NFL Offseason/Coaching Carousel/non-playoff talk

[Guest]

An agent's perspective on what will happen to QBs with the new cap: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-25-million-dollar-quarterback.html

[mul21]

QB contracts are completely out of control. Flacco as the highest paid (or one of, at least) QB in the NFL and Romo almost getting $18 mil per year is just ludicrous (especially Flacco).

 

I know it's a heavy passing league now and QBs are an integral part of that, but completely replaceable QBs are getting significant deals/returns (Alex Smith's ridiculous return included).

 

You can't possibly say this with a straight face. Especially after seeing how completely awful the Bears are when Cutler isn't at QB. They may not be all time greats, but you can't afford to not have a QB who isn't at least pretty good. They're hard to find, and once you do have one, you can't afford to let them go.

 

It may be overpaying, but that's a position you can't afford to go cheap and get a league average performance if you want to win big. Even when these guys are average during the year, most of them getting paid are guys who've won in the playoffs.

[dew1679666265]

You can't possibly say this with a straight face. Especially after seeing how completely awful the Bears are when Cutler isn't at QB. They may not be all time greats, but you can't afford to not have a QB who isn't at least pretty good. They're hard to find, and once you do have one, you can't afford to let them go.

 

It may be overpaying, but that's a position you can't afford to go cheap and get a league average performance if you want to win big. Even when these guys are average during the year, most of them getting paid are guys who've won in the playoffs.

 

Well, if you decide not to give Cutler $18 mil a year and then hand the starting job to either Jason Campbell or Caleb Hanie, you've made a horrible mistake and it's not refusing to give Cutler $18 mil a year.

 

Alex Smith has been the very definition of league average (or worse) and he was just dealt for a ridiculous haul. Joe Flacco has been very inconsistent throughout his career and Football Outsiders has never ranked him above 14th best in the NFL. So, basically the Ravens went expensive and have a league average QB. Even in the playoffs this year he was fairly hot and cold. My view is that you can't wrap that much of your payroll (Flacco) or future (Smith) into the very definitions of league average QBs. They're not going to make you better (ala Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, etc) and instead are going to hamper you from doing so.

 

I was probably in error putting Romo in that group. I'm not sure he's worth $18 mil a year, but he might be good enough to make it reasonable to pay it. I agree with your overall point that you have to overpay for some of the better QBs, but I don't see how Joe Flacco and Alex Smith support your argument. Romo maybe, but not the other two.

[jersey cubs fan]

You can't possibly say this with a straight face. Especially after seeing how completely awful the Bears are when Cutler isn't at QB. They may not be all time greats, but you can't afford to not have a QB who isn't at least pretty good. They're hard to find, and once you do have one, you can't afford to let them go.

 

It may be overpaying, but that's a position you can't afford to go cheap and get a league average performance if you want to win big. Even when these guys are average during the year, most of them getting paid are guys who've won in the playoffs.

 

Well, if you decide not to give Cutler $18 mil a year and then hand the starting job to either Jason Campbell or Caleb Hanie, you've made a horrible mistake and it's not refusing to give Cutler $18 mil a year.

 

Alex Smith has been the very definition of league average (or worse) and he was just dealt for a ridiculous haul. Joe Flacco has been very inconsistent throughout his career and Football Outsiders has never ranked him above 14th best in the NFL. So, basically the Ravens went expensive and have a league average QB. Even in the playoffs this year he was fairly hot and cold. My view is that you can't wrap that much of your payroll (Flacco) or future (Smith) into the very definitions of league average QBs. They're not going to make you better (ala Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, etc) and instead are going to hamper you from doing so.

 

I was probably in error putting Romo in that group. I'm not sure he's worth $18 mil a year, but he might be good enough to make it reasonable to pay it. I agree with your overall point that you have to overpay for some of the better QBs, but I don't see how Joe Flacco and Alex Smith support your argument. Romo maybe, but not the other two.

 

I think you are equating the ranking of football players and baseball players here too much.

For one, I wouldn't say being ranked 12th or 14th is the definition of league average, because there are more than 32 QBs that play every year. And the thing you really want to avoid above all else is below average play. That will kill you. Also, it is by far the most important position. It's not one of 5 starting pitchers. You can't just let a guy go because you don't want to overpay him and spend the same money on two guys who will combine to start 40% of your games at the position. Go ahead and let your average QB walk everytime he's due a raise above his worth and you'll set your team back 2 years trying to replace him. The luxury of the non-guaranteed contract also helps in this matter because if you're Flacco type QB does start to slide, you aren't tied to him for the life of the deal.

 

The bottom line is it is very difficult to find competent QBs. Without one, you're doomed. Once you find one, you will be happy to overpay to keep that position stabilized and give your team a chance to win Super Bowls, like Flacco's team has done.

[Banedon]

Matt Flynn traded to Oakland for 2014 5th round pick and conditional pick in 2015.

[dew1679666265]

I think you are equating the ranking of football players and baseball players here too much.

For one, I wouldn't say being ranked 12th or 14th is the definition of league average, because there are more than 32 QBs that play every year. And the thing you really want to avoid above all else is below average play. That will kill you. Also, it is by far the most important position. It's not one of 5 starting pitchers. You can't just let a guy go because you don't want to overpay him and spend the same money on two guys who will combine to start 40% of your games at the position. Go ahead and let your average QB walk everytime he's due a raise above his worth and you'll set your team back 2 years trying to replace him. The luxury of the non-guaranteed contract also helps in this matter because if you're Flacco type QB does start to slide, you aren't tied to him for the life of the deal.

 

The bottom line is it is very difficult to find competent QBs. Without one, you're doomed. Once you find one, you will be happy to overpay to keep that position stabilized and give your team a chance to win Super Bowls, like Flacco's team has done.

 

I guess I should specify my stance. I have no problem overpaying QBs - the nature of the game is that you're going to do that. However, the Ravens aren't just overpaying, they've made him one of the highest paid players in the NFL. A guy who has had a sub-60% completion percentage the past two years (barely 60% for his career) and less than a 2:1 TD:INT ratio in his career.

 

To put it another way, Football Outsiders has a stat called DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) that's basically the football version of WAR. Flacco came in last year at -1.4%, or a below average QB. He was neck and neck with Sam Bradford. A three-year sample size shows 9.4% in 2010, 0.0% in 2011, -1.4% in 2012. So not only is he pretty average, but he's been declining the past three years (that bears out in completion percentage as well). There's just nothing other than "he won a Super Bowl" that makes him above average.

 

My view on it is this: a QB is more important than any other singular player on a team in winning a championship in today's game. However, a quality team around that QB is still necessary and if you're getting a significant portion of a team's cap space, you better be at least above average. Romo is, so I'm ok with overpaying him to the extent they did. Flacco is not, so I'm not ok with overpaying him to the extent they did.

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess I should specify my stance. I have no problem overpaying QBs - the nature of the game is that you're going to do that. However, the Ravens aren't just overpaying, they've made him one of the highest paid players in the NFL. A guy who has had a sub-60% completion percentage the past two years (barely 60% for his career) and less than a 2:1 TD:INT ratio in his career.

 

If you overpay a QB he's going to be one of the highest paid players in the NFL. No getting around it. Then just wait 2 years when a dozen other guys sign bigger deals.

 

To put it another way, Football Outsiders has a stat called DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) that's basically the football version of WAR.

 

Not even close.

[Banedon]

Baseball advanced metrics >>>>>>>> Football advanced metrics

[dew1679666265]

If you overpay a QB he's going to be one of the highest paid players in the NFL. No getting around it. Then just wait 2 years when a dozen other guys sign bigger deals.

 

He's also one of the highest paid QBs. And he's been a very average QB for a while now. I think very highly of the Ravens' front officer (Ozzie Newsome is the best GM in football), but they paid Flacco because he has a ring on his finger. That's it.

 

Not even close.

 

I meant in what it measures - both look at an amount that a player is over a specified point. For WAR it's replacement, for DVOA it's average. If you're questioning the reliability, that's a legit argument, but in this case the more traditional stats match the advanced one.

[dew1679666265]

Baseball advanced metrics >>>>>>>> Football advanced metrics

 

I agree, it's why I referenced advanced metrics and traditional ones in my post.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you overpay a QB he's going to be one of the highest paid players in the NFL. No getting around it. Then just wait 2 years when a dozen other guys sign bigger deals.

 

He's also one of the highest paid QBs. And he's been a very average QB for a while now. I think very highly of the Ravens' front officer (Ozzie Newsome is the best GM in football), but they paid Flacco because he has a ring on his finger. That's it.

 

Not even close.

 

I meant in what it measures - both look at an amount that a player is over a specified point. For WAR it's replacement, for DVOA it's average. If you're questioning the reliability, that's a legit argument, but in this case the more traditional stats match the advanced one.

 

You are missing the whole GD point that you can't just dial up an average NFL QB. They aren't replacement players. They aren't 3rd starters in your rotation. They aren't prospects spending 6 years developing in your minor leagues and forced to play for the minimum their first three years. You can't replace one expensive one for two affordable ones and get similar production. It's the most important position in the game and without a competent one your team will blow and you will all lose your jobs.

 

Tom Brady was just an average QB for years who got paid because of the rings then he pretty much dominated. I would hate for my team to go out and sign Flacco as their QB in some sort of effort to be a savior, but if the Bears win the Super Bowl this year and Cutler signs an even bigger deal I would be plenty happy. You pay QBs, or you spend a decade looking for his replacement.

[dew1679666265]

At what point does this stop? Can any halfway competent QB demand to be the highest paid QB in the NFL and you have to do it? Should the Chiefs hand Alex Smith $20 mil per year? If we're talking abou the Titans or Jags, who suck at evaluating QB talent, then yeah they better lock up whatever average QB they can find. But competent organizations like San Francisco or Seattle can find very good starting QBs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

 

What I'm basically saying is, the level of difficulty in finding an average QB varies by front office competency. There are average QBs available out there for less than highest paid QB in the NFL level, it's the job of the front office to go find one and not just settle on vastly overpaying the one they have and weakening the rest of the team. I can understand your argument if we were discussing whether to severely overpay Aaron Rodgers, but we're talking about an unspectacular QB who has a Super Bowl ring because his team got hot at the right time and Rahim Moore doesn't know how to play prevent defense.

[Banedon]

At what point does this stop?

 

It stops when there's better options.

 

Can any halfway competent QB demand to be the highest paid QB in the NFL and you have to do it?

 

Only halfway competent ones that win the Super Bowl.

 

Should the Chiefs hand Alex Smith $20 mil per year?

 

No, because he doesn't have the "SB Winning QB" accolade to flaunt, but he'll probably get a pretty nice paycheck, cuz they're the Chiefs, and they have no other QB options.

[sneakypower]

At what point does this stop? Can any halfway competent QB demand to be the highest paid QB in the NFL and you have to do it? Should the Chiefs hand Alex Smith $20 mil per year? If we're talking abou the Titans or Jags, who suck at evaluating QB talent, then yeah they better lock up whatever average QB they can find. But competent organizations like San Francisco or Seattle can find very good starting QBs in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

 

What I'm basically saying is, the level of difficulty in finding an average QB varies by front office competency. There are average QBs available out there for less than highest paid QB in the NFL level, it's the job of the front office to go find one and not just settle on vastly overpaying the one they have and weakening the rest of the team. I can understand your argument if we were discussing whether to severely overpay Aaron Rodgers, but we're talking about an unspectacular QB who has a Super Bowl ring because his team got hot at the right time and Rahim Moore doesn't know how to play prevent defense.

i don't really love Flacco, but i always found this unfair; he could have probably won last year if Lee Evans knew how to hold onto the ball, or if Billy Cundiff knew how to make a chip-shot FG

[dew1679666265]

i don't really love Flacco, but i always found this unfair; he could have probably won last year if Lee Evans knew how to hold onto the ball, or if Billy Cundiff knew how to make a chip-shot FG

 

True, but that reinforces my point that QBs don't win or lose Super Bowls. Teams do and by paying average to below average QBs top dollar, you're making your team worse.

[dew1679666265]

It stops when there's better options.

 

I find it very hard to believe that in a given offseason there's not a single average QB in either FA or the draft.

 

Only halfway competent ones that win the Super Bowl.

 

So any QB whose teams wins a Super Bowl can ask for and receive one of the largest contracts in the NFL?

 

ItNo, because he doesn't have the "SB Winning QB" accolade to flaunt, but he'll probably get a pretty nice paycheck, cuz they're the Chiefs, and they have no other QB options.

 

I just don't understand paying guys for being "winners" rather than based upon performance.

[SpongeWorthy]

If you have an organization that is strong enough to make the playoffs almost every year, you need a QB whose ceiling is high enough to go on a hot streak and win it all (e.g. Flacco or Eli).

 

If you have an organization that is pretty much riding on one QB's spectacular play to carry the team, (Peyton, Rodgers, Brees, maybe Brady) then yeah, you can't tie up $20 million+ on the Joe Flacco's of the world. It's two different ways of building a team.

[jersey cubs fan]

i don't really love Flacco, but i always found this unfair; he could have probably won last year if Lee Evans knew how to hold onto the ball, or if Billy Cundiff knew how to make a chip-shot FG

 

True, but that reinforces my point that QBs don't win or lose Super Bowls. Teams do and by paying average to below average QBs top dollar, you're making your team worse.

 

If you're trying to call Flacco below average you're sounding very uninformed.

 

 

If you have a QB play well in a winning SB season and hit free agency, you can let him walk and then reset your organization and try to find another very difficult to find QB. Or you can pay him.

 

This isn't baseball. These guys aren't replacable parts. There aren't 75 quality QBs around the league and dozens in the minors waiting to take the place of other guys. You have won, you have to pay him or you will lose him and be screwed.

 

There are maybe 80-100 NFL QBs out there. 7 or 8 get drafted every year. In any one season maybe 25 of them are acceptable for their position while less then that actually do much of anything to help you win.

 

Your definition of average is stupid and your thoughts on paying QBs are absurd.

[dew1679666265]

If you're trying to call Flacco below average you're sounding very uninformed.

 

I probably shouldn't have put below average there. He's a pretty average QB overall, both traditional and advanced metrics support my argument.

 

IIf you have a QB play well in a winning SB season and hit free agency, you can let him walk and then reset your organization and try to find another very difficult to find QB. Or you can pay him.

 

This isn't baseball. These guys aren't replacable parts. There aren't 75 quality QBs around the league and dozens in the minors waiting to take the place of other guys. You have won, you have to pay him or you will lose him and be screwed.

 

There are maybe 80-100 NFL QBs out there. 7 or 8 get drafted every year. In any one season maybe 25 of them are acceptable for their position while less then that actually do much of anything to help you win.

 

Your definition of average is stupid and your thoughts on paying QBs are absurd.

 

What's your definition of average then? 50% completion percentage and a 1:1 TD:INT ratio? Or is it purely based on whether he has a ring on his finger or not? Did Rahim Moore's incompetence make Flacco above average to very good all of a sudden?

 

So far your whole argument has been that there aren't very many QBs in the league so teams should be willing to pay a QB who is deemed a "winner" any price he wants or they'll suck for 10 years. I'm not convinced.

[Banedon]

It stops when there's better options.

 

I find it very hard to believe that in a given offseason there's not a single average QB in either FA or the draft.

 

By definition, half of starting QB's are below average each year. An above average QB is extremely difficult to find. That's why they get paid a lot.

 

Only halfway competent ones that win the Super Bowl.

 

So any QB whose teams wins a Super Bowl can ask for and receive one of the largest contracts in the NFL?

 

If they are an average QB, and they win a Super Bowl going into their contract year, the answer is almost always, yes.

 

No, because he doesn't have the "SB Winning QB" accolade to flaunt, but he'll probably get a pretty nice paycheck, cuz they're the Chiefs, and they have no other QB options.

 

I just don't understand paying guys for being "winners" rather than based upon performance.

 

Isn't winning part of performance?

[jersey cubs fan]

So far your whole argument has been that there aren't very many QBs in the league so teams should be willing to pay a QB who is deemed a "winner" any price he wants or they'll suck for 10 years. I'm not convinced.

 

What's your solution dew? Let them walk and trade for Colt McCoy?

 

 

You aren't making any sense.

[CubColtPacer]

So far your whole argument has been that there aren't very many QBs in the league so teams should be willing to pay a QB who is deemed a "winner" any price he wants or they'll suck for 10 years. I'm not convinced.

 

What's your solution dew? Let them walk and trade for Colt McCoy?

 

 

You aren't making any sense.

 

I'm not sure what dew's solution is, but here is one option.

 

If the QB isn't willing to come down, slap the non-exclusive franchise tag on them. If they sign a deal with another team, you can always match and be not much worse off than you were before, or if it's still crazy high, you can take the two first round picks. You then either have extra draft picks to move up to take a QB (if it's a good QB year) or you can try to find a talented backup that hasn't had a chance somewhere else. Either way you will also have extra money available to lose less talent than Baltimore ended up losing.

 

Is it risky? Absolutely. But so is losing other parts of your team because you paid your QB 120 million. Both strategies are viable, but it's going to be harder for QB's to keep setting record contracts with a cap that is going to remain stagnet for a few years, which has not been the norm in the past.

[Magnetic Curses]

i don't really love Flacco, but i always found this unfair; he could have probably won last year if Lee Evans knew how to hold onto the ball, or if Billy Cundiff knew how to make a chip-shot FG

 

True, but that reinforces my point that QBs don't win or lose Super Bowls. Teams do and by paying average to below average QBs top dollar, you're making your team worse.

 

this is way off base, of course QBs win super bowls. if you don't have a good quarterback, like a flacco or better, there's no way you can win with any kind of consistency. it's an absolute minimum to be a contender.

[dew1679666265]

By definition, half of starting QB's are below average each year. An above average QB is extremely difficult to find. That's why they get paid a lot.

 

In the past two seasons, off the top of my head, the 49ers found an above average (or better) QB in the 2nd round and the Seahawks found one in the 3rd round. Those aren't the norms I understand, but it's doable if a front office plans ahead and doesn't simply take the choice the public/media wants them to.

 

If they are an average QB, and they win a Super Bowl going into their contract year, the answer is almost always, yes.

 

It happens, but that doesn't make it the right decision.

 

Isn't winning part of performance?

 

Good performance can beget winning, but the two aren't always connected on an individual level. Individual players play well and their team loses fairly often and teams win despite poor play by key performers as well (Ben Roethlisberg's first Super Bowl, for instance).

 

On a team-wide level, you're right. On an individual level, not necessarily all the time.

[dew1679666265]

What's your solution dew? Let them walk and trade for Colt McCoy?

 

 

You aren't making any sense.

 

The solution depends on the team's situation. In the Ravens' case with Flacco, they were already an aging team that really wasn't that great to begin with but got lucky by being hot at the right time in the playoffs and catching a break because of Rahim Moore. This is a team that with or without Flacco is a borderline playoff team going forward and it's probably going to take a year or two for them to work in some of the younger guys to make their next major run.

 

Given that, I would have found a stopgap type player to give a somewhat similar performance that Flacco would have but for less money and drafted a guy to develop behind him (Bray would be perfect for that team).

 

It's risky, but unless Flacco blows up ala 2007 Brady, you're probably not getting a big dropoff at QB but you can keep a number of the players you had to let go because you're paying Flacco so much.

 

CCP's solution would work as well, and maybe better than mine.