Paying the QB whatever they want

[nycdan]

Will this be the season where GMs finally realize that paying QBs a quarter of their salary cap is bad business?

Here is a list of all the $200M guys in the last few years that one could argue were bad outcomes (so far):

• Tua: Gets paid - plays 1 game and gets career threatening concussion that was clearly only a matter of time.  $167M guaranteed.
• Love: Gets paid after 8 good games.  Get injured in week 1.  Out 3-6 weeks at least. 
• Dak:  Gets paid.  Plays poorly week 1.  Lays egg week 2.  Not even going to wait until the playoffs to be mediocre this year.
• Lawrence:  Gets paid.  Plays below average at best first two weeks.  Jags 0-2.
• Burrow:  Gets paid.  misses 7 games in 2023.  CIN misses playoffs.  Starts 2024 0-2.
• Jackson: Gets paid.  Has great season.  Melts in 2nd playoff game.  It happens.  Starts 2024 0-2.
• Deshaun Watson:  Needs no commentary
• Kyler Murray:  Gets paid after so many warning signs.  Goes 3-8 and injues out.  Next season misses first 9 games, goes 3-5.    
• Honorable Mention: Daniel Jones:  Only $160M but why would they pay him that?!

The ones that seem to have been good value were Mahomes (duh!), Allen, Herbert (great QB, but awful team and coaching staff until now), Hurts (great team around him but they still sucked in the playoff game last season), and Goff.   Love might still work out.

Mahomes was a no-brainer.  That kind of guy only comes around once or twice a decade.  I understood Herbert, Allen, and Hurts.  But most of the teams above are looking at 3-4 years of NFL purgatory with a weakened roster at the other end of it.  Somehow, no matter how much evidence piles up, teams just keep upping the QB money.  MIA is cooked (not sad about it).  CLE, DAL, JAX, CIN, ARI are probably all doomed to hoping to squeak out one playoff win every season.  So many of these guys cash monster deals based on less than one season of good play and then *BAMF* they turn into Ryan Tannehill or they get injured and miss parts of multiple seasons.  The risk just doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, you see a few teams making serious runs with Baker Mayfield and now maybe Sam Darnold or Derek Carr (it's still early).

So every year you see teams squaring off with their QBs and feeling like they have no choice but to overpay.  I wonder how many BAL fans wish they went a different way with that cap money.  Or DAL fans.  Or certainly NYG and CLE fans (now joined by MIA fans).  

The cost/risk of QB deals going bad seems too high right now.  Feels like something has to change but I the league seems to be content to just shuffle along as long as the KC Swifts keep on winning (with a little help from their striped friends).

 

 

[PS17]

I don’t see anything changing. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. The demand for a franchise QB far outweighs the supply, so you’ll continue to see teams pay the going rate for anyone who’s shown half a glimpse of being legit. 

[Bronx]

Pay him!

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, PS17 said:

I don’t see anything changing. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand. The demand for a franchise QB far outweighs the supply, so you’ll continue to see teams pay the going rate for anyone who’s shown half a glimpse of being legit. 

Exactly.  For 3 key reasons:  1) If you don't pay him, someone else will; 2) Starting over at QB is incredibly difficult; and 3) Only a handful of GM's in the league have enough job security to survive multiple failed QB's - thus, its easier to just pay the guy they have and kick that can down the road if he ends up sucking.  Getting rid of the QB and then messing up on his replacement spells doom.  

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Exactly.  For 3 key reasons:  1) If you don't pay him, someone else will; 2) Starting over at QB is incredibly difficult; and 3) Only a handful of GM's in the league have enough job security to survive multiple failed QB's - thus, its easier to just pay the guy they have and kick that can down the road if he ends up sucking.  Getting rid of the QB and then messing up on his replacement spells doom.  

What you have described seems rather accurate and exposes a tremendous inefficiency in NFL roster building.  GM short-term interests versus team long-term interest.  

[PS17]

2 minutes ago, nycdan said:

What you have described seems rather accurate and exposes a tremendous inefficiency in NFL roster building.  GM short-term interests versus team long-term interest.  

Next up is Purdy. Say he’s the 16th best QB in the league this season. What do the Niners do? 

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, nycdan said:

What you have described seems rather accurate and exposes a tremendous inefficiency in NFL roster building.  GM short-term interests versus team long-term interest.  

Humans are naturally overly risk-averse (Source:  @jgb) and GM's are no exception.  If you only have 2, maybe 3 years to turn a franchise around before you're at minimum on the hot seat, GM's would tend to prefer to entrust that future to a mediocre QB (the devil you know) who can keep you in the hunt for a WC spot than a highly drafted QB who has a high bust risk (the devil you don't).  

[Joe W. Namath]

Of course you pay good qbs.  What are we talking about here?

[Barkus]

Every qb wants to get paid more than the last. We may be reaching the point of diminishing returns. One work around could be building a strong roster and then adding a cheaper type (or big money short years) veteran  to complete the team while also trying to develop a young qb in the background. 

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, PS17 said:

Next up is Purdy. Say he’s the 16th best QB in the league this season. What do the Niners do? 

It'll be interesting to see what Lynch does, given that he has a lot of job security there.  Whatever he decides to do, ownership will support, so if he opts to let Purdy walk, they'll let him (albeit they may push back a little).

[PS17]

2 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Of course you pay good qbs.  What are we talking about here?

The bad QBs being paid like good ones. Dumbass

[nycdan]

1 minute ago, Barkus said:

Every qb wants to get paid more than the last. We may be reaching the point of diminishing returns. One work around could be building a strong roster and then adding a cheaper type (or big money short years) veteran  to complete the team while also trying to develop a young qb in the background. 

That's kind of my point.  Has any team had the guts to tell their QB to 'take a hike' rather than pay him more than the last top contract?  I guess MIN this year.  Seems to have worked out for them so far.  You could argue SF did that with Jimmy G and that also worked out astoundingly well.  Maybe more teams should give it a shot. 

In other words, I'm suggesting you should not automatically just pay the 10th best QB in football the most money at the position just because he's the next man up.  

[Guilhermezmc]

As a NY Jets fan you should know why QBs get paid, its not easy to get one.

A Dak like QB its going to get you to 10 wins and a lot of profit.

Win for the GM whos probably not getting fired after a winning season, and can focus on drafting DL out of the SEC to keep the team competitive.

Win for the Owner whos richer because 8-10 wins will keep the fan base loyal and spending.

[Joe W. Namath]

23 minutes ago, PS17 said:

The bad QBs being paid like good ones. Dumbass

Show respect to The P-E-O-P-L-E's Captain whoever you are.

[rangerous]

55 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Will this be the season where GMs finally realize that paying QBs a quarter of their salary cap is bad business?

Here is a list of all the $200M guys in the last few years that one could argue were bad outcomes (so far):

• Tua: Gets paid - plays 1 game and gets career threatening concussion that was clearly only a matter of time.  $167M guaranteed.
• Love: Gets paid after 8 good games.  Get injured in week 1.  Out 3-6 weeks at least. 
• Dak:  Gets paid.  Plays poorly week 1.  Lays egg week 2.  Not even going to wait until the playoffs to be mediocre this year.
• Lawrence:  Gets paid.  Plays below average at best first two weeks.  Jags 0-2.
• Burrow:  Gets paid.  misses 7 games in 2023.  CIN misses playoffs.  Starts 2024 0-2.
• Jackson: Gets paid.  Has great season.  Melts in 2nd playoff game.  It happens.  Starts 2024 0-2.
• Deshaun Watson:  Needs no commentary
• Kyler Murray:  Gets paid after so many warning signs.  Goes 3-8 and injues out.  Next season misses first 9 games, goes 3-5.    
• Honorable Mention: Daniel Jones:  Only $160M but why would they pay him that?!

The ones that seem to have been good value were Mahomes (duh!), Allen, Herbert (great QB, but awful team and coaching staff until now), Hurts (great team around him but they still sucked in the playoff game last season), and Goff.   Love might still work out.

Mahomes was a no-brainer.  That kind of guy only comes around once or twice a decade.  I understood Herbert, Allen, and Hurts.  But most of the teams above are looking at 3-4 years of NFL purgatory with a weakened roster at the other end of it.  Somehow, no matter how much evidence piles up, teams just keep upping the QB money.  MIA is cooked (not sad about it).  CLE, DAL, JAX, CIN, ARI are probably all doomed to hoping to squeak out one playoff win every season.  So many of these guys cash monster deals based on less than one season of good play and then *BAMF* they turn into Ryan Tannehill or they get injured and miss parts of multiple seasons.  The risk just doesn't seem worth it.

On the other hand, you see a few teams making serious runs with Baker Mayfield and now maybe Sam Darnold or Derek Carr (it's still early).

So every year you see teams squaring off with their QBs and feeling like they have no choice but to overpay.  I wonder how many BAL fans wish they went a different way with that cap money.  Or DAL fans.  Or certainly NYG and CLE fans (now joined by MIA fans).  

The cost/risk of QB deals going bad seems too high right now.  Feels like something has to change but I the league seems to be content to just shuffle along as long as the KC Swifts keep on winning (with a little help from their striped friends).

 

 

and it's funny how people thought rodgers was being overpaid.  compared to that list, he's a bargain.

[TBJ]

The Jets don't have this problem.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Humans are naturally overly risk-averse (Source:  @jgb) and GM's are no exception.  If you only have 2, maybe 3 years to turn a franchise around before you're at minimum on the hot seat, GM's would tend to prefer to entrust that future to a mediocre QB (the devil you know) who can keep you in the hunt for a WC spot than a highly drafted QB who has a high bust risk (the devil you don't).  

Humans are horrible at internalizing opportunity cost 

[slimjasi]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It'll be interesting to see what Lynch does, given that he has a lot of job security there.  Whatever he decides to do, ownership will support, so if he opts to let Purdy walk, they'll let him (albeit they may push back a little).

The issue is that the stars on that team supposedly adore him. 

 

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Humans are naturally overly risk-averse (Source:  @jgb) and GM's are no exception.  If you only have 2, maybe 3 years to turn a franchise around before you're at minimum on the hot seat, GM's would tend to prefer to entrust that future to a mediocre QB (the devil you know) who can keep you in the hunt for a WC spot than a highly drafted QB who has a high bust risk (the devil you don't).  

The colts GM basically said this a couple of years ago using different words when the media was asking him about drafting a QB

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, PS17 said:

Next up is Purdy. Say he’s the 16th best QB in the league this season. What do the Niners do? 

Franchise tag him or pay him 55M a year

[Beerfish]

Been saying this for a while, teams are so desperate they commit to guys that have not done anything.  Guys like jones and lawrence and watson are a joke

[bitonti]

1 hour ago, nycdan said:

Deshaun Watson:  Needs no commentary

he actually looked live yesterday and so did Moore 

[Jetsfan80]

15 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

The issue is that the stars on that team supposedly adore him. 

Teammates always love the QB who is in place as long as the team is doing reasonably well.  But that can't be a top reason to stick with him if you believe you can upgrade.  Otherwise, you'd have seen a situation where, say, the Chiefs stuck with the popular Alex Smith rather than moved on to Patrick Mahomes.  Recall that Reid traded up to get Mahomes despite Smith coming off a career year.

[Larz]

You don’t pay market rate as a GM the owner replaces you with someone that will. 
 

this isn’t complicated lol 

[jgb]

34 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Franchise tag him or pay him 55M a year

You extend him ASAP on a deal that would look cheap in 3 years.

[Claymation]

I am going to say that 4 of those 9 QB will not be with their team in 2 years.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It'll be interesting to see what Lynch does, given that he has a lot of job security there.  Whatever he decides to do, ownership will support, so if he opts to let Purdy walk, they'll let him (albeit they may push back a little).

No way he lets Purdy walk. He remembers Garappolo and Lance 

[nycdan]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

You extend him ASAP on a deal that would look cheap in 3 years.

So is Purdy worth $60M/year next year?  How about Geno?  is there a line or do you just pay any top-20 QB on your roster more than the last guy got?  Meanwhile, you're going to pay your best WR $35M/year.  So that's almost 40% of the salary cap on two players.  

[jgb]

33 minutes ago, bitonti said:

he actually looked live yesterday and so did Moore 

But he a bad man so we must all hold the line that he’s horrible at football 

[jgb]

Just now, nycdan said:

So is Purdy worth $60M/year next year?  How about Geno?  is there a line or do you just pay any top-20 QB on your roster more than the last guy got?  Meanwhile, you're going to pay your best WR $35M/year.  So that's almost 40% of the salary cap on two players.  

I mean you’re pulling 60 million out of nowhere. I counter with 45 million and say “yes absolutely.”

[Blackout]

The NFL needs to make the rules more run friendly to stop this insanity of overhyped and overpaid QBs

 

The rules encourage passing more than ever and its watered down the product

[jgb]

Just now, Blackout said:

The NFL needs to make the rules more run friendly to stop this insanity of overhyped and overpaid QBs

Everyone says they love defense but then calls low scoring games “boring.”

Points sell.

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, jgb said:

No way he lets Purdy walk. He remembers Garappolo and Lance 

Maybe.  But he also might realize you can get close to a championship but maybe never secure one with a B- QB.  Purdy is right on that borderline where maybe he can only get you so close. 

And when he starts getting the big money, it of course gets much harder.

[jgb]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Maybe.  But he also remembers you can get close to a championship but maybe never secure one with a B- QB.  Purdy is right on that borderline where maybe he can only get you so close. 

I smell a bet. Let’s do it

[nycdan]

6 minutes ago, jgb said:

I mean you’re pulling 60 million out of nowhere. I counter with 45 million and say “yes absolutely.”

I'm going by the top of the market being $60M right now thanks to Jerry Jones.  I can't imagine Purdy will want less than that.  He'll probably want more.  Lucky for the 49ers, there isn't really another QB likely to sign a monster deal next year so they won't have to deal with that but when his agent says "more than Dak" what are they supposed to do?  I guess my original point was "is there a line too high to cross" or do you just cave and pay them whatever it takes?  Purdy has been consistent and you know you can win with him so it wouldn't be as risky as, say, Tua or Love, but it's a lot.

The interesting question with Purdy is whether that team could win just as much with, say, Darnold as their QB.  That roster is loaded with offensive weapons.  Is it Purdy making them that successful or is it them making him so successful.  To his credit, he was much better than Jimmy G there.  I just don't know.

[jgb]

Just now, nycdan said:

I'm going by the top of the market being $60M right now thanks to Jerry Jones.  I can't imagine Purdy will want less than that.  He'll probably want more.  Lucky for the 49ers, there isn't really another QB likely to sign a monster deal next year so they won't have to deal with that but when his agent says "more than Dak" what are they supposed to do?  I guess my original point was "is there a line too high to cross" or do you just cave and pay them whatever it takes?  Purdy has been consistent and you know you can win with him so it wouldn't be as risky as, say, Tua or Love, but it's a lot.

I think you’re creating obstacles to prove a point. I do not expect Purdy to demand to set the record for highest paid QB.