I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
A second round pick (which is what San Francisco traded) isn't a substantial asset when you're a QB away from being a legit contender. Once Jacksonville knew they had something they were nuts to go forward with Bortles, who might be the worst quarterback in the league.
It's a 2nd round pick for a 1 year rental. Then they have to pay him. And his little win streak with the 49ers probably bumped his value by several million per season (despite only 7 starts in 4 seasons). A playoff win or 2 and $20M is probably the starting point for negotiations.
And Bortles has plenty of competition for worst QB: Brissett, McCown, Kizer, Taylor, Cutler, Siemian, Trubiskey, Hundley, Beathard, Savage, etc.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
Yeah, the Lions drafted him, that should be the focus of why they are 9-7. Do you honestly think he's hindering their ability to be better?
You have such an odd take on the NFL and you use hindsight to constantly prove your points, its very strange.
Ever watch a Lions game? They can't run the ball for shit, sound familiar? That offense is 100% all Stafford.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Detroit has fielded ONE good defense since they drafted Stafford. And he didn't get paid until this year.
It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with poor team management and roster building.
He's not holding them back from putting a better defense on the field.
I still fail to see how letting a top 5 QB walk for cap space helps the Lions. You literally just acknowledged that Bortles is the sole reason an otherwise fantastic Jags team won't go anywhere.
I wouldn't overpay for Kirk Cousins or Alex Smith.
But paying market value for Stafford makes plenty of sense.
Hopefully you've at least changed your tune on this, because it sounded silly then, and it sounds even sillier now.
Quote:
I'd take Flacco over Stafford 10 times out of 10
Go Terps : 8/29/2017 2:11 pm : link
And even then, I still think Baltimore made a mistake paying Flacco what they did. And it's been borne out on the field.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
or had they traded up to get Carson Wentz or made a trade with SF to get Alex Smith when SF was trading him or drafted Cam Newton.
We can all play that game Captain Hindsight. Keenum was a career journeyman until this season as was McCown. Those guys had trouble finding jobs never mind being trade bait. Please.
after singing his big deal he followed it up with the best season of his career. Just under a 3/1 TD ratio and 66% completion %. If we had anything close to that we'd be thrilled paying that QB top dollar. Well, maybe not Terps, because it would be an overpay still.
Gotta just go all out Moneyball and find all these shitty players that cost nothing but are somehow great.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
Lol nobody is comparing Luck to Brissett besides you. Luck, if healthy, is one of the best QBs in the game. Brissett compared to Bortles is the conversation. Stay focused.
My first post in this thread was how could this even be a topic of discussion. I also said, well this is BBI, you guys will find a way to argue about anything. Arc, you are the epitome of that.
Thanks, for letting me know - except I'm comparing two QB's who played for the same team under similar circumstances if you weren't able to figure that out for yourself.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
The problem is many people use stats out of context and are simply too dumb to understand the limitations of a particular stat.
QBR is a good example of this. It's a good measure of a QB's efficiency when throwing the ball, but it doesn't accurately reflect the entirety of a QBs performance. For example, a QBs rating is adversely affected by throwing the ball away, while taking a sack (or even a sack/fumble) has no impact on a QBs rating. To say nothing of his ability to audible based on what the D is showing.
Thanks, for letting me know - except I'm comparing two QB's who played for the same team under similar circumstances if you weren't able to figure that out for yourself.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
Why so many exhibit sticker shock every time a good or average or barely average qb gets paid big bucks. This isn't 1988 anymore. If you're a capable qb and set to hit the market you're going to get 20 per. And 20 per wont kill your cap as much as no qb will kill your team. That's a fact. And contrary to myth it is not easy to find a decent qb let alone a good or great one. And further still some here discount how hard it would be for a GM to let a good qb walk. Good luck with that in the real world. Easy to play GM here. Not that easy in DC.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Yes, it is a risk no doubt, but Jax will learn from this mistake and having drafted a bust in Bortles and can look to keep trying to find the next guy. But they have a complete roster, top to bottom. Something they would not have if they were just paying a middle of the pack QB $25M a year, who eats up a 6th of the cap space.
The Giants and the Ravens are perfect examples of the risk of paying a QB top dollar. They have top heavy rosters cap wise, and limited depth. Last year the Giants were probably the healthiest roster in the NFL all year, and that helped them win 11 games. Look at how awful the Packers are without Rodgers, that is the guy you pay any amount in the world to.
Look at how much Seattle's team has deteriorated since they paid Wilson? I think Wilson is an exceptional QB, easily top 5 in the NFL, but when you are making absurd money, you are not going to have an offensive line, or your defense is going to suffer.
Paying anyone is a gamble, in a game of attrition, but these QB contracts are getting completely out of hand.
Fantastic retort. Truly remarkable. Not my fault your shitty way of running a football team has only worked for exactly 1 person in today's NFL and that 1 person still overpays for players.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.
perfect example. 4th round pick, super cheap, drafted by a team with a stellar OLine. The result has been 1 playoff loss and now on year 3 they will have to start locking up that line long term (overpaying one might say). They may go Dak's entire rookie contract without a playoff win and this is one of the "success stories" of turning your team over to a mid-round QB.
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.
I didn't say always going to a rookie ever 4 or 5 years. But you have to pay the RIGHT QB, not just a middle of the pack guy who throws for 4,000 yards and 25 TDs a season. It has to be someone that is special. In the case of the Lions, just because Stafford puts up big numbers, does not mean he is a championship QB, and their team will suffer when they have zero depth and lose some big name players to free agency (probably Ansah this year).
The Seahawks had no choice but to pay Wilson, but he is an excellent, championship level QB. They were a juggernaut when he was making $500k a year. Now they have a garbage offensive line, and an aging, overpaid defense, with no depth.
It is a gamble to let a guy like Stafford or Cousins leave, but it is also a gamble to pay them a monster contract, and suffer the rest of the team. Again I use Jax as a perfect example. They have a complete, awesome team, regardless of who the QB is. Should they just pay Blake Bortles a monster contract because he had a decent year and won a playoff game? No way.
It amazes me that people can watch the NFL for decades and still not understand how difficult it is to find a QB you can win with.
Jacksonville has an outstanding football team nearly everywhere except for one spot.. the QB.
And that one spot will be what keeps them from winning a Championship until they upgrade it.
And yet, people still think you can get away with treating the position as recyclable and disposable.
It's hard enough to find one guy you can win with, and we have people here who want to turn it into something they do every 4 years as if they think they won't bomb out on at least half of these selections.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
I guess the disagreement is on paying Stafford. You seem to think he isn't worth it, I think he is worth it. There is nothing you can point to to tell me he isn't worth it. Cannon for an arm, mobile when needed, essentially improves every year despite his dogshit roster, and the Lions have caproom to add other players. So what's the problem?
The answer is its the Lions, and they will fuck it up. Which has nothing to do with Stafford.
so you can then pay for a great Oline with no QB? Sounds like a great plan. And then when 1 or 2 of those guys goes down (like this year in Dallas), then what?
Atleast when your QB is out for the season you can get a higher draft pick. Have a great OLine and no one to throw it and you will more often than not have a mediocre team with no hope in the playoffs and a bad draft pick. Sounds fun.
When the Giants were at the peak of their powers Â
2010 or so, they were paying nearly every position on their team big bucks, including qb. The roster was fine. The decay began when the drafting failed and the team hit rock bottom when the coaching turned to shit.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
I get what you're saying - but the playoffs were still in reach for Seattle up until the last week of this season.
They still have a good team - there's a lot of talent there. They had some key guys get hurt. It happens.
Wilson's cap hit was actually larger last year, and they went 10-5-1, made the playoffs, and won a playoff game.
They can still compete with Wilson making what he's making. The odds of them finding a more productive QB in the draft are exceptionally slim.
I'm not particularly enamored with Kirk Cousins - but I believed Stafford was worth paying the day it happened, and coming off arguably his best year as a pro, I feel even more strongly about it now.
Detroit has to put a defense on the other side of the field. You can win with Stafford. Put him on the Jaguars and that's a SB contender.
The Lions have had cap space. They're just failing to assemble talent on that side of the ball.
Beyond that, they were the worst rushing team in football this year. They can't run the ball.
The Lions went 9-7 almost entirely because of Stafford. The QB is there. Give him help.
The alternative is you let him walk and then not only do you still need to fix the defense and the run game, but you have to draft his replacement as well - and if you miss on that pick? It's going to be a long few years.
Look at all the QB's the Jets have been drafting that keep failing. Geno, McElroy, Petty, Hackenberg... these guys all suck. They're going to have to try yet again this year.
Denver isn't having a much easier time trying to replace Peyton.
You can pay a QB and still assemble a good team around him.
Stafford shouldn't be the guy who takes the blame for the Lions' inability to put better players around him. They are not cap-strapped. Draft better and identify better FA's.
djm: There are many paths to Hell - all paved with good intentions. Â
2010 or so, they were paying nearly every position on their team big bucks, including qb. The roster was fine. The decay began when the drafting failed and the team hit rock bottom when the coaching turned to shit.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
It's not like this offensive line is one player away from being acceptable. Why would anyone think that?
RE: djm: There are many paths to Hell - all paved with good intentions. Â
2010 or so, they were paying nearly every position on their team big bucks, including qb. The roster was fine. The decay began when the drafting failed and the team hit rock bottom when the coaching turned to shit.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
It's not like this offensive line is one player away from being acceptable. Why would anyone think that?
Just like the defense wasn't 2-3 players away from going from bad to good in 2016.
Don't tell me the Giants can't be good next year. They can. Any team can turn things around in a year. The Giants have pieces in place.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
I get what you're saying - but the playoffs were still in reach for Seattle up until the last week of this season.
They still have a good team - there's a lot of talent there. They had some key guys get hurt. It happens.
Wilson's cap hit was actually larger last year, and they went 10-5-1, made the playoffs, and won a playoff game.
They can still compete with Wilson making what he's making. The odds of them finding a more productive QB in the draft are exceptionally slim.
I'm not particularly enamored with Kirk Cousins - but I believed Stafford was worth paying the day it happened, and coming off arguably his best year as a pro, I feel even more strongly about it now.
Detroit has to put a defense on the other side of the field. You can win with Stafford. Put him on the Jaguars and that's a SB contender.
The Lions have had cap space. They're just failing to assemble talent on that side of the ball.
Beyond that, they were the worst rushing team in football this year. They can't run the ball.
The Lions went 9-7 almost entirely because of Stafford. The QB is there. Give him help.
The alternative is you let him walk and then not only do you still need to fix the defense and the run game, but you have to draft his replacement as well - and if you miss on that pick? It's going to be a long few years.
Look at all the QB's the Jets have been drafting that keep failing. Geno, McElroy, Petty, Hackenberg... these guys all suck. They're going to have to try yet again this year.
Denver isn't having a much easier time trying to replace Peyton.
You can pay a QB and still assemble a good team around him.
Stafford shouldn't be the guy who takes the blame for the Lions' inability to put better players around him. They are not cap-strapped. Draft better and identify better FA's.
Excellent points. Again, my frustration here is the QB contract as a whole. These numbers are outrageous. The fact that all time great QBs like Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers have only one Superbowl title is weird.
Drew Brees has been more than willing to milk every cent he can from the Saints, but in turn, he cannot bitch and moan that their defense is terrible, and it was historically terrible for many years.
I said this earlier, the Packers team is terrible without Aaron Rodgers. It is easy to just say, "well draft better around the highly paid QB." It is not that simple.
The Seahawks got unlucky that their top defensive guys got hurt this year, and Wilson almost overcame that to take them to the playoffs, because he is that great. But their roster is no where near as good as it was a few years ago. They are top heavy, and have limited depth.
I have no idea how the NFL will solve this. Again I will bring up the max QB contract, but how high will that be? How many mediocre QBs will refuse to sign for anything less than the max?
This has continued to be the main reason I want to move on from Eli Manning. Because he makes way too much money given his production. I think they are better off playing Webb/Rosen/Mayfield/Darnold and building a dynamic team around them. Maybe those guys will never be good enough to win a Superbowl, but to me it is worth the gamble.
If it isn’t that simple to draft better players around Rodgers Â
FA fills gaps, you still need to draft well. GB has had some really bad drafts and they stink when Rodgers is hurt. The alternative is paying for great players around Hundley - because that will go well...
RE: If it isn’t that simple to draft better players around Rodgers Â
FA fills gaps, you still need to draft well. GB has had some really bad drafts and they stink when Rodgers is hurt. The alternative is paying for great players around Hundley - because that will go well...
This is really the main point.
It's definitely easier said than done to say "well, GB should be putting better players around Rodgers" or the same with DET and Stafford -
But one thing we do know, is that it would be exponentially more difficult for those teams to be good without those guys.
GB is probably a 4 win team without Rodgers and a 11 win team with him. There's a huge swing there.
And so, that's the risk you take when you let a proven commodity walk @ QB and try to replace him. You're much more likely to wind up with 5 more Brett Hundleys before you ever get anything close to another Rodgers.
Rodgers is probably a bad example just because he's the best QB in the league - but I think the point still remains even with a guy like Stafford. His production would be much more difficult to replace than people realize.
I am of the opinion that the QB is the hardest player to find in this league. So, if you have that guy in place, you then need to turn your attention to putting the right players around him.
The Lions didn't make a mistake paying Stafford, they made a mistake not doing more to address their defense or their run game.
They drafted a CB in the 2nd round who had virtually no impact for them this year. The other CB they drafted, Jamal Agnew is an excellent punt returner but he's not getting snaps @ CB.
Darius Slay is an elite CB but they have very little otherwise on that side of the ball.
to take a step further all the cap room still has risk as well. Whoever you sign to whatever amount of money isn’t guaranteed to pan out. Which is why it often comes down to risk/reward.
Risk losing a franchise QB because you don’t want to pay a few million more per year for the hopes the other players signed with that money pan out AND you find a capable QB....talk about a risk.
I don't think the Giants are a 2-6 win team on paper. Not by a long shot. If they nailed a few more picks from the last two years along with the right HC who knows how they look today.
I don't think the Giants are a 2-6 win team on paper. Not by a long shot. If they nailed a few more picks from the last two years along with the right HC who knows how they look today.
It was that kind of attitude that put us in the position we are in where we are looking for quick fixes and snake-oil nostrums as a substitute for a hard-headed look at what we have.
The Giants are a slow team (watch the teams in the playoffs- they all seem to be playing at a different speed than the Giants), they are talent deficient at o-line, running back (where we are starting backups), wideout, d-tackle and linebacker. There is a lot of work to do.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
It's a 2nd round pick for a 1 year rental. Then they have to pay him. And his little win streak with the 49ers probably bumped his value by several million per season (despite only 7 starts in 4 seasons). A playoff win or 2 and $20M is probably the starting point for negotiations.
And Bortles has plenty of competition for worst QB: Brissett, McCown, Kizer, Taylor, Cutler, Siemian, Trubiskey, Hundley, Beathard, Savage, etc.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
Yeah, the Lions drafted him, that should be the focus of why they are 9-7. Do you honestly think he's hindering their ability to be better?
You have such an odd take on the NFL and you use hindsight to constantly prove your points, its very strange.
Ever watch a Lions game? They can't run the ball for shit, sound familiar? That offense is 100% all Stafford.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
It has nothing to do with him and everything to do with poor team management and roster building.
He's not holding them back from putting a better defense on the field.
I still fail to see how letting a top 5 QB walk for cap space helps the Lions. You literally just acknowledged that Bortles is the sole reason an otherwise fantastic Jags team won't go anywhere.
I wouldn't overpay for Kirk Cousins or Alex Smith.
But paying market value for Stafford makes plenty of sense.
Hopefully you've at least changed your tune on this, because it sounded silly then, and it sounds even sillier now.
Go Terps : 8/29/2017 2:11 pm : link
And even then, I still think Baltimore made a mistake paying Flacco what they did. And it's been borne out on the field.
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Quote:
.
10 points! -Jimmy Googs
whats up here?
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
Cousins, Smith, Taylor, Glennon, etc. are better examples (IMV).
But I know I'm the only Matt Stafford fan on this board, so carry on.
I think Stafford is a terrific qb.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
We can all play that game Captain Hindsight. Keenum was a career journeyman until this season as was McCown. Those guys had trouble finding jobs never mind being trade bait. Please.
Quote:
I think Stafford's a bad example because I think he's actually quite good but is limited by the roster.
Cousins, Smith, Taylor, Glennon, etc. are better examples (IMV).
But I know I'm the only Matt Stafford fan on this board, so carry on.
I think Stafford is a terrific qb.
Gotta just go all out Moneyball and find all these shitty players that cost nothing but are somehow great.
Quote:
In comment 13778522 Peppers said:
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
Nice reply - I guess you're out of anything that is actually useful.
You think far too highly of your own opinions. You're nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
But keep calling everyone else a loser. Clearly you know the most.
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
Psst...
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
:(
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
Pfft, numbers don't mean anything!
Quote:
Psst...
Matthew Stafford IS a top 5 guy right now.
Look at the numbers.
Pfft, numbers don't mean anything!
I know. Now I'm a loser. :(
Quote:
In comment 13778526 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13778522 Peppers said:
Quote:
In comment 13778484 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Nice try, but no.
Had the Jaguars drafted Deshaun Watson or Mahomes, traded for Garoppolo or Brissett, or had the foresight to sign (and adequately coach) someone like Keenum or McCown they'd be better off.
The answer is most definitely not to make Matt Stafford the highest paid player in the league. That was stupid.
This. Had the Jags pulled the trigger on one of those QBs they'd be a real threat.
Over paying the QB position can really put you in a bind filling out the rest of the roster especially if your QB isn't playing up to those standards.
Look at Baltimore with Flacco. Win a SB and they hand him 120 million. They've struggled with that roster since. Cincy when they over paid Dalton, hell maybe could even make the argument for Eli's last contract.
That's why i'd always draft a QB every few years. Gotta keep that streamline flowing.
Brissett? Seriously?
Wow.
Yea, Brissett isn't bad. I know he wasn't a fantasy star but he's really not a bad QB. There's plenty of upside and room for growth there. I definitely think he's better than Bortles and that was the statement being made. He's got a good mentor in Parcells and he's only 25. People complain about Eli's oline, watch an Indy game once.
He's not good.
I know how bad Indy's OL is. Andrew Luck still threw 31 TD passes behind it in 2016 because he's actually a good player.
Brissett is below average and the Jags wouldn't go anywhere with him under center.
Lol nobody is comparing Luck to Brissett besides you. Luck, if healthy, is one of the best QBs in the game. Brissett compared to Bortles is the conversation. Stay focused.
My first post in this thread was how could this even be a topic of discussion. I also said, well this is BBI, you guys will find a way to argue about anything. Arc, you are the epitome of that.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
QBR is a good example of this. It's a good measure of a QB's efficiency when throwing the ball, but it doesn't accurately reflect the entirety of a QBs performance. For example, a QBs rating is adversely affected by throwing the ball away, while taking a sack (or even a sack/fumble) has no impact on a QBs rating. To say nothing of his ability to audible based on what the D is showing.
Brissett sucks. He's not any better than Bortles. He might be worse.
The OL in JAX was horrific in 2015 and Bortles still had an appreciably better year than Brissett just had.
okay lol
Quote:
In comment 13778506 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
When you do that, you stand a strong chance of having to roll with a QB like....Bortles!
Yes, it is a risk no doubt, but Jax will learn from this mistake and having drafted a bust in Bortles and can look to keep trying to find the next guy. But they have a complete roster, top to bottom. Something they would not have if they were just paying a middle of the pack QB $25M a year, who eats up a 6th of the cap space.
The Giants and the Ravens are perfect examples of the risk of paying a QB top dollar. They have top heavy rosters cap wise, and limited depth. Last year the Giants were probably the healthiest roster in the NFL all year, and that helped them win 11 games. Look at how awful the Packers are without Rodgers, that is the guy you pay any amount in the world to.
Look at how much Seattle's team has deteriorated since they paid Wilson? I think Wilson is an exceptional QB, easily top 5 in the NFL, but when you are making absurd money, you are not going to have an offensive line, or your defense is going to suffer.
Paying anyone is a gamble, in a game of attrition, but these QB contracts are getting completely out of hand.
Fantastic retort. Truly remarkable. Not my fault your shitty way of running a football team has only worked for exactly 1 person in today's NFL and that 1 person still overpays for players.
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.
Quote:
In comment 13778506 Go Terps said:
Quote:
I think he's pretty good. He's just not worth that insane contract. Detroit has cap space now, but Stafford's cap number goes up $10M to a ridiculous $26M in 2018. $29.5M in 2019. $31.5M in 2020.
As for offensive rankings, that's great. But the stat that matters (9-7), falls in line with what the Lions have been since Stafford was drafted, and that number doesn't figure to get better because they paid him.
You are 100% dead on. Paying Stafford was IMO a huge mistake too. He is a good QB, but certainly not one that can carry a team to a championship, he got robbed in the playoff game in Dallas a couple years ago, but zero playoff wins is zero playoff wins.
I think that QB contracts are destroying the NFL. The fact that Mike Glennon got $15M was ridiculous. They need to make a max QB contract in the next CBA.
I honestly think teams are better off rolling with a young QB on a rookie contract, or cheap vet players like Keenum and building the team up the best they can around that QB.
If you do not have a top 5 guy at QB, than paying the "market value" leaves you vulnerable to not having the cap space to have a complete team, or quality depth. Jacksonville has an excellent team, arguably the best overall in the NFL. But they have Bortles, who will inevitably hold them back when they play teams like Pitt or NE. I have no doubt Jax will laugh at the notion of paying him $19M next year, and will move on.
There is absolutely no way teams are better off just going to a rookie every 4 or 5 years. Simply none. If that were the case we'd see it happen everywhere with success and you don't. The teams that do this never win. outside of truly rare circumstances.
I didn't say always going to a rookie ever 4 or 5 years. But you have to pay the RIGHT QB, not just a middle of the pack guy who throws for 4,000 yards and 25 TDs a season. It has to be someone that is special. In the case of the Lions, just because Stafford puts up big numbers, does not mean he is a championship QB, and their team will suffer when they have zero depth and lose some big name players to free agency (probably Ansah this year).
The Seahawks had no choice but to pay Wilson, but he is an excellent, championship level QB. They were a juggernaut when he was making $500k a year. Now they have a garbage offensive line, and an aging, overpaid defense, with no depth.
It is a gamble to let a guy like Stafford or Cousins leave, but it is also a gamble to pay them a monster contract, and suffer the rest of the team. Again I use Jax as a perfect example. They have a complete, awesome team, regardless of who the QB is. Should they just pay Blake Bortles a monster contract because he had a decent year and won a playoff game? No way.
Jacksonville has an outstanding football team nearly everywhere except for one spot.. the QB.
And that one spot will be what keeps them from winning a Championship until they upgrade it.
And yet, people still think you can get away with treating the position as recyclable and disposable.
It's hard enough to find one guy you can win with, and we have people here who want to turn it into something they do every 4 years as if they think they won't bomb out on at least half of these selections.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
The answer is its the Lions, and they will fuck it up. Which has nothing to do with Stafford.
Atleast when your QB is out for the season you can get a higher draft pick. Have a great OLine and no one to throw it and you will more often than not have a mediocre team with no hope in the playoffs and a bad draft pick. Sounds fun.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
Quote:
Seattle is also a poor example to use this year.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
I get what you're saying - but the playoffs were still in reach for Seattle up until the last week of this season.
They still have a good team - there's a lot of talent there. They had some key guys get hurt. It happens.
Wilson's cap hit was actually larger last year, and they went 10-5-1, made the playoffs, and won a playoff game.
They can still compete with Wilson making what he's making. The odds of them finding a more productive QB in the draft are exceptionally slim.
I'm not particularly enamored with Kirk Cousins - but I believed Stafford was worth paying the day it happened, and coming off arguably his best year as a pro, I feel even more strongly about it now.
Detroit has to put a defense on the other side of the field. You can win with Stafford. Put him on the Jaguars and that's a SB contender.
The Lions have had cap space. They're just failing to assemble talent on that side of the ball.
Beyond that, they were the worst rushing team in football this year. They can't run the ball.
The Lions went 9-7 almost entirely because of Stafford. The QB is there. Give him help.
The alternative is you let him walk and then not only do you still need to fix the defense and the run game, but you have to draft his replacement as well - and if you miss on that pick? It's going to be a long few years.
Look at all the QB's the Jets have been drafting that keep failing. Geno, McElroy, Petty, Hackenberg... these guys all suck. They're going to have to try yet again this year.
Denver isn't having a much easier time trying to replace Peyton.
You can pay a QB and still assemble a good team around him.
Stafford shouldn't be the guy who takes the blame for the Lions' inability to put better players around him. They are not cap-strapped. Draft better and identify better FA's.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
It's not like this offensive line is one player away from being acceptable. Why would anyone think that?
Quote:
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
Or paying good players who get hurt. Or old. Or lazy.
Indeed. That's also where the coaching comes into play (lazy)
Quote:
2010 or so, they were paying nearly every position on their team big bucks, including qb. The roster was fine. The decay began when the drafting failed and the team hit rock bottom when the coaching turned to shit.
This Giants team would be fine if they didn't draft apple and flowers and instead drafted gurley and decker. I don't even think the roster is bad even now. Just needs a HC and roster tinkering
Paying good players isn't the problem. Paying bad players is.
It's not like this offensive line is one player away from being acceptable. Why would anyone think that?
Just like the defense wasn't 2-3 players away from going from bad to good in 2016.
Don't tell me the Giants can't be good next year. They can. Any team can turn things around in a year. The Giants have pieces in place.
Quote:
In comment 13778648 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
Seattle is also a poor example to use this year.
They lost Sherman and Chancellor for the year, Thomas missed a couple games, Bobby Wagner was hurt. Those are their best defensive players and part of their foundation.
Seattle's offense was fine this year despite the poor OL and RB carousel.
Should Seattle have just let Wilson walk? I don't understand what people expect these teams to do. If you don't want to pay them, you have to let them walk. Why would the Seahawks let a top 5 QB walk? It makes no sense.
No, that is my point, Wilson is absolutely a QB you give big money too. But now they have a limited roster around him. Yes, they had some key guys get injured, and missed the playoffs. Now they have virtually no margin for error in the draft. I think they can rebound and win with him again.
I do not however think the Lions or Redskins can build a championship team with Stafford or Cousins making insane money. Like you said, it is really hard to find a QB that can win in this league. Winning is the operative word. I don't think those guys are ever going to be good enough to carry their team to a Superbowl title. Just because they put up big numbers does not mean they are worth the massive contract that hurts the rest of the team.
I get what you're saying - but the playoffs were still in reach for Seattle up until the last week of this season.
They still have a good team - there's a lot of talent there. They had some key guys get hurt. It happens.
Wilson's cap hit was actually larger last year, and they went 10-5-1, made the playoffs, and won a playoff game.
They can still compete with Wilson making what he's making. The odds of them finding a more productive QB in the draft are exceptionally slim.
I'm not particularly enamored with Kirk Cousins - but I believed Stafford was worth paying the day it happened, and coming off arguably his best year as a pro, I feel even more strongly about it now.
Detroit has to put a defense on the other side of the field. You can win with Stafford. Put him on the Jaguars and that's a SB contender.
The Lions have had cap space. They're just failing to assemble talent on that side of the ball.
Beyond that, they were the worst rushing team in football this year. They can't run the ball.
The Lions went 9-7 almost entirely because of Stafford. The QB is there. Give him help.
The alternative is you let him walk and then not only do you still need to fix the defense and the run game, but you have to draft his replacement as well - and if you miss on that pick? It's going to be a long few years.
Look at all the QB's the Jets have been drafting that keep failing. Geno, McElroy, Petty, Hackenberg... these guys all suck. They're going to have to try yet again this year.
Denver isn't having a much easier time trying to replace Peyton.
You can pay a QB and still assemble a good team around him.
Stafford shouldn't be the guy who takes the blame for the Lions' inability to put better players around him. They are not cap-strapped. Draft better and identify better FA's.
Excellent points. Again, my frustration here is the QB contract as a whole. These numbers are outrageous. The fact that all time great QBs like Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers have only one Superbowl title is weird.
Drew Brees has been more than willing to milk every cent he can from the Saints, but in turn, he cannot bitch and moan that their defense is terrible, and it was historically terrible for many years.
I said this earlier, the Packers team is terrible without Aaron Rodgers. It is easy to just say, "well draft better around the highly paid QB." It is not that simple.
The Seahawks got unlucky that their top defensive guys got hurt this year, and Wilson almost overcame that to take them to the playoffs, because he is that great. But their roster is no where near as good as it was a few years ago. They are top heavy, and have limited depth.
I have no idea how the NFL will solve this. Again I will bring up the max QB contract, but how high will that be? How many mediocre QBs will refuse to sign for anything less than the max?
This has continued to be the main reason I want to move on from Eli Manning. Because he makes way too much money given his production. I think they are better off playing Webb/Rosen/Mayfield/Darnold and building a dynamic team around them. Maybe those guys will never be good enough to win a Superbowl, but to me it is worth the gamble.
FA fills gaps, you still need to draft well. GB has had some really bad drafts and they stink when Rodgers is hurt. The alternative is paying for great players around Hundley - because that will go well...
FA fills gaps, you still need to draft well. GB has had some really bad drafts and they stink when Rodgers is hurt. The alternative is paying for great players around Hundley - because that will go well...
This is really the main point.
It's definitely easier said than done to say "well, GB should be putting better players around Rodgers" or the same with DET and Stafford -
But one thing we do know, is that it would be exponentially more difficult for those teams to be good without those guys.
GB is probably a 4 win team without Rodgers and a 11 win team with him. There's a huge swing there.
And so, that's the risk you take when you let a proven commodity walk @ QB and try to replace him. You're much more likely to wind up with 5 more Brett Hundleys before you ever get anything close to another Rodgers.
Rodgers is probably a bad example just because he's the best QB in the league - but I think the point still remains even with a guy like Stafford. His production would be much more difficult to replace than people realize.
I am of the opinion that the QB is the hardest player to find in this league. So, if you have that guy in place, you then need to turn your attention to putting the right players around him.
The Lions didn't make a mistake paying Stafford, they made a mistake not doing more to address their defense or their run game.
They drafted a CB in the 2nd round who had virtually no impact for them this year. The other CB they drafted, Jamal Agnew is an excellent punt returner but he's not getting snaps @ CB.
Darius Slay is an elite CB but they have very little otherwise on that side of the ball.
Poor talent evaluation.
Risk losing a franchise QB because you don’t want to pay a few million more per year for the hopes the other players signed with that money pan out AND you find a capable QB....talk about a risk.
The Giants are a slow team (watch the teams in the playoffs- they all seem to be playing at a different speed than the Giants), they are talent deficient at o-line, running back (where we are starting backups), wideout, d-tackle and linebacker. There is a lot of work to do.