NFL Quarterback Trap - and the mental gymnastics to justify it

[FantasyFreak]

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.

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.

They aren't paying an average QB elite money, though.

[Jigga94]

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.

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.

They aren't paying an average QB elite money, though.

Lol when is that post from?

[Ice]

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.

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

[FantasyFreak]

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.

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

Sure, but paying him 30 million will severly hurt the overall strength of the team compared to now. Dak isn't the main reason they are winning. The offense isn't even based around him. I think once he gets his 2nd contract, those wins will dip significantly.

[Ice]

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.

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

Sure, but paying him 30 million will severly hurt the overall strength of the team compared to now. Dak isn't the main reason they are winning. The offense isn't even based around him. I think once he gets his 2nd contract, those wins will dip significantly.

That’s the going rate for QB’s. The cap is better every year and teams like Dallas don’t mind giving huge money upfront then setting up long term deals to help mange the cap.

QB money us offset by lower costs at other positions.

All teams are equal in cap dollars but the wealthy owners have a better chance.

The Raiders as an example give long deals with minimal up front to manage cash. The jones’s And Kraft types will give huge money because they can which gives them an inherent advantage.

These days winning without a solid QB doesn’t really happen so when you get one that actually wins and has ice in their veins in the 4th Quarter you pay them

Easy to say Dak isn’t the reason but the reality is he behind Brady in wins only and his 4th Quarter comeback wins is already approaching historic levels.

They will pay him regardless because he wins.

I agree it’s easier to pay them less but that’s not happening. See Wilson

[FantasyFreak]

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

Sure, but paying him 30 million will severly hurt the overall strength of the team compared to now. Dak isn't the main reason they are winning. The offense isn't even based around him. I think once he gets his 2nd contract, those wins will dip significantly.

That’s the going rate for QB’s. The cap is better every year and teams like Dallas don’t mind giving huge money upfront then setting up long term deals to help mange the cap.

QB money us offset by lower costs at other positions.

All teams are equal in cap dollars but the wealthy owners have a better chance.

The Raiders as an example give long deals with minimal up front to manage cash. The jones’s And Kraft types will give huge money because they can which gives them an inherent advantage.

These days winning without a solid QB doesn’t really happen so when you get one that actually wins and has ice in their veins in the 4th Quarter you pay them

Not really. 30 million would make Dak the 4th highest paid QB in the league. Two years ago, Stafford and Carr had 8 and 7 4th quarter wins in one season, and people are still saying they are overpaid. Dak doesn't do nearly enough throughout an entire game to jusify being put in the elite tier of QB's in terms of pay scale. 30 million is a big overpay and would make the Cowboys worse off, IMO. I stand by that. They should not be paying him more than guys like Brees, Luck etc. are making. It's just not going to make them a better team IMO. It will make them worse when they can't afford any depth on their roster.

[Ice]

Go back and look at his 4th quarter comebacks since becoming a starter. On plane so can’t but his career sample size is impressive

It’s not about who’s better in NFL. It’s market value when contracts come due.

Teams like Dallas are close. Within their window who are they going to replace him with?

No one is the correct answer.

[jenkins.math]

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.

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

People said the same thing about Vince Young early in his career with TN. The same can be said about Lamar Jackson's brief career thus far. The Titans have a winning record the last 3 seasons with Mariota as their QB.

The most success the Cowboys have had in recent memory has been on the back of a great running game in Demarco Murray and then Zeke. Dak is much more of a passenger than the bus driver. Dak is in a great situation because the Cowboys will spend money on a team around him to hide his deficiencies. What happens to that team when his salary jumps almost 27.5 million if he gets 30? That team around him suddenly isn't as strong because you can't pay everyone. Do the Cowboys win at the same clip then?

The whole idea about this is all behind the recent success of young QBs. Wilson, Wentz, Goff, Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, Trubisky, and Baker for half a season. Look at why those teams/QBs were successful:
Wilson had Beastmode and arguably the greatest defense this decade. They won their SB by holding each playoff opponent under 20 points.
Wentz didn't even play in the playoffs and that team scored at will with a backup against the team and coach many consider the greatest dynasty of all time.
Goff looked awful in his rookie year then along came Sean McVay. He also has numerous weapons around him. Do people really think Goff is the main reason for the Rams success the last 2 years?
Mahomes had weapons galore. Oh yeah, Andy Reid also got Alex Smith to have a career year. Andy Reid always has a good offense and has been successful for 20+ years.
Deshaun Watson has DeAndre Hopkins along with solid weapons, a solid defense, and a weak division.
Trubisky and the Bears were led by Khalil Mack and that defense. Matt Nagy came from the Andy Reid tree and they have surrounded Trubisky with plenty of weapons.
Baker was also given young weapons, and young athletic defense, and now they went and got him the most talented WR in football.

So you really need to ask yourself: Are the QBs suddenly getting better when they enter the league or have coaches figured out the best way to win is to surround a cheap QB with as much talent as possible to mask deficiencies? If your answer is the latter then you probably think giving someone other than an all time great 30 million is foolish.

[Lumps]

Dak wins games, the Boys would be foolish to not pay him. He ranks 2nd in wins since becoming the starter behind only Brady.

The Cowboys are not fools, he will get his.

Sure, but paying him 30 million will severly hurt the overall strength of the team compared to now. Dak isn't the main reason they are winning. The offense isn't even based around him. I think once he gets his 2nd contract, those wins will dip significantly.

That’s the going rate for QB’s. The cap is better every year and teams like Dallas don’t mind giving huge money upfront then setting up long term deals to help mange the cap.

QB money us offset by lower costs at other positions.

All teams are equal in cap dollars but the wealthy owners have a better chance.

The Raiders as an example give long deals with minimal up front to manage cash. The jones’s And Kraft types will give huge money because they can which gives them an inherent advantage.

These days winning without a solid QB doesn’t really happen so when you get one that actually wins and has ice in their veins in the 4th Quarter you pay them

The comments I see in this thread are the very reasons I expressed frustration about the entire topic. There is just SO. MUCH. CIRCULAR. REASONING. "You have to pay QBs because QBs command it." "The market for QBs is that, so you have to pay that." That logic is ENTIRELY the point.

Since Dak is the current topic of discussion, let's roll with that because it illustrates it perfectly. We are going to need the Cowboys fans bias to be absent from this though.

Here are the QBs ranked by pay for 2019: https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/

Above $30mill (Which is rumored what Dak will get) are: Russell, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan

So you're telling me Dak belongs in that tier? And you're telling me Dak belongs in that tier because he's the next QB up for a contract? Not because he throws for 4500 yards, 35 TDs, 4 Ints? Right, because he doesn't. Not even close. Dak has averaged over his 3 years:
3625 yards, 22.3 TDs, 8.3 Ints, and 8.3 Fumbles. Those average numbers are basically what he puts up every year, which means there isn't an outlier or a hint of progression. He had 12 fumbles last year... behind that line. Objectively, (without Cowboys goggles on) Dak is an average QB. I mean if you're looking for a comp to those numbers, it's Andy Dalton since 2015. Except Dalton has 4 LESS fumbles since 2011 than Dak in 3 years. Dalton's contract is at $16million/year (#18), funny enough right behind Tom Brady, and he is the bottom QB that is a) not on a rookie contract b) a starter

Everyone talks like the next QB up just gets the highest QB contract in the history of the NFL.... because they do. Largely, because it has happened. That is circular reasoning. The point of the thread is to point out that fact and the issues with it.

Now let's look beyond Russell, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan. Your next 4 are: Cousins, Garoppolo, Stafford, Carr. How do you feel from an NFL perspective comparing QBs 1-4 and 4-8? But those guys are making $28m, $27.5m, $27m, and $25m. There was talk that Carr would get traded/a QB drafted behind him this year. Stafford's contract was the highest in the league when he signed it. Does he deserve that?

So you pay Dak $30m you are putting him in a class he clearly does not belong in (until some other team overpays Mariota or something). Is Dak the best QB in the NFL? Does he have an argument to even be discussed in the top 5? Then, why pay him that money? You're going to give him $30m and Kyler Murray is going to make $8m? I would argue that the Cowboys would be no worse off at QB drafting a highly accurate one in the 3rd round, building around him, using the extra money for other positions.

The other argument that people seem to be making is that top QBs should be paid well. I think everyone is on board with that. It's the figure that is the issue. Russell, Ben, Rodgers, and Ryan can STILL be the top paid QBs if the highest one is at $25m and the rest of the league falls in line after that. Or even $20m. There will inevitably be leapfrogging due to the increasing cap, but that shouldn't mean a, by all accounts/stats we have, a completely average player gets the highest in history at the position. There is an $8m difference between the last vet starting QB contract and the #1 overall pick. THAT is why teams were trying to employ the rookie QB contract winning situation. Think about the notion that Dalton is even at $9m and the rest of the QBs extrapolate beyond that, the high figure is a lot different.

[FantasyFreak]

Sure, but paying him 30 million will severly hurt the overall strength of the team compared to now. Dak isn't the main reason they are winning. The offense isn't even based around him. I think once he gets his 2nd contract, those wins will dip significantly.

That’s the going rate for QB’s. The cap is better every year and teams like Dallas don’t mind giving huge money upfront then setting up long term deals to help mange the cap.

QB money us offset by lower costs at other positions.

All teams are equal in cap dollars but the wealthy owners have a better chance.

The Raiders as an example give long deals with minimal up front to manage cash. The jones’s And Kraft types will give huge money because they can which gives them an inherent advantage.

These days winning without a solid QB doesn’t really happen so when you get one that actually wins and has ice in their veins in the 4th Quarter you pay them

The comments I see in this thread are the very reasons I expressed frustration about the entire topic. There is just SO. MUCH. CIRCULAR. REASONING. "You have to pay QBs because QBs command it." "The market for QBs is that, so you have to pay that." That logic is ENTIRELY the point.

Since Dak is the current topic of discussion, let's roll with that because it illustrates it perfectly. We are going to need the Cowboys fans bias to be absent from this though.

Here are the QBs ranked by pay for 2019: https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/

Above $30mill (Which is rumored what Dak will get) are: Russell, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan

So you're telling me Dak belongs in that tier? And you're telling me Dak belongs in that tier because he's the next QB up for a contract? Not because he throws for 4500 yards, 35 TDs, 4 Ints? Right, because he doesn't. Not even close. Dak has averaged over his 3 years:
3625 yards, 22.3 TDs, 8.3 Ints, and 8.3 Fumbles. Those average numbers are basically what he puts up every year, which means there isn't an outlier or a hint of progression. He had 12 fumbles last year... behind that line. Objectively, (without Cowboys goggles on) Dak is an average QB. I mean if you're looking for a comp to those numbers, it's Andy Dalton since 2015. Except Dalton has 4 LESS fumbles since 2011 than Dak in 3 years. Dalton's contract is at $16million/year (#18), funny enough right behind Tom Brady, and he is the bottom QB that is a) not on a rookie contract b) a starter

Everyone talks like the next QB up just gets the highest QB contract in the history of the NFL.... because they do. Largely, because it has happened. That is circular reasoning. The point of the thread is to point out that fact and the issues with it.

Now let's look beyond Russell, Ben, Rodgers, Ryan. Your next 4 are: Cousins, Garoppolo, Stafford, Carr. How do you feel from an NFL perspective comparing QBs 1-4 and 4-8? But those guys are making $28m, $27.5m, $27m, and $25m. There was talk that Carr would get traded/a QB drafted behind him this year. Stafford's contract was the highest in the league when he signed it. Does he deserve that?

So you pay Dak $30m you are putting him in a class he clearly does not belong in (until some other team overpays Mariota or something). Is Dak the best QB in the NFL? Does he have an argument to even be discussed in the top 5? Then, why pay him that money? You're going to give him $30m and Kyler Murray is going to make $8m? I would argue that the Cowboys would be no worse off at QB drafting a highly accurate one in the 3rd round, building around him, using the extra money for other positions.

The other argument that people seem to be making is that top QBs should be paid well. I think everyone is on board with that. It's the figure that is the issue. Russell, Ben, Rodgers, and Ryan can STILL be the top paid QBs if the highest one is at $25m and the rest of the league falls in line after that. Or even $20m. There will inevitably be leapfrogging due to the increasing cap, but that shouldn't mean a, by all accounts/stats we have, a completely average player gets the highest in history at the position. There is an $8m difference between the last vet starting QB contract and the #1 overall pick. THAT is why teams were trying to employ the rookie QB contract winning situation. Think about the notion that Dalton is even at $9m and the rest of the QBs extrapolate beyond that, the high figure is a lot different.

This is what I am saying. Or next year, with 4 potential first round QB's, they could land one. Maybe they give up a 2nd to move up to ensure a first round QB that makes 8 million a year. You then have 22 million more in cap space, and lose only 1 player (the 2nd round pick). Rookie QB with first round talent and 22 million more to budget for the overall team. Unless Dak step his game up to elite status, he should not be paid elite money, or the end result is a negative for the Cowboys. He will be playing at the same level and making 3 and a half times as much.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Dak is an above average QB who has had the benefit of a great running game, great offensive line and a really good defense that is now in the elite category itself.

The whole window argument can be thrown out the door if the Cowboys woukd trade draft away, because the draft picks and cap space it would net them would allow the Cowboys to keep the rest of the team in place and restock.

A few other teams are also wed to other expensive above average QBs, like Cincinnati, Tampa Bay, whoever is paying Kirk Cousins. These guys will hamstring their teams for years to come.

[Phaded]

Again - drafting a quarterback is an incredibly risky proposition. The NFL is not Madden where you can make any QB serviceable. It sounds fine on paper as keyboard GMs, but it simply does not work that way.

First you have to be in a position to even draft a decent quarterback prospect.
Then, when you are in that position - there is approximately a 50% chance in the first round that the quarterback will flat out bust. This chance increases exponentially in later rounds.
Assuming you do not draft the bust, there is no guarantee how serviceable that quarterback you do draft will even be.

Unless you are drafting in the top 2-3 picks in the first round, realistically - any quarterback you draft in the first you are HOPING can turn even be as good as Dak Prescott (and I don't love Dak).

Whenever you find a quarterback that is good enough, you do what you can to keep them. They are not easy to find. Quarterback is the single hardest position to replace, so I don't know why you would so willingly let a good one walk.

"Above average" quarterbacks in the NFL are not even that common, let alone good-to-great quarterbacks.

Be a fan of a team that spends a decade+ trying to find a serviceable quarterback and maybe you will see why it is so important to do what you can to keep those guys.

When was the last time the top paid RB led his team to a Super Bowl? Top paid WR? They don't.
A good quarterback can at least get a mediocre team to the playoffs. You need a great team to carry a mediocre quarterback.

[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.

[Lumps]

When was the last time the top paid RB led his team to a Super Bowl? Top paid WR? They don't.
A good quarterback can at least get a mediocre team to the playoffs. You need a great team to carry a mediocre quarterback.

Led TO the SB? This year. Gurley. However, this is just a red herring.

More importantly, his QB was on a rookie contract.
All the Patriots Super Bowls? Brady playing under market.
Eagles in the SB? QB on a rookie contract and a backup QB.
Atlanta? Ryan pre massive contract.
Seattle? Russ on a rookie contract.
49ers? Kaep on a rookie contract.
Ravens? Pre-Flacco big contract. Then what happened?
Giants first one was on Eli's rookie contract. They never paid him crazy money either.

[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.

There are 32 teams in the playoffs - it is mathematically improbable that the highest paid quarterback is going to end up in the Super Bowl, regardless of how great that player is.

The highest paid quarterbacks making the playoffs however? That happens with regularity.

All of the teams that consistently make the playoffs, what is the one constant?
Show me the team that consistently rotates the quarterback position and consistently makes the playoffs.

I'll wait.

Your argument is based on great teams winning the Super Bowl which is hardly revolutionary; it is common sense.
However, quarterback is the single most important position on the field and the single biggest constant for consistent success.

Everyone is talking about this like it is easy to hit on quarterback, pay him cheap and have the appropriate pieces around him. It is asinine how this community often believes they know more than the people who do this for a living. There is a reason that outside of the Patriots, the Super Bowl winner is infrequently the same.

Even last year - Tom Brady, while paid relatively low compared to the market was by far the highest paid player on the team by almost double the cap hit of the second highest paid player. So yes, even the Patriots and BB know the value of having your quarterback as by far the highest paid player on the team and at just north of 12% of the overall cap.