Competitive Advantage (Or, Why Signing Cousins Would Hurt The Jets' Chances of Winning It All)

[Doggin94it]

Been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that it will be highly unlikely that the Jets can win a Superbowl if they sign Kirk Cousins.  Not impossible, of course - freak things do happen (can't wait for all of the "Nick Foles just won a Superbowl" and "He's better than Flacco!" comments from people who won't read this whole post) - but highly unlikely.  In fact, I'd say that signing him will actually harm our chances of winning one.  Here's why.

Looking back at the Superbowl winners in the salary cap era, a clear pattern emerges: Teams that win the Superbowl need to either have a top-tier elite QB or a QB taking up a minimal amount of cap room (some lucky winners have both).  Since 1994, the first year a salary cap existed in the NFL, there have been 24 Super Bowls.  Of those, top-tier elite QBs have won at least 17:

Aikman (1) (He isn't top-tier elite in NFL history, but he was one of the 5 best QBs in the league during his SB winning years), Young (1), Favre (1), Elway (2), Warner (1), Brady (5), Roethlisberger (2), P. Manning (2), Brees (1), Rogers (1). 

The others: Eli (2), Wilson (1), Foles (1), Dilfer (1), Johnson (1), Flacco (1).

Why?  Competitive advantage.  Teams with a super-elite QB walk into most games, including their Superbowls, with a significant competitive advantage at the most important position in sports.  What's notable about the teams that won with non-elite QBs is that they built themselves a significant competitive advantage in other areas.  The Ravens (Flacco & Dilfer), Bucs (Johnson), Giants (Eli x 2) and Seahawks (Wilson) built elite, dominant defenses.  The Eagles had tremendous across the board depth that allowed them to create mismatches in their favor on offense and defense.  

With the exception of the 2012 Giants, each of those teams were able to create those competitive advantages because they were built around a low-priced QB option - either a rookie on their first contract (Flacco, Eli, Wilson, Wentz) or a low-cost veteran QB (Dilfer & Johnson).  The outlier 2012 Giants had second contract Eli, who - due to a restructuring - counted less than 10M against the cap that year (the cap at the time was 120M, so he took up about 8% of the team's cap).

All of this makes analytical sense.  Teams compete on a roughly even talent-acquisition playing field; they operate under the same draft, free agency, and salary cap system.  Given the cap, teams need to allocate their available money in a way that gives them a competitive advantage over the other teams in the league.  If you have a super-elite QB like Brady, Brees, or Rogers, that means that you should pay them whatever it takes to keep them on the team, because they elevate the other players and are likely to be so much better than your opponent's QB on any given week that they will make up for any deficiency at other positions.  If you don't have a super-elite QB, then you essentially need to build up enough of a competitive advantage at those other positions that you can overcome the advantage your opponent with a super-elite QB has at that spot.

That's essentially the only way to win in the modern NFL: be significantly better than your opponent at QB, or be significantly better everywhere else.

Cousins doesn't do either.

Any team that pays Cousins 30M per year will be sinking 16% of their salary cap into him.  That's way too much for a guy who is maybe in the QB top 10.  He's not enough of a competitive advantage to make you a superbowl favorite all by himself - and he'll be eating up too much cap space to allow you to build a unit that gives you enough of an advantage at other positions to overcome a super-elite QB.

Yeah, he's way more of a sure thing than the current crop of draftees.  But at that price, the Jets are better off taking the risk - even giving up significant draft capital to move up - than signing Cousins for 30M. 

 

[prime21]

Cousins money could equal which 2 or 3 FA players that we could get?

[Philc1]

Just now, prime21 said:

Cousins money could equal which 2 or 3 FA players that we could get?

We could add a Mo Wilkerson and Darrell’s Revis with that money

[Jet_Engine1]

Yup. $30M a year is a lot for an "adequate" starter.

[Philc1]

Cousins is the signing the jets have to make it offers them a ton of flexibility in the draft no more Macc being forced to draft Johnny Manziel 2.0 with the 6 pick

[prime21]

Wouldn't it be great if the Jets actually have minimal interest in Cousins and have planned all along to draft a QB?

[DoubleDown]

The keys to winning a Superbowl in this era of football in order of importance:

1) QB

2) OL

3) Pass rush

Spending 16% of the cap, which is going up every year, on solidifying the most important position in sports does not put a team at a competitive disadvantage.  Enough band aids, enough pie in the sky hopes and dreams.  Bring in the sure thing and make this team competitive for the next half decade.  Give Cousins a pocket and he can sling it with the best of them.

[dbatesman]

This is getting a little crazy. I'm not quite as high on Cousins as some others because of his age and the salary he'll command and the fact that there's basically zero chance that the boobs in charge here will give him anything more to work with than the boobs in charge in Washington did, but he's a really good player. He's been a full-time starter for three seasons, and in two of them he finished in the top seven in DYAR. If he's willing to sign here, it's a no-brainer.

[dcJet]

Cousins is already better than any of those 4 draft QB's.  And it's highly probable that he'll stay better than all of them.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

This is getting a little crazy. I'm not quite as high on Cousins as some others because of his age and the salary he'll command and the fact that there's basically zero chance that the boobs in charge here will give him anything more to work with than the boobs in charge in Washington did, but he's a really good player. He's been a full-time starter for three seasons, and in two of them he finished in the top seven in DYAR. If he's willing to sign here, it's a no-brainer.

The main (negative) thing it does is limit the margin of elsewhere, especially in FA. So you can easily get around Cousins making $30m instead of $15m, but not so if you pay for a big splash FA and he turns out to be Mo or Revis or other Jets mifires on veteran contracts. 

If we signed Cousins at $15m and Mo at $17m are we really better off than if it was Cousins at $30m and some $2m stiff other than Mo starting in his place? Of course not; in terms of what you can afford outside those 2 positions, it’s exactly the same. But signing Cousins at $30m = we can’t afford misfiring on another Revis/Mo contract.

The best argument for signing Cousins is Macc has shown no ability to find the 1 guy out of a group that pans out. Of course that also effectively ensures we draft a ****ing guard at #6.

[dbatesman]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

The main (negative) thing it does is limit the margin of elsewhere, especially in FA. So you can easily get around Cousins making $30m instead of $15m, but not so if you pay for a big splash FA and he turns out to be Mo or Revis or other Jets mifires on veteran contracts. 

If we signed Cousins at $15m and Mo at $17m are we really better off than if it was Cousins at $30m and some $2m stiff other than Mo starting in his place? Of course not; in terms of what you can afford outside those 2 positions, it’s exactly the same. But signing Cousins at $30m = we can’t afford misfiring on another Revis/Mo contract.

The best argument for signing Cousins is Macc has shown no ability to find the 1 guy out of a group that pans out. Of course that also effectively ensures we draft a ****ing guard at #6.

It's a rich tapestry.

[Jets Voice of Reason]

Look, there's a very real possibility that the Jets trade up for a qb that ends up busting. Obviously i think the Jets still need to take that kind of risk, painful as it may be in terms of cost. But that's the kind of doomsday scenario that we've set up for ourselves by picking sixth. 

Cousins mitigates that risk with a known quantity that performs at a high level. It's not my favorite scenario, as drafting a good qb is the favorable way of creating a window where you can leverage your cap, but i have zero confidence in our front office in being able to evaluate qb talent. If we had a competent staff, sure i go for the roster building plan that is most efficient. Since i don't, i'd like to leave draft assets alone so the next staff has a reasonable crack at building a team. 

It's all moot anyways. Even with a top performing qb giving you a competitive advantage, we still have dopes who are unable to build a roster. In fact, they've shown time and again that they use the most precious draft capital a team has and turns them into safeties and inside linebackers. 

You're talking cap efficiency for a staff that simply doesn't understand how to use it. 

 

[Warfish]

Doggin, not sure what happened to you, but I hope you and sanity become reacquainted again some time in the future.  I miss you, old friend.

[Doggin94it]

3 minutes ago, DoubleDown said:

The keys to winning a Superbowl in this era of football in order of importance:

1) QB

2) OL

3) Pass rush

Spending 16% of the cap, which is going up every year, on solidifying the most important position in sports does not put a team at a competitive disadvantage.  Enough band aids, enough pie in the sky hopes and dreams.  Bring in the sure thing and make this team competitive for the next half decade.  Give Cousins a pocket and he can sling it with the best of them.

You don't think so?

Cousins is clearly not as good a QB as Brees, Brady, Rogers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Luck (if healthy), Wentz, Newton, Ryan,

He's in the same class (at best) as Goff, Stafford, Garoppolo, Watson, Carr, and Rivers.  You'd be paying significantly more for him than any of those guys.

You don't see any disadvantage to spending more of our available cap room on a worse player?

I'm not sure you know what the phrase "competitive disadvantage" means

[Untouchable]

We’d be drafting one of these QB’s hoping that they’re as good as Cousins 2-3 years from now.

Sign Cousins, Robinson, Richburg and a mid-level CB...re-sign Claiborne and go into the draft with a sh*tload of possibilities.

[Better2bgreenthanblue]

Swing for the fences move up and draft a QB. Use the money to help the OL and add a weapon. 

SB OR BUST BY 2021!

[Doggin94it]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Doggin, not sure what happened to you, but I hope you and sanity become reacquainted again some time in the future.  I miss you, old friend.

I'd be very happy to be wrong about this.

[SenorGato]

9 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You don't think so?

Cousins is clearly not as good a QB as Brees, Brady, Rogers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Luck (if healthy), Wentz, Newton, Ryan,

He's in the same class (at best) as Goff, Stafford, Garoppolo, Watson, Carr, and Rivers.  You'd be paying significantly more for him than any of those guys.

You don't see any disadvantage to spending more of our available cap room on a worse player?

I'm not sure you know what the phrase "competitive disadvantage" means

The following are up for retirement over the next 5 years:

Brady

Brees

Roethlisberger

At least one of Rodgers or Rivers

The following are up for extensions in the next three:

Wilson

Goff

Wentz

Newton? Can’t remember

Rodgers - almost immediately after Cousins too

That is just among the names you listed - and that’s not even arguing the interesting tiering there. Two guys he’s supposedly (at best) equal to have a combined 14 starts, one just got $28 million a year from a last place team. Neither Stafford and Carr are going to be making significantly less than Cousins, and almost everyone that can get a new contract will make more.

 

[DoubleDown]

5 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You don't think so?

Cousins is clearly not as good a QB as Brees, Brady, Rogers, Roethlisberger, Wilson, Luck (if healthy), Wentz, Newton, Ryan,

He's in the same class (at best) as Goff, Stafford, Garoppolo, Watson, Carr, and Rivers.  You'd be paying significantly more for him than any of those guys.

You don't see any disadvantage to spending more of our available cap room on a worse player?

I'm not sure you know what the phrase "competitive disadvantage" means

The Jets have been at a competitive disadvantage for a long time because they haven't had a good draft in 10 years, and they've had some of the league's worst QB play for much of that stretch.  The one thing they have going for them right now is an abundance of cap space, something that would wisely be used to shore up the most important position in the sport.  Beggars can't be choosers.

There is no guarantee any of the four top QBs fall to #6 in the draft.  The Jets have holes all over their roster.  Use your cap space on a proven QB and keep all your premium picks to build a team around him.  That's smart roster management, not a competitive disadvantage.

[Doggin94it]

4 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

The following are up for retirement over the next 5 years:

Brady

Brees

Roethlisberger

At least one of Rodgers or Rivers

The following are up for extensions in the next three:

Wilson

Goff

Wentz

Newton? Can’t remember

Just in the names you listed - and that’s not even arguing the interesting tiering there. Two guys he’s supposedly (at best) equal enough to have a combined 14 starts, one just got $28 million a year from a last place team. 

 

And in the interim, there will be new blood coming in, and Wentz will be an elite QB.  Watson and Garoppolo are in that tier because they've got the possibility (based on talent and play to date) to surpass Cousins in the next 2 years, though they're not the sure thing he is right now.  Cousins is a borderline top 10 QB and that's likely his ceiling

[SenorGato]

18 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

BTW, my preferred offseason looks like this:

Sign: Norwell, Jensen,

And in the interim, there will be new blood coming in, and Wentz will be an elite QB.  Watson and Garoppolo are in that tier because they've got the possibility (based on talent and play to date) to surpass Cousins in the next 2 years, though they're not the sure thing he is right now.  Cousins is a borderline top 10 QB and that's likely his ceiling

He’s for sure a top ten by the nuuuumbahs, has posted multiple seasons in the top 7, and all with a team that played coy with their relationship hoping to dope him out of money.

His skills and production + the balls it took to successfully navigate his way through that bullsh*t with the Redskins more than proved this guy is a stud in the league. 

[Warfish]

21 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

I'd be very happy to be wrong about this.

We've been friends a long time, but I think you've lost your mind on this one.

This draft class at QB is a bagful of uncertainty, possible busts, and ????????'s.  For every positive, a material, massive risk negative exists.

You not only want to punt on a "guy who is maybe in the QB top 10" and has been a 4,000+ Yard 2-to-1 TD/INT guy for a number of years (all vastly better than anyone in our franchises entire history!), you want to be "giving up significant draft capital to move up" for a chance at maybe Macc picking the right QB out of this uncertain crop of risks and drawbacks?

I don't understand it.  It's almost like you'd be paying the 27 million (last media reported offer by Minny) yourself!

Lets run a quicky scenario:

Option 1 (the Fish Plan):
We sign Cousins (27 mil/year, 5 years).
We draft the best available RB at #6 (or trade down, then draft RB, but lets say it's Nick Chubb).
We draft the best available O-Lineman at the top of Round 2 (First Pick)
We draft the best available TE/WR/OLineman in Round 2 (Second Pick)
We draft Luke Falk (QB) in the 3rd Round.
We retain all our 2019 Picks, and draft say, a top WR prospect or the best O-Lineman in the draft class in round 1.

Or...

Option 2 (The Doggin Plan):
We trade our 2018 #1, both #2's, and 2019 #1 to Cleveland for the #1 Pick, to select (who?  Which one?  Whichever one you want lets say.)
We pick next in Round 3, taking say the 14th best O-Lineman prospect.  
We have no pick in Round 1 of 2019.

The odds say that my plan will have a QB in 2018-2020 who averages ~4,000 Yards, 26 TD's, 13 INT's a year.  He'll be supported by an elite RB prospect (Chubb), one-two new O-Linemen, and have a legit backup QB in Falk to develop behind Cousins.

Your plan has no odds, because no one knows what these kids will be or how they'll play.   The best support you'll have for him is someone in FA (which we could also get in Option 1 btw), but no highly rated RB or Oline prospects, and your #2 is still Hack, unless you also spend 15 mil a year to sign a Bridgewater or MccCarron or some other never-was to be our "bridge" #1 QB a la Fitzpatrick/McCown.

Tell how this is scuh a clear cut better idea to you, cause I'm not seeing it, not in the short term, and not int he long term, unless the QB you pick is literally QB Jesus and is a HOF in the waiting.

 

[Doggin94it]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

We've been friends a long time, but I think you've lost your mind on this one.

This draft class at QB is a bagful of uncertainty, possible busts, and ????????'s.  For every positive, a material, massive risk negative exists.

You not only want to punt on a "guy who is maybe in the QB top 10" and has been a 4,000+ Yard 2-to-1 TD/INT guy for a number of years (all vastly better than anyone in our franchises entire history!), you want to be "giving up significant draft capital to move up" for a chance at maybe Macc picking the right QB out of this uncertain crop of risks and drawbacks?

I don't understand it.  It's almost like you'd be paying the 27 million (last media reported offer by Minny) yourself!

Lets run a quicky scenario:

Option 1 (the Fish Plan):
We sign Cousins (27 mil/year, 5 years).
We draft the best available RB at #6 (or trade down, then draft RB, but lets say it's Nick Chubb).
We draft the best available O-Lineman at the top of Round 2 (First Pick)
We draft the best available TE/WR/OLineman in Round 2 (Second Pick)
We draft Luke Falk (QB) in the 3rd Round.
We retain all our 2019 Picks.

Or...

Option 2 (The Doggin Plan):
We trade our 2018 #1, both #2's, and 2019 #1 to Cleveland for the #1 Pick, to select (who?  Which one?  Whichever one you want lets say.)
We pick next in Round 3, taking say the 14th best O-Lineman prospect.  
We have no pick in Round 1 of 2019.

The odds say that my plan will have a QB in 2018-2020 who averages ~4,000 Yards, 26 TD's, 13 INT's a year.  He'll be supported by an elite RB prospect (Chubb), one-two new O-Linemen, and have a legit backup QB in Falk to develop behind Cousins.

Your plan has no odds, because no one knows what these kids will be or how they'll play.   The best support you'll have for him is someone in FA (which we could also get in Option 1 btw), but no highly rated RB or Oline prospects, and your #2 is still Hack, unless you also spend 15 mil a year to sign a Bridgewater or MccCarron or some other never-was to be our "bridge" #1 QB a la Fitzpatrick/McCown.

Tell how this is scuh a clear cut better idea to you, cause I'm not seeing it, not in the short term, and not int he long term, unless the QB you pick is literally QB Jesus and is a HOF in the waiting.

 

Option 2 would be dealing #1 + our 2018 3rd round pick for #4 overall (moving from 6 to 4 should cost only ~200 points of draft capital, so we'd actually be slightly overpaying on chart value) and taking one of Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield (in that order IMO, if more than one is left, but I'm no scout).  We retain both our second round picks, use them to upgrade RB and OL, and use the FA dollars on some combination of Norwell, Jensen, Trumaine Johnson, Breeland, etc.  Moving from 6 to 4 should cost us one Day 2 pick.  No reason to deal up to 1 from 6.  Going up to 3 (if QBs go 1-2) would cost us our early 2d rounder rather than a 3rd round pick.  Again, you're losing a single cost-controlled young player to have a cost-controlled young QB.  More than worth it.

[kelly]

1 hour ago, dcJet said:

Cousins is already better than any of those 4 draft QB's.  And it's highly probable that he'll stay better than all of them.

probable.. No... possible,.. yes  

[Warfish]

49 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Option 2 would be dealing #1 + our 2018 3rd round pick for #4 overall (moving from 6 to 4 should cost only ~200 points of draft capital, so we'd actually be slightly overpaying on chart value) and taking one of Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield (in that order IMO, if more than one is left, but I'm no scout).

Macc could never pull off a deal like that for that price, lol. 

No chance in hell the Jets move up even ONE pick without the loss of all three top picks in 2018.  

49 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

No reason to deal up to 1 from 6.

Let me provide you a reason:

#1 Cleveland - Draft a QB

#2 Giants - Drafts a QB OR Trades the Pick to Someone who drafts a QB.

#3 Colts - Drafts a QB OR Trades the Pick to Someone who drafts a QB.

#4 Jets - Sloppy fourths, best fourths? 

49 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Again, you're losing a single cost-controlled young player to have a cost-controlled young QB.  More than worth it.

I think you're being grossly optimistic about the market cost of moving up in a QB top-heavy draft in the modern QB-weak NFL.

If you think you're keeping both 2nds and material other assets to make that move, I think you're going to be sorely mistaken if the move actually happens. 

[Greensleeves]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

This is getting a little crazy. I'm not quite as high on Cousins as some others because of his age and the salary he'll command and the fact that there's basically zero chance that the boobs in charge here will give him anything more to work with than the boobs in charge in Washington did, but he's a really good player. He's been a full-time starter for three seasons, and in two of them he finished in the top seven in DYAR. If he's willing to sign here, it's a no-brainer.

If he's such a good player, why is he 4-19 against winning teams? Giving a guy with that track record 30 million a year is pure insanity unless you're the Vikings with a great team already. You move up in the draft and pick one of the top 3 QBs which all can be elite and will have a higher ceiling than Cousins AND cost a ton less.

[SenorGato]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

This is getting a little crazy. I'm not quite as high on Cousins as some others because of his age and the salary he'll command and the fact that there's basically zero chance that the boobs in charge here will give him anything more to work with than the boobs in charge in Washington did, but he's a really good player. He's been a full-time starter for three seasons, and in two of them he finished in the top seven in DYAR. If he's willing to sign here, it's a no-brainer.

I don’t knock him too much for it but have definitely wondered what would be said if he was 26 like the rest of the appealing FAs...$200+ million might be the conversation in FA, though he’d never reach FA. 

[JiFtheOracle]

The Kirk cap thingy isnt really a thingy anymore.  Figure it out.  Every other team does.  Or do something crazy like, I dont know, draft well. 

[SenorGato]

1 minute ago, JiF said:

The Kirk cap thingy isnt really a thingy anymore.  Figure it out.  Every other team does.  Or do something crazy like, I dont know, draft well. 

Also the ol’ correlation =/= causation anyway 

[Greensleeves]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Macc could never pull off a deal like that for that price, lol. 

No chance in hell the Jets move up even ONE pick without the loss of all three top picks in 2018.  

Let me provide you a reason:

#1 Cleveland - Draft a QB

#2 Giants - Drafts a QB OR Trades the Pick to Someone who drafts a QB.

#3 Colts - Drafts a QB OR Trades the Pick to Someone who drafts a QB.

#4 Jets - Sloppy fourths, best fourths? 

I think you're being grossly optimistic about the market cost of moving up in a QB top-heavy draft in the modern QB-weak NFL.

If you think you're keeping both 2nds and material other assets to make that move, I think you're going to be sorely mistaken if the move actually happens. 

So what - most of our 2nd rounders have been terrible. Much more valuable to deal both 2nd rounders and our first to move up to #3 than not get a FQB and get 3 players, 1 of which will bust and the other will make the D slightly better, so we'll be 20th in the NFL. The other player will be a full time starter. Does that sound more valuable than a QB that has the talent to lead us to 10 years of success and fun games to watch? We don't have one player on this team that is the face of the franchise. 

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Greensleeves said:

So what - most of our 2nd rounders have been terrible.

So you trust Macc to know which of these huge ???? QB's is the right one, but you don't trust Macc to draft 2nd Roundes because all his 2nd Rounders have been terrible.

Makes sense.

Quote

Much more valuable to deal both 2nd rounders and our first to move up to #3 than not get a FQB and get 3 players, 1 of which will bust and the other will make the D slightly better, so we'll be 20th in the NFL.

Alternate Option:  Sign an existing Top 10 QB in Cousins.  Vastly less risk that drafting any of the top 4 QB prospects over the next 2-3 years.

Quote

The other player will be a full time starter. Does that sound more valuable than a QB that has the talent to lead us to 10 years of success and fun games to watch?

Like Mark Sanchez?  Or Browning Nagle?  Or Chad Pennington?

Who is this mythical sure-thing young QB we can draft that ensures Franchise QB level play for the next ten years? 

Name him please.  For posterity.

Quote

We don't have one player on this team that is the face of the franchise. 

Cousins could be, easily.  Be assured, a 4,000+ Yard, 30 TD/15 INT season would be pretty on-par for Cousins, and would make him one of the best single season QB's in Jets history just by being "average Kirk Cousins".

If he's not at that level, frankly it's not him....it's us, this organization/system and it's utter inabillity to field a decent offense the last what, decade+.  Maybe you;re right, if anyone can ruin a top 10 QB, it's probably us under Bowles.

Conversely, when we draft Darnold, or Allen, and the bust like a combo on Sanchez and Nagle, and we're looking at four losing years of embarrassing QB performance, perhaps you'll think back and wonder why we didn;t take the near-sure-thing over the total lottery ticket option.

Or maybe not, maybe you're right and we pick whomever, Darnold, and he's a golden god half Dan Marino/half John Elway who wins 5 Super Bowls as a Jet.

It's possible I suppose.  Just not likely.

[RedBeardedSavage]

34 minutes ago, Greensleeves said:

If he's such a good player, why is he 4-19 against winning teams? Giving a guy with that track record 30 million a year is pure insanity unless you're the Vikings with a great team already. You move up in the draft and pick one of the top 3 QBs which all can be elite and will have a higher ceiling than Cousins AND cost a ton less.

1

Top 5 quarterbacks vs. winning teams

Quarterback	Wins	Losses
Matthew Stafford	5	46
Aaron Rodgers	21	29
Tom Brady	50	33
Matt Ryan	17	22
Drew Brees	20	48
Russell Wilson	19	12

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2017/7/18/15979628/matthew-stafford-record-vs-winning-teams-aaron-rodgers-drew-brees-tom-brady-matt-ryan

This is before last season, but take a look at Drew Brees.  

Other than Brady and Aaron Rodgers, and to a lesser extent Russel Wilson (with a massive debt owed to the Legion of Boom), having a winning record against winning teams is the exception, not the rule.  Let's not get too caught up with the W/L record of one player versus the best opposition when the supporting cast around him has always been average.

 

[SenorGato]

13 minutes ago, Greensleeves said:

If he's such a good player, why is he 4-19 against winning teams? 

The answer is literally in the question 

[Greensleeves]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

We've been friends a long time, but I think you've lost your mind on this one.

This draft class at QB is a bagful of uncertainty, possible busts, and ????????'s.  For every positive, a material, massive risk negative exists.

You not only want to punt on a "guy who is maybe in the QB top 10" and has been a 4,000+ Yard 2-to-1 TD/INT guy for a number of years (all vastly better than anyone in our franchises entire history!), you want to be "giving up significant draft capital to move up" for a chance at maybe Macc picking the right QB out of this uncertain crop of risks and drawbacks?

I don't understand it.  It's almost like you'd be paying the 27 million (last media reported offer by Minny) yourself!

Lets run a quicky scenario:

Option 1 (the Fish Plan):
We sign Cousins (27 mil/year, 5 years).
We draft the best available RB at #6 (or trade down, then draft RB, but lets say it's Nick Chubb).
We draft the best available O-Lineman at the top of Round 2 (First Pick)
We draft the best available TE/WR/OLineman in Round 2 (Second Pick)
We draft Luke Falk (QB) in the 3rd Round.
We retain all our 2019 Picks, and draft say, a top WR prospect or the best O-Lineman in the draft class in round 1.

Or...

Option 2 (The Doggin Plan):
We trade our 2018 #1, both #2's, and 2019 #1 to Cleveland for the #1 Pick, to select (who?  Which one?  Whichever one you want lets say.)
We pick next in Round 3, taking say the 14th best O-Lineman prospect.  
We have no pick in Round 1 of 2019.

The odds say that my plan will have a QB in 2018-2020 who averages ~4,000 Yards, 26 TD's, 13 INT's a year.  He'll be supported by an elite RB prospect (Chubb), one-two new O-Linemen, and have a legit backup QB in Falk to develop behind Cousins.

Your plan has no odds, because no one knows what these kids will be or how they'll play.   The best support you'll have for him is someone in FA (which we could also get in Option 1 btw), but no highly rated RB or Oline prospects, and your #2 is still Hack, unless you also spend 15 mil a year to sign a Bridgewater or MccCarron or some other never-was to be our "bridge" #1 QB a la Fitzpatrick/McCown.

Tell how this is scuh a clear cut better idea to you, cause I'm not seeing it, not in the short term, and not int he long term, unless the QB you pick is literally QB Jesus and is a HOF in the waiting.

 

You don't win by playing it safe. I would guess 3 of the 4 QBs will be better than Cousins in the win/loss department. I could care less about stats. A QB is so hard to project because it is about intangibles. Cousins does not make the players around him better. Is he a great leader? Does he get the team fired up? He is not elite. More than one of these young QBs is going to be elite IMO. You need the guts to take a chance. Cousins cannot beat the better teams - period. I just don't understand why people are more concerned with his stats than how much he has lost. The elite QBs don't have such an abysmal record against winning teams. This isn't Fantasy Football. Best case scenario is a one and done in the playoffs. 

[Greensleeves]

1 minute ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Top 5 quarterbacks vs. winning teams

Quarterback	Wins	Losses
Matthew Stafford	5	46
Aaron Rodgers	21	29
Tom Brady	50	33
Matt Ryan	17	22
Drew Brees	20	48
Russell Wilson	19	12

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2017/7/18/15979628/matthew-stafford-record-vs-winning-teams-aaron-rodgers-drew-brees-tom-brady-matt-ryan

This is before last season, but take a look at Drew Brees.  

Other than Brady and Aaron Rodgers, and to a lesser extent Russel Wilson (with the massive assist the Legion of Boom has given him), having a winning record against winning teams is the exception, not the rule.  Let's not get too caught up W/L record of one player versus the best opposition when the supporting cast around him has always been average.

 

Good stuff. This makes me feel a little better.