Breer on qb pay

[rangerous]

Albert breer had an article about the cost of qb's in the NFL.  Interesting point about no highly paid qb winning the superbowl (of course we all know brady was purposely taking a low salary for other considerations),

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/01/09/nfl-quarterback-economics-playoff-divisional-round?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SI Extra 010920&utm_term=SI Extra - USE THIS - List

The Economic Realities of Paying a Star Quarterback—and How It Relates to the NFL Playoffs

Three of the four AFC teams in the divisional round are led by quarterbacks still on their rookie deals. All four of the NFC teams have highly paid QBs on at least their second contract. What can we learn from these teams’ situations?

ALBERT BREER

21 HOURS AGO

• There’s nothing more important to an NFL team than landing its franchise quarterback. And when a team finds its guy, the signing of his big second contract can seem like a knighting, an affirmation that the player has checked all boxes and the team wants to build around this player.

What’s rarely discussed on those days? The hurdles that are ahead beyond that signing.

Here’s a fact you may not be aware of: A quarterback on a deal worth $20 million per year or more has never won the Super Bowl. Drew Brees became the first player earn a contract of that value eight years ago. This year, 21 players were on such deals, 16 of them quarterbacks. Six of them are making $30 million per or more.

And proof that those contracts can fit into a winning formula for all but the super elite quarterbacks—the human erasers capable of covering up weaknesses—is scarce.

“I’m aware of that reality,” ex-Eagles and Browns exec Joe Banner said when I presented him with the $20 million oddity Wednesday. “I’ve described it as a picture in time, we’re in a moment where that’s the case but it won’t be forever. The reality is simple—[a big quarterback contract] absolutely makes it harder to put together the rest of your roster. But it’s also crazy to think there’s a direct cause and effect here. You want the quarterback.”

The facts, of course, are skewed by Tom Brady; the Patriots’ quarterback has played most of his career on a team-friendly discount, and has won three of the last five Super Bowls. But the Eagles won a Super Bowl while Carson Wentz was on his rookie deal (with affordable backup Nick Foles starting); the Broncos won one the year Peyton Manning took a pay cut; and the Ravens and Seahawks won it all with quarterbacks on rookie just before that.

In fact, the last quarterback to hoist the Lombardi Trophy while playing on a big second contract was Eli Manning, four years into that deal. That happened in the first year of the current collective bargaining agreement, eight years ago.

“Having a veteran quarterback makes you that much more discerning,” ex-Jets and Dolphins exec Mike Tannenbaum said. “The easiest example to look at is Seattle, they did a great job building that defense through the draft with Kam [Chancellor], [Richard] Sherman, and could spend on guys like [Michael] Bennett as a result of that and having Russell [Wilson]. And you look at San Francisco now, and they paid [Jimmy] Garoppolo, but in that dominant front seven, Dee Ford and Kwon Alexander are the only two not on rookie deals.”

So what can we glean from this? And how does each team in this week’s divisional playoff round fit into this discussion?

***

It’s the best weekend in football, and it’s capped off with the College Football Playoff National Championship on Monday night. We’ve got you covered on all of it here with …

• The divisional weekend watch list.

• The next great Clemson receiver prospect, and the next great LSU corner prospect.

• Power rankings!

But we’re starting with the realities—economic and other—of paying a quarterback.

***

Back when Banner was running the Eagles, he says that as a group, they “used to talk about what positions we needed difference-makers at, and where we just needed solid players.”

Obviously, they wanted a star at quarterback. Also on that list were high-end offensive and defensive linemen, in addition to cornerbacks. After that, Banner said, the Eagles felt like there were places where they could cut corners—it might be with a safety or a guard or a third linebacker—to allow for the financials of players like Donovan McNabb. Rarely did they have a high-priced receiver. They almost always had affordable tailbacks.

Likewise, Tannenbaum said, those decisions “would all go back to the head coach’s interview, and knowing what they had to have, and what could be developed over time. You can’t pay them all, and each coach would answer that one a little differently.”

Along those lines, ex-Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome joked to Tannenbaum after he hired Rex Ryan away from Baltimore in 2009 that he was going to put his old defensive coordinator on I-95 with an “I need corners” sign around his neck. Newsome’s joke had truth woven through it—Tannenbaum found benefits in the clarity of Ryan’s desires. Accordingly, he’d wind up paying Darrelle Revis and Antonio Cromartie, and drafting Kyle Wilson in the first round. The flip side? The Jets went with a little less at safety.

These are the decisions every team that pays its quarterback has to make.

Half the teams (the four in the NFC) playing this weekend are already managing that reality. The other half (the four in the AFC), as the numbers below demonstrate, aren’t.

Russell Wilson, Seattle, $35 million APY
Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay, $33.5 million APY
Kirk Cousins, Minnesota, $28 million APY
Jimmy Garoppolo, San Francisco, $27.5 million APY
Patrick Mahomes, Kansas City, $4.1 million APY
Deshaun Watson, Houston $3.5 million APY
Lamar Jackson, Baltimore, $2.4 million APY
Ryan Tannehill, Tennessee, $2.0 million APY*

(*Miami gave Tannehill a $5 million signing bonus before trading him, so he’ll make $7 million this year, but the Titans are paying just $2 million, in addition to what benched former second-overall pick Marcus Mariota is making.)

The way those teams are constructed reflects the divide.

The Packers, while they were aggressive in free agency, only have two skill players making more than $3 million per year. The Seahawks only have one making more than $4 million per year. The Niners have made it work with that relatively cheap, productive front seven, and moderately priced skill players (only one-year rental Emmanuel Sanders is a on a deal worth eight figures per). All ask the quarterback to make up the difference, to some degree.

The Vikings are the one team paying a quarterback and guys all over the field. They have mastered handling the cap, with a bit of a crunch coming next year—they have 39 players signed and cap commitments exceeding $205 million for 2020.

Conversely, the AFC teams have spent freely. The Texans defense is loaded with pricey veterans and the team was aggressive in acquiring pieces for its offense (Laremy Tunsil, Kenny Stills, Duke Johnson) this summer. The Titans have been active in free agency (Rodger Saffold, Logan Ryan, Malcolm Butler, Adam Humphries, Cam Wake) while rewarding their own (Taylor Lewan, Rodger Saffold).

Meanwhile, the Ravens, out from under the Joe Flacco contract, broke character this offseason in signing Earl Thomas and Mark Ingram off other contenders’ rosters. And the Chiefs added two defenders (Frank Clark, Tyrann Mathieu) on top-of-the-market deals, months before rewarding Tyreek Hill with a new contract.

For three of those four teams, the reality is likely to change in a year or two, with Watson and Mahomes eligible for new deals this offseason, and Jackson eligible for one next offseason. And those teams will probably pay those guys, because each has shown an ability to carry a group past its flaws.

But should other teams think twice before opening the checkbook? It’s an interesting question.

***

Back when the Seahawks were going to Super Bowls, I remember someone posing this fascinating question—Will someone eventually decide to churn quarterbacks?

The point was made because at the time, it was so clear that San Francisco and Seattle were reaping enormous benefits having their quarterbacks on rookie deals. The Niners were able to pay a robust core of young players like Patrick Willis, NaVorro Bowman, Frank Gore, Vernon Davis and Joe Staley. The Seahawks were able to supplement a growing defense with veterans Cliff Avril and Bennett and take a big swing on Percy Harvin.

Ultimately, both Wilson and Colin Kaepernick got paid, and one of the two worked out—Wilson proved himself capable of carrying a team that could no longer put quite the same team around him that it once could. A half-decade later, Wilson is making $35 million, and the Seahawks can withstand losing their left tackle and top two running backs right before the playoffs, because Wilson has become the kind of human eraser Seattle needs him to be.

“I would pay Russell Wilson in a second,” Banner said. “And I’d be very confident doing it.”

But there are other cases where such contracts have hung like nooses around their teams’ necks, like Flacco’s. The Ravens won playoff games in each of the five years he was on a rookie deal, making the AFC title game three times and winning the Super Bowl in the final of those seasons. Then, Baltimore paid him—and missed the playoffs in four of the next five years, only making it in the sixth year after Jackson entered the lineup.

And yet, it’s hard to fault Baltimore. Trying to replace a good-but-not-great quarterback on the fly, because that quarterback may not be quite good enough to make up for everything a team gives up by signing him to a mega-deal, is a scary proposition. Maybe that is coming. But what’s for sure is it’ll take a very bold team for it to happen.

Until then, there will be contracts like the one the Bengals did with Andy Dalton and the Dolphins did with Tannehill years ago. Or, at the very least, more teams will be like the Bucs and Titans this year, and maybe the Bears in a couple years, in letting their young quarterbacks play their rookie deals out.

“You’re asking a GM to put his career on the line,” Banner said. “If you have Joe Flacco, and the reality is he’s good enough to win with great people around him, and he has you in the final 4-to-8 on a consistent basis, it becomes almost impossible to do it. You better have guts to move on. It’s a lot to ask of the owner to take the risk, and of the GM to put career on the line, knowing you may or may not find the next guy quickly.

“Look at the Eagles—McNabb to Wentz didn’t happen overnight. … And because of that, you get this B-level quarterback getting paid like an A-level quarterback, and those aren’t going to win. The A-level, the Mahomeses, they’ll still win. But if you don’t have that, it’s hard.”

In three weeks in Miami, there’ll be an NFC team that’ll have fought off that reality, with its star quarterback, to climb on the sport’s biggest stage. It’ll be faced with a team from the AFC playing with a distinct roster-building advantage.

And this much we know already—when it’s over, the new champion will either have made history or repeated it.

 

[Beerfish]

One of the hardest things to do as a sports org and it's fans is to look at guys who you've had big success with and either pay them the huge long term deal or to have the guts to look at them and say no.

Joe flacco is a classic example, when they were talking about giving him the highest or near highest pay along with term as a super bowl conquering hero I said to myself "This guy is not worth it, is not a guy that can carry a team and they will regret it."  Soon after Baltimore had to start letting go of a lot of other pieces of their team and do a hard reset. 

The current guy they are talking about in this vein is Dak Prescott wanting a huge deal.  If I was Dallas I would not give it to him.

You certainly have to pay your best players and QB is so important but you better be right when you commit to a guy in a big way.

 

[rangerous]

17 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

One of the hardest things to do as a sports org and it's fans is to look at guys who you've had big success with and either pay them the huge long term deal or to have the guts to look at them and say no.

Joe flacco is a classic example, when they were talking about giving him the highest or near highest pay along with term as a super bowl conquering hero I said to myself "This guy is not worth it, is not a guy that can carry a team and they will regret it."  Soon after Baltimore had to start letting go of a lot of other pieces of their team and do a hard reset. 

The current guy they are talking about in this vein is Dak Prescott wanting a huge deal.  If I was Dallas I would not give it to him.

You certainly have to pay your best players and QB is so important but you better be right when you commit to a guy in a big way.

 

imo, after reading that piece maybe the solution is to keep drafting qb's so they're always on their rookie deals.  if they aren't franchise types at year 3 or 4 they aren't going to be.

[nico002]

This is overblown 

it only is a valid argument if your team with a cheap QB is pushing the limits of the cap to pay other positions that are absolutely critical 

if you’re not maxing out the cap- you can afford to pay your QB1 more without sacrificing on the field 

at the end of the day the difference between paying mid tier vs top tier QB money is about 10 million in cap...

[Augustiniak]

only reason this is so is b/c the patriots have not paid brady fully counting his salary cap hit.  if they counted the money through tb12 this article would never have been written.  

[Biggs]

The stats are completely skewed by Brady.  Wilson and Rodgers are in the playoffs every year.  Cousins and Jimmy G are in the playoffs in their second year of a big contract.  Tannehill is going to get paid and you can't ignore the fact that Mariota is getting paid 20 million this year.  

[rangerous]

3 hours ago, Biggs said:

The stats are completely skewed by Brady.  Wilson and Rodgers are in the playoffs every year.  Cousins and Jimmy G are in the playoffs in their second year of a big contract.  Tannehill is going to get paid and you can't ignore the fact that Mariota is getting paid 20 million this year.  

they are skewed because brady took one for team (yeah right) salary wise.  at the same time both wilson and rodgers haven't been to the superbowl in a pretty long time and the last time they did, they were on their rookie deals.  you gotta feel for qb's like stafford and rivers both of whom will never even sniff the superbowl but the money is part of the trade off they're taking.  who knows?  the extra 10 million these guys get over other players in salary could go a long way to getting another impact player or two.

[Biggs]

1 hour ago, rangerous said:

they are skewed because brady took one for team (yeah right) salary wise.  at the same time both wilson and rodgers haven't been to the superbowl in a pretty long time and the last time they did, they were on their rookie deals.  you gotta feel for qb's like stafford and rivers both of whom will never even sniff the superbowl but the money is part of the trade off they're taking.  who knows?  the extra 10 million these guys get over other players in salary could go a long way to getting another impact player or two.

Wilson hasn't been to the SB again because Seattle never duplicated the incredible draft that built their SB team.  They got old and everyone wanted to get paid. 

Rivers had plenty of chances and didn't come up big.  Stafford is another story.  He was in a division with Rodgers and couldn't win the division the couple of times he had a good team.  They have had 3 WC in the time Stafford has been the QB and they went on the road and lost to Drew Brees, Russell Wilson and Tony Romo.  All arguably better than Stafford.  They did get jobbed in the Dallas game but Romo outplayed him.  

[jetstream23]

The key to success continues to be simple.  Draft well.

You get guys on 4-5 year deals as rookies so at any given time your organization could potentially have up 28-35 players on rookie contracts IF you hit on every single one of them.  Of course, that never happens, but the key to a multi-year run of success IMO is finding a way to absolutely nail 2 Drafts within a 3-year span.  If a team can find 10-12 starters in the Draft within a 3-year period they're likely going to succeed, especially if the players they hit on play premium, pricey positions where you're paying $5M for a stud Edge rusher and the rest of the league is paying $18M.  Once again, I'm reminded of the fact that we could have had Josh Allen at the Edge on a rookie deal for 4-5 years.

This is the year for LT, WR, Edge, CB in the Draft.  Has to be done.  No more DTs and Safeties early.

[Jetsfan80]

Easy solution:  Separate QB1 salaries from the cap. 

[section314]

Man, does Breer have way too much time on his hands.

[varjet]

I think the moral of the story is that a QB really needs to be good to pay the big money.   There are more QBs that should be paid less than top dollar so that teams can sign other talent. 

My usual example of Matt Stafford applies.  

[FidelioJet]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Easy solution:  Separate QB1 salaries from the cap. 

Or do an NBA type solution. Make it a “max” salary.  
 

[Rob123]

This is an interesting read but most readers here are not smart enough to understand it.  Nuances in the game and conducting a roster are lost on people not smart enough to tie their shoes.

25% of this board is intelligent and will be able to read this article.  The other rabble lives in a progressive dream world or barely literate enough to get through the article.

[Larz]

Kinda meaningless when 1 cheater goes to 8 of them 

he should be making $40 a year 

[ID.]

14 hours ago, rangerous said:

“Back when Banner was running the Eagles, he says that as a group, they “used to talk about what positions we needed difference-makers at, and where we just needed solid players.” 

Obviously, they wanted a star at quarterback. Also on that list were high-end offensive and defensive linemen, in addition to cornerbacks”

It’ll be interesting if Joe D incorporates a similar philosophy and if/how it’ll impact the J. Adams contract.

 

[rangerous]

11 hours ago, ID. said:

It’ll be interesting if Joe D incorporates a similar philosophy and if/how it’ll impact the J. Adams contract.

 

my guess is douglas will look at all options.  he would be foolish not to take a really good deal for any players except for maybe darnold.  if the jets get a call for an adams trade those contract issues go away.  and, if adams gets wind of a possible trade, he may actually lower his expectations if he's that set on staying with the jets.

[TuscanyTile2]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:26 AM, Beerfish said:

One of the hardest things to do as a sports org and it's fans is to look at guys who you've had big success with and either pay them the huge long term deal or to have the guts to look at them and say no.

Joe flacco is a classic example, when they were talking about giving him the highest or near highest pay along with term as a super bowl conquering hero I said to myself "This guy is not worth it, is not a guy that can carry a team and they will regret it."  Soon after Baltimore had to start letting go of a lot of other pieces of their team and do a hard reset. 

The current guy they are talking about in this vein is Dak Prescott wanting a huge deal.  If I was Dallas I would not give it to him.

You certainly have to pay your best players and QB is so important but you better be right when you commit to a guy in a big way.

I'd like the Jets to have suffer through such a "hard reset" like Baltimore is going through right now.