Dynasty League Football Forum

It take Rosen on a cheap contract over Dak at $30m.

Miami would probably take a late pick for Rosen at this point.

IF the Cowboys were smart they would throw the end of the season and get a shot at a rookie QB they can ride with, sign a journeyman on a dirt cheap contract, and hope they get a Mahomes-Smith situation where the rookie actually has time to develop without being thrown into the fire and burnt to a crisp like what happened with Rosen. I honestly thing being thrust in as a starting QB as a rookie might be one of the worst things that can happen to them and their development, especially if the team is garbage. If they can play onto the field like how Russ did, okay, you earned it. But all of these kids that are essentially the only options for garbage teams that just get slaughtered is sad, and it messes them up.

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:56 am

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:46 am The problem with NOT paying Dak is that is it hard to get a QB as good as he is, even if you think he's average. You may spend the next few years churning through rookies & journeymen vets like Case Keenum until you hit. When you're team is in that QB search, you wish you had an average QB like Prescott.

If I'm the Cowboys, I pay Dak and draft a young guy early. I know that's just not done in the NFL very often, but the position is too important.

So you think paying Dak 30 million a year would yield better results than paying someone like Dalton, Tannehill, etc 20 million or so and spending that 10 million elsewhere?

This kinda makes sense to me.

If you put Dak on the Bengals team, would he have better numbers than Dalton ?

Im not so sure..

Forza_Azzurri wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:56 pm
He’s the new Cris Carter ... all he does is catch touchdowns.

Dude, he is top 10 in receptions

jenkins.math wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:56 am

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:46 am The problem with NOT paying Dak is that is it hard to get a QB as good as he is, even if you think he's average. You may spend the next few years churning through rookies & journeymen vets like Case Keenum until you hit. When you're team is in that QB search, you wish you had an average QB like Prescott.

If I'm the Cowboys, I pay Dak and draft a young guy early. I know that's just not done in the NFL very often, but the position is too important.

So you think paying Dak 30 million a year would yield better results than paying someone like Dalton, Tannehill, etc 20 million or so and spending that 10 million elsewhere?

May not yield a better win-loss record, but I'd take that chance rather than roll with the low floor of Dalton & Tannehill. I'd make Dak's contract be a three year deal with a team option for the fourth at the longest. Maybe even go with a two year deal.

If Dallas doesn't think they can be a playoff team with Dak, then draft a couple rookies and go with a very cheap veteran. No way I'd pay 20 for Dalton or Tannehill.

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:54 am I'd make Dak's contract be a three year deal with a team option for the fourth at the longest. Maybe even go with a two year deal.

takes two to tango (and at least three to swing).
why would prescott be up for something like that?

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:04 am

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:54 am I'd make Dak's contract be a three year deal with a team option for the fourth at the longest. Maybe even go with a two year deal.

takes two to tango (and at least three to swing).
why would prescott be up for something like that?

Guaranteed money. The chance to get an even bigger contract in two or three years. Structure it like Kirk Cousins' deal.

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:13 am

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:04 am

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:54 am I'd make Dak's contract be a three year deal with a team option for the fourth at the longest. Maybe even go with a two year deal.

takes two to tango (and at least three to swing).
why would prescott be up for something like that?

Guaranteed money. The chance to get an even bigger contract in two or three years. Structure it like Kirk Cousins' deal.

I'm sure that deal won't be competitive though across the league

Jigga94 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:16 am

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:13 am

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:04 am

takes two to tango (and at least three to swing).
why would prescott be up for something like that?

Guaranteed money. The chance to get an even bigger contract in two or three years. Structure it like Kirk Cousins' deal.

I'm sure that deal won't be competitive though across the league

What do you mean?

^ that someone else in the league will be willing to offer him a(n even) better contract.

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:34 am ^ that someone else in the league will be willing to offer him a(n even) better contract.

I'd pay what it takes to get that short term deal. And draft a young guy to compete with him.

Pac_Eddy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:42 am

killer_of_giants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:34 am ^ that someone else in the league will be willing to offer him a(n even) better contract.

I'd pay what it takes to get that short term deal. And draft a young guy to compete with him.

but then that doesn't help your cap situation, and gives you a shorter window in which your starting QB is on a cheap rookie deal.

All of these arm-chair GMs are hilarious.

You literally have a handful of true, game-changing QBs in the league.
Then you have some great QBs who can occasionally make the game-changing plays.
Then you have the good QBs that are elevated by the supporting cast around them.
Then you have the average or subpar QBs who just can't get it done barring an elite team around them.

The vast majority of NFL quarterbacks fall into category 3 - including Dak.
The problem with going with an unproven or rookie QB - your odds of ending up with a category 4 QB are insanely high and that is why, even the category 3 QBs like Dak are so valuable to teams and get paid.

Just ask teams that have been looking for quarterbacks forever. It's why scrubs like Nick Foles get the contracts they do, because teams try so hard to get that quarterback.

QB is the one position that have the ability to single-handedly take over a game for you - or lose the game for you.

Yes, but taking those category 3 QBs and paying them at the top of the market means you have to sacrifice a bit of that supporting cast that they need to perform at a high level. Then you are stuck with an average QB AND an average supporting cast, which means you are an average team. It's obviously a risk to move on from a solid QB, but at the same time those guys aren't winning you Super Bowls. You can catch lightning in a bottle for a magical 1 year run like Flacco/Foles with a discount QB and elite supporting cast, but that's not going to be sustainable year after year. The way NFL economics go now teams really would be better off rotating rookie deal QBs and holding off on investing in the position until they hit on a true franchise QB that can succeed with and elevate a slightly lesser supporting cast. That's just a much greater risk than anyone is going to be willing to risk and will never happen unless the owner is 100% behind it.

Phaded wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:32 am All of these arm-chair GMs are hilarious.

You literally have a handful of true, game-changing QBs in the league.
Then you have some great QBs who can occasionally make the game-changing plays.
Then you have the good QBs that are elevated by the supporting cast around them.
Then you have the average or subpar QBs who just can't get it done barring an elite team around them.

The vast majority of NFL quarterbacks fall into category 3 - including Dak.
The problem with going with an unproven or rookie QB - your odds of ending up with a category 4 QB are insanely high and that is why, even the category 3 QBs like Dak are so valuable to teams and get paid.

Just ask teams that have been looking for quarterbacks forever. It's why scrubs like Nick Foles get the contracts they do, because teams try so hard to get that quarterback.

QB is the one position that have the ability to single-handedly take over a game for you - or lose the game for you.

The "vast majority" can't be above average, which is essentially what you have said. That in itself is mathematically impossible.

Here is the way I see it. The ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. That is what everyone is trying to achieve correct? Well mathematically, the contract for a QB to lead his team to a Super Bowl is less than 13% of the total cap. Only 1 QB in the salary cap era won a Super Bowl with a salary cap above 13% and that was an all time great in Peyton Manning, and he was only at 13.3% of the cap.

Statistically speaking you aren't winning a Super Bowl if your QB takes up more than 13%. Peyton was the one outlier and I would consider him an outlier at the position in general for the success he achieved. Let's assume the 2020 cap is 200 million (which would be a 12 million increase, which would be on par with previous seasons). 13% is 26 million. If you sign Dak for anything more than that the math says you aren't winning a Super Bowl. Take your feelings out of it and look at the data.