a new one each time" as many of you in here have been alluding to.

It has not been done, exactly. There is a reason for that.

I posted this earlier, but 13.3% of the cap is the highest cap hit by a QB to win a super bowl, and it was Peyton Manning. Every other SB winner has been under 13%. Nothing arbitrary about that number. It's a current fact.

Why is that relevant? Well the 30 million dollar price tag being thrown around for Dak would be 15% of the cap if the cap rises 12 million for 2020.

The whole topic has been about paying too much for a QB and figuring where that line in. Since QBs are measured by super bowls more than anything else, I felt this data was extremely relevant to the discussion.

If you cant grasp that there really isn't any point in debating this.

[Ice]

I get people thinking Dak isn't worth the money but the reality is he will get paid because what the market is for QB's these days.

He has been a starter for 3 years now. He has made 2 pro bowls already and was the rookie of the year in 2016. He has thrown for 10,876 yards with a 66.1 Completion percentage. He has 67 TD's vs 25 interceptions with another 944 yards rushing and 18 rushing TD's. He has been making 630K per year.

His winning percentage the last 3 years is .647. That would put him 2nd in the league over that period behind only Brady.

Just to put that in perspective the active QB's with a minimum of 3 years of service with a better winning percentage in their career.

Brady .772
Big Ben .670
R/ Wilson .668
Dak P .647
A Rodgers. .629
A. Luck .606
D. Brees .586
C. Wentz .575

Not saying Dak is as good as any of those players after only 3 years but in this league it's about winning and market value. Dak has not missed a game in 3 years.

Jerry Jones is going to pay him and would it be pretty foolish not to pay him given the team is contending for a title. The market value rises as the cap rises. Wilson has set the market cap. Dak will get close to that number then when the next contract is due by someone they will beat that number.

It's not about what they are actually worth but what the market value is.

Wentz will probably get more and he hasn't been as good given he can't stay on the field. Goff will to but since they were 1st round players the teams have a 5th year options. Dak is in the last year of his contract.

If they don't sign him they will franchise him but for cap purposes it makes sense to sign him now.

QB's don't grow on trees, Dallas was lucky to find a QB in the 4th round. The problem is they are too good to go find one in the high first next year.

Dallas has been preparing to pay him now for two years.