5 hours ago, Swoop said:

That becomes astronomically more difficult to do by not paying a QB. You could very easily be the Browns and be in QB hell for decades.

what?   there are a lot of teams with QBs on rookie deals that took their teams to the playoffs and to the Super Bowl.   There is no QB hell there.

It seems like a top 16 QB on a rookie deal can get good results,  and Tom Brady, not on a rookie deal, can get good results.   The same QB generally doesn't lead the team to more wins after that QB starts getting 30 Million a year.  

And I asked a question,  the same question twice,  and I didn't get an answer.

When someone,  anyone,  says they're "not sold",  what time frame are they looking at?

Like I said,  I'm definitely sold on Hurts through his contract,  through 2023,  but at this point,  I'm definitely not sold on him making 30+ Million in 2024.   

 

Right at this moment,  Saturday afternoon,  approx 445,  there are a number of college games on TV.  Liberty w/ Willis is on,   Cincinnati w/ Ridder,  Florida w/ Emory Jones.   Any of those 3 running QBs might be able to do well in the NFL, and they wouldn't cost a lot of money, if they are good, until at least 4 years after they enter the NFL.

1 minute ago, Infam said:

You are both right.

Brady is a really good QB, but you can’t deny that part of his success is due to relatively moderate contracts he took to win.

Can you find an example of a winning team that just plugs in a new starting QB every few years in order to save money at the position? I know I can't.

1 minute ago, Random Reglar said:

Like I said,  I'm definitely sold on Hurts through his contract,  through 2023,  but at this point,  I'm definitely not sold on him making 30+ Million in 2024.   

I am. But that’s my gut, not based on hard facts… yet.

1 minute ago, Random Reglar said:

   there are a lot of teams with QBs on rookie deals that took their teams to the playoffs and to the Super Bowl.   There is no QB hell there.

 

... and those teams extend those QBs and make them some of the highest paid players in the league. If they don't, another team will.

1 minute ago, brkmsn said:

Can you find an example of a winning team that just plugs in a new starting QB every few years in order to save money at the position? I know I can't.

No, but you can argue that some teams do suffer from excessive contracts at the QB position.

1 minute ago, Infam said:

No, but you can argue that some teams do suffer from excessive contracts at the QB position.

Solely because of the QB contract?

1 minute ago, brkmsn said:

Solely because of the QB contract?

Good Question. I don’t know. I‘m not sure how important the QB is. Most important position, sure. But Eli Manning won twice, so maybe not THAT important? 😄

2 hours ago, Swoop said:

I was saying that I don't really care who the QB is, if they win. 

The bottom line is, teams with good QBs routinely have a chance at winning. Teams without one, typically don't. Nothing you say will change that. You may get flukey, but the teams consistently in the mix for the title have a good QB, season after season, on more occasions than not.

There is a reason it's the highest paid position in the game.

 

The better team has a better chance of winning. The best quarterback doesn’t always win. 

11 minutes ago, Infam said:

Good Question. I don’t know. I‘m not sure how important the QB is. Most important position, sure. But Eli Manning won twice, so maybe not THAT important? 😄

More rings than Rodgers. 

16 minutes ago, Infam said:

Good Question. I don’t know. I‘m not sure how important the QB is. Most important position, sure. But Eli Manning won twice, so maybe not THAT important? 😄

After Elway Retired, the Broncos paid a lot of money to P. Manning and they won it all. Last year Tampa paid a lot of money to Brady and won it all. It seems, to me, that if your QB contract is hindering your team's success, then either that QB is, hurt, not playing well, or you have other over-priced, under-perming players on your team. That is the point I've been trying to make. There are 21 other "starters" on your team with contracts. Some will be bargains. Some will be overpaid. 

6 minutes ago, EazyEaglez said:

The better team has a better chance of winning. The best quarterback doesn’t always win. 

This will always be true.

If I asked you to list the 4 best teams this year (the teams most likely to be in the conference championships), what would your choices be?

4 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

After Elway Retired, the Broncos paid a lot of money to P. Manning and they won it all. Last year Tampa paid a lot of money to Brady and won it all. It seems, to me, that if your QB contract is hindering your team's success, then either that QB is, hurt, not playing well, or you have other over-priced, under-perming players on your team. That is the point I've been trying to make. There are 21 other "starters" on your team with contracts. Some will be bargains. Some will be overpaid. 

You both make a lot of sense right now. I think it's hard to tell really.. did they win because Brady was the QB? Or because they hired a bunch of star FAs?

So when is a contract too big? You'd want to pay an amount of money proportional to the importance of your QB, where that lies I have no idea. 

Just now, Infam said:

You both make a lot of sense right now. I think it's hard to tell really.. did they win because Brady was the QB? Or because they hired a bunch of star FAs?

And P. Manning.. did get carried by his team too. So when is a contract to big? You'd want to pay an amount of money proportional to the importance of your QB, where that lies I have no idea. 

You may have answered your own question. If those teams could afford the high-priced QBs and still afford other players, then maybe the QB price tag isn't that big a hinderance. 

When it comes to building a team and managing a cap, what is important is to structure deals in a way to take advantage of rookie salaries at positions when you have them. It's never about only having bargains. Right now, if Hurts proves to be the guy moving forward, we have a couple seasons to take advantage of the savings at QB. When it becomes his time to be paid, and he deserves it, we will need to have other positions where rookie contracts are saving us money. Next year, for example we will have $60M invested on the O-line alone and another $50M on the D-line. We will need to have some players on  rookie contracts that project to replace some of the high-priced vets. It's not just about QB. It's about taking advantage of an opportunity while you have it. 

44 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

Can you find an example of a winning team that just plugs in a new starting QB every few years in order to save money at the position? I know I can't.

What usually happens is a winning team has a QB on the rookie deal, and signs that QB to a big deal, and that team becomes a team that is no longer a winning team.   That's what teams usually do.

Mariota was winning, more wins than losses, for 3 years, Tannehill was brought in as a backup,  did well, and Mariota was gone.  That's potentially an example of new QB every few years. 

People aren't arguing about what NFL teams conventionally do.  People are arguing about whether what NFL teams conventionally do is a good idea.   2016 was Derek Carr's 3rd year in the NFL.   The Raiders had a winning record that year.  The Raiders signed Carr to a big contract, and since then, the Raiders have not had a winning record.  2021 is the 5th year with Carr on a big contract.

There are a handful of top QBs who get a winning record for their team year in, year out.  Brady has won the Super Bowl 4 out of the last 7 years.   Rodgers typically has a winning record.  Russell Wilson went to the Super Bowl twice,  winning once,  on his rookie deal,  since then,  gets to the playoffs, hasn't been to the Super Bowl.  Rothlisberger has typically taken the Steelers to the playoffs, won the Super Bowl twice,  year 2 and year 5.    16 teams in the AFC,  and the only long term ones are Roethlisberger,  Carr, and there's Mahomes who is starting to be a veteran, and Watson,  who is what exactly?  There aren't all that many vets in the AFC right now.

In the NFC,  Dak Prescott is a young vet on his 6th season, no Super Bowl.   Rodgers was mentioned before,  as a top QB,   Cousins is mediocre, doesn't take his team to the playoffs year in year out.
Matt Ryan had a winning record every year of his first 5 years.  Then,  2 winning records in the last 9 years.  

I don't see many vets with the same team for years and years, and typically they don't do great. NFC has - Prescott, Rodgers, Cousins, Ryan, Wilson.   Rodgers and Wilson are really the only 2 really good ones. 

So, who really knows?   More than half the starting QBs weren't starting for that team 5 years ago.  Newton is back with the Panthers.  Does he count?

 

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

I think we all know that it isn't the fans writing checks to players, but we often read people complaining about certain players' salaries as if one or two of them are the reasons that team failed in some form. There's a  salary cap and you can lose just as many games having $100M of space left under your cap as you can by having only $2M left to spend. Money not spent by the team is just additional profit for the owner. So it's weird to me to form an argument to get a lesser player to save money, that isn't necessarily helping the team to win games. The team should always try to retain players that are near the top of the league in their respective positions. 

"There's a  salary cap and you can lose just as many games having $100M of space left under your cap as you can by having only $2M left to spend. Money not spent by the team is just additional profit for the owner."

NO

Cap space left over is carried over to future years.  And I'm saying that if you're not spending 30+ for a QB,  you can spend that money on a number of different spots.

If you aren't spending 100 M,  it means that you're probably rebuilding,  you're probably losing games,  and you'll probably end up with better picks in the future and a lot more money to spend on free agents. 

 

1 hour ago, Random Reglar said:

what?   there are a lot of teams with QBs on rookie deals that took their teams to the playoffs and to the Super Bowl.   There is no QB hell there.

It seems like a top 16 QB on a rookie deal can get good results,  and Tom Brady, not on a rookie deal, can get good results.   The same QB generally doesn't lead the team to more wins after that QB starts getting 30 Million a year.  

And I asked a question,  the same question twice,  and I didn't get an answer.

When someone,  anyone,  says they're "not sold",  what time frame are they looking at?

Like I said,  I'm definitely sold on Hurts through his contract,  through 2023,  but at this point,  I'm definitely not sold on him making 30+ Million in 2024.   

 

Right at this moment,  Saturday afternoon,  approx 445,  there are a number of college games on TV.  Liberty w/ Willis is on,   Cincinnati w/ Ridder,  Florida w/ Emory Jones.   Any of those 3 running QBs might be able to do well in the NFL, and they wouldn't cost a lot of money, if they are good, until at least 4 years after they enter the NFL.

I'm not, nor have I ever said it isn't possible to do so. The fact remains, a top shelf QB will always give you a better shot at getting to the playoffs and winning a championship. I can't believe people are actually trying to convince us/themselves otherwise. 

Let's looks at it this way: 

Suppose you build your team up and they're strong. You draft a kid so you have him on a rookie deal to try and win with. Said kid turns out to be Johnny Maziel. Now, you waste three/four years of your teams prime for a SB window that in reality is and always was closed. Sure, that kid could also turn out to be Peyton Manning, but the chances of a miss, when it comes to that position in particular, is infinitely higher. 

As far as Hurts is concerned, people are not sold on him to perform consistently now or within the next few years to win a championship. I'm actually glad you brought him up. Because QBs aren't important and you can slap any old kid in there, let's take a look at said good QBs Hurts has beaten: 

Taysom Hill 

Matt Ryan 

Sam Darnold 

Teddy Bridgewater 

Jared Goff 

 

 

Some list.

Currently: 

Allen, Mahomes, Lamar, Tannehill, Dak, Murray, Rodgers and Brady all sit at the top of their respective divisions and make up arguably the 8 best teams in football. 

Strange that 7 of them have high paid QBs.

This is one of the most interesting topics I‘ve read here. 

Now if we are talking about Hurts, I bet when it is time to give him a new contract things will feel a lot less controversial.

2 minutes ago, Infam said:

This is one of the most interesting topics I‘ve read here. 

Now if we are talking about Hurts, I bet when it is time to give him a new contract things will feel a lot less controversial.

Perfect world?

Hurts plays well enough to show he can be the guy and we can get him on a reasonable deal.

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

After Elway Retired, the Broncos paid a lot of money to P. Manning and they won it all. Last year Tampa paid a lot of money to Brady and won it all. It seems, to me, that if your QB contract is hindering your team's success, then either that QB is, hurt, not playing well, or you have other over-priced, under-perming players on your team. That is the point I've been trying to make. There are 21 other "starters" on your team with contracts. Some will be bargains. Some will be overpaid.

Brady is great and Manning was great.   But all the QBs generally get paid the same whether they're at the Brady / Manning level or the   Carr / Cousins / Ryan level.   There's a huge gap between rookie contracts and veteran contracts.  The absolute best QBs are worth that money,  but the 2nd tier veterans aren't.    Rodgers and Wilson appear to be the best veteran QBs on big money long term contracts,  but they haven't been taking their teams to Super Bowl wins recently.   

If there wasn't Brady,  it would be easier to analyze this data.   With Brady,  you have "Brady is great"  and Nick Foles, backup, won a Super Bowl too.  So did Mahomes, on a rookie deal, Wilson on a rookie deal, and Manning as a short term plug in.  Before that,  Flacco beat Kaepernick.   Flacco had a winning record every year his first 5 years.  Then,  a .500 record his next 6 years with the Ravens.  

QBs on their rookie contracts and the greatest veterans do well.   It's rare for the QBs who did well on their rookie contracts to do as well as or better in future years.  

 

20 minutes ago, Swoop said:

I'm not, nor have I ever said it isn't possible to do so. The fact remains, a top shelf QB will always give you a better shot at getting to the playoffs and winning a championship. I can't believe people are actually trying to convince us/themselves otherwise. 

Let's looks at it this way: 

Suppose you build your team up and they're strong. You draft a kid so you have him on a rookie deal to try and win with. Said kid turns out to be Johnny Maziel. Now, you waste three/four years of your teams prime for a SB window that in reality is and always was closed. Sure, that kid could also turn out to be Peyton Manning, but the chances of a miss, when it comes to that position in particular, is infinitely higher. 

As far as Hurts is concerned, people are not sold on him to perform consistently now or within the next few years to win a championship. I'm actually glad you brought him up. Because QBs aren't important and you can slap any old kid in there, let's take a look at said good QBs Hurts has beaten: 

Taysom Hill 

Matt Ryan 

Sam Darnold 

Teddy Bridgewater 

Jared Goff 

 

 

Some list.

I don't get your point.  Nobody is saying not to get Tom Brady.

I'm not sure who all of these "top shelf" QBs are.   We know Brady is.
 

When you subtract Tom Brady,  you end up with rookie deal Mahomes.   And backup Nick Foles,  and another HoF  Manning.  Those are the QBs who won the Super Bowl recently.   

And Matt Ryan and Jared Goff are paid big money as veterans.    Those would be the "top shelf" QBs that you suggest the Eagles should get.

"If you subtract all of the QBs who disprove my argument, you'll see I'm right"

Solid foundation.

55 minutes ago, Random Reglar said:

"There's a  salary cap and you can lose just as many games having $100M of space left under your cap as you can by having only $2M left to spend. Money not spent by the team is just additional profit for the owner."

NO

Cap space left over is carried over to future years.  And I'm saying that if you're not spending 30+ for a QB,  you can spend that money on a number of different spots.

If you aren't spending 100 M,  it means that you're probably rebuilding,  you're probably losing games,  and you'll probably end up with better picks in the future and a lot more money to spend on free agents. 

 

Obviously, a team can roll over unused cap, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will. If I understand correctly, that roll-over amount only applies to the next season. So if you don't throw that imaginary $100M at the roster the following year, it will become null. The point remains: The team should be using the cap space --- which means there should be some high-priced players on the roster. One could easily be the QB which, for all practical purposes, you only need to have 1 at a high price and that would leave the team plenty of cap space to build a competent, competitive team if the FO, GM, scouting, etc... is doing their job well. 

Right now, if Hurts proves to be extension-worthy, the Eagles are in good position to pay him if they play their cards right with the upcoming draft. We should be looking to find and groom the replacements for Graham, Cox, Kelce, Brooks,  Johnson, McLeod, and Slay.  We may already have a couple candidates on the roster, but have plenty of picks coming up that we can use as well.

2 hours ago, brkmsn said:

Obviously, a team can roll over unused cap, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will. If I understand correctly, that roll-over amount only applies to the next season. So if you don't throw that imaginary $100M at the roster the following year, it will become null. The point remains: The team should be using the cap space --- which means there should be some high-priced players on the roster. One could easily be the QB which, for all practical purposes, you only need to have 1 at a high price and that would leave the team plenty of cap space to build a competent, competitive team if the FO, GM, scouting, etc... is doing their job well. 

Right now, if Hurts proves to be extension-worthy, the Eagles are in good position to pay him if they play their cards right with the upcoming draft. We should be looking to find and groom the replacements for Graham, Cox, Kelce, Brooks,  Johnson, McLeod, and Slay.  We may already have a couple candidates on the roster, but have plenty of picks coming up that we can use as well.

 

The cap is more complicated,  I think it has something like 4 years?   It doesn't really matter, because neither one of us is really talking about the cap.

A QB is either cheap,  like Hurts who costs something like a million a year, or is very expensive, if he was good during his rookie years, and the team wants to keep him after his rookie contract.  For some reason it's rare to keep the QB you had at a reasonable cost. 

Paying a QB 30 or 40 Million is a big percentage of the cap.  You can get a lot of Not QBs who are good,  or 1 one very expensive QB instead. 

the 2022 cap is 208 Million.  A 40 M QB would be 20% of the cap.  The Eagles have more players signed for 2022 than any other team (45 signed players).  The Eagles have 40 M of cap room for 2022.

I do like Jalen Hurts for 2021, 2022, and 2023. 

Never Doubted.  Congrats on making Eagles History today Jalen.   Full Circle indeed.   Beat the Saints even harder than the 1st start.