Should you pay your QB a gazillion dollars and commit for many years

[maury77]

1 hour ago, JiFapono said:

It's a little to vacuumed of a view to make any thing of this, IMO as 3 of the 6 w/ losing records, also have a Super Bowl under their belts, and I dont think any of these teams are super upset with what they're paying their QB's.  Maybe Arizona and Vegas has some buyers remorse because neither QB has proven they can win (maybe Minn to an extent) down the stretch but the rest?  I think those teams arent too upset.  I know everyone is thrashing Rodgers, myself included but dude is on the heels of his 2 best seasons, back to back MVP's, do you really think in 1 season he's just pure trash?  I think GB has failed him but I guess you could argue the contract had a factor. 

Ultimately, my take is, you have to pay to play in this league and if you look at the Super Bowl's, you've had Burrow, Goff, Mahomes and the Wilson years, on rookie contracts, the rest were highly paid QB's; Brady,, Jimmy G., Manning, Stafford, Cam, Ryan, Mahomes post contract.

 

That's also fair. I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter 1 way or another, I was just interested in what the records were and wanted to share it. 

[Biggs]

I think Namath was on his rookie contract when the Jets won their only SB.  

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Gramsci said:

They screwed themselves over by not drafting any offensive weapons. When was the last time they spend a first rounder on a WR?

I looked it up & posted it I think a couple weeks ago. It’s crazy.

The last one was Jordy Nelson (though nominally round 2, that was after swapping picks with our high 2nd rounder from #30 to #36). Seeing how the two WRs to go off the board in between were Donnie Avery and Devin Thomas, it’s a distinction without a difference and may have averted a disaster (seeing how they won a SB two seasons later & Nelson was a huge part of it).

Actually 2008-2011 was a rare time of using their top pick on offense. Nelson in 2008, T Bulaga in 2010, and (bust) T Derek Sherrod in 2011.

Then from 2012 through 2022 (11 straight drafts, with 12 picks in round 1) the only offensive player they’ve drafted was Jordan Love in 2020.

0 of 12 consecutive 1st round picks on OL, WR, TE, or RB. I mean, come on. Rodgers is a giant douche, for sure, but that’s justifiably been his top complaint. I mean, other than getting his HC fired, lol.

[Hex]

1 hour ago, Gramsci said:

They screwed themselves over by not drafting any offensive weapons. When was the last time they spend a first rounder on a WR?

It’s been a awhile but they had one on the team that was perfectly fine.

[Green DNA]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Tom Brady Honest.

Oxymoron?

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

I think they should get rid of the cap completely.  

Absolutely not.

If I were the God of Sports, the first thing I would do is impose a similar cap on MLB, and finally have some semblance of competitive balance and fairness to that misguided rich-markets-get-richer, poor-markets-get-poorer sport.  

[extmenace]

14 hours ago, Hex said:

No, you shouldn't. 

Look at the Aaron Rodgers situation. He wanted a big contract and in doing so they couldn't keep Adams. It's clear now that Adams was just as crucial to the team as Rodgers, and now they're in a pit with a big QB contract.

If you look at players like Tom Brady he gets paid a lot but is willing to take cuts for his team. This is a sign of a QB who cares more about winning than making money.

Your point is valid, but the example of adams doesn’t work. He was offered either the same or money to stay in GB. He didn’t want to play there anymore.

[chirorob]

33 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Absolutely not.

If I were the God of Sports, the first thing I would do is impose a similar cap on MLB, and finally have some semblance of competitive balance and fairness to that misguided rich-markets-get-richer, poor-markets-get-poorer sport.  

The reason the NFL is good is shared revenue and a cap.  Otherwise, a team like Green Bay would NEVER be able to compete with a NY Market.

[Warfish]

1 minute ago, chirorob said:

The reason the NFL is good is shared revenue and a cap.  Otherwise, a team like Green Bay would NEVER be able to compete with a NY Market.

Market size should in no way, shape or form be a determining factor in re: the product on the field.

The personal wealth of the Owner should in no way, shape or form be a determining factor in re: the product on the field.

Sports, more than anything else, is best under de facto Communism.  The League is the entity, not the team or the owner.

As great as the NY Market is, no one is paying to see the Yankees play if they're not part of MLB. 

The NFL understands that.  MLB continues to fail to understand that, and it hurts the product.    

[Irish Jet]

15 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Top paid QBs:

Aaron Rodgers

Russel Wilson

Kyler Murray

Deshaun Watson

Carr and Stafford making over $40 million

Goff, Wentz, Matt Ryan all making over 30 million.

Of course there are guys totally worth it but man some real bad contracts.

Not all of these examples are equal.

Stafford, Ryan and Rodgers are just old. They'd be worth it in and then some in their prime but their teams felt they could get more out of them than they probably could. That said Stafford has paid back the Rams already with the SB even if he does nothing else.  

I wouldn't sign Watson for any amount of money given what he's done but he may still be worth it in football terms, certainly if he picks up where he left off. Houston went from the 13th ranked offence to the 32nd without him. 

I'll be interested to see Murray and Wilson under a new coaching staff before writing them off. Goff was an obviously awful contract at the time. Wentz was just destroyed by injuries.

Carr is probably the best example to fit your point - Good player, great stats but not worth the outlay. 

 

[Irish Jet]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Market size should in no way, shape or form be a determining factor in re: the product on the field.

The personal wealth of the Owner should in no way, shape or form be a determining factor in re: the product on the field.

Sports, more than anything else, is best under de facto Communism.  The League is the entity, not the team or the owner.

As great as the NY Market is, no one is paying to see the Yankees play if they're not part of MLB. 

The NFL understands that.  MLB continues to fail to understand that, and it hurts the product.    

I think you have to go all in one way or the other. Baseball seems to be the worst of both worlds even though I'm not all that familiar with it.

In soccer for example I love how relegation and the threat of club's genuinely collapsing ensures that every game is competitive. 

Admittedly the flaws in this open system are being exposed now with the increasing influence of oil states buying clubs, players and (as we're about to see) world cup's. This all could have been easily regulated and avoided but alas FIFA and UEFA were every bit as corrupt as the states they sold the sport to. 

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

I think you have to go all in one way or the other. Baseball seems to be the worst of both worlds even though I'm not all that familiar with it.

In soccer for example I love how relegation and the threat of club's genuinely collapsing ensures that every game is competitive. 

Admittedly the flaws in this open system are being exposed now with the increasing influence of oil states buying clubs, players and (as we're about to see) world cup's. This all could have been easily regulated and avoided but alas FIFA and UEFA were every bit as corrupt as the states they sold the sport to. 

What is missing at the NFL, and should be implemented, is a real, meaningful salary floor along with the cap.

No team should be allowed to milk league revenue sharing for the profit of the owner.  It's counter to everything I said above.

Meaningful floor, revenue sharing, salary cap.  Best way to run a sports league. 

Relegation is harder, you'd need to have leagues below leagues below leagues like you have in the UK for soccer.  We don't have that here Be cool if we did tho, I'd follow a lower-league Richmond Generals NFL-League 2 type team, lol).  

[Biggs]

1 hour ago, Warfish said:

Absolutely not.

If I were the God of Sports, the first thing I would do is impose a similar cap on MLB, and finally have some semblance of competitive balance and fairness to that misguided rich-markets-get-richer, poor-markets-get-poorer sport.  

Socialism for owners never made any business more competitive.  

[Beerfish]

38 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

Not all of these examples are equal.

Stafford, Ryan and Rodgers are just old. They'd be worth it in and then some in their prime but their teams felt they could get more out of them than they probably could. That said Stafford has paid back the Rams already with the SB even if he does nothing else.  

I wouldn't sign Watson for any amount of money given what he's done but he may still be worth it in football terms, certainly if he picks up where he left off. Houston went from the 13th ranked offence to the 32nd without him. 

I'll be interested to see Murray and Wilson under a new coaching staff before writing them off. Goff was an obviously awful contract at the time. Wentz was just destroyed by injuries.

Carr is probably the best example to fit your point - Good player, great stats but not worth the outlay. 

 

It does not matter of the QBs are 'just old' they have been paid, recently and are playing mostly at mid to lower tier level and the teams can't move on from those deals.

[FootballLove]

12 hours ago, doitny said:

if we dont know about Zach by the end of next year he is gone. i might even get rid of him for next year if he doesnt show us something before the end of the year.

You might, but I doubt Joe Douglas agrees

[JohnnyLV]

16 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Yeah those are the guys i meant 'well worth it' but they are amongst a slew of guys who are not great or not great enough. 

I'd add lamar jackson as guy you should pay as to me he is a big part of why the ravens win.

Guys like rodgers and russell wilson paid for what they did years ago.  Guys like kyler murray paid for what he has never really shown for more than a few games.

I think if I am Baltimore I am not paying Lamar. He WILL break down at some point likely sooner than later. I would just plan on using both franchise tags, maybe all 3 and then letting him go.

[Irish Jet]

15 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

It does not matter of the QBs are 'just old' they have been paid, recently and are playing mostly at mid to lower tier level and the teams can't move on from those deals.

Of course it matters lol.

Look at the question you asked. Whether it's worth committing for "many years" largely depends on how many you think they'll have left. 

 

[Warfish]

24 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Socialism for owners never made any business more competitive.  

The NFL doesn't really compete with anyone.  It doesn't need to be "more competitive".

And the NFL is the most competitive sport on the field, where competition matters.  

The NFL's practices are the only reason the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers (amongst others) still exist.

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

16 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Top paid QBs:

Aaron Rodgers

Russel Wilson

Kyler Murray

Deshaun Watson

Carr and Stafford making over $40 million

Goff, Wentz, Matt Ryan all making over 30 million.

Of course there are guys totally worth it but man some real bad contracts.

This is an example of being scared to enter QB Purgatory. And that's completely understandable. It's not a fun state to be in. Even if a team gets a glimpse of 'above-average' play, they feel somewhat safe and want to hang on to that. 

[Biggs]

17 minutes ago, Warfish said:

The NFL doesn't really compete with anyone.  It doesn't need to be "more competitive".

And the NFL is the most competitive sport on the field, where competition matters.  

The NFL's practices are the only reason the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers (amongst others) still exist.

You've obviously never been to a college Lacrosse game.  The NFL isn't really a competition.  It's a game of attrition. There are numerous billionaires who would be happy to own the Packers or the Steelers.  

[Jetsfan80]

16 hours ago, FootballLove said:

...maybe that's why it's a good idea to always have a young QB somewhere in the ranks who could possibly step up and take over if your starter runs to greener pastures? Should Jets burn another 4th on a developmental arm as insurance to losing ZW down the road?

Even if Jordan Love was a secretly elite QB, it would still be incredibly difficult for the Packers to get out of that Rodgers contract any time soon.  

[hotrodcharlie]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

Absolutely not.

If I were the God of Sports, the first thing I would do is impose a similar cap on MLB, and finally have some semblance of competitive balance and fairness to that misguided rich-markets-get-richer, poor-markets-get-poorer sport.  

No way. The salary cap ruins the NFL. And for all the talk about leveling the playing field, the MLB has had more parity anyway. 

[Jetsfan80]

Have to remember that this year is a bit of an anomaly.  QB play is down across the league.  Defenses are adjusting.  The pendulum will swing back in the other direction.

The Rams gave up a lot to bring in Matthew Stafford in 2021.  Even with his body breaking down in 2022, would anyone call them dumb for that move?

If you're a team that's a "QB away", or you have a QB and don't want to lose him, then you have to pay up.  Period.  

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, hotrodcharlie said:

No way. The salary cap ruins the NFL. And for all the talk about leveling the playing field, the MLB has had more parity anyway. 

Tell that to Orioles and Pirates fans.

[The Crusher]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Have to remember that this year is a bit of an anomaly.  QB play is down across the league.  Defenses are adjusting.  The pendulum will swing back in the other direction.

The Rams gave up a lot to bring in Matthew Stafford in 2021.  Even with his body breaking down in 2022, would anyone call them dumb for that move?

If you're a team that's a "QB away", or you have a QB and don't want to lose him, then you have to pay up.  Period.  

Wish we could be that dumb,

[hotrodcharlie]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Tell that to Orioles and Pirates fans.

Well some teams are always gonna suck

[SomebodytoAnybody47]

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Have to remember that this year is a bit of an anomaly.  QB play is down across the league.  Defenses are adjusting.  The pendulum will swing back in the other direction.

The Rams gave up a lot to bring in Matthew Stafford in 2021.  Even with his body breaking down in 2022, would anyone call them dumb for that move?

If you're a team that's a "QB away", or you have a QB and don't want to lose him, then you have to pay up.  Period.  

Any contract that ended up with a Superbowl win I'd say is a good move. Don't care what happens after. 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, hotrodcharlie said:

Well some teams are always gonna suck

That isn't parity then.  The owners of those teams aren't incentivized to spend so they don't. 

Both teams have farm systems that are producing some decent talent here and there (seen Oneil Cruz play by chance?) so it isn't an issue of poor drafting/development either.  It's cheap ownership.

[hotrodcharlie]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That isn't parity then.  The owners of those teams aren't incentivized to spend so they don't. 

Both teams have farm systems that are producing some decent talent here and there (seen Oneil Cruz play by chance?) so it isn't an issue of poor drafting/development either.  It's cheap ownership.

And a salary cap would fix that?

the purpose of the salary cap is not to create parity by the way, its to give owners an excuse to pay their players less

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That isn't parity then.  The owners of those teams aren't incentivized to spend so they don't. 

Both teams have farm systems that are producing some decent talent here and there (seen Oneil Cruz play by chance?) so it isn't an issue of poor drafting/development either.  It's cheap ownership.

Lets be honest, most NY-based-team fans hate the cap because NY is the biggest $$$ market.

The Yankees aren't good because they're geniuses.  They're good because they have their TV deal $$$ and can spend more than anyone else, and more, can absorb fiscal mistakes better than anyone.  Same for L.A., and a few others. 

MLB is a clear-cut case of a two-tier system, the takers/big market teams, and the de facto farm teams at the Pro level.  Sure, a particularly well-led also-ran can get a one-year shot at a title before being disassembled by the big market clubs, and being rich doesn't make you smart (so big $$ teams can still suck once in a while), but it's clear that some teams will be competitive every year, and some only once every ten years, if that, or if ever.  And it's all about a lack of cap and a huge variance in local markets.

Yankees fans (and Mets fans too) are just terrified they're be utter crap if they actually had to play in an fair, even playing field system where they couldn't just buy their successes.  

[Warfish]

Just now, hotrodcharlie said:

And a salary cap would fix that?

Salary Cap + Salary Floor + Revenue Sharing would, yes.

[chirorob]

1 hour ago, Irish Jet said:

Not all of these examples are equal.

Stafford, Ryan and Rodgers are just old. They'd be worth it in and then some in their prime but their teams felt they could get more out of them than they probably could. That said Stafford has paid back the Rams already with the SB even if he does nothing else.  

I wouldn't sign Watson for any amount of money given what he's done but he may still be worth it in football terms, certainly if he picks up where he left off. Houston went from the 13th ranked offence to the 32nd without him. 

I'll be interested to see Murray and Wilson under a new coaching staff before writing them off. Goff was an obviously awful contract at the time. Wentz was just destroyed by injuries.

Carr is probably the best example to fit your point - Good player, great stats but not worth the outlay. 

 

Stafford and Rodgers were worth it last year.

The killer is the young QB, who gets the money, and isn't worth it.  Goff (when he got his), Murray, players like that.

[hotrodcharlie]

Anyway to the original question, I think we can't use 2022 to make conclusions because it has been a strange year for QBs. Most years the expensive veteran QBs are good and the cheap ones suck.

Will 2023 be like most years or like 2022? I'd say its more likely to be like most years 

[hotrodcharlie]

6 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Lets be honest, most NY-based-team fans hate the cap because NY is the biggest $$$ market.

The Yankees aren't good because they're geniuses.  They're good because they have their TV deal $$$ and can spend more than anyone else, and more, can absorb fiscal mistakes better than anyone.  Same for L.A., and a few others. 

MLB is a clear-cut case of a two-tier system, the takers/big market teams, and the de facto farm teams at the Pro level.  Sure, a particularly well-led also-ran can get a one-year shot at a title before being disassembled by the big market clubs, and being rich doesn't make you smart (so big $$ teams can still suck once in a while), but it's clear that some teams will be competitive every year, and some only once every ten years, if that, or if ever.  And it's all about a lack of cap and a huge variance in local markets.

Yankees fans (and Mets fans too) are just terrified they're be utter crap if they actually had to play in an fair, even playing field system where they couldn't just buy their successes.  

good call dummy 

the Yankees havent won a world series in over a decade and the Mets in over 3 decades

There has been a lot of parity in baseball 

 

[greenwichjetfan]

17 hours ago, Hex said:

No, you shouldn't. 

Look at the Aaron Rodgers situation. He wanted a big contract and in doing so they couldn't keep Adams. It's clear now that Adams was just as crucial to the team as Rodgers, and now they're in a pit with a big QB contract.

If you look at players like Tom Brady he gets paid a lot but is willing to take cuts for his team. This is a sign of a QB who cares more about winning than making money.

The Packers didn't lose Davante because of money issues. They offered him more than the Raiders. They lost him because (1) He was a Raiders fan growing up and always dreamt of playing for them, (2) his best friend and college QB happens to be the Raiders QB.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/06/10/davante-adams-confirms-packers-offered-bigger-contract-than-raiders

 

Also, Brady has been getting paid under the table for his whole career and was married to a superstar wife. He had no problem not maximizing his on-the-table money. Most players don't enjoy those same benefits.