dew1679666265

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

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.

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.

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.

I went with Eifert. Raw and Houston are on the clock - I PM'd him.

My feeling is Eifert here as well, but would the Packers reach for a high upside LT like Menelik Watson?

I thought you were joking, but wasn't sure. I'll take them over unless a missing Packer fan shows up.

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.

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.

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.

I PM'd goony.

I PM'd Snayke.

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 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.

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

I PM'd OMC.

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

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. So any QB whose teams wins a Super Bowl can ask for and receive one of the largest contracts in the NFL? I just don't understand paying guys for being "winners" rather than based upon performance.

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.

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.

Yeah, I'm actually starting to buy that he'll drop into the teens. Not sure he should drop that far, but I think the poor showing at his pro day plus the health question mark has teams pretty spooked.

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

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. 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.

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.

I PM'd Vanilla Ice.