***2025 NFL Season***

SolterraCyclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
2,349
3,210
113
38
I doubt teams ever get to this point, but if they were realistic the end of the rookie contract question isn't "is he a franchise QB?" The real question is whether or not he's on track to be a hall of famer. If the answer is no, then you should probably let him walk and start over. You don't win Super Bowls with franchise QBs. You win Super Bowls with Mahomes, Brady and really good QBs on rookie deals. Exceptions are rare (i.e. the cap shuffle with Stafford).

I'm curious to see what happens in GB. On one hand I think Love is in the category of good QB, possibly franchise QB, but not likely a great QB. The flipside to that is I think they have the single best passing game concept guy in the league in LaFleur. Guys get wide ass open so often in that offense, and I have no idea how. So I think they can possibly win big, but I don't think they need Love and that cap hit to do so. They have drafted pretty well, so they have some solid guys on cheap deals.
Yep! That is kind of what I meant by “franchise QB”. Hall-of-famer is a better, tangible definition. I 100% agree with you. If you aren’t 90% sure by end of year 3 this guy has a HOF trajectory, you don’t extend him for big money. You play out his contract and let him walk/pick up 5th year option if a 1st rounder. Or you extend him at a below-market rate. Or you trade him.

Is it easier to win the SB with HOF QBs. No question. But there are other ways to win (maybe not a dynasty, but a SB here and there), and you can’t just magically pluck a HOF from a tree. You either have one or you don’t. And paying a non-HOFer 25% of the cap won’t win you a SB.
 

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
42,676
33,590
113
100% correct. The fallacy to me is this “you NEED a QB to win in the NFL”.

You need a good QB, but you don’t need a franchise QB. Because there’s only ever one or two of those a decade (in the last 20 years, there’s been maybe 4 or 5 of those: Brady, Manning, Mahomes, and maybe Rodgers, Brees).

So if you get one of those, then yes, pay them because they elevate your team. But you can’t just pay a QB $60M a year and make them a franchise QB. Rather than paying a Prescott or Burrow or Watson or Wilson or Herbert 25% of the cap, build your team through D or O-Line and playmakers.

The Ravens won a SB that way, the Broncos won with a severely depleted Manning, the Giants won 2 that way, etc.
How many Super Bowls in the last 20 years have been won by "franchise quarterbacks" and how many were won by journeymen and guys on their rookie deals?
Eli Manning, at the time of one of his super bowls, was on one of the biggest contracts in the league. Same for Roethlisberger. Flacco, Wilson, and Foles are the others over that time period, who won while on the cheap. Stafford is a bit of a different case, in that he was getting paid a ton, but most of it was coming from different team. Those types of situations are pretty rare, though. The majority of modern era super Bowls have been won by franchise quarterbacks or guys that have gone on to become franchise quarterbacks. The journeyman model is nice in theory, but in practice it's massively risky. Absolutely nobody wants to be stuck in quarterback purgatory (Bears, Panthers, Commanders, post-Brady Patriots, etc).
If the risk of a team paying an above average quarterback like a star is consistently making the playoffs more often than not, but not having the talent to win it all, that's not a bad alternative to the team who has to rely on striking gold with mid level guys. Not saying every team would choose that route, but there's plenty of data to support it
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GoHawks

SolterraCyclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
2,349
3,210
113
38
How many Super Bowls in the last 20 years have been won by "franchise quarterbacks" and how many were won by journeymen and guys on their rookie deals?
Eli Manning, at the time of one of his super bowls, was on one of the biggest contracts in the league. Same for Roethlisberger. Flacco, Wilson, and Foles are the others over that time period, who won while on the cheap. Stafford is a bit of a different case, in that he was getting paid a ton, but most of it was coming from different team. Those types of situations are pretty rare, though. The majority of modern era super Bowls have been won by franchise quarterbacks or guys that have gone on to become franchise quarterbacks. The journeyman model is nice in theory, but in practice it's massively risky. Absolutely nobody wants to be stuck in quarterback purgatory (Bears, Panthers, Commanders, post-Brady Patriots, etc).
If the risk of a team paying an above average quarterback like a star is consistently making the playoffs more often than not, but not having the talent to win it all, that's not a bad alternative to the team who has to rely on striking gold with mid level guys. Not saying every team would choose that route, but there's plenty of data to support it
Eli Manning salary in 07-08 was 9% of the team’s cap. In 2011-12 it was 11.75% of the cap. Joe Flacco’s was 6.5% during their Super Bowl Year. Nick Foles was a backup at Philadelphia who got inserted into the lineup when Carson Wentz got hurt.

Look at these QBs’ average salary cap hits now. Joe Burrow 24.5%. Justin Herbert 23%. Lamar Jackson 23%. Jaylen Hurts 23%. Deshaun Watson 22%. Kyler Murray 22%. Dak Prescott 22%. The list goes on.

There is very little data to support paying a QB more than 20% of the salary cap unless your QB is on a hall of fame trajectory. Even the guys on that list who made a SB (Burrow and Hurts) did so on their rookie contracts. Their teams have faltered since the big money kicked in.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
61,612
23,855
113
Macomb, MI
As far as I'm concerned this new kickoff rule has been a failed experiment. If everything's going to be a touchback why did they even bother changing?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GoHawks

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,474
24,400
113
As far as I'm concerned this new kickoff rule has been a failed experiment. If everything's going to be a touchback why did they even bother changing?

I think they’ll keep the concept next year but move the touchback line up another 5 yards. Penalize the touchback to the point that coaches don’t want.
 

somecyguy

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,495
3,938
113
I'm biased because of fantasy football implications.....but c'mon Dallas. You're playing the 29th ranked rushing defense and you have 10 rushing attempts for 46 yards? McCarthy, you're an idiot.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: NWICY

KidSilverhair

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2010
10,802
21,253
113
Rapids of the Cedar
www.kegofglory.blogspot.com
I think they’ll keep the concept next year but move the touchback line up another 5 yards. Penalize the touchback to the point that coaches don’t want.
This is the way. If you don’t want touchbacks you have to disincentivize touchbacks. Make them hurt, then they‘ll give you returnable kickoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones_R_GR8

Kaner04

Well-Known Member
Apr 22, 2019
2,464
4,442
113
26
Gonna be a long day for Green Bay with the crap they’re throwing out there at corner
 

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
32,966
29,207
113
Gonna be a long day for Green Bay with the crap they’re throwing out there at corner
Agree... GB isn't going to be able to cover any of these Viking WRs today. GB is just a very average team this year I'm afraid. And then they went and got a kicker that wasn't even good enough to kick at ISU and transferred out... great decision Pack!! Narveson is not good. And their previous kicker, Carlson, wasn't good either and they wasted a fairly decent draft pick on him. I miss Mason Crosby!
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron