NFL Offseason/Coaching Carousel/non-playoff talk

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

[Banedon]

Raiders trade Carson Palmer to the Cardinals for a conditional 7th round pick. The condition is that Palmer starts 13 games for the Cards in 2013.

[mul21]

Raiders trade Carson Palmer to the Cardinals for a conditional 7th round pick. The condition is that Palmer starts 13 games for the Cards in 2013.

 

Well, as bad as their O-line is, I don't foresee the Raiders getting anything out of this.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

 

In your theoretical world where only one team is "overpaying an average QB" and everybody else has a more cost efficient situation at QB and the rest of the team, that would be true.

 

But in the real world, you're wrong. Everybody with a QB is paying that QB. SF and SEA get to pay their QBs relative peanuts in the meantime but that won't last.

[dew1679666265]

In your theoretical world where only one team is "overpaying an average QB" and everybody else has a more cost efficient situation at QB and the rest of the team, that would be true.

 

But in the real world, you're wrong. Everybody with a QB is paying that QB. SF and SEA get to pay their QBs relative peanuts in the meantime but that won't last.

 

You pay the elite QBs whatever they want, basically a blank check. You pay the really good QBs whatever is needed within reason, severe overpays are perfectly fine here. You overpay the above average and average QBs to an extent, but fairly quickly you get to the point where you're hurting the team more than you're helping because these guys really just aren't anything special.

 

If a player isn't giving you something irreplaceable, then you have to be smart with your money. While he does some things well, there's very little irreplaceable about Flacco, so handing him a blank check is irresponsible and hurts more than it helps.

[XZero771679666304]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

 

The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are proof of this.

 

That said, you have to pay your (good) QBs if you want to sustain winning. You're not going to build perennial powers around guys like Trent Dilfer. Generally QBs get too much credit and too much blame for the fortunes of their teams, but without a good one, you're not going to go too far (unless you have a ridiculous defense and/or running game). And Jersey makes a good point, since "overpaying" for QBs is pretty much the status quo, you're not really putting your team at a competitive disadvantage by doing so as well.

 

But I don't think Flacco was a wise investment for those kind of dollars. The Ravens are going to rue that contract.

[dew1679666265]

The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are proof of this.

 

That said, you have to pay your (good) QBs if you want to sustain winning. You're not going to build perennial powers around guys like Trent Dilfer. Generally QBs get too much credit and too much blame for the fortunes of their teams, but without a good one, you're not going to go too far (unless you have a ridiculous defense and/or running game). And Jersey makes a good point, since "overpaying" for QBs is pretty much the status quo, you're not really putting your team at a competitive disadvantage by doing so as well.

 

But I don't think Flacco was a wise investment for those kind of dollars. The Ravens are going to rue that contract.

 

The bolded might be what's still getting lost in the conversation. I'm not arguing you shouldn't overpay the average/above average QBs - you have to to be successful. However, that doesn't mean you pay them whatever they demand. If you're QB isn't elite or somewhat close to it, then there comes a point in time where you're hurting yourself more than helping because that average QB needs better players around him to help him win.

 

You can have lesser talent around Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and maybe even Tony Romo and still win football games consistently. You can't have lesser talent around Joe Flacco and win consistently.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are proof of this.

 

that was a generation ago. now, unless you are incredibly lucky, you won't come close without a quarterback that can carry you.

 

you want proof, the last quarterback to play in the super bowl who wouldn't be considered elite or near-elite or an absolutely dynamic talent, is rex grossman.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

 

they are a prerequisite, and the only prerequisite for winning super bowls, if you don't have one, you have no chance. now, the level of talent you are able to fill in around them will decide in any given year if you can make a run at the championship, but the talent around them means nothing if they don't exist. what keeps a team competitive year-in-year-out, is the quarterback. if you have a good one, you pay what it takes to keep them and then trust your GM to do his job and the coach to do his.

[XZero771679666304]

 

The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are proof of this.

 

that was a generation ago. now, unless you are incredibly lucky, you won't come close without a quarterback that can carry you.

 

you want proof, the last quarterback to play in the super bowl who wouldn't be considered elite or near-elite or an absolutely dynamic talent, is rex grossman.

 

You really think Flacco is? I sure as hell don't. Played his very best at the right time, but that doesn't make him elite.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

 

they are a prerequisite, and the only prerequisite for winning super bowls, if you don't have one, you have no chance. now, the level of talent you are able to fill in around them will decide in any given year if you can make a run at the championship, but the talent around them means nothing if they don't exist. what keeps a team competitive year-in-year-out, is the quarterback. if you have a good one, you pay what it takes to keep them and then trust your GM to do his job and the coach to do his.

 

I agree with basically all of this. I just don't agree that Flacco is the type of QB you do anything you do anything you have to do to keep. The only real argument you can make is that he has a ring, but he was actually worse this season than he was the past two.

[Magnetic Curses]

 

The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs are proof of this.

 

that was a generation ago. now, unless you are incredibly lucky, you won't come close without a quarterback that can carry you.

 

you want proof, the last quarterback to play in the super bowl who wouldn't be considered elite or near-elite or an absolutely dynamic talent, is rex grossman.

 

You really think Flacco is? I sure as hell don't. Played his very best at the right time, but that doesn't make him elite.

 

he's a good quarterback that played at an elite level in the playoffs. without him, the ravens wouldn't have been in the playoffs, and without him playing at an elite level in the playoffs, the ravens wouldn't have won the super bowl.

 

very rarely are average quarterbacks going to do what he did in the playoffs, and again, it can be agreed upon that he's the reason the ravens won the sb.

 

it would be tough for the ravens to replace flacco without making themselves very very bad for a long time. they've decided to sign him long term and simply fill in players around him through the draft, which is a smart strategy. they don't want to go into the wasteland of the titans, jaguars, or browns, teams without quarterbacks and without relief in sight.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

They don't win them on their own is the point. You have to have a good team around that QB and by severely overpaying an average QB, you hurt your chances of building a good team around him.

 

they are a prerequisite, and the only prerequisite for winning super bowls, if you don't have one, you have no chance. now, the level of talent you are able to fill in around them will decide in any given year if you can make a run at the championship, but the talent around them means nothing if they don't exist. what keeps a team competitive year-in-year-out, is the quarterback. if you have a good one, you pay what it takes to keep them and then trust your GM to do his job and the coach to do his.

 

I agree with basically all of this. I just don't agree that Flacco is the type of QB you do anything you do anything you have to do to keep. The only real argument you can make is that he has a ring, but he was actually worse this season than he was the past two.

 

again, flacco is a quarterback worth keeping in the absence of a better option, and he's good enough to provide the ravens with some consistency. why on earth would they let him walk? he just proved that he can win a super bowl and play at a very high level when it matters most.

[jersey cubs fan]

I agree with basically all of this. I just don't agree that Flacco is the type of QB you do anything you do anything you have to do to keep. The only real argument you can make is that he has a ring, but he was actually worse this season than he was the past two.

 

That is not the only real argument you can make. I think you really need to rethink the way you define average. The thing you are ignoring is there has been an explosion of offense the past 20 years. A so-called "average" starting QB today is not an historically average QB. In 1992 you had 8 teams attempt 500 passes, in 2012 you had 23. The average went up by 75 attempts. The average yardage went up by 700 passing yards and 5 touchdowns. The average completion percentage has gone up.

 

The problem is you are treating quarterbacks like pitchers and football like baseball. There isn't a farm system with guy ready to come up tomorrow. There isn't a rotation and the possibility of replacing one guy by sliding everybody else up. There is one primary QB, and his backups. There's 100 or so QBs around the NFL at any given time and maybe 15-20 you'd actually want leading your team. That group of 15-20 aren't average. They are all well above average. They are all quite good.

 

Baltimore took a chance with Flacco by letting him reach free agency. Had he struggled this year he wouldn't have done well in his contract. He essentially got a bonus for winning a super bowl but that is the cost of doing business. It's a gamble most teams would be more than happy to make. They aren't just paying him whatever he wanted. They are paying him what they have to pay him to keep him.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not ignoring anything. There has been an explosion of offense and QBs are more important than ever, but that's exactly why more should be expected of them. Flacco would have been a really good QB 10-15 years ago when offenses were much less dynamic and a game manager who struggles to complete 60% of his passes was a real asset. However, in today's game, Flacco isn't a particularly special talent.

 

And the Ravens not locking him up earlier is exactly the reason why this contract is so bad. There was legit concern from the Baltimore front office that Flacco was good enough to sign to a contract less than what Romo just received. One season later (and a worse season than his previous two), they made him one of the highest paid QBs in the NFL. If he wasn't worth the money before this past season, he sure wasn't after he further regressed from a down year.

 

They made a mistake and a rash decision based on the fact that his team won the Super Bowl. Newsome doesn't make many bad decisions, but paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

[Banedon]

Newsome doesn't make many bad decisions, but paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

 

Declining? Well that's just silly. From 2011 to 2012 he had more attempts, completions, completion percentage, passing yards, avg yards per attempt, TD's, fewer interceptions, and a better QB Rating.

 

And he won a Super Bowl.

[dew1679666265]

again, flacco is a quarterback worth keeping in the absence of a better option, and he's good enough to provide the ravens with some consistency. why on earth would they let him walk? he just proved that he can win a super bowl and play at a very high level when it matters most.

 

Alex Smith played at a very high level in the playoffs. Mark Sanchez did as well. Should the Chiefs and Jets make them two of the highest paid QBs in the NFL too? Or do only Super Bowl rings matter when evaluating QBs?

 

I really don't understand how you determine which QBs are good and which aren't since it's apparently not based on statistics over the course of a career.

[jersey cubs fan]

paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

 

That is asinine.

 

You have some sort of weird hangup about Flacco.

[Banedon]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

[jersey cubs fan]

again, flacco is a quarterback worth keeping in the absence of a better option, and he's good enough to provide the ravens with some consistency. why on earth would they let him walk? he just proved that he can win a super bowl and play at a very high level when it matters most.

 

Alex Smith played at a very high level in the playoffs. Mark Sanchez did as well. Should the Chiefs and Jets make them two of the highest paid QBs in the NFL too? Or do only Super Bowl rings matter when evaluating QBs?

 

I really don't understand how you determine which QBs are good and which aren't since it's apparently not based on statistics over the course of a career.

 

 

Alex Smith and Mark Sanchez suck. Flacco does not. You've make it clear you don't understand how to determine a good QB.

[dew1679666265]

Newsome doesn't make many bad decisions, but paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

 

Declining? Well that's just silly. From 2011 to 2012 he had more attempts, completions, completion percentage, passing yards, avg yards per attempt, TD's, fewer interceptions, and a better QB Rating.

 

And he won a Super Bowl.

 

I probably should have said a QB who has declined. His general best years were 2009 and 2010, but he's either been stagnant or declined from those numbers over the past couple of years. As his attempts have gone up, his completion percentage has dropped below 60%, his yards/attempt have fluctuated but been the same or worse since 2010, his TD:INT has basically stayed the same (a couple fewer TDs), and his QB rating has dropped since 09/10 levels. Basically my point was his past 2 years have been worse than his 2009 and 2010 seasons and there's a direct correlation with him throwing more passes.

[dew1679666265]

Are you serious comparing Mark Sanchez to Joe Flacco?

 

I don't know, are you serious about judging a QB solely on team accomplishments?

[dew1679666265]

paying a declining QB who's never shown the ability to post great numbers as much as the best QBs in the league is a bad decision.

 

That is asinine.

 

You have some sort of weird hangup about Flacco.

 

His stats are what they are. I don't have a problem with him.

[dew1679666265]

again, flacco is a quarterback worth keeping in the absence of a better option, and he's good enough to provide the ravens with some consistency. why on earth would they let him walk? he just proved that he can win a super bowl and play at a very high level when it matters most.

 

Alex Smith played at a very high level in the playoffs. Mark Sanchez did as well. Should the Chiefs and Jets make them two of the highest paid QBs in the NFL too? Or do only Super Bowl rings matter when evaluating QBs?

 

I really don't understand how you determine which QBs are good and which aren't since it's apparently not based on statistics over the course of a career.

 

 

Alex Smith and Mark Sanchez suck. Flacco does not. You've make it clear you don't understand how to determine a good QB.

 

I was using the evaluation method you support - they won games in the playoffs. I don't evaluate that way, so I don't think Sanchez and Smith are as good as Flacco.

[Banedon]

I'm done with this argument. It's veered into the ridiculous.