Are OV and JPP

Did Eli live up to his cost in 2013 or 2014? Or to flip it around, if you don't believe JPP and OV aren't worth what they're getting paid, think of a player like ODB, who is WAY outperforming the value of his current rookie deal. You have to pick the right times to spend big, and if you're a smart organization, you hold onto the right guys, balance it all out in the end, and avoid Albert Haynesworth situations where you receive next to nothing for big $ (LOLSkins).

I also wouldn't get too hung up about "impact numbers" from individual defensive players, especially today, where rules and offenses make it extremely difficult to rack up 20+ sack seasons, 10+ INT seasons, etc. Did JPP and OV play at optimum level in 2016? Probably not (and as others have already noted, you can point out reasonable extenuating circumstances). Were they important contributors on a defense that was excellent for most of the year? I don't think anyone could argue against that. And in the end, isn't unit success more important than anything else?

"If you don't believe JPP and OV are worth what they're getting paid", I meant. Damn phone typing.

....Vernon was the most held DE in the NFL last year and hardly ever did he draw a flag. And I mean some of the most obvious and gratuitous holds. Hopefully he draws many more flags from the zebras this year.

In comment 13552465 Big Blue Blogger said:

Quote:

Vernon: Vs. NFC East Games: 6 Sacks: 2 Vs. Others Games: 11 Sacks: 6.5 Pierre-Paul Vs. NFC East Games: 3 Sacks: 1 Vs. Others Games: 9 Sacks: 6

You made your case very well, with numbers instead of mere opinion. If you extrapolate to even-out games against non-NFC foes, JPP & OV come out to have almost twice as many sacks agains non-NFC teams per game.

It is harder to get sacks agains top-notch offensive lines.

I think Diehard brought up an awesome point in his earlier post when he said:

Quote:

Cost inefficiencies are everywhere in the NFL DieHard : 12:42 pm : link : reply Did Eli live up to his cost in 2013 or 2014?

I've seen you attack numerous players for not living up to their contracts and the only player I've never seen you complain about... as far as not living up to his contract... is Eli. At one point I believe he was the highest paid player in the league and was #8 last year and yet not once have I heard you complain about whether we're getting a return on the investment from him. Why?
Eli #8 - ( New Window )

factoring in run defense, they are the best pair of DEs in football - i dont think it's really close

and yes, i think the sack numbers were limited by the elite OT they face twice per year + playing injured.

I've said the following on this site numerous times:

1. Once Eli retires I am in favor of abandoning the franchise QB concept as it is way too expensive; and
2. I can't be objective when it comes to Eli. The guy is IMO the greatest Giant in the 30 years that I've been a fan...LT was a better player, but Eli is in my view directly responsible for turning two championship defeats to two trophies.

I'm fine paying Eli crazy money now because I love the guy for what he's given us...but after he retires my vote would be to go cheaper at the position and allocate our cap resources differently from what is typically done around the NFL.

The evidence that health and depth are correlated to winning is overwhelming...in most cases it's better to have three players at $6 million each than one player at $18 million.

In comment 13552872 Go Terps said:

Quote:

I've said the following on this site numerous times: 1. Once Eli retires I am in favor of abandoning the franchise QB concept as it is way too expensive; and 2. I can't be objective when it comes to Eli. The guy is IMO the greatest Giant in the 30 years that I've been a fan...LT was a better player, but Eli is in my view directly responsible for turning two championship defeats to two trophies. I'm fine paying Eli crazy money now because I love the guy for what he's given us...but after he retires my vote would be to go cheaper at the position and allocate our cap resources differently from what is typically done around the NFL. The evidence that health and depth are correlated to winning is overwhelming...in most cases it's better to have three players at $6 million each than one player at $18 million.

I'm not on here as often as I used to be so I've must've missed those times.

Regarding #1, but your objection completely goes against the accepted notion that you have to have a 'franchise QB' in order to win a championship in the NFL. When's the last time a 'non-franchise' QB won a championship? Brad Johnson with the Bucs maybe? It's THOSE championships that are the outliers... not the ones with what's considered 'franchise QBs' at the helm.

Regarding #2, IMO, that's not being very fair. Your basically admitting that the only reason why you're ok with Eli being, by most standards, overpaid is because you like him. Not because it goes against your own values and thoughts as far as pay vs statistical output but because of your own feelings towards him. So if you liked JPP... you'd have no problem with giving him big money. If you liked OBJ, again... no problem paying him. A part of your argument this whole time has been based on your own personal feelings and not whether... despite how you feel about the player personally... it makes logical, fiscal sense to pay said player. I'm actually pretty surprised that you of all people on this site would have that attitude to be honest.

Your answer to T-Bone's question is spot on. But then for whatever reason you say you would not do it again?

The league has evolved in a way that you really don't win without a franchise QB. You might be able to put something together for a year but you need a franchise QB for sustained success. Then you need to draft well around him and pick your spots in FA.

In comment 13552909 Chris684 said:

Quote:

Your answer to T-Bone's question is spot on. But then for whatever reason you say you would not do it again? The league has evolved in a way that you really don't win without a franchise QB. You might be able to put something together for a year but you need a franchise QB for sustained success. Then you need to draft well around him and pick your spots in FA.

?

What part is 'spot on' if you disagree with him (as I do)?

List of QB's who have won Super Bowls in the last 25 years...

Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Russell Wilson
Joe Flacco
Eli Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner
John Elway
Brett Favre
Troy Aikman
Steve Young

So, 23 of the last 25 Super Bowls were won by teams who had a franchise QB under center.

Not sure abandoning that concept is the smartest approach.

1. The reason the 'franchise QB' is the accepted notion is because it's the only method anyone is trying. No one is doing anything differently.

2. Overpaying Eli does go against what I'm saying, definitely. I acknowledge fully that I don't think it's the best way to do business. Young quarterbacks are coming out now and being similarly productive. But I don't want Eli to go...I fully admit my subjectivity. My feelings on Eli don't make it good business.

factor if you're going to win the league.

I don't see how that can be argued. A league leading defense (as a whole) is a close second but that of course is an entire unit.

It's why almost every Super Bowl lately has been won by either Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Ben.

So Terps recognizing why Eli is overpaid but claims he wouldnt do it again. I would.

sidebar, but I often wonder if franchise QB's are thought of that way because they win or because of their skill is so much better than anyone else's?

I mean, you have QB's with longevity that have won a title or more. Eli, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Ben, Flacco, Wilson.

But are guys like Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Dalton, Luck franchise QB's? Were Romo or Cutler?

Because as you expand that list out - the number of teams with franchise QB's gets close to surpassing the one's who don't

Or maybe it's because QB is arguably the most important position in all of sports and getting quality play from that player carries tremendous weight.

Sure, teams like the 2015 Broncos won by leaning on their defense - Peyton wasn't particularly good and was merely a game manager at the end, but I think the odds of winning in this league are much higher with a franchise QB than without one.

If the non-franchise QB model worked, the Texans would have something to show for themselves. They've had one of the better defenses in football over the last 5-6 years and nothing to show for it.

Look what happened to the Raiders when Derek Carr went down.

Two questions:

1. How many teams have committed to trying a different approach to the quarterback position?
2. How many of those Super Bowl winning quarterbacks was considered a "franchise QB" when he won the Super Bowl? How many of them were eating 10% of the salary cap on their own when they won the Super Bowl? Off the top of my head I know Wilson, Flacco, Warner, Eli (for the first), Roethlisberger (first), and possibly Rodgers and Brees (who was an injury castoff) weren't.

In comment 13552923 Go Terps said:

Quote:

1. The reason the 'franchise QB' is the accepted notion is because it's the only method anyone is trying. No one is doing anything differently. 2. Overpaying Eli does go against what I'm saying, definitely. I acknowledge fully that I don't think it's the best way to do business. Young quarterbacks are coming out now and being similarly productive. But I don't want Eli to go...I fully admit my subjectivity. My feelings on Eli don't make it good business.

Regarding #1, because it's waaaaay too difficult to do. That's why it's only happened twice in the last 25 years. If you don't have a franchise QB, you better have an all-time great D because that's the ONLY way you have any chance of hoisting that trophy. And when you have an all-time great D, you usually have all-time great players sprinkled throughout that D... so yeah, maybe you're QB isn't making 20 million a year... but now your star DE is making 12... your star MLB is making 8... and your star CB is making 10. That's 30 million dedicated to 3 players and you're still in the same boat, if not worse (+10 mil) than you would've been if you'd just payed your star QB.

Regarding #2, fair enough.

Fats... I wouldn't consider Cutler a franchise QB really at any point. Maybe he could have qualified earlier in his career when he was in Denver.

But I do think guys like Ryan, Rivers, and Newton are absolutely franchise QB's.

It's how the phrase "if you have 2 QBs, you don't have one" came to be.

I know a while back you looked at the Hawks and felt they could draft a guy to play a similar game to Wilson to either play both or let Wilson walk before big money.

I can see the sense behind that but I don't believe it works for a football team. I think these teams need a captain of the ship. When your entire team is behind one guy, there is no asking questions when things inevitably go wrong. You try 2 guys and you'll get a divided room almost always.

In comment 13552924 Chris684 said:

Quote:

factor if you're going to win the league. I don't see how that can be argued. A league leading defense (as a whole) is a close second but that of course is an entire unit. It's why almost every Super Bowl lately has been won by either Brady, Manning, Manning, Rodgers, Brees or Ben. So Terps recognizing why Eli is overpaid but claims he wouldnt do it again. I would.

Then what part is 'spot on'?

that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow.

is the better player, Eli is the guy most directly responsible for 2 of the most recent titles.

I think committing to turning the QB position into a throwaway would be career suicide for almost any GM, which is probably why teams aren't trying it.

Teams are constantly collecting data behind the scenes and trying to figure out ways to find an edge. I have to believe that if there was a common belief that this could be a feasible means of building a contender, that someone would have committed to trying it by now.

The QB touches the ball on every single offensive snap - I think the position is far too important to treat as an interchangeable entity and it seems most GM's agree. It takes a lot of time to learn and grasp offenses. You want new guys coming in every couple of years and re-learning systems and dealing with learning curves? I just don't think it's feasible.

In comment 13552927 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

sidebar, but I often wonder if franchise QB's are thought of that way because they win or because of their skill is so much better than anyone else's? I mean, you have QB's with longevity that have won a title or more. Eli, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Ben, Flacco, Wilson. But are guys like Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Dalton, Luck franchise QB's? Were Romo or Cutler? Because as you expand that list out - the number of teams with franchise QB's gets close to surpassing the one's who don't

I think it's a combination of both. But IMO it starts with having the skill... you have to have the skill in order to win. And by 'skill' I don't necessarily mean being an all-pro right off the bat... but having the skill to be able to perform at a high enough level for your team to win. Big Ben's skill level wasn't what it is now back when he won his first SB... but he was skilled enough to NOT be the reason why his team would lose... or else they'd have lost more. So he must've been doing SOMETHING right.

I'd consider Romo a franchise QB but not Cutler. In your list, Dalton and Cutler are the only ones that wouldn't make the cut for me.. and they're the only ones who haven't won much throughout their careers.

In comment 13552942 Keith said:

Quote:

that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow.

I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

In comment 13552944 Chris684 said:

Quote:

is the better player, Eli is the guy most directly responsible for 2 of the most recent titles.

Eh... some would question that... in particular the first one... but I see no reason to argue too strongly against that.

Why are coaches trying to get these guys to stay in the pocket? The answer is longevity. These guys get beat up outside the pocket and they can't be relied on to lead the team for a full season. The defenses are too fast and furious to have mobile QB's anymore, specifically small ones.

The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets.

And who did those teams ultimately lose to?

Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's.

Not every qb is cut out to be starting NFL QB. It certainly takes more than physical skill and smarts, understanding of the game. You have to be a tough qb both physically and mentally. Starting Qb's have a ton of pressure on them to perform

In comment 13552949 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552942 Keith said: Quote: that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow. I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

Now THIS I agree with Terps on.

I've never understood the phrase that 'he'll have to learn how to throw from the pocket if he's ever going to win anything'. RG3 is a perfect example. One year after winning the NFC East and going to a playoff game using an offense that's built towards his strengths, they try to force a round peg into a square hole and wonder what went wrong? Why not stick to what worked the year before at least until it's proven that teams can stop it? Why just assume that defenses WILL be able to stop it eventually so therefore you have to try to turn the player into something he's not?

If you're winning, why does it matter how you win?

how many QB's have won SB's on their rookie deals? I would assume that it's very rare and then once they win, are you gonig to let them walk so that you don't have to pay them? Then draft the next young guy and hope to catch lightening in a bottle again? The "strategy" makes no sense.

In comment 13552949 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552942 Keith said: Quote: that thought it would be make sense to build a team around Tim Tebow. I thought the guy could play in an offense that was built for his talents. I'll admit to being wrong on that front, but it's becoming increasingly clear that NFL coaches don't know how to handle mobile QBs. The tendency is to try to make them pocket passers, which they are never going to be. That's how guys like Griffin and Kaepernick go from MVP candidate in their breakout year to castoffs.

This is also because guys like RGIII aren't capable of being pocket passers and there's no possible way to play offense the way Griffin did as a rookie and have a long career. He was getting KILLED every other game and his leg looked like it was going to fall off in the WC game against SEA.

If you can't stand in the pocket and deliver, you're not long for this league as a QB. It's not that coaches handled Kaepernick or Griffin incorrectly, it's that they weren't built to be long-term NFL QB's.

In comment 13552953 Keith said:

Quote:

Why are coaches trying to get these guys to stay in the pocket? The answer is longevity. These guys get beat up outside the pocket and they can't be relied on to lead the team for a full season. The defenses are too fast and furious to have mobile QB's anymore, specifically small ones.

But guys are getting hurt in the pocket too. Hopefully you have a smart-mobile QB (like Wilson for instance) who rarely takes hard hits when he's moving and not someone like Newton who thinks because he's built like a LB can take multiple hits from them and shake them off.

The dude got his a** handed to him on a weekly basis. THis is a massive investment for any team(draft picks and money), they can't sit there and watch this guy get absolutely obliterated each week because he needed to run to be successful. If you want to use Terps strategy of never signing a QB to a 2nd deal, then use guys like RG3. Draft them(you better not trade 5 picks to get him), let him run around and win a few games and get destroyed and then move on to the next QB. Sound strategy.

In comment 13552945 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

I think committing to turning the QB position into a throwaway would be career suicide for almost any GM, which is probably why teams aren't trying it. Teams are constantly collecting data behind the scenes and trying to figure out ways to find an edge. I have to believe that if there was a common belief that this could be a feasible means of building a contender, that someone would have committed to trying it by now. The QB touches the ball on every single offensive snap - I think the position is far too important to treat as an interchangeable entity and it seems most GM's agree. It takes a lot of time to learn and grasp offenses. You want new guys coming in every couple of years and re-learning systems and dealing with learning curves? I just don't think it's feasible.

That's what I was talking about before when I asked how many teams have committed to a different approach. I mean commitment from the owner on down...of course a GM isn't going to do something radical if he's on a three year leash. But that's why the same teams suck over and over and change front offices over and over. They never commit to anything.

But look at the QBs coming in from college. The learning curve is shorter than it's ever been. Winston, Mariota, Carr, Prescott, Wentz, Siemian...all have come in and shown themselves to be competent (or in some cases much better than competent) from the start. And I believe that the proportion of NFL-ready QBs straight out of college is only growing with the increasing complexity of college passing offenses AND simplification of NFL offenses due to reduced practice time.

I just know I'd rather be paying DeShaun Watson $2.5 million in 2017 than $24 million to Flacco or Palmer.

There's a difference between a quality pocket passer who is mobile (Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck) and a guy who can't be effective without running all over the place (RGIII, Colin Kaepernick)

A major, major difference.

RG3 was..look for his primary and then run if he's not open. Wilson doesn't do that. He tries to pass down the field until he can't. Like arc said, if you cannot pass from the pocket, your career is going to be very short and no team is going to invest picks and money for a QB that will run for a few years and then can't play. Not to mention, at some point, these guys are going to have to pass. Dak was lucky in the sense that his team rarely played catchup, but if they did, he wouldn't have had the same success.

In comment 13552954 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets. And who did those teams ultimately lose to? Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's.

What about the 2013-2014 Seahawks? Back to back champs if not for Carroll's brainfart.

In comment 13552963 Keith said:

Quote:

The dude got his a** handed to him on a weekly basis. THis is a massive investment for any team(draft picks and money), they can't sit there and watch this guy get absolutely obliterated each week because he needed to run to be successful. If you want to use Terps strategy of never signing a QB to a 2nd deal, then use guys like RG3. Draft them(you better not trade 5 picks to get him), let him run around and win a few games and get destroyed and then move on to the next QB. Sound strategy.

RG3... like Newton... wasn't smart enough to stay away from taking unnecessary hits. The way Wilson plays versus the way Newton and Griffin play when outside the pocket are very different. Wilson is considered a 'mobile QB' and he seems to be doing well incorporating mobility with the other aspects of QB play.

Invest tons of time coaching him on how to win the NFL. Then when it's time for his next contract, let him go win elsewhere and draft the next rookie and hope he can win something.

has said his goal is to stay in the pocket as much as possible.

Pure scrambling QB's don't have a long life-span in today's game. At best, you want a guy like Rodgers who extends plays and will strategically run to pick up a crucial first down, but you don't want RGIII or a run happy guy.

It may be successful for a year - but then what? you're stuck with an injured player, and if it is a leg injury, now a deficient player.

1999 Rams (Warner)
2000 Ravens (maybe greatest D ever assembled)
2001 Pats (Brady)
2002 Bucs (elite defense)
2003 Pats (Brady)
2004 Pats (Brady)
2005 Steelers (Ben)
2006 Colts (Peyton)
2007 Giants (Eli)
2008 Steelers (Ben)
2009 Saints (Brees)
2010 Packers (Rodgers)
2011 Giants (Eli)
2012 Ravens (elite, if not almost elite/still had Reed/Lewis among others)
2013 Seahawks (elite defense)
2014 Pats (Brady)
2015 Broncos (Peyton/elite defense)
2016 Pats (Brady)

Note: In most of those SBs if you look at the loser, you'll find the same names of the QBs and defenses.

The path to a SB title to is to find a franchise QB or field a top defense.

he'd be out of the NFL. That dude has taken a BEATING.

In comment 13552968 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 13552954 arcarsenal said: Quote: The best you can really hope for with an approach like this is a team that mirrors the 2009 and 2010 Jets. And who did those teams ultimately lose to? Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Franchise QB's. What about the 2013-2014 Seahawks? Back to back champs if not for Carroll's brainfart.

Well, Wilson is a franchise QB. He's not a throwaway or a gimmicky guy. His first instinct was to bail and start running early in his career but he's become much, much better as a passer as he's grown.

Wilson wasn't the main reason why SEA won in 2013 and came close in 2014 but he was a pretty major one.

THAT's the point. They don't need to because you're not going to pay them $20 million a year. You just draft more, and they are all over college football.

like Cam, he's not big enough like Cam. Cam takes just as many hits as RG3, but he's huge. That being said, I guarantee his shelf life is much, much lower than most top QB's.

He was a third round draft pick with a cap hit of $600,000.

In comment 13552976 Go Terps said:

Quote:

THAT's the point. They don't need to because you're not going to pay them $20 million a year. You just draft more, and they are all over college football.

But the principle doesn't even work anymore. Defenses caught up to the read option shit immediately and started shutting it down. Do you really want to build your team around a college-style offense?

RGIII barely even made it out of year ONE. You're going to draft a new QB every year?

I know it sounds like it could work, but if you really think about all of the logistics, it's very, very unlikely that it would ever work.

didn't make it 1 year actually.

I haven't said anywhere that they need to be mobile guys. Winston and Carr aren't super mobile, for example.