@NFLResearch
16h16 hours ago
More
Of the 6 highest paid QBs (based on average annual salary) in 2018, Kirk Cousins is the only one whose team is currently in playoff position
Rodgers is an outlier. GB is finally just having one of those years.
I like Ryan. He’s having a terrific year actually. But Atlanta has been besieged by injuries on that defense. So they have been playing with a shorthand for most of the year.
As mentioned, JimG has been out for most of the year.
Stafford is a disaster.
Hard to evaluate Carr with the wrecking ball Gruden is taking to that organization...
and go hey Kirk is making way more then he should be.
The facts of the matter are that Minnesota taxes their professional athletes at a very high level.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
So in order to stay competitive in the QB market, they had to overpay to actually get him at the going rate for a QB.
The QB contracts are getting out of control. I saw speculation that Dak Prescott will command 28m/yr. The alternative is scary but the Cowboys are better off letting him walk. Or at the very least tagging him to buy some time. They can probably even trade him if they don't drag it out too long.
I'm not saying you don't pay your QBs either but if you know your QBs level is average or worse, you're better off reinforcing the roster around the position and going back to the well. Teams do it all the time at other positions, they let their mediocre free agents walk, they just have a fear at QB because the stakes are higher. The stakes shouldn't change the decision making though.
It is something that has been noted the past few years. Â
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
There isn't one way to do it. There's where you are, the draftable players and free agents and go from there. But the 5 year cap friendly contract looks like the constant.
have recently made sb or were named MVP and have made playoffs often in recent history.
Others on that list represent horrendous value. OAK and SF should be flogged for the deals they are in much worse than NYG should. Cousins probably as well in case of MN.
that you have to take a young QB to get five years of low cost value out of him, shouldn't the plan be to have the team already built before his arrival to best maximize your five years, rather than get the QB then build around him, thus wasting some of those precious years trying to put the roster together (also making his growing pains worse).
The NFL does not work that way. No team is ever "already built".
Team building is a constant, ongoing process. This is a mistake the Giants have made frequently going well back into the Coughlin years. Roster construction can't be based on, "We're all set in this area, so let's focus our resources in other areas." That kind of reactive approach has characterized the Giants' approach to roster building (and coaching staff construction) going back over a decade. And based on his very recent quotes Coughlin hasn't learned that lesson in Jacksonville:
Quote:
“We were a whistle” away, Coughlin said. “We’re a whistle (and) we’re in the Super Bowl. And that’s my position, OK?
“So tell me, everyone out there, what they’re going to do in that circumstance about your football team. Aren’t you going to fill other pieces in and try to be as good as you can be? And we tried, didn’t we? Well, the nature of the game got us, so we go back to the drawing board. But I’ll put the gloves on with anybody that wants to talk about what” went awry.
Coughlin still doesn't understand that in the NFL you are always moving forward or backward. Last year is last year; each year requires its own independent objective self-analysis. Shit, each game requires it.
A roster is never "built". There is no rolling out a red carpet for a young QB with a "built up roster".
The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
and I'm strictly talking about the Giants here, then you are maximizing your value putting a rookie QB on a team with Saquon Barkley than you are putting a rookie QB on a team without Saquon Barkley.
For instance, if we took Darnold this year, he would be a bad, bad situation. And we would have wasted at least one of those valuable five years. Instead, what we did was take Barkley, start to build our offense around him. Now, when we do anty up this year or next for the first round guy, he will be coming into a much more favorable situation, and perhaps be able to step right in week 1, year 1, and have a successful year. Thus maximizing the so called five year window.
it's an enormous advantage. I've been pointing that out for years.
If you're going to pay a guy franchise QB money you'd better be damn sure he can get you to a title. And even then it can blow up in your face...I wonder if Green Bay would pay Rodgers again if they could do it over. He's an incredible player, but age and injury have taken a toll this year. I'd be genuinely worried about whether he can get back to what he was. What would Green Bay have been able to get for him in trade after last season? It's a question worth asking.
The next interesting test case will be Goff in LA. I think if they pay him they're making a big mistake. McVay is the star there, not Goff.
Goff looked like a guy scared of the cold last Sunday Â
And even with a vet quarterback as experienced as Eli, the offense largely sucked with Barkley on it until the season was effectively over.
The offense will be different next year. Barkley will be different. Assuming any player will be the same player next year (and/or the year after) is a dangerous game. The forces of attrition in the NFL are enormous and constant.
And who is the next QB? We had good possible answers to those questions this offseason. Now we have no answer. And it continues to drive me nuts that now people seem to think it's easy to find a blue chip QB prospect, when a year ago (before we picked a RB) no one felt that way.
Dallas didn’t have a ready made offense for dak Prescott? That offense wasn’t “built?” Whatever the term “built” means, semantics, all I know is you most definitely do build up certain areas of the team and then focus elsewhere as needed. This isn’t 1988 anymore.
The goal is to gather as many good and inexpensive players over a fluid amount of time while plugging glaring holes with veteran help. Veterans cost money. You pick your spots. You got it all when the time is right. Then you pray. Make no mistake, good LUCK is needed. Some positions are at a premium, some less so. You pick your spots and pray.
The best teams have the best players. After a while the best players get paid. Let them all walk and your business model will crumble. Sign the wrong ones long term and it crumbles. Good luck predicting injuries too because in the real world that’s not possible. If Oliver Vernon doesn’t get hurt in August we might be playoff team right now and he’s our best defensive player all year long rather than just over the last two weeks.
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Terps, you and I both agreed years back the way to win a title is to fatten up on one part of the team and make that unit dominant, even if it comes at the expense of another unit. If you see a great player for the offense you take that player even if the position isn’t a so called need.
The only way to win is to excel at something. Being good across the board is nice, but not a fool proof model. Then again there’s no fool proof model. Get to January by any means necessary and then pray.
RE: RE: The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
RE: RE: RE: The problem is that if they make the second contract.... Â
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Of course. But teams are paying 30m to skirt that risk. It's past the tipping point to where it's worth it. And like I said, the talent has flattened out. Teams overestimate the downside of a Dak vs. having to settle for a guy like Fitzpatrick. Minus the age, they're pretty fungible.
Do the Patriots look like they do much praying to you? This season will be 16 in a row of 10+ wins for them. That's not luck, or prayer. Over a long period of time luck becomes less and less a factor if you've got a solid program in place.
If I'm designing a bridge I don't count on luck to keep it from collapsing. If I'm going into surgery and the surgeon pray before going to work on me, I want a new surgeon.
The Giants are a $3 billion dollar corporation with access to enormous resources. Relying on prayer and luck at any level is unacceptable.
on the contingency if a prospect busts and you turn to the veteran journeyman market. The real one, not the Bradford or Glennon one where teams convince themselves they may have untapped potential to be a franchise guy. I don't think it's too difficult to find a replacement for a Dak level QB in the draft either.
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Best four teams in football all have one thing in common.
Can you guess??
Point is, contracts are one thing but simply “plugging in” any QB into a good team isn’t a recipe for anything except being the Jags of recent years or Niners of a few years back.
It’s still a QB league and when the dust settles, the last team standing will have an elite QB or have had elite QB play. Nothing has changed.
What does that have to do with Cousins?
Awfully early out West amigo, you get a break.
A different angle is that 5/10 top paid QBs per 2018 cap cost are in the playoff hunt and 5/10 were not drafted in the 1st.
I like Ryan. He’s having a terrific year actually. But Atlanta has been besieged by injuries on that defense. So they have been playing with a shorthand for most of the year.
As mentioned, JimG has been out for most of the year.
Stafford is a disaster.
Hard to evaluate Carr with the wrecking ball Gruden is taking to that organization...
The facts of the matter are that Minnesota taxes their professional athletes at a very high level.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
So in order to stay competitive in the QB market, they had to overpay to actually get him at the going rate for a QB.
LMAO!!
I'm not saying you don't pay your QBs either but if you know your QBs level is average or worse, you're better off reinforcing the roster around the position and going back to the well. Teams do it all the time at other positions, they let their mediocre free agents walk, they just have a fear at QB because the stakes are higher. The stakes shouldn't change the decision making though.
This is the point I took from it as well. If anything, this would suggest that keeping Eli around next year at 20M would be a huge mistake.
Of course, that list is extremely flawed for the reasons mentioned above.
LMAO!!
Uh, the word was terrific.
But I suggest you review his production. And I’ll let those numbers speak for themselves.
I’ll take that as a compliment.
I am always fair in my assessments.
Tom Brady made less money by actually playing in the Super Bowl because he had to be taxed by the state of Minnesota. Jimmy G made more by just collecting the game check and never actually "working" in the state.
Is this true? I mean, how do you actually know this?
I ask because I'm curious about the definition of working. It seems that most tax officials consider the number of days to include days spent in practice. In other words, a backup QB would have been determined to "work" in the state because of his practice time and, I imagine, even suiting up for the game.
Anyway, that's how I understand it, so I'd love to hear how come that's wrong. Thanks!
Quote:
A great year...
LMAO!!
Uh, the word was terrific.
But I suggest you review his production. And I’ll let those numbers speak for themselves.
Lol....
Matt Ryan is the ultimate stat padding, least clutch WB in the NFL. But hey... LETS LOOK AT HIS STATS!!!
6 of Ryan’s last 7 TDs have come in the 2nd half when they have been down by 3 Scores or more.
Stat padder.
You can go to any position and find examples of teams with the highest paid at the position not making the playoffs.
There isn't one way to do it. There's where you are, the draftable players and free agents and go from there. But the 5 year cap friendly contract looks like the constant.
Others on that list represent horrendous value. OAK and SF should be flogged for the deals they are in much worse than NYG should. Cousins probably as well in case of MN.
Giants are not alone in bad decisions.
The NFL does not work that way. No team is ever "already built".
Team building is a constant, ongoing process. This is a mistake the Giants have made frequently going well back into the Coughlin years. Roster construction can't be based on, "We're all set in this area, so let's focus our resources in other areas." That kind of reactive approach has characterized the Giants' approach to roster building (and coaching staff construction) going back over a decade. And based on his very recent quotes Coughlin hasn't learned that lesson in Jacksonville:
“So tell me, everyone out there, what they’re going to do in that circumstance about your football team. Aren’t you going to fill other pieces in and try to be as good as you can be? And we tried, didn’t we? Well, the nature of the game got us, so we go back to the drawing board. But I’ll put the gloves on with anybody that wants to talk about what” went awry.
Coughlin still doesn't understand that in the NFL you are always moving forward or backward. Last year is last year; each year requires its own independent objective self-analysis. Shit, each game requires it.
A roster is never "built". There is no rolling out a red carpet for a young QB with a "built up roster".
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
For instance, if we took Darnold this year, he would be a bad, bad situation. And we would have wasted at least one of those valuable five years. Instead, what we did was take Barkley, start to build our offense around him. Now, when we do anty up this year or next for the first round guy, he will be coming into a much more favorable situation, and perhaps be able to step right in week 1, year 1, and have a successful year. Thus maximizing the so called five year window.
If you're going to pay a guy franchise QB money you'd better be damn sure he can get you to a title. And even then it can blow up in your face...I wonder if Green Bay would pay Rodgers again if they could do it over. He's an incredible player, but age and injury have taken a toll this year. I'd be genuinely worried about whether he can get back to what he was. What would Green Bay have been able to get for him in trade after last season? It's a question worth asking.
The next interesting test case will be Goff in LA. I think if they pay him they're making a big mistake. McVay is the star there, not Goff.
The offense will be different next year. Barkley will be different. Assuming any player will be the same player next year (and/or the year after) is a dangerous game. The forces of attrition in the NFL are enormous and constant.
And who is the next QB? We had good possible answers to those questions this offseason. Now we have no answer. And it continues to drive me nuts that now people seem to think it's easy to find a blue chip QB prospect, when a year ago (before we picked a RB) no one felt that way.
The goal is to gather as many good and inexpensive players over a fluid amount of time while plugging glaring holes with veteran help. Veterans cost money. You pick your spots. You got it all when the time is right. Then you pray. Make no mistake, good LUCK is needed. Some positions are at a premium, some less so. You pick your spots and pray.
The best teams have the best players. After a while the best players get paid. Let them all walk and your business model will crumble. Sign the wrong ones long term and it crumbles. Good luck predicting injuries too because in the real world that’s not possible. If Oliver Vernon doesn’t get hurt in August we might be playoff team right now and he’s our best defensive player all year long rather than just over the last two weeks.
I believe in Shurmur but I know many here don't. Is the outcome for this QB the same with Shurmur vs McVay vs Hue Jackson vs Reid?
So many variables to ever think there is one way. I think you pay attention to the constants and work from there to build your vision.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
The only way to win is to excel at something. Being good across the board is nice, but not a fool proof model. Then again there’s no fool proof model. Get to January by any means necessary and then pray.
Quote:
you're going to have to pay. Even for average quality. See Dak Prescott asking for 28 million. See Kirk Cousins. No way they should pay that. But they will, because otherwise they have to start over.
And the more times you draft a QB in the first round, the higher percentage you're going to pick a bust, because that's what a lot of them end up being.
I don't think you have to pay those guys. You can trade them, you can let them walk. IMO, I think there's a dearth of special QBs but there's actually a good number of capable QBs. The talent flattens out. Teams fear the unknown a little too much and end up paying for mediocre.
The Giants should be on a 5 year plan anyway, so what happens with that second contract with a drafted QB is a down the road problem. Get a QB prospect you like on a cost controlled contract and you have the flexibility you need to build the talent around him.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Well there's also risk involved. Like if you miss.
Of course. But teams are paying 30m to skirt that risk. It's past the tipping point to where it's worth it. And like I said, the talent has flattened out. Teams overestimate the downside of a Dak vs. having to settle for a guy like Fitzpatrick. Minus the age, they're pretty fungible.
If I'm designing a bridge I don't count on luck to keep it from collapsing. If I'm going into surgery and the surgeon pray before going to work on me, I want a new surgeon.
The Giants are a $3 billion dollar corporation with access to enormous resources. Relying on prayer and luck at any level is unacceptable.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
Give me some examples were a "good roster can carry a poor QB" materialized into something big - which I'm assuming you mean a SB.
Beyond Dilfer and Eli... ;)
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
I think there's something to that if you don't have a Mahomes. I don't think it's a linear build though.
The idea should be that you build up your roster, defense and running game, then plug a QB in.
It seems to me like you're trying to fit a philosophy into what you think the Giants are trying to do. I have a couple problems with that:
1. Like I said above, I don't think you "build up your roster". The roster is a constant pipeline of people coming in and out. You're never static.
2. Waiting for a certain point to "plug a QB in" could result in missing on a better QB now to settle on a poorer one once you've determined the roster is sufficiently "built up".
3. I don't think the Giants are trying to "build up" the roster in preparation for the next QB. I think their plan entering this season was the same as it's been for several seasons: make a run with Eli.
Can you guess??
Point is, contracts are one thing but simply “plugging in” any QB into a good team isn’t a recipe for anything except being the Jags of recent years or Niners of a few years back.
It’s still a QB league and when the dust settles, the last team standing will have an elite QB or have had elite QB play. Nothing has changed.