And the reason I think we leave Jones out is because it will kill the discussion before it even starts, and it is also something that is still over a year away on the Giants radar. So NO JONES! If you can't stick to that rule, just stay out of it, please. This is a discussion on team building in general, not the Giants.
We have a real philosophical dilemma on our hands here when it comes to discussing which QB's should get paid, and which should not. Who is worth it, and who is not.
I think the Seahawks of the past decade are a great example of this phenomenon, from beginning of the cycle to the end. Climbing the mountain, reaching the summit, and the slow descension. When Wilson was drafted, and on his rookie contract, the team around him was strong. He was able to be dropped in, protected, not asked to do lift anybody else up, but drive the car. They went to back to back Superbowls. Some might say that Wilson himself was a passenger on these campaigns with the Legion of Boom and Marshawn Lynch being the driving forces of those teams, but he was the QB. After getting his second contract, which was hotly debated on BBI whether he was worth it at the time, the defense and running game that had allowed the Seahawks to dominate began to deteriorate. Wilson was asked to do much more which he absolutely did, and I think people would say he was absolutely worth the money. However, it was a slow burn and each passing year that that salary went up, the ability to keep the roster around the QB intact went down... and now you have the 2020 Seahawks, where Wilson wants out because of the Seahawks inability to put a roster around him. Wilson wants out of a situation his own success helped create. Wilson gets paid more and more, the roster gets less and less.
It seems to me that there definitely IS a correlation between success and having that key cog in place (QB), but conversely there is ALSO a correlation between the QB occupying more and more of the salary cap, the rest of the roster deteriorating bit by bit because of it, and success lessening. And it seems like you can almost see it. Yeah, sure the Seahawks (or Packers) keep making the playoffs, but they are just missing that little bit, that something special on the roster that gets them over the hump. To me, this feels like an inevitable destiny for all great QB's and championship teams.
If this is in fact, the "new NFL", at what point is it robbing Peter to pay Paul and where do you draw that line? Something has got to give, and QB salaries are only going up and up. There are a lot of absolutes thrown around here about what you MUST do to either get, retain, or move on from a Quarterback. Who is worthy and who is not.
The truth is it's a very grey area with a ton of moving parts. Every franchise has a decision to make at some point, and they are not all the same. It is a very nuanced strategy that very much depends on your roster construction and offensive and defensive philosophy.
So some questions....
1. Do you need to keep drafting first round QB's until you hit, and if so, do you worry about the wasted resources (high round draft picks) you're not using on strengthening your roster?
2. Is it better to spend most time and resources finding that 15 year QB first, or keep an affordable game manager/placeholder type there while strengthening the roster, and then beginning the search?
3. How long do you give a QB with a stable roster before deciding it's time to reconfigure?
4. What is the threshold for signing a QB to a second contract. What do they need to do to earn it? Is it a statistic threshold? Is it an ability or abilities? Or is it a team fit/chemistry issue?
There are not right answers, I'd really like to see this topic discussed absent of an Giants/Jones bias.
i would say 4 seasons but if you keep changing coaches that also is a problem. Thankfully the Giants have a good coach and will have the same coordinators next season. A big plus. Good thread
5b. Which is more likely to lead to success?
No easy answer IMO, but teams like the Saints, Steelers, and Packers (won't say Pats even though they paid Brady they got away with murder with all the restructures and under market contracts) seemed to make it work.
You just need to make sure your QB is a franchise QB before you pay him like one or you make it worse not better.
The other nuance is the surrounding roster, most of these guys aren't miracle workers; they need a line; they need talent at the skill position. I think Stafford this year is going to be a good case study on how the talent level surrounding the QB affects performance.
Third, if you are going to draft a guy, you need to sculpt your offense to their strengths. Arizona and Baltimore are doing that with their QB; trying to take tailor offense to capitlize on their strengths.
So IF you can find that 15 year guy and tailor the offense to his strengths, then you can start drafting skill position players that fit that scheme.
If you are drafting QBs every 4-5 years to not have to pay them, you need to be cosntantly changing your offensive scheme or trying to draft QBs that fit the roster. The flip side is these monster contracts can hinder development of the roster if you arent hitting on draft picks.
Any way can work, but you need to have a cohseive plan and you need to hit on picks
But did his salary go up faster as % of total cap used by the team each year on that second contract, or did they try to peg it to stay relatively even as the cap went up?
It's hard to blame the QBs for taking what the teams are offering. Most QBs won't do what Brady did for years and take less than he could've for the good of the team. Kind of surprising the union didn't give Brady grief about that (maybe they did and he said shove it, IDK).
My guess is the union might support a QB cap to force teams to spread the money out to more players.
But drafting in the high 20s and backend on every round....hurts the quality of the roster.
Seeing what happen with the Eagles....you better be sure on the QB before paying him.....and make sure you can keep a decent team around him.
Nothing new. It is the "dilemma" GMs fight every season. If the cap keeps rising, it can be a moot point. But it is hard to survive a Carson Wentz/Deshaun Watson situation where a huge number is lost without a return. A freak injury could be devastating causing a team to pay millions for a player that just isn't there.
IDK where the happy medium is and it will be a moving target.
I don't think it has changed at all in this regard. Find a franchise QB, pay, retain him and enjoy being in the hunt every year. Every few years, you will be a favorite when the cap and draft allow you to surround him with above average talent. The lean years will require some magic but at least you have a shot at the dance.
Let's look at the first round guys from 2017 to present, which are also about to hit that 2nd contract point, or will be there in short order:
Trubisky - ?
Mahomes - PAID
DeShaun Waton - PAID (but wants out)
Mayfield - ?
Darnold - ?
Allen - ?
Rosen - ? (No longer with team)
Jackson - ?
Murray - ?
Haskins - ? (No longer with team)
Burrow - ?
Tagovaiola - ?
Herbert - ?
Love - ?
*(Jones deliberately omitted)*
Which ones can be paid right now, wait and see, or shouldn't be paid?
as for your questions
1 - if you don't have a QB it's very hard to win. so you need to get one somehow whether that's through the draft / trade / FA. that doesn't mean you have to reach for one and pass up superior prospects in the draft
2 - you're setting up a binary choice when it's not binary. for example, your jacksonville right now. would you not take lawrence because your team isn't ready to compete yet? of course not. but i think if i were running a team, if i was taking a QB early, i'm building my offense up before my defense to help that QB have success (the giants for instance have not done this)
3 - you know greatness when you see it. for instance herbert is great right away and he seemed to make those players around him better. and if i'm going to pay my QB he has to make the players around him better, and not all QBs who get paid do that. you watch 5 minutes of herbert and 5 minutes of jones and it's very clear who is better
4 - see 3
as for your questions
1 - if you don't have a QB it's very hard to win. so you need to get one somehow whether that's through the draft / trade / FA. that doesn't mean you have to reach for one and pass up superior prospects in the draft
2 - you're setting up a binary choice when it's not binary. for example, your jacksonville right now. would you not take lawrence because your team isn't ready to compete yet? of course not. but i think if i were running a team, if i was taking a QB early, i'm building my offense up before my defense to help that QB have success (the giants for instance have not done this)
3 - you know greatness when you see it. for instance herbert is great right away and he seemed to make those players around him better. and if i'm going to pay my QB he has to make the players around him better, and not all QBs who get paid do that. you watch 5 minutes of herbert and 5 minutes of jones and it's very clear who is better
4 - see 3
I chose those two examples purposely. Because yes, they have been competitive every year since, but they actually won their championships prior to paying, and have not been able to replicate that since. Also, as mentioned, Wilson and Rodgers were dropped into very strong, established rosters.
I'm not saying it's either or. As I said, it's nuanced, and I made sure to say it's a case by case basis from team to team, as well.
This is meant to be a discussion, not a debate. I'm not trying to defend a stance and I'm not asking anybody to defend a stance. If you read my questions, each one has a counter question in the opposite direction.
You don't pay Kirk Cousin, Jimmy G, Joe Flacco of the world.
The difference between winning and losing is being able to identify the difference. There is no one way to do it, no script to follow.
So right now who do you pay and who do you not pay...
Arizona Cardinals - Kyler Murray (Looking likely)
Atlanta Falcons - Matt Ryan (YES)
Baltimore Ravens - Lamar Jackson (YES)
Buffalo Bills - Josh Allen (Looking Likely)
Carolina Panthers - Teddy Bridgewater (NO)
Chicago Bears - Mitchell Trubisky (NO)
Cincinnati Bengals - Joe Burrow (Too Early)
Cleveland Browns - Baker Mayfield (??YES??)
Dallas Cowboys - Dak Prescott (?YES?)
Denver Broncos - Drew Lock (NO)
Detroit Lions - Jared Goff (NO)
Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rodgers (YES)
Houston Texans - Deshaun Watson (YES)
Indianapolis Colts - Carson Wentz (NO, but at the time i would have)
Jacksonville Jaguars - Gardner Minshew (No)
Kansas City Chiefs - Patrick Mahomes (HELL YES)
Las Vegas Raiders - Derek Carr (NO)
Los Angeles Chargers - Justin Herbert (Too Early)
Los Angeles Rams - Matt Stafford (YES)
Miami Dolphins - Tua Tagovailoa (Too Early)
Minnesota Vikings - Kirk Cousins (NO)
New England Patriots - Cam Newton (Not anymore)
New Orleans Saints - Drew Brees (YES)
New York Giants - Daniel Jones (Too Early)
New York Jets - Sam Darnold (NO)
Philadelphia Eagles - Jalen Hurts (Too Early)
Pittsburgh Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger (Not anymore)
San Francisco 49ers - Jimmy Garoppolo (NO)
Seattle Seahawks - Russell Wilson (YES)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tom Brady (YES)
Tennessee Titans - Ryan Tannehill (NO)
Washington Football Team - Alex Smith (NO)
I'm glad you mention the Chargers here because another poster brought up seeing greatness in Herbert. And I agree, he looks like the real deal. I like watching him play.
But that said, with an outstanding rookie campaign, the Chargers with Herbert were only 6-10. They've got a very short period of time to improve upon that, because IF he continues on that trajectory, he's going to get paid and make it that much harder to improve the roster around him.
You don't pay Kirk Cousin, Jimmy G, Joe Flacco of the world.
The difference between winning and losing is being able to identify the difference. There is no one way to do it, no script to follow.
So right now who do you pay and who do you not pay...
Arizona Cardinals - Kyler Murray (Looking likely)
Atlanta Falcons - Matt Ryan (YES)
Baltimore Ravens - Lamar Jackson (YES)
Buffalo Bills - Josh Allen (Looking Likely)
Carolina Panthers - Teddy Bridgewater (NO)
Chicago Bears - Mitchell Trubisky (NO)
Cincinnati Bengals - Joe Burrow (Too Early)
Cleveland Browns - Baker Mayfield (??YES??)
Dallas Cowboys - Dak Prescott (?YES?)
Denver Broncos - Drew Lock (NO)
Detroit Lions - Jared Goff (NO)
Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rodgers (YES)
Houston Texans - Deshaun Watson (YES)
Indianapolis Colts - Carson Wentz (NO, but at the time i would have)
Jacksonville Jaguars - Gardner Minshew (No)
Kansas City Chiefs - Patrick Mahomes (HELL YES)
Las Vegas Raiders - Derek Carr (NO)
Los Angeles Chargers - Justin Herbert (Too Early)
Los Angeles Rams - Matt Stafford (YES)
Miami Dolphins - Tua Tagovailoa (Too Early)
Minnesota Vikings - Kirk Cousins (NO)
New England Patriots - Cam Newton (Not anymore)
New Orleans Saints - Drew Brees (YES)
New York Giants - Daniel Jones (Too Early)
New York Jets - Sam Darnold (NO)
Philadelphia Eagles - Jalen Hurts (Too Early)
Pittsburgh Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger (Not anymore)
San Francisco 49ers - Jimmy Garoppolo (NO)
Seattle Seahawks - Russell Wilson (YES)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tom Brady (YES)
Tennessee Titans - Ryan Tannehill (NO)
Washington Football Team - Alex Smith (NO)
Eli/Rivers/Ben were dropped into loaded rosters.
Peyton and Brees were not. Interestingly enough, Brees was written off as a bust and Rivers was drafted to replace him. But the roster improved and then Brees arrived and originally being written off.
Way too many variables as to winning/losing a game, particularly a playoff game to just pin it on the QB making too much.
Wilson would have had a second ring if Seattle doesn't make one of the worst goal line decisions ever vs Pats. Rodgers probably goes to Super Bowl this year if their moron DC changes the coverage right before halftime. Two easy examples but could come up with hundreds...
If Carroll had just handed the ball to Lynch, Wilson would still have that second ring.
But the point remains that was before his 2nd contract.
If Carroll had just handed the ball to Lynch, Wilson would still have that second ring.
But the point remains that was before his 2nd contract.
Agree it was his first contract...very fair. But just saying look at how tiny the difference is a ring and no ring.
Totally agree that a second contract QB sucking up more money should make it harder to have improve the roster. But the second contract QB could also be a better QB than during his first contract (as long as not getting too old), and in certain instances that might be net positive versus the loss of $ elsewhere on roster. It may be harder but not prohibitive...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/02/18/no-qbs-drafted-from-2009-16-are-set-to-be-with-team-that-drafted-them/ - ( New Window )
So the cowboys either cave to his demands and field a less competitive team or they FT him and then lose him for nothing the next year.
Dak either risk it all to get to the free market or caves and takes a ?top 10? salary? And rides off into the sunset as a Cowboy. Marketing dollars? Are they better if he stays with the Cowboys or moves and has new jersey sales, new excitement???
Or do they trade him now for a couple 1st round picks and reset at the QB position. Possibly drafting the next Peyton Manning or the next D Haskins.
When you look at the 2010 Packers, they had the league's #2 overall ranked defense. Rodgers salary that year was 6.5 million.
When you look at the 2010 Packers, they had the league's #2 overall ranked defense. Rodgers salary that year was 6.5 million.
I guess the Packers could have drafted another Safety in Rd 1 versus a backup QB.
Or the Defensive Coordinator could have prudently defended the end zone with 5 seconds left in the 1H of the NFCC.
Or maybe even Rodgers should have taken a pay cut and use the money elsewhere.
All 3 could work...
Quote:
first i just want to say that the examples that you used are not great at making your point. seattle and the packers have been top teams in the league pretty much every year after their QBs got paid. and that's because their QBs are GREAT who carry those teams. better examples would be teams like the rams and eagles, where the QBs could not carry the team
as for your questions
1 - if you don't have a QB it's very hard to win. so you need to get one somehow whether that's through the draft / trade / FA. that doesn't mean you have to reach for one and pass up superior prospects in the draft
2 - you're setting up a binary choice when it's not binary. for example, your jacksonville right now. would you not take lawrence because your team isn't ready to compete yet? of course not. but i think if i were running a team, if i was taking a QB early, i'm building my offense up before my defense to help that QB have success (the giants for instance have not done this)
3 - you know greatness when you see it. for instance herbert is great right away and he seemed to make those players around him better. and if i'm going to pay my QB he has to make the players around him better, and not all QBs who get paid do that. you watch 5 minutes of herbert and 5 minutes of jones and it's very clear who is better
4 - see 3
I chose those two examples purposely. Because yes, they have been competitive every year since, but they actually won their championships prior to paying, and have not been able to replicate that since. Also, as mentioned, Wilson and Rodgers were dropped into very strong, established rosters.
I'm not saying it's either or. As I said, it's nuanced, and I made sure to say it's a case by case basis from team to team, as well.
This is meant to be a discussion, not a debate. I'm not trying to defend a stance and I'm not asking anybody to defend a stance. If you read my questions, each one has a counter question in the opposite direction.
it's very hard to win a championship. those teams are consistently in the hunt
I don't need the next era of the Giants to be a dynasty. I just want one. And there are a lot of ways to get there.
I don't need the next era of the Giants to be a dynasty. I just want one. And there are a lot of ways to get there.
Britt, you bring up Wilson a lot, there seems to be a something there with you. Not sure why, the guy is great. I would take him in a heartbeat, even with that salary. There is no guarantee Lynch scores in the SB either. I object to all the people acting like it was a forgone conclusion that he would.
I’m of the belief that backup QB is more important than ever. With increased mobility at the position, there are more injuries now. It’s important to have a strong QB room. So, I never fault a team for drafting a QB in the middle rounds.
As for the 2nd contract, teams need to ask if that QB elevates other players around him. I think a big reason McVay pushed for Goff to be traded is that he didn’t see any drop off between Goff and John Wolford. Same thing happened with Wentz & Hurts this past season. Although, I cannot blame Philly for paying Wentz, he was great in 2017.
The QB is the ceo of the franchise. A lot of factors go into deciding whether to pay that 2nd deal. It isn’t an assembly line though. If it was truly cut throat, wouldn’t the Bengals consider moving off Burrow and drafting another QB because of his severe knee injury? Of course not.
Lastly, three years tells a lot imo. Thats when the 5th year option needs to be picked up and when the 2nd contract needs to be pursued or transition plans begin. Buffalo, Baltimore & Cleveland are all having those discussions now I’m sure. Darnold is likely to be traded imo.
This is exactly it. Similar to the point I was making, do they elevate the players around them? Otherwise, if it’s a game manager you can replace him and reset the clock.
What is the tangible that is missing from their game that makes them unworthy in the eyes of some people?
They 4 got 4 first rounders on the Dline which is amazing. The Oline is made up of 1 first round pick and 3rd round picks and below. Young WR's and secondary. Most of their high draft picks the last 5 years have been in the trenches. They have good young talent across the board and came close to beating the eventual SB champs.
All this by starting 3 different QB's in the same season!. Let that sink in. A first round (probable)bust, a journeyman and a the Comeback player of the year!. They won 6 games. Imagine what they can do with a decent QB
Now a few things. I'm not the resident "the Sins are gonna be good this year" guy. Over the last say 5 years, they have been building a very good, young roster which is devoid the QB
And please spare me the "they can't pay all those guys". The most laziest argument I've heard on this subject. If you have players you can't pay because you have too many draft picks playing well, then that's a good thing!
That's a team to look at very closely. The infrastructure is built to win now and just need to find the QB. Almost the same blueprint the Rams, Seahawks, Vikings, and to lesser degree, the Pats took.
Defense wins. If you look at the last 10 SB's, all the "franchise" QB's won the game. Brady, Brees, Ben, Eli, Rodgers, Wilson, those names put the emphasis on the QB. But if you look deeper, the defense was more of a difference than it is being realized or talked about.
The Giants have won 4 Superbowls this way. It works.
Thus, I am always fine investing big dollars if the QB meets specific criteria, which is always subjective. For me, it's basically most of these ingredients (no order):
-- Multiple years of high level successful play.
-- Makes every throw at plus level.
-- Dual threat.
-- Can make chicken salad.
-- Can elevate the play of teammates.
-- Leader.
-- Clutch/GDW results.
And if you are lucky to find that player, I would ALWAYS draft a QB every year in the draft. Somewhere. Because you never know where the next Brady/Montana/Wilson/etc might be.
but the problem is not with the top few highly paid QBs so much as the mediocre QBS who are getting franchise money.
Thus, I am always fine investing big dollars if the QB meets specific criteria, which is always subjective. For me, it's basically most of these ingredients (no order):
-- Multiple years of high level successful play.
-- Makes every throw at plus level.
-- Dual threat.
-- Can make chicken salad.
-- Can elevate the play of teammates.
-- Leader.
-- Clutch/GDW results.
And if you are lucky to find that player, I would ALWAYS draft a QB every year in the draft. Somewhere. Because you never know where the next Brady/Montana/Wilson/etc might be.
Interesting list but I will whittle it down to;
-- Multiple years of high level successful play.
-- Can make chicken salad.
-- Can elevate the play of teammates.
-- Clutch/GDW results.
Quote:
But you have to get there to compete. And that's the most important piece - qualifying. So I want a guy who can get us to qualify as often as possible.
Thus, I am always fine investing big dollars if the QB meets specific criteria, which is always subjective. For me, it's basically most of these ingredients (no order):
-- Multiple years of high level successful play.
-- Makes every throw at plus level.
-- Dual threat.
-- Can make chicken salad.
-- Can elevate the play of teammates.
-- Leader.
-- Clutch/GDW results.
And if you are lucky to find that player, I would ALWAYS draft a QB every year in the draft. Somewhere. Because you never know where the next Brady/Montana/Wilson/etc might be.
Interesting list but I will whittle it down to;
-- Multiple years of high level successful play.
-- Can make chicken salad.
-- Can elevate the play of teammates.
-- Clutch/GDW results.
Hard to leave dual threat out in today's game. Being able to go off-script is almost a must have...
Quote:
Peyton Manning, Drew Brees on and on...If you can find a franchise QB's that is going to be with your team for 10-15 years, you do what you have to do to keep them.
You don't pay Kirk Cousin, Jimmy G, Joe Flacco of the world.
The difference between winning and losing is being able to identify the difference. There is no one way to do it, no script to follow.
So right now who do you pay and who do you not pay...
Arizona Cardinals - Kyler Murray (Looking likely)
Atlanta Falcons - Matt Ryan (YES)
Baltimore Ravens - Lamar Jackson (YES)
Buffalo Bills - Josh Allen (Looking Likely)
Carolina Panthers - Teddy Bridgewater (NO)
Chicago Bears - Mitchell Trubisky (NO)
Cincinnati Bengals - Joe Burrow (Too Early)
Cleveland Browns - Baker Mayfield (??YES??)
Dallas Cowboys - Dak Prescott (?YES?)
Denver Broncos - Drew Lock (NO)
Detroit Lions - Jared Goff (NO)
Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rodgers (YES)
Houston Texans - Deshaun Watson (YES)
Indianapolis Colts - Carson Wentz (NO, but at the time i would have)
Jacksonville Jaguars - Gardner Minshew (No)
Kansas City Chiefs - Patrick Mahomes (HELL YES)
Las Vegas Raiders - Derek Carr (NO)
Los Angeles Chargers - Justin Herbert (Too Early)
Los Angeles Rams - Matt Stafford (YES)
Miami Dolphins - Tua Tagovailoa (Too Early)
Minnesota Vikings - Kirk Cousins (NO)
New England Patriots - Cam Newton (Not anymore)
New Orleans Saints - Drew Brees (YES)
New York Giants - Daniel Jones (Too Early)
New York Jets - Sam Darnold (NO)
Philadelphia Eagles - Jalen Hurts (Too Early)
Pittsburgh Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger (Not anymore)
San Francisco 49ers - Jimmy Garoppolo (NO)
Seattle Seahawks - Russell Wilson (YES)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Tom Brady (YES)
Tennessee Titans - Ryan Tannehill (NO)
Washington Football Team - Alex Smith (NO)
Eli/Rivers/Ben were dropped into loaded rosters.
Peyton and Brees were not. Interestingly enough, Brees was written off as a bust and Rivers was drafted to replace him. But the roster improved and then Brees arrived and originally being written off.
A 6-10 team is a loaded roster?
Tiki Barber, Amani Toomer, Jeremy Shockey on offense
Michael Strahan on defense
Loaded? Okay, maybe not. But they were re-loading. How about that?
Eli is not the example to use to make yourself feel better about Jones. Jones is never going to be Eli. You're kidding yourself.
Eli is not the example to use to make yourself feel better about Jones. Jones is never going to be Eli. You're kidding yourself.
Whoa, Eli made them better??. How about they complimented each other?. Last time I checked, Toomer was putting up Pro-Ball numbers before Eli. And Plax was already very good prior to Eli..
Eli is not the example to use to make yourself feel better about Jones. Jones is never going to be Eli. You're kidding yourself.
They go hand in hand - each made the other better, except Shockey who made him worse.
Let's remember that Eli was a .500 QB in addition to his 2 SBs. So you'd better hope that Jones, or whomever, is a better QB than Eli.
Eli was with out doubt the worst screen throwing QB I have ever seen. He also had a bit of Jameis Winston color blindness on occasion (well more then on occasion actually). And let us not overlook his fumbling, either.
What Eli did do was show up in big games and late in games until the final 2 or 3 years. I always felt if the Giants got the ball late for one final drive they had a good chance that Eli would get them in position to win. I do not get that feeling from Jones, yet.
When you find one - teams keep them forever and those teams have longs stretches of success, thus good teams don't need to look for a QB for 10-15 years b/c the odds are - they've already got one.
When you don't have one - you have nothing - so teams churn them over until they find one. Some burn through them faster than others.
Even with all the talk about 1st rd QB busts in the news recently, it's still the most likely route a team can utilize to find a franchise QB.
There is a lot of parity in the NFL so a "true" great QB can make a difference but I think the rest of the team is just as important.
If you really look at history you will always see there was a good team around successful QB and many times great components to that team. Be strong along the lines, have a good running game and a QB who can make all the throws with very good decision making in big moments and you have a good chance. There are more QB's in the league that can do this than given credit to if they had the other components imo.
There is a lot of parity in the NFL so a "true" great QB can make a difference but I think the rest of the team is just as important.
If you really look at history you will always see there was a good team around successful QB and many times great components to that team. Be strong along the lines, have a good running game and a QB who can make all the throws with very good decision making in big moments and you have a good chance. There are more QB's in the league that can do this than given credit to if they had the other components imo.
I agree that if you look at the history of the league - you are right - there are a lot teams that won Super Bowls and teams that had extended stretches of winning games without an elite QB, but made it happen with as you described as "solid QB" play.
BUT recent history is all about elite QB play. Teams that have an elite QB win Super Bowls and produce more playoff teams, winning records, etc more consistently than teams without one. The days of winning Super Bowls with Joe Flacco and Brad Johnson's are extremely rare into today's NFL.
Look where green bay has gotten once they had to pay Rodgers.
Thus teams are willing to overpay for the 2nd tier of QBs (basically the 11-20 range of guys) that really need everything to go right to win it all. This is the Brad Johnson/Joe Flacco territory. Maybe once a decade these guys win it all, but it's rare. You can argue teams would be better off not signing these guys and gambling on a drafted player, but if you don't find that top 10 guy you're going from a borderline competitive team to likely a consistent loser.
And compounding things further, because there are generally 5-10 teams looking for a QB each year, these middle of the pack guys still get paid top dollar or close to it (see Cousins, Carr, etc for recent examples). Compare that to other positions, where the 3rd tier* guys are usually significantly cheaper. Shepard, for example, makes 60% what the elite WRs get.
*I consider elite talents at each position tier 1, and the next drop tier 2. For QBs, there's probably 3-5 elite guys, then roughly the rest of the top 10.
IMO there are only five guys in this category right now. Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes, Wilson, Watson. Those guys are great players, and worth the money.
2. A QB in a rookie contract
This group is divided into two sub-groups.
a. The guys who look good enough out of the gate to join group 1. I'd put the following in that group: Allen, Jackson, Murray, and Herbert. Burrow looked good too, but the injury is a problem.
b. Guys who don't look good enough to join group 1. That's still not a bad place to be for a team, as they can move on easily. The only problem is that teams in this group are often their own worst enemy, chasing lost causes to save face or justify a sunk cost. Arizona avoided this trap with how they handled the Rosen/Murray situation.
--------------------------------------------------------
In my mind, of you're not in group 1 or 2a you should be thinking about drafting a QB whenever the opportunity arises. There are teams outside those two categories with good quarterbacks with productive years left: Stafford, Tannehill, Cousins are examples off the top of my head, there are probably a few more. Those guys are fine to have at reasonable contracts, but their teams should still be open to spending a first round pick on a quarterback if the opportunity arises.
I absolutely would, in their shoes.