NFT: Go Terps

I'll start by saying there are actual coaches and players on this board that know a million times more than I do about how the game is actually carried out on the field.

But regarding what I've been saying about quarterbacks in the league today and how to approach the position, it's basically this:

1. The NCAA is producing more quarterbacks and offensive linemen that operate in some variation of a spread (again the coaches and players on this board are the people to talk to about this)

2. NFL coaches have less time than ever to teach and install what would be considered traditional "pro style" offensive concepts

3. The hunt for the franchise quarterback has a lot of pitfalls:

a) The opportunity to get a true franchise quarterback is rare, so teams often force the issue. Bortles, Dalton, Tannehill, and others...are these guys top quarterbacks or are their respective teams hoping they'll become something they aren't? Are their teams giving them too many opportunities because they can't move on from a sunk cost? You could ask the same question about better quarterbacks in the league: Eli, Flacco, Stafford, Carr, Luck...are their teams getting their money's worth?

b) The costs of the franchise quarterback are becoming exorbitant. In 2018 Matt Stafford (the most expensive player overall...for now) will occupy 19% of Detroit's cap. In 2019 that will go well up over 30% even figuring in a salary cap increase. Given such a huge investment it stands to reason that Detroit will do what it can to build around Stafford and give him the best chance to succeed. But what happens if he gets hurt, or has a sudden change in form for some other reason? Will his backup be able to maximize a team that was built for Stafford's abilities and characteristics?

c) We can all point to the list of Super Bowl winners and the franchise quarterbacks that led them. But that avoids a key question about WHEN someone becomes a "franchise QB" and for HOW LONG he stays a franchise QB. Brady, Eli, Flacco, Wilson...none of these guys was considered elite when he won his first Super Bowl. Are they elite now? Brady is, but are Eli and Flacco? Is Wilson? I think these are fair questions. I also think we tend to label a guy a franchise QB once he's won and then hesitate to revisit the question if their level of play drops. The window for when a franchise QB actually performs like a franchise QB (and thus earns the franchise QB contract) is something that I don't think we look at with the detail that maybe it deserves.

4. We are seeing young quarterbacks come in and have success making plays using their athleticism. That style of play seems to be easier to maximize early on, which is a benefit given the limited practice time. There are also veterans that continue to play their best football when mobility is a factor: Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, and Alex Smith are examples that jump out.

5. The big drawback to the mobile quarterback is the increased injury risk. But there's a way to do it and minimize that risk. I'd point to Russell Wilson, who has never missed a game in 6 years despite averaging over 500 yards rushing per season. Consider also Lamar Jackson, whose average rushing game at Louisville was 17 carries for 109 yards and never missed a game. There's a right and a wrong way to do it. We all knew Carson Wentz's injury was only a matter of time; he was too reckless. But there are running quarterbacks that aren't. As college continues to churn out mobile quarterbacks NFL coaches need to consider (if they don't already) actually coaching the right and wrong ways for quarterbacks to run the ball. How to find the sideline, how to slide, etc. I'd also suggest that backing up a mobile quarterback with one or two other mobile quarterbacks further reduces the risk. This was Washington's great error after they drafted RGIII. What if they had drafted Russell Wilson in round 3 of that draft instead of Cousins in round 4? They may have been able to be less reckless with RGIII's health and still maintain their explosive style of offense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given these points, I think it makes sense to consider abandoning the franchise QB concept altogether and moving towards something where more money can be spent elsewhere and the mobile quarterback isn't viewed with as much negativity as it is now. I would love to see a front office (and ownership) with the conviction to dedicate the time and resources to try an approach like this as opposed to the franchise quarterback model of building a team. Because as things stand now every team is pinning its fortunes on the health and performance of a single player. In a league where injuries, roster turnover, and the salary cap dictate so much that seems like an enormously risky approach. Not to mention the rarity of true franchise quarterbacks that are worth building around.

Some teams will take Mayfield & Jackson. It will be fun seeing just how they deploy those weapons.

But one thing you gloss over is that if you find/develop a good, young mobile QB, you are still going to have to pay him franchise QB money (or start the process over). Cam and Wilson are the 5th and 8th highest paid QBs, respectively (Luck and Rodgers are top 4 if you consider them in this mold). And you could argue that if they were FAs tomorrow, they'd top Stafford.

So now you have a mobile QB at a higher risk for injury (relative to the Mannings/Bradys over the world who are very good at avoiding big hits) taking up a significant portion of your cap. Your still in the same position if they get hurt, but now its more likely they miss time.

In comment 13783347 giants#1 said:

Quote:

But one thing you gloss over is that if you find/develop a good, young mobile QB, you are still going to have to pay him franchise QB money (or start the process over). Cam and Wilson are the 5th and 8th highest paid QBs, respectively (Luck and Rodgers are top 4 if you consider them in this mold). And you could argue that if they were FAs tomorrow, they'd top Stafford. So now you have a mobile QB at a higher risk for injury (relative to the Mannings/Bradys over the world who are very good at avoiding big hits) taking up a significant portion of your cap. Your still in the same position if they get hurt, but now its more likely they miss time.

Fair points, and because of that I would start the process over. I'd treat the position like any other.

In comment 13783371 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Fair points, and because of that I would start the process over. I'd treat the position like any other.

Just like our musical DTs.

In 2018 the combined salary cap hit of Damon Harrison, Timmy Jernigan, and Linval Joseph ($24M total) will be less than that of Matt Stafford ($26M). There's something wrong with that.

it's market-based.

Every 4 years you'd replace your quarterback to avoid paying him market value?

That sounds risky if that's what you're saying.

To Giants#1's point no matter what style QB you have or where you drafted him (Tom Brady as a 6th round comp pick or Cam Newton as #1 overall mobile QB) once they have success they get paid.

Replacing a QB every 4 years, if doable, would be done.

Otherwise explain for me franchises like Buffalo, Miami, Cleveland and count the number of QB's they've had since Kelly, Marino and ? (Kosar?), look at the Jets, and more.

It's so hard to find a capable QB it's why they get paid so much when you find one.

You can argue they're overpaid, but they still need to be replaced with a competent player and looking around the NFL at backup QB's I think you are underestimating the ease in which you can simply "start the process over"

without him they save $29 million, get to overpay for a middling QB that isn't very good or draft a rookie and hope that works, just so you can get a couple of target FA's at other positions that you will also be overpaying for.

You aren't ever going to not overpay unless you hit a HR like the Snacks signing and do that repeatedly (let me know when you find a GM that's successful with this).

In comment 13783432 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

it's market-based. Every 4 years you'd replace your quarterback to avoid paying him market value? That sounds risky if that's what you're saying. To Giants#1's point no matter what style QB you have or where you drafted him (Tom Brady as a 6th round comp pick or Cam Newton as #1 overall mobile QB) once they have success they get paid. Replacing a QB every 4 years, if doable, would be done. Otherwise explain for me franchises like Buffalo, Miami, Cleveland and count the number of QB's they've had since Kelly, Marino and ? (Kosar?), look at the Jets, and more. It's so hard to find a capable QB it's why they get paid so much when you find one. You can argue they're overpaid, but they still need to be replaced with a competent player and looking around the NFL at backup QB's I think you are underestimating the ease in which you can simply "start the process over"

It wouldn't necessarily be every four years. It could be sooner than that, just like with any other position. Of course if I found a Rodgers or Brady I'd pay him, but the odds of that are incredibly small.

Overpaying at other positions isn't the same as overpaying at QB, as I illustrated above with the DT position.

so with guys like Eli, Ben, Brees, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Wilson, Rivers, Romo (pre-retirement), etc. you'd just not pay them after their contracts are up, let them go, and find a new QB?

Again, I think you are massively underestimating the crap shoot involved in "repeating the process", QB's are hard to find, harder than any other position, which is why they are paid the way they are.

You can point out exceptions of players who fit the narrative you're trying to make like Flacco or Stafford (who I think is a little bit underrated by you - yes he's overpaid, but he's not Blaine Gabbert), but again, they'd need to be replaced.

If Washington had drafted Wilson in 2012 as RGIII's backup and Wilson then went out and dominated wowed everyone with his preseason snaps like he did that year. How long do you realistically think Washington would have held on to him?

The answer is not that long. That's because it is the ultimate on-field leadership role in all of sports. If you have 2 QBs, you have 0 QBs. Just like there's only one head coach, one CEO, one President, etc.

Good teams are born when they identify with one unquestioned leader on the field. It's just the way the salary cap works out in the modern NFL.

There used to be some exceptions pre-salary cap Montana-Young.

Anything since then has basically been by surprise. Maybe the Pats knew who they had behind Bledsoe. Maybehe the Packers knew who they had behind Favre, but if they did they played it close to the vest knowing those teams already had unquestioned veterans in place until those guys got their opportunities. The Cowboys are just lucky that Romo was at an advanced age and could never stay healthy when Dak came along, otherwise you can bet they would have been discussing getting rid of one or the other if they hadnt overlapped so perfectly.

The point is, maybe you can backup up RGIII with a poor man's version of RGIII so you can run the same offensive concepts. But you are never going to be able to backup RGIII in his prime with Russell Wilson if everyone knows what they are/were both capable of.

In comment 13783453 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Overpaying at other positions isn't the same as overpaying at QB, as I illustrated above with the DT position.

I realize that. But you didn't answer my question. A better strategy is to overpay a middling QB or rely on a rookie (or another QB that may have been drafted that's on their 1st contract that may not have any experience) just so you can get a couple of high priced FA that you are also overpaying for?

You keep using hindisight which I simply can't understand. Snacks working out like it did is basically best case possible scenario - you are more likely to fail when doing this.

In comment 13783445 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Of course if I found a Rodgers or Brady I'd pay him, but the odds of that are incredibly small.

The problem is that Rodgers and Brady weren't the Rodgers and Brady that you know today after their rookie contracts were up. Both teams had to project continued growth to make the re-up worth it, something you have said is a big no no.

In comment 13783483 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

In comment 13783453 Go Terps said: Quote: Overpaying at other positions isn't the same as overpaying at QB, as I illustrated above with the DT position. I realize that. But you didn't answer my question. A better strategy is to overpay a middling QB or rely on a rookie (or another QB that may have been drafted that's on their 1st contract that may not have any experience) just so you can get a couple of high priced FA that you are also overpaying for? You keep using hindisight which I simply can't understand. Snacks working out like it did is basically best case possible scenario - you are more likely to fail when doing this.

You could do both. Overpaying a middling QB (not nearly as painful as paying a guy like Stafford) and drafting a QB are both viable options even at the same time. The benefit of my approach is versatility; I'm committing much less to the player(s) and can move on relatively easily if it isn't working out, if there's a catastrophic injury, etc. But the Lions are married to Stafford, and they choose to marry him despite there existing no evidence that they can win with him.

almost always ends up in no Superbowls. Meanwhile you didn’t pay one of the better QBs in the league, and are likely going to keep trying for years to come, with bad contracts thrown at QBs that aren’t any good.

is that this approach would be targeting types of players the NFL is currently less interested in, therefore having a different talent pool to select from. Short QBs and Spread QBs that won't take years to develop into pocket passers, etc. Quinton Flowers and JT Barrett are two guys that won't sniff an NFL job, but in the right system....maybe?

In comment 13783558 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

almost always ends up in no Superbowls. Meanwhile you didn’t pay one of the better QBs in the league, and are likely going to keep trying for years to come, with bad contracts thrown at QBs that aren’t any good.

Now who is using hindsight?

And further, how many Super Bowls has Stafford won? Actually, how many playoff games has he won? He doesn't even have a winning record as a starter (60-65). He's played 9 seasons already, has never won anything, but he gets 20-30% of Detroit's cap? It's insanity.

pointing out good bargains contracts or bad contracts is. You are telling me you will just go out and get a few players like Snacks with Stanford’s money, completely ignoring how hard that is to do. Stafford hasn’t won yet but let me know what the Lions records were prior to his arrival.

No one in the NFL works the way your are suggesting with success because it’s incredibly difficult to do. In he 1 case that kind of resembles this you have a HoF coach and QB. After that, absolutely nothing. And that isn’t hindsight.

but in 9 years Stafford hasn't been the answer to that problem. Going 60-65 merits 20%-30% of the salary cap? How many opportunities for a different approach will the Lions pass on because they have committed so much to a player that has led them to...what, exactly?

And if you want to look at Super Bowl winning quarterbacks without hindsight, go ahead. The following Super Bowls were won by quarterbacks either in a rookie contract or what would be considered a journeyman contract:

1999: Warner
2000: Dilfer
2001: Brady
2002: Johnson
2005: Roethlisberger
2007: Eli
2012: Flacco
2013: Wilson (should have had 2014 too)

Not a single one of those players was considered an elite, known quantity at quarterback at the start of that season.

And what about the other Super Bowls? The other Super Bowls in that time period were won by Brady, Peyton, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Brees, and Eli. Brady, Roethlisberger, and Eli had already won with their teams, leaving Peyton, Rodgers, and Brees as the other guys.

You think paying Stafford is going to somehow elevate him to that company? What about Kirk Cousins? Is he going to join that group when he signs with Arizona or whomever? You think Derek Carr is on the verge of joining that group? How did he perform this year? You think he's the next Peyton, Rodgers, or Brees?

were drafted when an early first round pick was still a huge financial investment. I’m not sure what % of the 07 salary cap he made up but to include him on that list to prove your point does seem like a stretch.

The overall point is the Giants sank a huge amount of draft and financial resources in Eli Manning and were rewarded with 2 SBs. Isn’t that the opposite of the point you’re trying to make?

I actually think you're supporting my point, because right now it's less of a financial risk to have a quarterback in a rookie contract. Mitchell Trubisky (the highest QB picked in last year's draft at #2) will only take up 4.6% of the Chicago cap in 2018. We don't know much about Trubisky one way or the other, but I find Chicago's position to be far more desirable than Detroit's. If Trubisky really sucks or gets hurt the Bears can't cut him because the dead cap money would be enormous, but there isn't anything preventing them from drafting another quarterback even in the first round or going ahead and taking on a decent stopgap.

The QB position is typically overpaid and, as a result, creates a roster construction dilemma when the QB is not worth the contract. The problem is, QBs are not as replaceable as other positions. You can survive a bad LB. You can survive a bad WR. You can survive a bad DT. You can't survive a bad QB. And that's contract-agnostic.

The other problem is that while players can be cycled through at a lot of other positions to play mix and match, teams do need some semblance of consistency and continuity as they build themselves year over year. The QB position is an area where that makes the most sense, because most players, at any level, are familiar and comfortable with the QB being the leader of the team.

Does that mean that Terps' concept is impossible to deploy? No, it's an interesting idea even though it's wildly unconventional. But it comes with a ton of risk in and of itself. As some have mentioned, there are a lot of teams that have inadvertently employed that idea by way of not being able to find their solution at QB, so it's been a revolving door for them. Easier said than done, and it's a recipe for mediocrity when you don't get it right.

You can't ignore the human condition - when you see the teams around the league that are desperate for a QB, it makes you much more apt to hang on to the devil you know, even if it means overpaying.

and his injury filled sophomore season is stupid. Please do the same for Eli’s rookie year to tell me he wasn’t worth the contract he got. Quote the years after Stafford got acclimated to the nfl and then quote the year he got paid.

He keeps getting better but somehow you simply won’t acknowledge it.

Even if he IS getting better, the Lions are not. My point isn't about whether Stafford is good or bad...it's about resource allocation and the way a team is built. Like Gatorade Dunk said above, it comes with risk, no doubt. But how is that approach less risky than committing so much to a single player that hasn't been proven to be able to make his team a winner?

The Lions have no options now. It's Stafford or bust for them. Everything they do...including their head coach decision now (the new coach HAS to accept the incumbent offensive coordinator)...revolves around Stafford. Their eggs are completely in his basket. Not only are they crossing their fingers that he improves to a Super Bowl level, they are crossing their fingers that he stays healthy. They are crossing their fingers that nothing happens to their key offensive personnel lest his ability to carry them be endangered. This is a risky strategy even with a proven elite player...look no further than Green Bay's predicament with Rodgers's injury. But to commit so much to a guy that still has a level or two to improve to before you feel like you can win with him...I can't think of a riskier strategy.

I think it's a lot less risky to be able to stay variable in how you build your team, and that obviously starts with the quarterback position because it's so much more expensive than the others.

draft better, get better coaching, and sign better players (they have money). But whatever, you aren’t going to think any differently about it, not sure why I bother.

In comment 13783867 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

draft better, get better coaching, and sign better players (they have money). But whatever, you aren’t going to think any differently about it, not sure why I bother.

Those options exist in either scenario, and better in mine actually: they'd have more money to sign players, they wouldn't have to tailor the players they sign to Stafford, AND they wouldn't be potentially hindered in their coaching search by requiring that Stafford's OC be retained by the new hire.

all of your suggestestions are the best. So good in fact that no ones thought of them yet.

I enjoy the debate but I’m done on this one. Have a good night.

It's only a matter of time. Think Moneyball in Baseball, and how that's changed that game.

1) As mentioned by GT, the percentage of the cap used by the starting QB keeps going up. This hamstrings the team in terms of quality depth. We saw what happened in Green Bay when Rodgers went down...that team was not competitive.

2) The Spread is the Colleges answer to QB's and other talent leaving early. You can get QB's up to speed faster in that system, and you don't need years of training. More and more colleges are going away from the old Pro-Set style.

3) As a result of #2, the QB's coming to the NFL are extremely hard to evaluate, as many have never taken snaps from center. You have to learn footwork, moving back in the pocket, and getting set to throw (or hand off to a back), with a defense that's shifting constantly. The Shotgun is much easier on a QB, and makes it easier to see what the Defense is doing (though it limits the plays you run..another advantage for a QB would be the fewer plays coming out of the shotgun; less to learn!)

4) A lot of great spread QB's won't make that transition, or fall back on old habits. That leaves the NFL with a very small number of QB's that can even function in a Pro-Set; that number shrinks to a handful when you're talking elite QB's. This leaves the rest of the league hoping that their QB makes the jump, while taking a significant percentage of the cap. And if you guess wrong, you've wasted a high draft pick.

It was hard on the old days to figure out who could be an NFL QB when the college guys worked behind center and went 4 years. It's a real roll of the dice, now.

5) The result is that you get teams like Buffalo, the Jets, Cleveland, etc...who have been waiting for 20 or more years for a top level QB. Even if after all the time they waited, if they get one, he's likely to get injured. People really don't get how lucky we are having Eli not on the injury list for 14+ years.

So, you are a perennial loser like Cleveland, or a middling team like the Jets/Buffalo, etc. You can wait forever to get lucky, or you can make your own luck.

If you run the spread, all of a sudden almost all the QB's coming out this year can start right away. You can be competitive right away. No learning curve, and there are plenty of coaches you can get from College to help run that system. Even the rules are in your favor, as you can't hit QB's like the old days. And if your QB goes down, you can more easily replace him, because there are a lot of good spread QB's out there.

Is that spread QB as good as Rodgers/Brady/Brees? Of course not...but he likely keeps you in the game, if you've spent on other areas of the team, like defense. And if he becomes a special elite QB, then you pay him.

that this kind of a system would be a Coach, and GM killer. I just don't see anyone doing it on purpose, as they could lose their job over it, and not get hired again because of employing such a wacky idea (Much like Chip Kelly for trying to employ College systems in the NFL that ultimately failed)?

There are plenty of teams that seemingly have continued to neglect the QB position, even while given plenty of opportunities to address it. Maybe this concept isn’t really all that foreign and maybe the teams that have taken this approach have turned into the Browns and the Jets?

The reason you assume it hasn’t been tried is because the teams that have gone this direction are in the abyss because of it.

Ignore the most important position because it's expensive. Treat QBs the way the Giants treat RBs and LBs...

This is just an extension of Terps aversion to any player that commands a big payday.

My only aversion is to giving a player a big payday when he hasn't and likely won't earn it. If I'm running the Packers, Aaron Rodgers gets a blank check.

Matt Stafford? No.

In comment 13783973 Go Terps said:

Quote:

My only aversion is to giving a player a big payday when he hasn't and likely won't earn it. If I'm running the Packers, Aaron Rodgers gets a blank check. Matt Stafford? No.

Other than Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers who qualifies for a payday in your paradigm?

That contract is insane.

In comment 13783853 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Even if he IS getting better, the Lions are not. My point isn't about whether Stafford is good or bad...it's about resource allocation and the way a team is built. Like Gatorade Dunk said above, it comes with risk, no doubt. But how is that approach less risky than committing so much to a single player that hasn't been proven to be able to make his team a winner? The Lions have no options now. It's Stafford or bust for them. Everything they do...including their head coach decision now (the new coach HAS to accept the incumbent offensive coordinator)...revolves around Stafford. Their eggs are completely in his basket. Not only are they crossing their fingers that he improves to a Super Bowl level, they are crossing their fingers that he stays healthy. They are crossing their fingers that nothing happens to their key offensive personnel lest his ability to carry them be endangered. This is a risky strategy even with a proven elite player...look no further than Green Bay's predicament with Rodgers's injury. But to commit so much to a guy that still has a level or two to improve to before you feel like you can win with him...I can't think of a riskier strategy. I think it's a lot less risky to be able to stay variable in how you build your team, and that obviously starts with the quarterback position because it's so much more expensive than the others.

I think you can make the argument that Stafford, in a vacuum, actually is SB quality already. But his supporting cast and coaching has been somewhat flawed to date. The problem is, that supporting cast is going to be extremely difficult to improve with Stafford's cap number being what it is going forward.

It's a really tough minefield for NFL GMs to navigate. The safe play is to keep their "franchise" QB, at any (similar to market) cost, and try to build around him. It's a lot easier to get fired for letting your QB walk than it is to overpay him.

I'm not 100% convinced that Terps' concept is feasible in actuality simply because I think finding a QB is much more difficult than his plan allows for, but I do expect that there will be a market correction on QBs at some point. If and when the NFL figures out how to more quickly develop young QB talent (and it seems like that needle is starting to move), they will be more willing to take some chances similar to what Terps' is suggesting, and that will bring some of the prices down for veteran QBs. I think the end result is somewhere in the middle of the status quo and the revolving QB methodology. Teams will still desire continuity and a long-term QB, but might not have to commit a quarter or more of their cap space to achieve that.

with this analysis is that it both overstates cap issues and exaggerates how much the cap prevents other moves from being made.

in the early days of the cap, this could have been true, but today, the cap keeps rising and the science of structuring contracts has gotten to the point where very few teams are hamstrung from making moves.

Even the $200M spending spree that a lot of people here deride, resulted in two Pro Bowl players and a starter at DE (make it 2 starters at DE if you count resigning JPP).

And even then, we aren't prevented from making moves.

Why? Because the NFL raised the cap excessively. We weren't the only team going wild. The Jags did. The Raiders did.

Not understanding that cap hell doesn't exist for many teams anymore makes many of the points in the plan either invalid or at least not necessary to implement

Stanford’s contract is not having any effect on them signing players. As Farman said, the cap issues are insanely exaggerated around here. Teams being inept at talent evaluation is a different topic and has nothing to do with cap space. How exactly are the Lions being handcuffed? They have plenty of cap space and have their QB in place. The fact that they have failed to surround him with talent has absolutely nothing to do with his contract

ask yourself if the Giants have failed to build a roster around Eli due to cap issues or because they failed at talent evaluation at several key positions.

Not signing the right OL or LB's isn't due to the cap - it is due to poor choices in players.

In comment 13783981 Go Terps said:

Quote:

That contract is insane.

Exactly. You can't name a single player you'd pay except the two best in the league. Your point is nonsense.