471 replies to this topic

[You Play to Win the Game]

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.

Mahomes is pretty much the only one I’d do it for. You have to be truly legendary to be worth that cap hit IMO.

[mweb08]

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.

Like you, I can see both sides of this and I think success is realistically obtainable either way.

However, to be successful with a Jimmy G level QB, so a below average starting QB with a mid level (for starters) vet QB cap hit, your franchise needs to crush it otherwise. That's what the 49ers have done with the roster and the coach.

So in that sense, it's no better than building out the rest of the roster with less cap space. You need to do a really good job either way.

I'd argue it's easier to build a contender with a top 5ish QB and without that extra cap space compared to the savings associated with a Jimmy G, but also the significant dropoff in play that comes with him.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Give me a top end QB at any price and Ill take my chances

[Mackus]

 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.

 

I think having a good QB is what ensures your future.  Or at least gives you the greatest odds of sustained winning.  I'm not advocating in favor of top tier QBs even at great cost just because they're more fun to watch.  I think that's the clearer path to victory than tons of cap space but needing to go find a QB.

 

In some cases where there is a clearer path to that next QB and your guy is merely good, I can see moving on.  TB moved on from a decent guy in Winston when they thought they had a clear path to an upgrade in Brady (wish I had a better QB than Winston to use as an example in this case...Carr/Tannehill would be the level I'm thinking).  But I can't see moving on until you know what your next move is going to be.

[Mackus]

Mahomes is pretty much the only one I’d do it for. You have to be truly legendary to be worth that cap hit IMO.

 

So are you now on the "trade Lamar" bandwagon (after a tag year if not now)?  Based on your comments recently it seems like you absolutely do not want to sign him to the type of contract it will require?

[Mackus]

The difference in salary between a top paid QB and a rookie guy is huge, but the difference in a top paid QB and a guy like Garopolo isn't as pronounced.  I'd much rather have Allen or Mahomes or Lamar than Garopolo and enough money to sign someone like David Njoku who is gonna make $13M next year.  Obviously you aren't forced to give the money to any particular player, but it's not just QB deals that are going up, everything is more expensive.  A top OT or CB or DE or WR is about $20M a year now.  I think that'll prove to be way more than the cost difference from the good/great tier of guys and the average tier of guys.

 

I'd definitely take a top tier QB at full cost over a mid-tier guy at 80% of the price.  

I'd also definitely take a top tier QB at full cost over a giant question mark and 100% of the money left to spend.

I do think I'd strongly consider going with the giant question mark over a mid-tier guy at 80% of top dollar.

 

More often than not, when you go with the giant question mark, you're gonna end up with a mid-tier guy or worse, and you'll be in the same predicament a few years down the road.  You gotta get pretty fortunate to find one of the really good guys.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I wish we had access to the multiverse (some interdimensional cable) and could see the Ravens with a Jackson extension, or if they were able to operate the next 5 years with a Field, Lance, Love or the next batch of guys.

 

Bringing this back to the Seahawks... I had forgot how much they had paid in draft capital for Adams.  So, as they begin this next phase that's part of the equation. 

 

Clearly they are punting '22... and likely '23... maybe we see a sell off of their other assets. 

[makoman]

I'd definitely take a top tier QB at full cost over a mid-tier guy at 80% of the price.  

I'd also definitely take a top tier QB at full cost over a giant question mark and 100% of the money left to spend.

I do think I'd strongly consider going with the giant question mark over a mid-tier guy at 80% of top dollar.

 

More often than not, when you go with the giant question mark, you're gonna end up with a mid-tier guy or worse, and you'll be in the same predicament a few years down the road.  You gotta get pretty fortunate to find one of the really good guys.

I agree. I saw recently that Derek Carr is looking for a $40M extension. Now "wants" isn't the same as "gets" but if my choice is Lamar or Carr + one of Tavon Young or Nick Boyle, it's Lamar easy. You aren't getting a stacked team simply by not paying top QB prices, you're getting like one decent guy if you are still paying a mid range QB. You can get a huge advantage by going with rookie contract QBs, but that's hard to pull off.

[Mackus]

The Ravens are a really well-run organization, so whatever they do with Jackson I do like their chances moving forward.  If they sign him and then have only 3/4 of the cap left to build around him, I like their odds of being able to do so.  If they decide not to sign him, I like their odds better than most of being able to find another really good quarterback, but I think that's a much harder task to ask them to accomplish.

 

I think that Jackson is a really good to great quarterback.  And I think that it's definitively better to have a really good to great quarterback even at a high percentage of your cap over not having a solution.  I think you can fairly poke holes in both of those statements above, they aren't 100% decided facts, but I'm confident in each.  I'm really just hoping that we can still get Jackson for $43-45M at this point.  I worry that the Ravens have waited too long and the price has already gone up.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I agree. I saw recently that David Carr is looking for a $40M extension. Now "wants" isn't the same as "gets" but if my choice is Lamar or Carr + one of Tavon Young or Nick Boyle, it's Lamar easy. You aren't getting a stacked team simply by not paying top QB prices, you're getting like one decent guy if you are still paying a mid range QB. You can get a huge advantage by going with rookie contract QBs, but that's hard to pull off.

 

There were said to be no sure-fire QBs in this draft, but now 4 are likely to go in the 1st round.  Going in the 1st doesn't mean they will be great or even good of course...   and I believe historically the bust rate for 1st round QBs is 50%...   so 4 drafted, 2 bust... do you get the 1 that's a league average or better guy?   

Between taking your swings in the draft, you've got the short-term contracts with vets who are good enough to offer something... but not good enough to want to invest significant years and money.  

So it's a revolving door, and some years it won't look pretty.   But you may maintain more flexibility overall. 

To your earlier point of draft capital to obtain new options reducing your overall draft capital...  if you've developed previously, and you use that piece to add draft capital... that should balance out. 

[mweb08]

Continuing with Jimmy G, I actually think that's what you most want to avoid in terms of process. I don't want the mediocre vet QB that is paid pretty well. I'd rather have a really good established QB, a QB on a rookie deal, or take my chances on lower salaried vets.

The 49ers overcame Jimmy G much more so than he propelled their success imo. They seem to agree with that, which is why they turned to the draft.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Continuing with Jimmy G, I actually think that's what you most want to avoid in terms of process. I don't want the mediocre vet QB that is paid pretty well. I'd rather have a really good established QB, a QB on a rookie deal, or take my chances on lower salaried vets.

The 49ers overcame Jimmy G much more so than he propelled their success imo. They seem to agree with that, which is why they turned to the draft.

I agree they want to improve on him (ideally), or get similar production at the minimum and pay less for it....   but he being what he is... they were good enough overall to get to two Conference title games, and one Super Bowl in 3 years. 

Definitely agree you'd prefer the guy on the rookie deal.

[mweb08]

I agree they want to improve on him (ideally), or get similar production at the minimum and pay less for it.... but he being what he is... they were good enough overall to get to two Conference title games, and one Super Bowl in 3 years.

Definitely agree you'd prefer the guy on the rookie deal.

They were good enough because they have arguably the best offensive coach in football and they did a great job with the roster. That's hard to emulate.

[BSLChrisStoner]

They were good enough because they have arguably the best offensive coach in football and they did a great job with the roster. That's hard to emulate.

 

Not everyone will have an edge of similar coaching, but everyone can field a deeper roster with more funds available. 

No matter what path you go on, if your organization has trouble drafting, managing the cap, handling free agency, developing talent, coaching / scheming, managing men, operating collectively...   you'll have issues. 

It's just very hard to build a winning organization, and then it's even harder to build to the next point of being championship caliber.  Lots goes into it, including luck. 

Definitely understand the mindset of if that's the case, give me the sure thing at QB. 

 

[BSLChrisStoner]

@AaronWilson_NFL

Sources: Seahawks interested in Deshaun Watson, expected to explore potential trade scenarios, nothing imminent or developing at this time as legal situation is unresolved:

@PFN365

[mweb08]

Not everyone will have an edge of similar coaching, but everyone can field a deeper roster with more funds available.

No matter what path you go on, if your organization has trouble drafting, managing the cap, handling free agency, developing talent, coaching / scheming, managing men, operating collectively... you'll have issues.

It's just very hard to build a winning organization, and then it's even harder to build to the next point of being championship caliber. Lots goes into it, including luck.

Definitely understand the mindset of if that's the case, give me the sure thing at QB.

I think it's even harder if a team commits legit resources to a mediocre at best starting QB.

[You Play to Win the Game]

So are you now on the "trade Lamar" bandwagon (after a tag year if not now)?  Based on your comments recently it seems like you absolutely do not want to sign him to the type of contract it will require?

Yeah, pretty firmly. If anyone has the balls to actually put money on it, I'd bet good money the Ravens will not reach a Conference Championship game with Lamar getting at or near a 1/4th of the team's cap. If I would do that, it'd be for the top 2-3 QB's. Lamar isn't that.

[You Play to Win the Game]

The Ravens are a really well-run organization, so whatever they do with Jackson I do like their chances moving forward.  If they sign him and then have only 3/4 of the cap left to build around him, I like their odds of being able to do so.  If they decide not to sign him, I like their odds better than most of being able to find another really good quarterback, but I think that's a much harder task to ask them to accomplish.

 

I think that Jackson is a really good to great quarterback.  And I think that it's definitively better to have a really good to great quarterback even at a high percentage of your cap over not having a solution.  I think you can fairly poke holes in both of those statements above, they aren't 100% decided facts, but I'm confident in each.  I'm really just hoping that we can still get Jackson for $43-45M at this point.  I worry that the Ravens have waited too long and the price has already gone up.

The Ravens first Super Bowl featured a QB with a cap hit of $1M. Their second Super Bowl featured a QB with a cap hit around $7M (I think). I'd trust the Ravens more if they kept following the yellow brick road, rather than now having to somehow build a complete team when all that cap space is going to 1 QB that isn't named Patrick Mahomes or Josh Allen.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Lamar just has to be like he was in '20. Not sure why you are so convinved thats not the caliber of QB he is when he has been at that level or better for the overwhelming majority of his career.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Lamar just has to be like he was in '20. Not sure why you are so convinved thats not the caliber of QB he is when he has been at that level or better for the overwhelming majority of his career.

Even if he is, what about the rest of the roster once his cap hit is $50M?