Dynasty League Football Forum

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:55 pm Not sure where I heard/read this but only 1 QB has won a super bowl with a contract worth more than 13% of the cap and that was Peyton Manning at 13.3%.

Found that nugget interesting.

They should just say no QB has won over a 13.3% cap level then

Good topic.

I, like others, think QBs are worth what they're getting paid, including Kirk Cousins. Blaming a rough 2018 season on him is pretty topical as it's clearly the o-line that sunk the team. When he had decent blocking in the beginning of the season, he played really well.

I'd much rather have a good, high salaried QB than be one of the teams searching for a reliable starter, reaching in the draft and/or paying decent money for the hottest free agent.

So Drew Brees’ contract is responsible for one of the worst blown calls I’ve ever seen? New England is seriously tilting the data in this case. Yes, Brady takes less, which allows the team to leverage that against the rest of the team along with their being willing to move on from anyone. It’s not a viable strategy for the rest of the league because Brady is the only guy willing to do this while being an elite QB.

ericanadian wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 4:23 am So Drew Brees’ contract is responsible for one of the worst blown calls I’ve ever seen? New England is seriously tilting the data in this case. Yes, Brady takes less, which allows the team to leverage that against the rest of the team along with their being willing to move on from anyone. It’s not a viable strategy for the rest of the league because Brady is the only guy willing to do this while being an elite QB.

Sure they are skewing the data, but the fact still remains that he was won MANY titles as an elite QB while taking a pay cut and improving the team. If Brady was paid 30M would the team around him he so good? I'd say no. Would he have as many titles? I'd say a few less but he's still a great QB...

It's not like 10M a year isn't a viable option to live off of IF you really wanted to help the team and win. I don't fault anyone for not doing it, but Mahomes on his rookie deal is going to have a much better team around him than Mahomes making 30+ per year. Is his skill level going to change from now until then? Probably not because he just won MVP... So... There's a fairly big disconnect between value there.

Flacco for example got paid AFTER he won the SB. Put the team in a much worse position financially and he was what the 20th best QB at the time? It was like the Ravens said, sure we probably won't find better so here you go Joe... And handcuffed themselves for several years to Average Joe.

I think the Dak comparison here is similar to Flacco. Cowboys won't have a better QB fall in their lap, but is a cheaper option more viable than paying a player 20-25% of the cap? Doesn't make sense logically when there are 52 players. Sure the QB is most important and that's what the market is paying them, but the data is still there...

Winning the Super Bowl is a really high threshold to be placing on this argument. Just look at the teams that are regularly winning their divisions and making the playoffs year after year and tell us that paying top QBs isn't worth it. Having a top QB makes you a contender every year--a lot of examples throughout this thread saying exactly that: Brees with the Saints, Rodgers with the Packers, Peyton Manning all those years with the Colts (and then Broncos), etc.

Jigga94 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 3:29 am

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:55 pm Not sure where I heard/read this but only 1 QB has won a super bowl with a contract worth more than 13% of the cap and that was Peyton Manning at 13.3%.

Found that nugget interesting.

They should just say no QB has won over a 13.3% cap level then

I believe they were trying to show that the one statistical outlier was an all time great at the position. Even so he was still extremely close to their baseline. At least that is how I interpreted it.

No offense to the OP, but I completely disagree. The Pats have created a dynasty by creating an environment where they don't pay ANYONE and value the system and Bill's brain above all other. The salary cap is at a point that you can pay whatever you want for the most important position in football and just be fine.

17 of the top 20 NFL salaries belong to QB's. 17!

I love the whole argument of "they should tell the QB to take x amt and if he doesn't let him walk and draft another". If only it were that easy. As someone mentioned earlier there aren't even 32 quality starting QBs in the league which is why teams reach for them in the first round. Just ask the Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Bears, etc how easy it is to find a quality QB.

Jigga94 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 3:28 am

FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 9:42 pm

NoRiskItNoBiscuit wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 8:22 pm

he won on his rookie contract if I'm not mistaken

He did. He actually went to the only 2 Super Bowls he's been to on his rookie deal. Rodgers won on his 2nd contract, I believe.

Right but I don't think Arods 2nd contract was break the bank level because he had been sitting the first few years

No, it wasn't.

djeternal2 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 7:37 am I love the whole argument of "they should tell the QB to take x amt and if he doesn't let him walk and draft another". If only it were that easy. As someone mentioned earlier there aren't even 32 quality starting QBs in the league which is why teams reach for them in the first round. Just ask the Bills, Dolphins, Jets, Bears, etc how easy it is to find a quality QB.

At some point, it makes sense. To pay an average to slightly above average QB elite money, just because he's asking for it, will guarantee your team is just a middle of the road team. As I stated, good college QB's don't grow on trees, especially ones you think will translate to the NFL. At a certain point, it is worth it to start over, though. If it takes an extra first round pick to move up in the first to get a guy who you think is close to the level of your current QB, you should do it IMO. Next year has a lot of QB talent coming out. I would argue it might be better for the Cowboys to pay an extra first to move up and draft one of Tua, Fromm, Herbert, Eason etc., as opposed to paying Dak 30 million dollars. Depending on how the college year plays out, it might not even cost an extra first, but we shall see.

Ruggenater wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 5:53 am Winning the Super Bowl is a really high threshold to be placing on this argument. Just look at the teams that are regularly winning their divisions and making the playoffs year after year and tell us that paying top QBs isn't worth it. Having a top QB makes you a contender every year--a lot of examples throughout this thread saying exactly that: Brees with the Saints, Rodgers with the Packers, Peyton Manning all those years with the Colts (and then Broncos), etc.

This. I don't think winning the SB should be the measure, but which teams regularly make the playoffs? I would argue that teams making the playoffs mostly have a high level qb, whether paid well or not.

The root of the issue is that the majority of NFL fans don't understand this. If they see a franchise trading away a young "franchise" QB like Prescott or Trubisky or Goff, there will be backlash, and NFL owners want to keep those merchandise sales up.

Winning a Super Bowl is obviously a priority as well, but many owners would rather suffer a few years of mediocrity and early playoff exits as long as those performances keep ticket and merchandise sales up.

FantasyFreak wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 8:10 amTo pay an average to slightly above average QB elite money, just because he's asking for it, will guarantee your team is just a middle of the road team.

I don't think having an average QB guarantees a middle of the road team. It sure seems like the odds are against though. The Ravens have a real chance to win with that defense.

What you may be thinking of is QB purgatory - you're just good enough to never have a top 10 pick, but bad enough to not make a deep playoff run or be a Super Bowl contender. And I agree, probably better to use a couple firsts to get in position for a top rookie than pay a lot for your average QB.

I think the days where you could win a SB with a mediocre QB are gone and were rare even in the past. You have to have a good to great QB to compete in the NFL today. QB's get paid because they are critical to a team's success...Wentz and Goff have to be licking their chops and hoping Dak gets $30M.
The Pats/Brady are the outlier. Belichick has made them a perennial contender and does anyone doubt he would do it with or without Brady? Maybe not all the SB's but a consistent contender? I have no doubt he could make the playoffs with Hoyer if he had to.
I think lots of teams have a loyalty to players that impedes judgement sometimes where that doesn't really happen with the Pats. Giving out mega-deals always makes headlines but not always the playoffs. I think paying some of the other positional players when they get injured or just don't play to their level of pay absolutely crushes teams chances to be competitive for years. The Pats avoid most of that by understanding the players that are key to their success and the amount they have to pay them.

Another issue is...should PHI, DAL, LAR, etc. trade or let their current QB go...will that coach have enough time to even groom the rookie heir?

Garrett? He's a wanted man every year...hard to believe he'd last.

Pederson and McVay, I'd be hard pressed to think they haven't played themselves into long contracts with their success...unless the wheels just truly fly off.