@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
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.
Well, I've always believed #3 is drives the decision making at Jints Central. And, I fear, will drive decision making in 2019.
As for #2, I only think that work in college because the of the talent disparity. In the NFL, in my judgment, the talent and coaching are so good and deep you cana't expect such a prime position as QB to be JAG...
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.
That is true, it is fluid, but there are certainly better periods than others. For instance, it would seemingly be a better year next year in terms of stability to insert a new QB rather than have inserted him, at the beginning of this year or last year for that matter.
Quote:
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".
Passing on a player like Saquon Barkley for a player you consider to be of lesser quality because you are desperate to get that QB isn't a sound roster building strategy either.
Quote:
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.
I think they are trying to build the future. Period. I think they are satisfied with Eli currently and are addressing other areas. I do not think they are specifically on a mission with blinders of selling out to make another run for Eli specifically.
Terps, you used to be all over the Seattle team building plan. In fact, I think I could even quote you as saying you would rather, after Eli was gone, build an awesome team and just draft QB's to play for periods of time then let them walk. And you would have let Russell Wilson walk, too, at the time.
QB is the highest paid position in the league and always has been. if you're going to sign a QB to a second contract, it's going to be enormous. If you look at the likely playoff teams, there are plenty of veteran QBs, and all of them - Rivers, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger and Wilson - have salaries comparable to those on that list. Washington didn't think Cousins was worth the money. They may have been right, but was Smith a better investment? And what happens next for them? There's no team that's shown an ability to win consistently by churning through cheap QBs. In the end, it's about your ability to identify the franchise QB in the first place. And that's not so easy to do
Nothing changed. But that's not what the Giants are trying to do. If it were, Eli would have been cut after 2017 when he had an out in his contract and a QB would have been drafted from a QB-rich draft. And they wouldn't have paid a WR the contract they did.
The Giants did what they did to try to milk another run out of Eli. They weren't thinking much about a succession plan, as evidenced by their pathetic handling of Lauletta since they drafted him.
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).
If you're inclined to do it this way, you're still better off with a dirt cheap placeholder QB while you assemble the team around him so that you're maximizing the cap space for the rest of the roster that you're trying to build, IMO.
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
1. The first thing I'd say is that those QBs are all significantly better players than Eli at this point. It pains me to say it, but Eli is done as a top shelf QB. There's no insult there...it's just the way it is. Everyone has a limit and I think he's hit his. Roethlisberger's level of play has dropped too, but his physical traits sustain him a little more. Rivers is playing really well. He's also surrounded by better players, IMO, on the OL and skill positions. His WRs are really good. Brees is a tier above all these guys and always has been. He's an all-timer and a master of the position.
2. The franchise QB model is still clearly the dominant model in the NFL. It's not just about wins...marketing and perception play a huge role too. It would take seriously big balls to have traded Aaron Rodgers this past offseason. Maybe only Belichick has that kind of political capital in the NFL...and even he might not have it considering the rumors we heard out of New England with the Garoppolo trade. If anyone is going to be the agent of change from the franchise QB model it has to be the owners. Robert Kraft has to be willing to say to Belichick, "If you think it's time to trade Brady, do it. I'll back you." I'm not sure that's happening anywhere. Before the franchise QB can be discarded he has to exhibit deterioration on the field. Eli and Flacco are two good recent examples...and even then the Giants haven't moved on from Eli yet.
3. I think Seattle is an interesting team to watch. They seem to have learned that Russell Wilson best serves as a complementary player...he isn't good enough to be the centerpiece. This season they have taken the offense out of his hands and put it back into the running game, and even though they have some serious talent deficiencies they will be going to the playoffs. While they're paying Wilson like a franchise guy, he isn't functioning as one and it's been to their benefit. To me Pete Carroll is the coach of the year. I wonder if he'd consider moving Wilson. There's a potential out in his contract after this year. But again, Wilson is very popular and it would take total organizational support to make that move.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
There's no doubt. Barkley is incredible. You won't hear me say otherwise. I'm glad we've got the guy. My concerns stem from:
1. I don't believe in Shumur to coach an offense around him.
2. I don't like what I think the draft pick says about the front office's mindset.
3. You don't have to have a running back of Barkley's incredible quality to have a great offense. We're 16th in the NFL in scoring, and our ranking was much worse when the season was still actually in play for us. We're 21st in the league in rushing. We've been outrushed significantly by the teams RBs that are a fraction of what Barkley is...SF, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago, Miami, Green Bay. So while Barkley is an incredible talent, it hasn't really mattered. We probably could have gone 5-8 with a pedestrian offense with Gallman at RB.
Well said. I agree. I do think you are hard on the Barkley pick, but it appears to be more of a lack of confidence in Shurmur to build a game plan which correctly revolves around Barkley.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Incidentally, I'd recommend the Lombardi book, "Gridiron Genius". I'm only about 60 pages in, but he's making some compelling arguments showing some common themes between how Belichick and Walsh operated. It's a good read, and troubling if you're watching these Giants.
GM Street is my favorite current podcast in addition to his contributions on The Athletic.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
GM Street is my favorite current podcast in addition to his contributions on The Athletic.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
The chapter I read last night was really interesting. In short, in 1996 he was asked by the Rams GM to put a report together on how a football team should function (the Rams were a mess), and that would recommend some head coach candidates. The list he put together included Belichick, Parcells, Saban, Chan Gailey, Vic Fangio, Steve Mariucci, and one or two other guys. The Rams GM dismissed the report and instead hired Dick Vermeil, which obviously also ended up working out.
This exact process is what the Giants should have done instead of disguising Accorsi's rubber stamping of Gettleman as a legitimate GM search.
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
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... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
What's misleading or unhelpful about these smattering of examples is that it doesn't show how many times teams with excellent QBs have consistently MADE the playoffs.
Success in the NFL is fragile. Success without an excellent QB is especially so.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
By player...
Not sure Foles works. He replaced the likely MVP. But he’s been a competent QB in the league. So he was well coached by Pedersen who created some great game plans. Let’s be honest - Foles played brilliantly in the NFCC and the SB.
Manning was indeed a passenger on that Bronco team. That year they morphed into a lesser version of the 2000 Ravens. But it’s still Peyton Manning, and he was still a threat to make a play. His decline was a result of the neck injury, not that he was some journeyman guy like Dilfer who really couldn’t put it together...
Bottles - yes.
Keeenum - at least he was statistically really good last year. Not like a Bortles or a Dilfer or a Neil O’Donnell.
Kaepernick was good. He was a legit two way threat. Yes, he declined when Harbaugh left, but he was a real playmaker.
Alex Smith is underrated. I’ve come around on him the last few years. But I see your point...
The key is getting sustained winning from those JAG QBs. And that has proven highly unlikely.
I think what makes Joe Gibbs one of the great all time coaches was getting three SB wins with three different QBs...Theisman, Williams, and Rypien. To me, that is one of the most underrated accomplishments in the game...
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!
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
RE: The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
RE: RE: The argument for cost-controlled salaries for 5 years is a myth. Â
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Which merely underscores the premise that there are no cost-controlled 5 years for a QB. A team has 4 years. Can't let them sit. Can't wait for them to mature to their upside. Can't build a team around them while wasting the 4 years.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
[/quote]
Vince Farragamo.
QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
I also think he mentioned that they might have prorated the taxes for an entire year since they were there working for a week of time. I could be completely off though.
RE: QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
I was at that Super Bowl in New Orleans...Baltimore could not handle him. If Jim Harbaugh had any balls in that last possession they would have won the Super Bowl.
that was plugged into an already established system and roster that had success.
Just because I named him in the list doesn't mean he didn't perform. Alex Smith being on the list isn't a knock, either. He had a great game against New Orleans where he took the game over and won it. But he was not the driving force of that team all season. He was a passenger and occasionally rose to the occasion.
The name of the game is having a strong roster and system in place. Then you can add the QB, and even if he's a miss, or just okay, you can still win in the meantime.
You add the QB when the opportunity arises. You can't conjure him up out of thin air. If I were running a team I'd never stop searching for a QB no matter what my QB depth chart looked like.
It sounds quite a bit like you're trying to say that this is what the Giants are doing. It isn't.
And you're trying just as hard to say there is no other way Â
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
It's hard to take anything you have to say about Eli or QBs in good faith.
Because it's hard to have a conversation with people that want to focus on Eli when I haven't mentioned Eli once in this entire thread, yet have given examples and explanations about building a team moving forward and drafting a replacement for Eli.
I can understand if I'm sitting here talking about building around Eli for one more run, but I'm not.
for the word "Eli" and see how many times I mention it.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Like with your statistical presentation in this case, you cherrypick and selectively frame things so you can obscure your broader history of posting. You're right I shouldn't respond and I won't in the future. I've avoided posting largely because it's the board is clustered into thoughtless critique and older posters who harp on the worst arguments so as to drown out carefully considered criticism of what has been, for the better part of a decade, a losing franchise.
Now your next move will be to say, "Oh go find me an Eli thread that I started or where I was holding a shadow debate about Eli." I'm not going to do that. If that means you win, sure, that's fine. I think there's ample evidence out there that my characterization is fair and honestly I don't care enough to comb BBI archives to support it. Enjoy the "win".
You don't have to comb the archives, just comb this thread. Â
It's not my fault that you didn't read the entire thread and just saw my name on it and assumed that I'm advocating for Eli. That's your problem, not mine.
I think if you read the thread in context and it's entirety, you'd see me strictly talking about building the team up moving forward and how the next QB would factor in to that.
Eli is a placeholder at this point. To what degree is up for debate (not for me to debate because I don't care to, anymore), but a placeholder nonetheless.
RE: RE: QB salaries are pretty consistent with the cap... Â
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
That's the max cap number for each year. It's not the average of the top 5 which would probably be a better number but I don't have that data at my finger tips.
RE: People are acting like there will never be another opportunity Â
What's irrational is the way the narrative has flipped since we picked a RB over a QB. In March 2018 the consensus view was that it was harder to find a QB than a RB. That view was universal.
And before you tell me how life changing Barkley has been, note that he has 160 yards more and a lower YPA than Phillip Lindsay, an undrafted free agent out of Colorado State.
As ever, if the Giants drafted an inanimate carbon rod there would be people defending the move.
Using Lindsay as an example of how easy it is to find a great RB without using a high pick on him would be like me using Russell Wilson or Kirk Cousins as an example of how easy it is to find a QB in later rounds.
I can understand if Darnold, Allen, or Rosen.... Â
were lighting the world on fire right now, but they're not. They haven't given any of their respective franchises anything other than hope that they're good.
And hope only lasts so long. Whether they give them something more tangible remains to be seen.
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.
Well, I've always believed #3 is drives the decision making at Jints Central. And, I fear, will drive decision making in 2019.
As for #2, I only think that work in college because the of the talent disparity. In the NFL, in my judgment, the talent and coaching are so good and deep you cana't expect such a prime position as QB to be JAG...
Quote:
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.
That is true, it is fluid, but there are certainly better periods than others. For instance, it would seemingly be a better year next year in terms of stability to insert a new QB rather than have inserted him, at the beginning of this year or last year for that matter.
Passing on a player like Saquon Barkley for a player you consider to be of lesser quality because you are desperate to get that QB isn't a sound roster building strategy either.
I think they are trying to build the future. Period. I think they are satisfied with Eli currently and are addressing other areas. I do not think they are specifically on a mission with blinders of selling out to make another run for Eli specifically.
Terps, you used to be all over the Seattle team building plan. In fact, I think I could even quote you as saying you would rather, after Eli was gone, build an awesome team and just draft QB's to play for periods of time then let them walk. And you would have let Russell Wilson walk, too, at the time.
What changed?
Paying Eli dumb money means we are like all the other losers out there?
Or Eli's not on the list therefore we are smart, even if we don't make the playoffs?
Or it's OK to pay Eli dumb money because everybody does it?
Or since everyone else looks dumb, we are less so?
...
...
Do you really think you should talk about unsurprising posts considering level of bias in your own posts?
The Giants did what they did to try to milk another run out of Eli. They weren't thinking much about a succession plan, as evidenced by their pathetic handling of Lauletta since they drafted him.
If you're inclined to do it this way, you're still better off with a dirt cheap placeholder QB while you assemble the team around him so that you're maximizing the cap space for the rest of the roster that you're trying to build, IMO.
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
What are the Steelers, Chargers & Saints doing differently with their late 30’s QB’s which wouldn’t categorize as ‘make a run’ with their QB’s. All of these franchises have been successful this year - what are they doing?
What are the teams who just paid huge money to their QB’s recently - SF, ATL, DET, MIN, GB & I’m sure a few others I’m missing doing that wouldn’t be considered ‘making a run’ with their QB?
The Pats are clearly on an island by themselves here. What franchise other than NE do you look at and say, they are a smooth well oiled machine that isn’t trying to win with their veteran/high paid QB?
1. The first thing I'd say is that those QBs are all significantly better players than Eli at this point. It pains me to say it, but Eli is done as a top shelf QB. There's no insult there...it's just the way it is. Everyone has a limit and I think he's hit his. Roethlisberger's level of play has dropped too, but his physical traits sustain him a little more. Rivers is playing really well. He's also surrounded by better players, IMO, on the OL and skill positions. His WRs are really good. Brees is a tier above all these guys and always has been. He's an all-timer and a master of the position.
2. The franchise QB model is still clearly the dominant model in the NFL. It's not just about wins...marketing and perception play a huge role too. It would take seriously big balls to have traded Aaron Rodgers this past offseason. Maybe only Belichick has that kind of political capital in the NFL...and even he might not have it considering the rumors we heard out of New England with the Garoppolo trade. If anyone is going to be the agent of change from the franchise QB model it has to be the owners. Robert Kraft has to be willing to say to Belichick, "If you think it's time to trade Brady, do it. I'll back you." I'm not sure that's happening anywhere. Before the franchise QB can be discarded he has to exhibit deterioration on the field. Eli and Flacco are two good recent examples...and even then the Giants haven't moved on from Eli yet.
3. I think Seattle is an interesting team to watch. They seem to have learned that Russell Wilson best serves as a complementary player...he isn't good enough to be the centerpiece. This season they have taken the offense out of his hands and put it back into the running game, and even though they have some serious talent deficiencies they will be going to the playoffs. While they're paying Wilson like a franchise guy, he isn't functioning as one and it's been to their benefit. To me Pete Carroll is the coach of the year. I wonder if he'd consider moving Wilson. There's a potential out in his contract after this year. But again, Wilson is very popular and it would take total organizational support to make that move.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
There's no doubt. Barkley is incredible. You won't hear me say otherwise. I'm glad we've got the guy. My concerns stem from:
1. I don't believe in Shumur to coach an offense around him.
2. I don't like what I think the draft pick says about the front office's mindset.
3. You don't have to have a running back of Barkley's incredible quality to have a great offense. We're 16th in the NFL in scoring, and our ranking was much worse when the season was still actually in play for us. We're 21st in the league in rushing. We've been outrushed significantly by the teams RBs that are a fraction of what Barkley is...SF, Baltimore, Buffalo, Tennessee, Chicago, Miami, Green Bay. So while Barkley is an incredible talent, it hasn't really mattered. We probably could have gone 5-8 with a pedestrian offense with Gallman at RB.
I think Barkley as a centerpiece can be a fun/dynamic winning offense if coached properly.
Incidentally, I'd recommend the Lombardi book, "Gridiron Genius". I'm only about 60 pages in, but he's making some compelling arguments showing some common themes between how Belichick and Walsh operated. It's a good read, and troubling if you're watching these Giants.
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
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... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
If there is anything this franchise needs, it’s Belichick. I have no idea if there was any validity to those rumors last year, but if there is ever the slimmest glimmer of possibility, it should be pursued at all costs.
The chapter I read last night was really interesting. In short, in 1996 he was asked by the Rams GM to put a report together on how a football team should function (the Rams were a mess), and that would recommend some head coach candidates. The list he put together included Belichick, Parcells, Saban, Chan Gailey, Vic Fangio, Steve Mariucci, and one or two other guys. The Rams GM dismissed the report and instead hired Dick Vermeil, which obviously also ended up working out.
This exact process is what the Giants should have done instead of disguising Accorsi's rubber stamping of Gettleman as a legitimate GM search.
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
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... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
What's misleading or unhelpful about these smattering of examples is that it doesn't show how many times teams with excellent QBs have consistently MADE the playoffs.
Success in the NFL is fragile. Success without an excellent QB is especially so.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
By player...
Not sure Foles works. He replaced the likely MVP. But he’s been a competent QB in the league. So he was well coached by Pedersen who created some great game plans. Let’s be honest - Foles played brilliantly in the NFCC and the SB.
Manning was indeed a passenger on that Bronco team. That year they morphed into a lesser version of the 2000 Ravens. But it’s still Peyton Manning, and he was still a threat to make a play. His decline was a result of the neck injury, not that he was some journeyman guy like Dilfer who really couldn’t put it together...
Bottles - yes.
Keeenum - at least he was statistically really good last year. Not like a Bortles or a Dilfer or a Neil O’Donnell.
Kaepernick was good. He was a legit two way threat. Yes, he declined when Harbaugh left, but he was a real playmaker.
Alex Smith is underrated. I’ve come around on him the last few years. But I see your point...
I think what makes Joe Gibbs one of the great all time coaches was getting three SB wins with three different QBs...Theisman, Williams, and Rypien. To me, that is one of the most underrated accomplishments in the game...
Quote:
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!
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Quote:
It has been repeated on this thread and is often used in the argument for team building by leveraging the cost-controlled salary window before the QB signs their second contract. There are only 4 years of cost-controlled salary on a rookie contract. While the 5th year option is available to control the player's rights and extend the negotiation for a second contract by another year, it comes with costs that are equivalent to the transition tag on a player.
It is calculated differently for players that are picked in the Top 10 and those that are picked from 11-32. Top 10 picks are set at the Transition Tag tender (average of the Top 10 salaries at a player's position). Those that are picked 11-32 are calculated as the average of the 3rd - 25th salaries at a player's position.
For example, Marcus Mariota who was drafted in 2015 carried a 5th year option salary equal to $21M. No one would consider that cost-controlled for the sake of argument in roster construction while leveraging the rookie contract window. If we had drafted Darnold, you get 4 years of the rookie contract before he would be earning $25M under a 5th year option.
So for those that say you have to get the QB when you have the chance before a team's roster is built to be competitive, you are wrong as you will be flushing a year of that rookie salary. It is also imperative that prospects (especially those in the Top 10) are ready to play. Having them sit and learn is also flushing a year of that rookie salary. If a player is "raw" but with a "ton of upside", you are wasting the cost-controlled years. By the time the player hits their window that aligns with their upside, then they are nearing the end of the rookie contract looking to sign a second contract.
If there is a Rookie worthy of the 5th year option, they will negotiate a new long-term deal for the QB which I think is fair.
Which merely underscores the premise that there are no cost-controlled 5 years for a QB. A team has 4 years. Can't let them sit. Can't wait for them to mature to their upside. Can't build a team around them while wasting the 4 years.
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
[/quote]
Vince Farragamo.
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
Quote:
Yes Boomer was going on and in about it last year during the Super Bowl. Jimmy G wasn’t actually on the Patriots team he was with the Niners since he was traded. He didn’t practice during the Super Bowl week because he wasn’t even officially “on” the team. He still got the bonus though.
Thanks - forgot about the trade and wasn't considering that. Makes sense now.
I also think he mentioned that they might have prorated the taxes for an entire year since they were there working for a week of time. I could be completely off though.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
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... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
Kaepernick was carried? He was pretty good in 13 and 14 and was a weapon not many team had in the league.
Quote:
In comment 14216068 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 14216058 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the more I realize a good QB can't carry a poor roster, however, a good roster can carry a poor QB.
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... ;)
Nick Foles
The corpse of Peyton Manning in Denver
Blake Bortles last year
Case Keenum last year
Colin Kaepernick in San Fran
Alex Smith in San Fran
Kaepernick was carried? He was pretty good in 13 and 14 and was a weapon not many team had in the league.
That should say 12 and 13
He didn't show anything after Harbaugh left that illustrated he was more than a system player.
He's kinda like a Dak Prescott, IMO.
Just because I named him in the list doesn't mean he didn't perform. Alex Smith being on the list isn't a knock, either. He had a great game against New Orleans where he took the game over and won it. But he was not the driving force of that team all season. He was a passenger and occasionally rose to the occasion.
The name of the game is having a strong roster and system in place. Then you can add the QB, and even if he's a miss, or just okay, you can still win in the meantime.
It sounds quite a bit like you're trying to say that this is what the Giants are doing. It isn't.
You can take either approach. Doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong.
They didn't like the QB value at 2, so they passed.
That's really all there is too it.
So yeah, when they feel like a. they need to and b. the value is there... "then they'll get a QB.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
Quote:
One of our SB seasons was direct evidence of what an elite QB can do--elevate the play of everyone around him.
Now, since Eli has declined, the story is "balance", "excellence throughout the roster", "team game". Obviously the "nuanced" point combines both, but we have seen how much a great QB can consistently elevate the teams they're on. That we can't put too much blame on a QB.
It's not about Eli. He is the past. It's about the future and how the game is evolving, IMO.
It's hard to take anything you have to say about Eli or QBs in good faith.
I can understand if I'm sitting here talking about building around Eli for one more run, but I'm not.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Secondly, when I do, it's a response to other people and it's about finding his replacement.
Like with your statistical presentation in this case, you cherrypick and selectively frame things so you can obscure your broader history of posting. You're right I shouldn't respond and I won't in the future. I've avoided posting largely because it's the board is clustered into thoughtless critique and older posters who harp on the worst arguments so as to drown out carefully considered criticism of what has been, for the better part of a decade, a losing franchise.
Now your next move will be to say, "Oh go find me an Eli thread that I started or where I was holding a shadow debate about Eli." I'm not going to do that. If that means you win, sure, that's fine. I think there's ample evidence out there that my characterization is fair and honestly I don't care enough to comb BBI archives to support it. Enjoy the "win".
I think if you read the thread in context and it's entirety, you'd see me strictly talking about building the team up moving forward and how the next QB would factor in to that.
Eli is a placeholder at this point. To what degree is up for debate (not for me to debate because I don't care to, anymore), but a placeholder nonetheless.
Quote:
Since 1994, max cap hit for a QB that year vs. the salary cap of that year.
Looking at your graph, I would say that starting around 2008 QB salaries have not become proportionate to the salary cap. What percentage of the cap should QB salaries on the second contract account for? 20% should be fair, but the top end of the market exceeds that. Next year, the cap is estimated to be $190M. So with next year's cap, a second contract should be in the $19M/yr range, but we know they exceed that already.
That's the max cap number for each year. It's not the average of the top 5 which would probably be a better number but I don't have that data at my finger tips.
What's irrational is the way the narrative has flipped since we picked a RB over a QB. In March 2018 the consensus view was that it was harder to find a QB than a RB. That view was universal.
And before you tell me how life changing Barkley has been, note that he has 160 yards more and a lower YPA than Phillip Lindsay, an undrafted free agent out of Colorado State.
As ever, if the Giants drafted an inanimate carbon rod there would be people defending the move.
And hope only lasts so long. Whether they give them something more tangible remains to be seen.