471 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

If Wilson wouldn't waive his NTC to go to Washington (which I wouldn't have, if I were him) then that totally negates any criticism of Seattle potentially turning down a better offer to send him to Denver.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Maybe. I'd rather be Denver right now than Seattle though.

It’s like I said, for whatever reason, losing is more acceptable with good QB play. Same end result though, except Seattle has a ton of draft picks they didn’t have before.

[Mackus]

It’s like I said, for whatever reason, losing is more acceptable with good QB play. Same end result though, except Seattle has a ton of draft picks they didn’t have before.

 

I'm not thinking about my preferred way to lose.  I'm thinking about what gives me better odds of winning.  I firmly think that's having an All-Pro quarterback, even at astronomical cost, other a couple extra 1st round picks, lots of cap space, and the biggest and most damning of roster holes in all of pro sports.  Certainly they could find a QB with one or more of these upcoming picks, and then everything works out just fine.  But you have to find a QB or else you're dead.  An ok QB might get it done given the other advantages, but even those aren't easy to find.  A star QB is incredibly difficult to find.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'm not thinking about my preferred way to lose. I'm thinking about what gives me better odds of winning. I firmly think that's having an All-Pro quarterback, even at astronomical cost, other a couple extra 1st round picks, lots of cap space, and the biggest and most damning of roster holes in all of pro sports. Certainly they could find a QB with one or more of these upcoming picks, and then everything works out just fine. But you have to find a QB or else you're dead. An ok QB might get it done given the other advantages, but even those aren't easy to find. A star QB is incredibly difficult to find.

Winning what? The Rams are the only ones to really do it, and they mortgaged their future to do so.

To drill down, you honestly think Denver is a contender now?

[BSLChrisStoner]

I'm not thinking about my preferred way to lose.  I'm thinking about what gives me better odds of winning.  I firmly think that's having an All-Pro quarterback, even at astronomical cost, other a couple extra 1st round picks, lots of cap space, and the biggest and most damning of roster holes in all of pro sports.  Certainly they could find a QB with one or more of these upcoming picks, and then everything works out just fine.  But you have to find a QB or else you're dead.  An ok QB might get it done given the other advantages, but even those aren't easy to find.  A star QB is incredibly difficult to find.

 

I'm not sure a QB in the 10-24 range, and a deeper overall roster gives you a better chance of winning vs. a Top 10 QB, and a thinner roster... but I'm also not convinced an elite QB with a a thinner roster gives you a better chance. 

 

Seems like there are multiple ways you could get to the same point. 

Understand the preference of having a star QB, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. 

[Mackus]

Winning what? The Rams are the only ones to really do it, and they mortgaged their future to do so.

To drill down, you honestly think Denver is a contender now?

 

Wining regular season games, making the playoffs, and winning playoff games.  I think odds for all are better with a high paid top-10 type QB than with a no idea who you'll have at QB and a bunch of cap space and draft picks.

 

I think Denver is much closer now than they were yesterday morning.

[JeremyStrain]

I'm not sure a QB in the 10-24 range, and a deeper overall roster gives you a better chance of winning vs. a Top 10 QB, and a thinner roster... but I'm also not convinced an elite QB with a a thinner roster gives you a better chance. 

 

Seems like there are multiple ways you could get to the same point. 

Understand the preference of having a star QB, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. 

I dunno, as a fan of a team that's been QB starved for decades...I tend to lean on them being the most important part of your team.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I dunno, as a fan of a team that's been QB starved for decades...I tend to lean on them being the most important part of your team.

 

You could have had a QB, and your team would have still been a mess because it's been horribly run. 

[JeremyStrain]

If Wilson wouldn't waive his NTC to go to Washington (which I wouldn't have, if I were him) then that totally negates any criticism of Seattle potentially turning down a better offer to send him to Denver.

He did turn it down. Said he didn't want to move his family from the West Coast to go back East (he's from Richmond)

 

SEA said their preference was to deal him out of the NFC, but they had to float WAS to him cause they had the better offer.

[Mackus]

Understand the preference of having a star QB, but I'm not convinced it's necessary. 

 

Not necessary, there have been a few examples of successful teams less than average QBs.  But I think finding a star QB is by far the clearest path.

 

Decent QB versus question mark & resources is a more open debate.  I'd consider moving on from a guy like Tannehill or Carr rather than pay huge dollars.  I wouldn't consider moving on from any of the top guys that I think are clearly above being just good (Rodgers, Wilson, Mahomes, Allen, Lamar, Burrow, Murray, Herbert might complete that list right now).

[Mackus]

You could have had a QB, and your team would have still been a mess because it's been horribly run. 

 

Certainly not trying to argue that all you need is a star QB and then you're just automatically good.  You still have to do other things well and find good players.  Even if you have a star QB on a rookie contract you need to do those other things well.  QB isn't the only part, it's just, by far, the biggest part.  I'll say somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total picture.  Which is why teams are willing to spend 1/4 of their cap to find one. 

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yet teams spending a 1/4th of their cap for one don’t win rings.

[JeremyStrain]

You could have had a QB, and your team would have still been a mess because it's been horribly run. 

Why you gotta point all that out man. Harsh. Not untrue. But Harsh.

 

The frustrating parts is that there have been points here and there where they had other parts to compete and win, and bungled everything. Have had a top 5 defense a few times. Wasted Trent Williams. Wasted Chris Cooley. Wasted Jordan Reid. Wasted Alfred Morris.

 

It's like every time they start putting pieces together, Dan finds a way to botch that last piece or so.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Certainly not trying to argue that all you need is a star QB and then you're just automatically good.  You still have to do other things well and find good players.  Even if you have a star QB on a rookie contract you need to do those other things well.  QB isn't the only part, it's just, by far, the biggest part.  I'll say somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total picture.  Which is why teams are willing to spend 1/4 of their cap to find one. 

I originally wanted Jackson - not because I thought he would be an MVP in Year 2 - but because I thought he could be productive (especially on his rookie contract) and you could build an overall championship caliber roster. 

 

I still think a team can do that.  

Especially think you can find productive QB play in a lot of places given this offensive era, with the rules so tilted to the offense... 

 

In general, I agree that all things being equal... it's easier to start things with a true star QB. 

 

But imo Seattle yesterday was going nowhere in the immediate next couple of years with or without WIlson. 

Now they get to reset.  Get additional cap space and that flexibility. Get additional draft components. 

Doesn't mean they'll make it work, but I'd rather have that path available to me... vs. just running it back. 

 

 

I realize that even Garoppolo's don't grow on trees, but I think finding his caliber of player and building a surrounding deep roster gives you another viable path towards building a team that has a chance. 

[Mackus]

Yet teams spending a 1/4th of their cap for one don’t win rings.

 

I don't like looking only at the teams that won or reached the Super Bowl.  But even if we do look at only winners, the current winner just did exactly that.  24% at QB. 

 

Every recent team that reached the Super Bowl had at least a good QB and most were better than that.  Foles was less than that in '17, but that was Wentz' team much of the season and he was a star at that point.  Goff was less than a star, Stafford perhaps as well.  Gotta go back to Flacco / Kaep to find anything less than star QBs other that them.  Grossman and Delhomme before that.

 

Mahomes recently of course was on a rookie deal, so he didn't cost top dollar.  Most other guys did.  And you're absolutely right that top dollar is increasing in terms of cap percentage, so we'll see what happens in the future.  But I'm rolling with the star QB over a question mark and lots of extra resources to hope to find (and supplement) my next good or better QB with.

[Mackus]

I realize that even Garoppolo's don't grow on trees, but I think finding his caliber of player and building a surrounding deep roster gives you another viable path towards building a team that has a chance. 

 

Finding a Garopolo through the draft is hard.  Finding a Garopolo through other means is expensive.  Not as expensive as a top guy, but pretty close.  17% of the cap versus 22% of the cap is a meaningful difference, but 17% is still steep. And it'll usually cost you picks on top of that to add a Garopolo type if you don't have one.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Finding a Garopolo through the draft is hard.  Finding a Garopolo through other means is expensive.  Not as expensive as a top guy, but pretty close.  17% of the cap versus 22% of the cap is a meaningful difference, but 17% is still steep. And it'll usually cost you picks on top of that to add a Garopolo type if you don't have one.

 

Somedays you'll get me to think you should go all in on the 'great' QBs and just roll with that. It's tried and true. 

Other days I think I'm willing to roll the dice with the next rookie contract, or targeting a Jordan Love and building the rest of the roster. 

Overall, I guess my main thought is that I just don't think there is only one path. Or even one better path.


Will be interesting to see what Seattle is able to build by 2025.

[JeremyStrain]

Somedays you'll get me to think you should go all in on the 'great' QBs and just roll with that. It's tried and true. 

Other days I think I'm willing to roll the dice with the next rookie contract, or targeting a Jordan Love and building the rest of the roster. 

Overall, I guess my main thought is that I just don't think there is only one path. Or even one better path.


Will be interesting to see what Seattle is able to build by 2025.

You guys are skewed because you won super bowls with less-thans. Dilfer and Flacco don't really inspire fear. They were good enough, but your defense was mind numbingly good and carried them.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I don't like looking only at the teams that won or reached the Super Bowl. But even if we do look at only winners, the current winner just did exactly that. 24% at QB.

Every recent team that reached the Super Bowl had at least a good QB and most were better than that. Foles was less than that in '17, but that was Wentz' team much of the season and he was a star at that point. Goff was less than a star, Stafford perhaps as well. Gotta go back to Flacco / Kaep to find anything less than star QBs other that them. Grossman and Delhomme before that.

Mahomes recently of course was on a rookie deal, so he didn't cost top dollar. Most other guys did. And you're absolutely right that top dollar is increasing in terms of cap percentage, so we'll see what happens in the future. But I'm rolling with the star QB over a question mark and lots of extra resources to hope to find (and supplement) my next good or better QB with.

They’re the only ones, and they mortgaged their future to do it. I think there’s better than a good chance you see teams continuously fall short that are paying QB’s that much. You think KC loses that game to Cinci if Mahomes makes a little less and they have an extra guy or two on D?

As good as Josh Allen is, the Bills couldn’t get over the hump with him having a cap hit around $10M last year, how do you think their roster will look in 2023-2028, when his cap hit ranges anywhere from $39M-$51M?

I love a great QB on my team, it’s nice. Fun to watch. But I’m not on board with sacrificing the future just to have a good QB. I think that’s what the new financial reality of star QB’s is going to look like moving forward. We can revisit.

[makoman]

They’re the only ones, and they mortgaged their future to do it. I think there’s better than a good chance you see teams continuously fall short that are paying QB’s that much. You think KC loses that game to Cinci if Mahomes makes a little less and they have an extra guy or two on D?

 

The real question is, you think KC wins that game if they have Carson Wentz plus an extra guy on D. Are they even in the ACFCG? Maybe. But unless you're just drafting a guy every 4 years you're going to pay somebody a lot to play QB. Might as well be somebody great.

 

If you do want to just keep rolling with rookie QBs, that's interesting and could be viable, if you can identify the good ones and be in position to get them. But that's draft capital you aren't using at other positions too.