since it gets thrown around here pretty casually to serve everyone's own purposes as they see fit, often in contradictory contexts.
I always assumed it meant that a team had cut bait with a QB that in which they invested assets (cash or picks), and now is spinning their wheels trying to find a new competent QB, a task in which they are hamstrung bc they no longer have the cash or picks. Just having a shitty QB, or a veteran journeyman at QB, does not equal "qb hell."
Case studies:
By this definition, the Giants ARE NOT in QB hell, as many describe. They drafted a QB they believed in, and have not abandoned that QB. They are still investing in his career.
When the Jets picked Darnold, and played Darnold, they were not in QB Hell. Now that they have abandoned Darnold, and will use a top pick on another unproven QB commodity who will be forced to play on the same offense as Darnold, and as a result will likely suck, they may be entering QB hell (if they cannot dig out of their suck in the next two years).
IMO, it is cutting bait prematurely on quarterbacks that leads to QB Hell- such as when DC jumped from Rex to Bob to Kirk to Dwayne and now to Fitz (for max one year) and then...?
The Cowboys are not in QB Hell, since they invested in their starting QB they believe in. Now if Dak bombs, and they have to cut him loose after 2 years, the QB Hell clock would start.
the 49ers are in QB hell
the COlts are in QB hell
the Bears are in QB hell
the Rams think they got out of QB hell
I think these teams have roster that can compete for a SUper Bowl - but won't win one b/c they are one position away...unfortunately it's the QB.
My definition of QB is that you have an average to below average QB that gets you 7 to 9 wins every season and you're drafting from 12-20 and dont have a shot at one of the top guys in the draft year after year.
So teams like WFT right now, QB hell. Philly, maybe
Denver is a good example I think
Pittsburgh is on the brink of QB hell when Big Ben decides to become a full time rapist
Being flush with cash doesn't solve the problem because you can't really buy legit starters on the open market so you are likely still stuck drafting a QB. If Hurts goes out and plays well in 2021 will the dead cap from Wentz matter? Maybe in the short term but they certainly wouldn't be in "QB hell" in this scenario.
I think a more generalized version of QB hell is continuing to patch over the position with veterans or draft picks, never getting it squared away for 5-10yrs at a time. Paying too dollar for mid market performance, or relying on non blue chip draft picks to pan out.
It’s also one of about three positions you would hesitate to draft high if you have someone on your squad.
2. No potential for a legit top 10-12 QB on the roster (or soon to be)
I don't think the Jets are in QB hell. They could very likely get their franchise QB this year.
On the other hand, the Vikes have been in QB hell for a few seasons with a legit playoff team, but a massively overpaid QB gobbling up their cap space. They are basically stuck with a middle of the pack QB with no prospects for upgrading.
The Skins are in QB hell. They had a massive investment at QB (smart to let Cousins walk, dumb to then trade for Smith) and flopped on their 1st round QB selection and now likely have a roster that should be in the 7-9 win range. Too good for a chance at the top QB prospects, not good enough to win it all.
Philly is borderline. Huge money owed to Wentz this year, but if you like Hurts as a prospect they'll be fine. Even if he disappoints this year, they should be in good position next offseason to draft a top prospect and will be out from under Wentz's deal.
If the Giants give Jones a massive extension ($30M+ per) and he tops out at an Alex Smith/Kirk Cousins level QB, then they'll be in QB hell.
Dallas - all depends on how you view Dak. Is he closer to Smith/Cousins or is he a legit top 6-8 QB?
My definition of QB is that you have an average to below average QB that gets you 7 to 9 wins every season and you're drafting from 12-20 and dont have a shot at one of the top guys in the draft year after year.
So teams like WFT right now, QB hell. Philly, maybe
Denver is a good example I think
Pittsburgh is on the brink of QB hell when Big Ben decides to become a full time rapist
With Daniel Jones the most likely way to QB Hell would be if the Giants extended Jones with a 100 million plus deal this year and his fumbling problem doesn't go away/his play doesn't continue to improve.
Only if you are "trapped" into paying a mediocre QB big $$ on a long-term contract.
While Washington put Cousins on the Franchise tag 2 years in a row, they really never tied themselves down financially. Their issue now is that they don't seem to have a long term answer at QB, and that can potentially turn into another version of "hell" as they can be a consistent 7-9/8-8 team with their defense & Fitzpatrick.
That's it in a nutshell.
If you don't have a QB who makes the offense tick and can score points to win games then you are in "QB Hell".
Right now we are teetering on "QB Hell" because the jury is still out on whether Jones can meet the criteria.
Quote:
category. Every team in the league is in "QB hell" when they don't have a legit starter - plain and simple for me.
That's it in a nutshell.
If you don't have a QB who makes the offense tick and can score points to win games then you are in "QB Hell".
Right now we are teetering on "QB Hell" because the jury is still out on whether Jones can meet the criteria.
I disagree, primarily because the Giants can move on with no problem, especially if Jones is as bad as some think which will likely lead to another top 10 pick next offseason.
IMO, QB hell has to involve a limited ability to improve the position in at least the subsequent draft (2022).
Paying Bortles that big deal, put the Jags in QB hell. Now they're finally getting out of it. Paying Goff was dumb on the Rams part, though I'm not convinced an aging Stafford gets them over the hump either. Ditto Garoppolo, though they have a chance to get out of it now.
QB Hell in 2021 in my opinion is:
1) realizing you don't have a reliable QB on the roster that you feel can help the team sufficiently win; and/or
2) the QB's salary significantly outweighs his roster value and makes him more of an impediment to winning.
You either want to have a guy who is good enough you can win a championship (even if it's 43 year old Tom Brady)
or
A young player with that upside (even if it's rolling the dice on a long shot like Sam Darnold pre-2nd contract)
In year 4, 5, 6 when the 2nd contract decision is due, you need to make that decision correctly. Worse than missing on the original draft pick is giving a big 2nd contract to a QB who is not the guy. Tannehill is another guy I would have been extremely hesitant to guarantee almost $100m. Garapolo too, which is why I understand the logic behind what the 49ers did to move up.
Imagine Jimmy G (26m), Tannehill (29m), and Cousins (31m) are 3 of the top 6 highest paid players in the NFL by cap hit this upcoming year. Is there any fear whatsover from a defense facing them? That is QB hell imo. And people around here thought it was bad paying Eli as the 14th/15th highest QB for a couple years. Teddy Bridgewater (22m) is another that stands out as the 12th highest paid player in the NFL next year.
He had enough success that you cant leave them and If you lost him there was a very good chance the team would have gotten worse in the foreseeable future, but they were going to have a very difficult time building a roster that could get them to the superbowl because he won enough and cost enough that they were always picking late mid to late first round
the NYG with the tail end of Eli Manning where in that spot as well, I think. He cost way too much, and he wasn't going to help you win consistently enough on his own (for his salary/value), but there was too much sentiment to jettison him when he needed to be. So the team kept over spending to make one more run, but they weren't going to realistically be in position to do that. And he wasn't going to put them on his back anymore (which he did in 2011) so they just kept paying him and playing him and churning through rosters.
Quote:
In comment 15226654 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
category. Every team in the league is in "QB hell" when they don't have a legit starter - plain and simple for me.
That's it in a nutshell.
If you don't have a QB who makes the offense tick and can score points to win games then you are in "QB Hell".
Right now we are teetering on "QB Hell" because the jury is still out on whether Jones can meet the criteria.
I disagree, primarily because the Giants can move on with no problem, especially if Jones is as bad as some think which will likely lead to another top 10 pick next offseason.
Being able to move on doesn't mean you have solved your QB issue. It just means you got rid of a player who wasn't the solution.
Until you have solved for the QB, you are in QB hell.
Thats absolutely not it.
QB hell is when you draft a player high, he plays ok for his first couple seasons, then lights it up numbers wise another season, but it isnt necessarily due to QB play rather the pieces around him. You hand him a monster contract and he turns out to be mediocre declining into becoming a shitty player.
The Rams and Eagles were almost perfect definitions of QB hell. The Rams more or less wriggled out of it but had to give away a bumch of draft capital in order to take on and older expensive but more accomplished QB. The Eagles are basically punting an entire offseason in order to get put from under the QB hell they were enduring.
I guess I would put the 9ers there too. The Jimmy experiment was grossly miscalculated. But they at least have good pieces on the team....were just ravaged by inkury last year.
Quote:
they'll get a top QB
My definition of QB hell is that you have an average to below average QB that gets you 7 to 9 wins every season and you're drafting from 12-20 and dont have a shot at one of the top guys in the draft year after year.
So teams like WFT right now, QB hell. Philly, maybe
Denver is a good example I think
Pittsburgh is on the brink of QB hell when Big Ben decides to become a full time rapist
SO for the Jets, is the line of demarcation between the second and third pick?
I get what you're saying, maybe for a poorly run franchise you're just in hell all the time? I dont know but I stick with my definition from above.
Quote:
is not having a franchise QB
Thats absolutely not it.
QB hell is when you draft a player high, he plays ok for his first couple seasons, then lights it up numbers wise another season, but it isnt necessarily due to QB play rather the pieces around him. You hand him a monster contract and he turns out to be mediocre declining into becoming a shitty player.
The Rams and Eagles were almost perfect definitions of QB hell. The Rams more or less wriggled out of it but had to give away a bumch of draft capital in order to take on and older expensive but more accomplished QB. The Eagles are basically punting an entire offseason in order to get put from under the QB hell they were enduring.
I guess I would put the 9ers there too. The Jimmy experiment was grossly miscalculated. But they at least have good pieces on the team....were just ravaged by inkury last year.
were just ravaged by inkury last year.
A Tat reference? Asking for a friend.
Bortles, Goff, Garappolo, Tannehill... I wouldn't call the situations those teams were in QB hell.
A good team is a still a good team in the NFL.
A "top QB"? You mean a top rated QB coming out of college. There is a huge difference there. Their last pick was also a top QB and we know how that turned out for them.
So a team like the Jets who has yet to get it right with the QB is essentially in QB hell. Wasting year after year with one experiment to the next.
They should have kept Fitz. The team would be farther along right now.
I would argue having a well balanced team that is average to above average everywhere with a good QB that can manage things is just as effective to get you where you want to go as having a great QB with average or less team around him.
Many young QBs are unknowns but may grow into their roles (like Daniel Jones) and we aren’t classified as being in QB hell yet.
I would argue having a well balanced team that is average to above average everywhere with a good QB that can manage things is just as effective to get you where you want to go as having a great QB with average or less team around him.
We could go round and round on this all day...but I couldn't disagree more.
If you want to get to the top of the mountain and stay there - you need a HOF QB.
The exception to the rules are the guys your talking about. THe Nick FOles, the JOe Flacco, the Brad Johnson they are the outliers.
I would argue having a well balanced team that is average to above average everywhere with a good QB that can manage things is just as effective to get you where you want to go as having a great QB with average or less team around him.
You are wrong. teams with great QBs routinely compete for the championship. So-called *great teams* with average or below average QBs have smaller windows. Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc compete almost every year for a decade or more. Every example of a championship quality team with a shit QB had significantly smaller windows.
Quote:
guarantees nothing. See Mahomes and Rodgers last year.
I would argue having a well balanced team that is average to above average everywhere with a good QB that can manage things is just as effective to get you where you want to go as having a great QB with average or less team around him.
We could go round and round on this all day...but I couldn't disagree more.
If you want to get to the top of the mountain and stay there - you need a HOF QB.
The exception to the rules are the guys your talking about. THe Nick FOles, the JOe Flacco, the Brad Johnson they are the outliers.
Exactly, and the window on teams with those bad QBs shuts very quickly.
Rarely is a team so bad that they can draft a potential franchise QB without trading draft picks, and franchise QBs don’t come in trade or free agency.
Now, the term “franchise QB” has also changed. I thought a franchise QB was your QB for 5-10+ years. Tom Brady was a franchise QB. Now that he is in Tampa Bay, is he still a franchise QB for the Bucs?
How about Ryan or Rodgers? Are they still franchise QBs?
Brady: 7
Manning: 2
Roethlisberger: 2
Manning: 2
Rodgers: 1
Brees: 1
15/20 Superbowls won by the same 6 guys. It distorts the view.
Here's the thing, all the guys on that list are retired or on their way out.
That is an era of QB that is dead. There is no guarantee that the next 20 years will repeat that mold. I'd argue THOSE guys above are the anomaly. You think the Superbowls over the next 20 years are going to be won by the same 5-6 guys? I can give you Mahomes I guess. Who else?
There are only about 7-8 teams that shouldn't be looking too draft a quarterback in this draft if the opportunity presents itself.
I'd say the Giants are absolutely in QB hell in 2021, not through a big contract but through chasing a bad investment.
Sure, for the field, which means that those that can rise above typically do so more than once.
A lot of this will be dictated by how much the cap rises and how quickly it does so. When will Mahomes' cap hit be considered a bargain, allowing them to bolster the roster? If he stays healthy there's pretty much 0 reason for them to ever not be the SB favorites or towards the top of that list.
I highly doubt that the next 20 SB wins will be by 15+ different QB's. It will likely be 10 or so with a few of them winning multiple titles.
Having Curtis Painter starting for a year is not QB hell: there is no long term commitment and it sets you up for Andrew Luck in the draft.
Quote:
let alone multiple SB's.
Sure, for the field, which means that those that can rise above typically do so more than once.
A lot of this will be dictated by how much the cap rises and how quickly it does so. When will Mahomes' cap hit be considered a bargain, allowing them to bolster the roster? If he stays healthy there's pretty much 0 reason for them to ever not be the SB favorites or towards the top of that list.
I highly doubt that the next 20 SB wins will be by 15+ different QB's. It will likely be 10 or so with a few of them winning multiple titles.
Maybe, but like I said, winning multiple Superbowls is actually the outlier, not the other way around.
Correct! And here’s what he said:
For what it’s worth...
I wouldn't compare elite QB's the the field, I'd compare them to each other. When you do the question becomes how many more titles will Mahomes/Wilson/Rodgers/whoever is next get over that next tier of very good but not great.
Take a look at SB 9 to SB 28 - 3 QB's won 2 or more, with 2 of them winning 4. and then it leads into Elway then Brady and so on. We all stopped comparing those guys to the field a long time ago, its no different now. Comparing a Mahomes to a Kirk Cousins is as irrelevant as it gets.
As it relates to the NYG the answer to question is simply whether you've entirely given up on Jones after 2 years or not. Some have and seem intent on reminding us daily that they knew he was a mistake the day he was picked. I don't think Judge has however and that's the only opinion that matters.
Quote:
not listen.
Correct! And here’s what he said:
Quote:
“If you take a guy just to take a guy, especially at the quarterback position, and he fails, you set yourself back five years,” Gettleman said per Dan Duggan of NJ.com. “You set yourself back five years because there are teams that are in what I call quarterback hell. They’ve got quality defense, they’ve got a good special teams, and they’re going 7-9, 8-8, 9-7. And now if there is a legitimate guy, they’ve got to trade up and give away the farm to get the guy.”
For what it’s worth...
This is it.
QB Hell is building your team around a young QB who never gets there, and you're left with a team that is too good to put you in position to grab the next batch of franchise QB hopefuls, and not good enough to win a championship with the existing QB who didn't reach expectations.
It's just about risk management, IMO. Obviously, any GM is going to keep building around his QB, so that comes without fault. But what DG was getting at, IMO, is that if you get all the other things right but whiff on the QB, you might find yourself worse off than you were before you took the QB who busted. Because now you have a roster that is ready to win but is missing the core piece, and you have to mortgage the future to go get that QB, whatever price that may be.
That's the hell.
Very talented roster outside of QB. This roster keeps them competitive - but lack of elite QB keeps them from pushing to the next level.
Their record keeps them out of the draft range to nab one of the projected franchise QBs at the top of the draft, forcing them to overspend in Free Agency on the likes of Kurt Cousins.
Very talented roster outside of QB. This roster keeps them competitive - but lack of elite QB keeps them from pushing to the next level.
Their record keeps them out of the draft range to nab one of the projected franchise QBs at the top of the draft, forcing them to overspend in Free Agency on the likes of Kurt Cousins.
Bears too. They've had a really good defense with Mack/Hicks/secondary. Had Robinson and some decent enough skill players. But Trubisky/Foles are both highly flawed.
the 49ers are in QB hell
the COlts are in QB hell
the Bears are in QB hell
the Rams think they got out of QB hell
I think these teams have roster that can compete for a SUper Bowl - but won't win one b/c they are one position away...unfortunately it's the QB.
There you go. Bears are the epitome, not good enough to win and not bad enough to draft another. Not seeing how this is difficult for some.
Imv, the requirement to be a Franchise QB isn't how many Super Bowls did they win, but moreso do they give their team a credible opportunity to reach them each season.
Rodgers and Brees most certainly do/did...
My definition of QB is that you have an average to below average QB that gets you 7 to 9 wins every season and you're drafting from 12-20 and dont have a shot at one of the top guys in the draft year after year.
So teams like WFT right now, QB hell. Philly, maybe
Denver is a good example I think
Pittsburgh is on the brink of QB hell when Big Ben decides to become a full time rapist
I would argue that Jets are absolutely in QB hell, they just have an opportunity to correct it if... IF... the QB they draft is the goods and they can build their team. Which is asking a LOT at this point based on the talent on that team currently.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
Quote:
they'll get a top QB
My definition of QB is that you have an average to below average QB that gets you 7 to 9 wins every season and you're drafting from 12-20 and dont have a shot at one of the top guys in the draft year after year.
So teams like WFT right now, QB hell. Philly, maybe
Denver is a good example I think
Pittsburgh is on the brink of QB hell when Big Ben decides to become a full time rapist
I would argue that Jets are absolutely in QB hell, they just have an opportunity to correct it if... IF... the QB they draft is the goods and they can build their team. Which is asking a LOT at this point based on the talent on that team currently.
By DG's definition, they're not in QB hell. They failed to build a team around Darnold that would have prevented them from getting a replacement. They're in prime position to try again.
Quote:
not listen.
Correct! And here’s what he said:
Quote:
“If you take a guy just to take a guy, especially at the quarterback position, and he fails, you set yourself back five years,” Gettleman said per Dan Duggan of NJ.com. “You set yourself back five years because there are teams that are in what I call quarterback hell. They’ve got quality defense, they’ve got a good special teams, and they’re going 7-9, 8-8, 9-7. And now if there is a legitimate guy, they’ve got to trade up and give away the farm to get the guy.”
For what it’s worth...
For what its worth, the Giants haven't even smelled a .500 record very often lately.
They have been in GM Hell...
Quote:
Pretty good team except at QB. Never a high enough draft pick to get a QB. The hell may not be as hot as it used to be because there are 3-5 guys coming out every year who may be franchise QBs, so it's now more possible to get one with a mid-round pick.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
No, Foles and Wilson have also won one post 2009.
Quote:
In comment 15226710 WillieYoung said:
Quote:
Pretty good team except at QB. Never a high enough draft pick to get a QB. The hell may not be as hot as it used to be because there are 3-5 guys coming out every year who may be franchise QBs, so it's now more possible to get one with a mid-round pick.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
No, Foles and Wilson have also won one post 2009.
We're also seeing a transition from one of the NFL's greatest generations of QBs to a group that is still TBD. But I don't think it's crazy that so few young QBs have won a SB when you consider the group they're replacing.
And f*cking Tom Brady won't just retire already.
Quote:
In comment 15226860 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 15226710 WillieYoung said:
Quote:
Pretty good team except at QB. Never a high enough draft pick to get a QB. The hell may not be as hot as it used to be because there are 3-5 guys coming out every year who may be franchise QBs, so it's now more possible to get one with a mid-round pick.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
No, Foles and Wilson have also won one post 2009.
We're also seeing a transition from one of the NFL's greatest generations of QBs to a group that is still TBD. But I don't think it's crazy that so few young QBs have won a SB when you consider the group they're replacing.
And f*cking Tom Brady won't just retire already.
Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.
Brady: 7
Manning: 2
Roethlisberger: 2
Manning: 2
Rodgers: 1
Brees: 1
15/20 Superbowls won by the same 6 guys. It distorts the view.
Here's the thing, all the guys on that list are retired or on their way out.
That is an era of QB that is dead. There is no guarantee that the next 20 years will repeat that mold. I'd argue THOSE guys above are the anomaly. You think the Superbowls over the next 20 years are going to be won by the same 5-6 guys? I can give you Mahomes I guess. Who else?
I doubt that era is over. It's always been that way.
QBs with multiple starts (rings):
Brady - 10 (7)**
Elway - 5 (2)*
Bradshaw - 4 (4)*
Montana - 4 (4)*
Staubach - 4 (2)*
Peyton - 4 (2)*
Kelly - 4 (0)*
Aikman - 3 (3)*
Griese - 3 (2)*
Big Ben - 3 (2)**
Warner - 3 (1)*
Tarkenton - 3 (0)*
Starr - 2 (2)*
Plunkett - 2 (2)
Eli - 2 (2)**
Dawson - 2 (1)*
Theismann - 2 (1)
Favre - 2 (1)*
Wilson - 2 (1)***
Mahomes - 2 (1)***
Morton - 2 (0)
*HOF
**Likely HOF
***Too early
So 55 Superbowls, with 110 starting QBs. 62 starts by the HOF (or likely HOF) QBs above. Add in Brees/Rodgers and you've got at least 58% of the starts in a SB by a future HOFer.
Wins are even more dominated by the above. 41 wins (74%) of the SBs have been won by future HOF QBs (includes Brees/Rodgers + the above starred). And the trend holds over the last decade too. Only 2 wins by guys that won't come close to the HOF (Flacco/Foles). The 10 years before that, only Brad Johnson won't make the HOF.
Imv, the requirement to be a Franchise QB isn't how many Super Bowls did they win, but moreso do they give their team a credible opportunity to reach them each season.
Rodgers and Brees most certainly do/did...
This is spot on for me. You can't win unless you are in the playoffs. So give me the guy who gets you there year after year after year. Once you are there, anything can happen (e.g. Eli's two improbable runs).
Trying to plan and time for the well-crafted team/situation is just absurd. The economic model is too fluid to get there.
And I don't buy this theme - and it's quite commonplace at BBI - that football is the ultimate team game and the QB is just another piece.
Sorry, but the QB is not another piece. The rules are designed to have the QB impact the outcome of the game more than anytime in the history of the league. Until you have one who can optimize those rules, and not just be "another piece", this is a significant problem...
Quote:
In comment 15226710 WillieYoung said:
Quote:
Pretty good team except at QB. Never a high enough draft pick to get a QB. The hell may not be as hot as it used to be because there are 3-5 guys coming out every year who may be franchise QBs, so it's now more possible to get one with a mid-round pick.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
No, Foles and Wilson have also won one post 2009.
Thanks, missed those 2 somehow. Still shows how its harder to find top QBs now (not that Foles is/was a top QB) as both those guys were 3 round picks. Outside of Mahomes, you have to go back to Flacco to find a 1st round QB that's won a SB!
Quote:
In comment 15226860 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 15226710 WillieYoung said:
Quote:
Pretty good team except at QB. Never a high enough draft pick to get a QB. The hell may not be as hot as it used to be because there are 3-5 guys coming out every year who may be franchise QBs, so it's now more possible to get one with a mid-round pick.
I think it's harder to find a QB now. Isn't Mahomes the only QB drafted since 2009 to win a SB?
No, Foles and Wilson have also won one post 2009.
Thanks, missed those 2 somehow. Still shows how its harder to find top QBs now (not that Foles is/was a top QB) as both those guys were 3 round picks. Outside of Mahomes, you have to go back to Flacco to find a 1st round QB that's won a SB!
To your point, you can go back and there is a high bust rate of 1st round QB's over the past 10 years. It's very hard to find a QB, no matter where you pick, and in some cases, it's not the first, second, or even third QB that's picked in the 1st round that is the best one.
The NFL is riddled with below average to average starting QB's and their odds of winning are slim to none. The top tier QB's odds are dramatically better. Having a JAG at QB just doesn't work unless the stars align.
The NFL is riddled with below average to average starting QB's and their odds of winning are slim to none. The top tier QB's odds are dramatically better. Having a JAG at QB just doesn't work unless the stars align.
Yup and I think 2 recent case studies highlight this too:
KC - replaced the average Smith with Mahomes -> SB + SB runner up
MN - SB-caliber D + excellent skill players on offense, but couldn't get over the hump by adding the average Cousins, in large part due to him.
2. Have a lot of dollars/salary cap devoted to this QB beyond the current/upcoming season. The Falcons have $119M invested in Matt Ryan over the next three seasons. They can cut him after this season, but will have to suffer 2022 with $40.5M of dead cap money.
I'm not sure Matt Ryan fully fulfills criteria number 1, after all, he was in the Super Bowl just 4 years ago, but they've had a losing record in each of the last 3 seasons, and it seems unlikely they will be able to make another run with Ryan. If that's true, they're in QB Hell.
The Vikings have $76M in cap money tied to Kirk Cousins, they are in QB hell.
A team like Washington, for example, is not in QB hell, because although they have a mediocre QB unlikely to lead the team on a playoff run, they have no money tied up in him after this season, and even in terms of this year the money isn't significant. Therefore there is nothing prohibitive about using a top pick or otherwise adding a QB (like in a trade) to their team.
And ironically, Getty himself may be heading toward QB hell with Jones. To be clear, I think Jones should be getting another year to show that he can play. But to be equally clear, he seems like a QB exactly like what Getty was trying to avoid. With a good defense and some key position players the Giants should be competitive with Jones and around .500. But, that QB that who wins games and leads your team to the playoffs year in and year out? Is that Jones? I’m not convinced it is. And if it’s not, and Getty signs him to an extension, then we’ll be in QB hell.
QB hell is when you likely don't have the answer on your roster, but you lack the draft position and/or cap room to improve the situation. That can be a team like the Bears that win enough games to not be able to draft the next guy, or a team that paid a declining vet and whose contract they can't get out from under.
When you bring in Nick Foles to challenge your highly drafted starter, you are in QB hell. When you are the Eagles and have significant cap resources tied up in a guy who plays for someone else, you are in QB hell.
The Giants are not in QB hell. Even if Jones flops this year they are likely not in QB hell because they will almost certainly have the resources to replace him.
The question is, and continues to be, what are the solutions and who are the players capable of getting us out of football hell? Is Daniel Jones capable of putting this team on his shoulders and leading us out of the fire ala Russell Wilson? No. Is he capable of managing the position within a successful structure both elevating the players around him as well as making minimal mistakes ala Alex Smith? Possible, but until proven otherwise, unclear.
But here's the right question - can we win games with a subpar quarterback? YES! We don't need to solve the quarterback problem to get out of football hell! Hostetler proved we don't need a franchise quarterback to win a super bowl. Colt McCoy proved we can win games against good teams with a backup quarterback.
Jones is not going away I would guess until after the 2022 season. So the fastest way out of football hell for the Giants is to do what they did in 1981 when they began their ascension out of football hell to win a playoff game - become a top defense in the league. The offense, even with a subpar quarterback, can be good enough to win as it did with Scott Brunner in 1981.
If the Giants want to get out of football hell, they need to feed their strength in this draft and turn a good defense into a great defense.
The Broncos post-Elway
The Cleveland Browns post-Kosar (or Otto Graham)
Makes the horrid Dave Brown, Kent Graham, Danny Kanell years seem mild.
Dallas
Green Bay
Tampa Bay
Seattle
Arizona
Buffalo
Baltimore
Cincinnati (maybe, depending on Burrow's injury)
Houston (maybe, depending on Watson's status)
Kansas City
LA Chargers
To me, that's the list. Everyone else should be open to replacing what they have with a talented rookie.
I think when you have good overall team that is balanced and the QB is holding you back then you are in hell.
What I find happens often is the team is not as good as the front office, GM and HC think and they often put it on the QB. To me the game is always been about "team."
1. If your team's QB is paid $30-$40M per year and is top 10 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. You are getting what you paid for in these QBs. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson are in this category. If he recovers, then so is Dak.
2. If your team's QB is on rookie salary deal and is below top 15 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. The team might be bad but can still add talent at key positions and move on from the QB at little to now cost. Sam Darnold and Mitch Trubisky are the perfect example of this concept.
3. If your team's QB is paid +25M per year and is below top 10 passer, then you might be in QB hell b/c it limits your ability to win games and add talent to your team. Good examples are Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr. These guys may be good enough to get their teams to the playoffs but they are not super stars.
4. If your team's QB is paid less than $25M per year but can't stay healthy for all 16 games and the team has to resort to a platoon of mediocre back-up QBs cycling into the lineup every week. The Panthers and WFT seem to have this process down pat as they tend to invest in recycled QBs at higher rate then other teams.
5. Your underpaid, over-drafted QB sucks and everyone knows it. This is the Denver Broncos since Payton retired.
The Giants are in category 2 right now although some may argue we are in category 5. The hope is the Giants can get a Category 1 QB, but they could easily slip into Category 3 if Jones does not improve in 2021 and Gettleman signs him to an extension anyway. Or we really are in Category 5 and the team will end up being a disaster worse than Season 8 of GOT.
One example (that has possibly ended)
by finishing here you rarely are ever picking high enough to draft a stud QB prospect. then if you ever have a bad year teams feel forced to take the QB in that draft because they don't know when they will be picking that high again
and then the cycle repeats
I've always wondered if McVay endorsed (internally) the Goff extension. He may not have had enough clout at that time but there's no question it was a bad move when it happened and has been every day since.
One example (that has possibly ended)
Cleveland was in organizational hell. They could have gotten Andrew Luck and it probably wouldn't have mattered. Jets are similar. Cincy too, though maybe Burrow is good enough to get them out.
Dallas
Green Bay
Tampa Bay
Seattle
Arizona
Buffalo
Baltimore
Cincinnati (maybe, depending on Burrow's injury)
Houston (maybe, depending on Watson's status)
Kansas City
LA Chargers
To me, that's the list. Everyone else should be open to replacing what they have with a talented rookie.
Yes. I say it another way. Either you have a star QB, or you have a QB problem.
Quote:
like the Supreme Court defines obscenity "...I know it when I see it"
One example (that has possibly ended)
Cleveland was in organizational hell. They could have gotten Andrew Luck and it probably wouldn't have mattered. Jets are similar. Cincy too, though maybe Burrow is good enough to get them out.
but it starts with the QB.
Look at CIN with prime Carson Palmer - they were competitive - went to the playoffs and were trending the right way until he blew out his knee (in the playoffs I think).
Quote:
In comment 15227074 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
like the Supreme Court defines obscenity "...I know it when I see it"
One example (that has possibly ended)
Cleveland was in organizational hell. They could have gotten Andrew Luck and it probably wouldn't have mattered. Jets are similar. Cincy too, though maybe Burrow is good enough to get them out.
but it starts with the QB.
Look at CIN with prime Carson Palmer - they were competitive - went to the playoffs and were trending the right way until he blew out his knee (in the playoffs I think).
Cincinnati was in the playoffs four consecutive years with Dalton, also (2011-2014). They were one-and-done each year, but they were there. It wasn't just Palmer who led that team - they were a pretty good roster overall.
Quote:
In comment 15226661 ryanmkeane said:
Quote:
is not having a franchise QB
Thats absolutely not it.
QB hell is when you draft a player high, he plays ok for his first couple seasons, then lights it up numbers wise another season, but it isnt necessarily due to QB play rather the pieces around him. You hand him a monster contract and he turns out to be mediocre declining into becoming a shitty player.
The Rams and Eagles were almost perfect definitions of QB hell. The Rams more or less wriggled out of it but had to give away a bumch of draft capital in order to take on and older expensive but more accomplished QB. The Eagles are basically punting an entire offseason in order to get put from under the QB hell they were enduring.
I guess I would put the 9ers there too. The Jimmy experiment was grossly miscalculated. But they at least have good pieces on the team....were just ravaged by inkury last year.
Quote:
were just ravaged by inkury last year.
A Tat reference? Asking for a friend.
That was the lamest old fart joke ever. Haha.
Danny Kanell
Kent Graham
Randy Dean
Jerry Golsteyn
Joe Pisarcik
Davis Webb
Mike Cherry
Ryan Nassib
Andre Woodson
Rhett Bomar
Craig Kupp
and the beat goes on.....
the 49ers are in QB hell
the COlts are in QB hell
the Bears are in QB hell
the Rams think they got out of QB hell
I think these teams have roster that can compete for a SUper Bowl - but won't win one b/c they are one position away...unfortunately it's the QB.
Won't is a strong word.
49ers should have won that game.
Nick Mullens might have been able to win this last SB, jesus christ.
1. If your team's QB is paid $30-$40M per year and is top 10 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. You are getting what you paid for in these QBs. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson are in this category. If he recovers, then so is Dak.
2. If your team's QB is on rookie salary deal and is below top 15 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. The team might be bad but can still add talent at key positions and move on from the QB at little to now cost. Sam Darnold and Mitch Trubisky are the perfect example of this concept.
3. If your team's QB is paid +25M per year and is below top 10 passer, then you might be in QB hell b/c it limits your ability to win games and add talent to your team. Good examples are Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr. These guys may be good enough to get their teams to the playoffs but they are not super stars.
4. If your team's QB is paid less than $25M per year but can't stay healthy for all 16 games and the team has to resort to a platoon of mediocre back-up QBs cycling into the lineup every week. The Panthers and WFT seem to have this process down pat as they tend to invest in recycled QBs at higher rate then other teams.
5. Your underpaid, over-drafted QB sucks and everyone knows it. This is the Denver Broncos since Payton retired.
Russell Wilson is a very good QB overall but a really overrated QB after New Year's Day. He's not January/February championship pedigree.
He's a form of QB hell himself, and it's only starting to come out now even though some of us could see the writing on the wall 5-6 years ago.
Huge cap hit, while his postseason play isn't remarkable whatsoever (never was really, just good enough in those SB years).
Seahawks can't build a meaningful roster anymore now that all those college players while Carroll was in USC are all in retirement homes. Can't draft, can't build wisely with FAs.
Wilson could theoretically play for $1 million a year and make them better, but it still won't be as scary as the old days.
Quote:
In comment 15226669 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
not listen.
Correct! And here’s what he said:
Quote:
“If you take a guy just to take a guy, especially at the quarterback position, and he fails, you set yourself back five years,” Gettleman said per Dan Duggan of NJ.com. “You set yourself back five years because there are teams that are in what I call quarterback hell. They’ve got quality defense, they’ve got a good special teams, and they’re going 7-9, 8-8, 9-7. And now if there is a legitimate guy, they’ve got to trade up and give away the farm to get the guy.”
For what it’s worth...
This is it.
QB Hell is building your team around a young QB who never gets there, and you're left with a team that is too good to put you in position to grab the next batch of franchise QB hopefuls, and not good enough to win a championship with the existing QB who didn't reach expectations.
It's just about risk management, IMO. Obviously, any GM is going to keep building around his QB, so that comes without fault. But what DG was getting at, IMO, is that if you get all the other things right but whiff on the QB, you might find yourself worse off than you were before you took the QB who busted. Because now you have a roster that is ready to win but is missing the core piece, and you have to mortgage the future to go get that QB, whatever price that may be.
That's the hell.
I disagree just a tad. If your scenario was the case, having a QB on a rookie deal gives you at least 5 years of evaluation of the player you drafted cost controlled so you arent crippled by his salary. If you have the feeling he isnt the guy after say year 3 (that really should be when the QB shows what kind of player he is) and you've built a team around him, it should make it easier to either draft a new one or sign a 2nd tier guy that can manage games for you at the very least. If you draft a new one, you have 2 cost controlled guys who compete for a spot.
For me, QB hell is when you give the wrong guy a 2nd contract. Then you have to do backflips to get right again as we saw with the Eagles and Rams.
Quote:
I feel the recent Vikings team define QB Hell.
Very talented roster outside of QB. This roster keeps them competitive - but lack of elite QB keeps them from pushing to the next level.
Their record keeps them out of the draft range to nab one of the projected franchise QBs at the top of the draft, forcing them to overspend in Free Agency on the likes of Kurt Cousins.
Bears too. They've had a really good defense with Mack/Hicks/secondary. Had Robinson and some decent enough skill players. But Trubisky/Foles are both highly flawed.
Trubisky, they invested too much into as far as draft capital, but they didnt give him that 2nd contract....which couldve happened after that solid year he had when they lost to the Eagles in the playoffs. Its the 2nd contracts that are brutal. Wentz, Goff are cautionary tales about buying into the hype too early.
If Jones plays incredibly this year and immediately gets a hige deal, THEN I will be pissed off at ownership. After year 4? Mmmmmmm, maybe. But fuck it let him play out his roomie deal. If he holds out, he holds out.
Quote:
I would add teams that have a great roster, but can't get a QB to get them over the hump.
the 49ers are in QB hell
the COlts are in QB hell
the Bears are in QB hell
the Rams think they got out of QB hell
I think these teams have roster that can compete for a SUper Bowl - but won't win one b/c they are one position away...unfortunately it's the QB.
Won't is a strong word.
49ers should have won that game.
Nick Mullens might have been able to win this last SB, jesus christ.
I think you're 8n8ndulging in some wishful thinking there. The Chiefs started making plays and the Niners offense went to sleep. You were lucky that game was as close as it was.
Trubisky and the Bears entire QB history came to mind as well. But the Bears answered that question pretty easily this off-season...
with Dalton.
Dallas
Green Bay
Tampa Bay
Seattle
Arizona
Buffalo
Baltimore
Cincinnati (maybe, depending on Burrow's injury)
Houston (maybe, depending on Watson's status)
Kansas City
LA Chargers
To me, that's the list. Everyone else should be open to replacing what they have with a talented rookie.
I get he's the GOAT, but TB is 44 this August. Sooner or later, Father Time is going to rear it's ugly head. I don't get why they're on your list. Dallas? I know they gave Dak a big deal, but I don't think he's an elite QB. Green Bay? Again, Rodgers is what...37? He's getting up there. And they just drafted Love to potentially be the QB of the future so...again, confused as to why they're on your list? Seattle? Isn't Wilson looking to get out? Wouldn't it make sense for them to grab a top QB? Arizona...I'm not convinced Murray is a superstar. Buffalo, Baltimore, Cincy, Houston, KC (definitely), & Chargers I get.
But weird list.
Trubisky and the Bears entire QB history came to mind as well. But the Bears answered that question pretty easily this off-season...
with Dalton.
Andy Dalton signed for 1 year 10 million. How does that affect their cap negatively. He is likely a placeholder for when they draft whomever is left. That is too is NOT QB hell.
"QB hell" is when you have so much invested in a player and he becomes less and less significant to the team, but you have to keep paying him. Paying a vet like Fitzpatrick, Dalton or Mariota is NOT QB hell. When you are financially committed to the player and he isnt doing his job effectively is QB hell.
Just because a QB draft pick doesnt work out, is not QB hell given the new salary structuring of draft picks.
QB primes are usually 27-32. It's why WFT made the right move by franchising him twice because they weren't sure. So instead of making a long-term commitment, they gave him a year, and then another to prove it. Said we saw enough and let the Vikes make an offer to a guy most certainly not worth it. The Vikes have done very little, with a pretty good supporting cast, in his 3 years outside of the playoff win last year. Against a Drew Brees who had a noodle arm by the time December rolls around. A team that also looked completely discombobulated by the time the playoffs came around (see Michael Thomas situation).
I think the term is often overused though. Is QB hell what the Jets did? I don't think so, I think they whiffed, and after 3 years to get a full eval moved on. Wilson is a baller, but imagine being in this situation without QBs like Wilson and Lawrence at top? Some of it's just dumb luck. Of course Wilson could suck, there are no gurantees.
Quote:
Good enough to lead a strong team to the playoffs but not good enough to carry you to a SB. Good enough to likely be better than your QB for the next year or two which makes you heavily consider “timeline” rather than “potential ceiling/talent”.
Trubisky and the Bears entire QB history came to mind as well. But the Bears answered that question pretty easily this off-season...
with Dalton.
Andy Dalton signed for 1 year 10 million. How does that affect their cap negatively. He is likely a placeholder for when they draft whomever is left. That is too is NOT QB hell.
"QB hell" is when you have so much invested in a player and he becomes less and less significant to the team, but you have to keep paying him. Paying a vet like Fitzpatrick, Dalton or Mariota is NOT QB hell. When you are financially committed to the player and he isnt doing his job effectively is QB hell.
Just because a QB draft pick doesnt work out, is not QB hell given the new salary structuring of draft picks.
Andy Dalton was the Cincy QB for 9 consecutive seasons. He went 70-61-2 and made the playoffs 4 consecutive times. He signed a big ass 2nd contract.
What the Bengals went through this past decade is the definition of QB hell. Dalton was good enough to be the 15th best QB, but he never had a chance to be a Top 7 QB for an extended period of time against the best teams in the playoffs.
The Bears are just a joke when it comes to the QB position and of course they think he could be a starter. They better draft his successor ASAP.
QB primes are usually 27-32. It's why WFT made the right move by franchising him twice because they weren't sure. So instead of making a long-term commitment, they gave him a year, and then another to prove it. Said we saw enough and let the Vikes make an offer to a guy most certainly not worth it. The Vikes have done very little, with a pretty good supporting cast, in his 3 years outside of the playoff win last year. Against a Drew Brees who had a noodle arm by the time December rolls around. A team that also looked completely discombobulated by the time the playoffs came around (see Michael Thomas situation).
Cousins getting those franchise should have never happened. 25 mill or whatever against the cap, 2 years in a row when you had a bullshit squad? Why?
Dump him and let him set his own market. That wasnt QB hell for the Skins (yea I said it), that was pure indecision with a bunch of stupidity sprinkled in.
Vikes made a reasonable gamble...they had Diggs, Rudolph and Thelein with a terrific D...Cousins got them pretty close.
That is also not QB hell. Vikes made the playoffs like 3 years in a row. They put the foot on the gas hoping they had D that could win big games. It couldnt.
Quote:
In comment 15227497 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:
Quote:
Good enough to lead a strong team to the playoffs but not good enough to carry you to a SB. Good enough to likely be better than your QB for the next year or two which makes you heavily consider “timeline” rather than “potential ceiling/talent”.
Trubisky and the Bears entire QB history came to mind as well. But the Bears answered that question pretty easily this off-season...
with Dalton.
Andy Dalton signed for 1 year 10 million. How does that affect their cap negatively. He is likely a placeholder for when they draft whomever is left. That is too is NOT QB hell.
"QB hell" is when you have so much invested in a player and he becomes less and less significant to the team, but you have to keep paying him. Paying a vet like Fitzpatrick, Dalton or Mariota is NOT QB hell. When you are financially committed to the player and he isnt doing his job effectively is QB hell.
Just because a QB draft pick doesnt work out, is not QB hell given the new salary structuring of draft picks.
Andy Dalton was the Cincy QB for 9 consecutive seasons. He went 70-61-2 and made the playoffs 4 consecutive times. He signed a big ass 2nd contract.
What the Bengals went through this past decade is the definition of QB hell. Dalton was good enough to be the 15th best QB, but he never had a chance to be a Top 7 QB for an extended period of time against the best teams in the playoffs.
The Bears are just a joke when it comes to the QB position and of course they think he could be a starter. They better draft his successor ASAP.
I dont disagree with anything of what you said.....except for associating the Bear's decision to sign Dalton to a 1 year, poop QB vontract with his time with the Brngals. Those Bengals teams had more flaws to them than Dalton throwimg to Green, or Eifert...they had a damned good team that lost games because of head cases like Burfict, injuries and shotty coaching by a coach who sat on the throne waaaaay longer than he should have. That team needs to get sold.
But the Bears signing Dalton for a year and the Bengals experience with him.....NOT QB hell.
QB hell is something diff....where you pay a QB for no production.
I think the term is often overused though. Is QB hell what the Jets did? I don't think so, I think they whiffed, and after 3 years to get a full eval moved on. Wilson is a baller, but imagine being in this situation without QBs like Wilson and Lawrence at top? Some of it's just dumb luck. Of course Wilson could suck, there are no gurantees.
I am mot sure about the particulars, but on the surface, ypu are correct. I have also heard that the Eagles are on track for a ton of cap space going into '22. I have no details, but would love it os someone could breakdown the Wentz guaranteed money and its effect over the next two years. I kinda find it hard to believe that he is off their books THIS NEXT year.
Ugh, fuck those fuckers.
I guess if he won that Super Bowl it would be a diff story - ( New Window )
Quote:
Carson Wentz is the poster child for QB Hell b/c he was overpaid for his performance.
1. If your team's QB is paid $30-$40M per year and is top 10 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. You are getting what you paid for in these QBs. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson are in this category. If he recovers, then so is Dak.
2. If your team's QB is on rookie salary deal and is below top 15 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. The team might be bad but can still add talent at key positions and move on from the QB at little to now cost. Sam Darnold and Mitch Trubisky are the perfect example of this concept.
3. If your team's QB is paid +25M per year and is below top 10 passer, then you might be in QB hell b/c it limits your ability to win games and add talent to your team. Good examples are Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr. These guys may be good enough to get their teams to the playoffs but they are not super stars.
4. If your team's QB is paid less than $25M per year but can't stay healthy for all 16 games and the team has to resort to a platoon of mediocre back-up QBs cycling into the lineup every week. The Panthers and WFT seem to have this process down pat as they tend to invest in recycled QBs at higher rate then other teams.
5. Your underpaid, over-drafted QB sucks and everyone knows it. This is the Denver Broncos since Payton retired.
Russell Wilson is a very good QB overall but a really overrated QB after New Year's Day. He's not January/February championship pedigree.
He's a form of QB hell himself, and it's only starting to come out now even though some of us could see the writing on the wall 5-6 years ago.
Huge cap hit, while his postseason play isn't remarkable whatsoever (never was really, just good enough in those SB years).
Seahawks can't build a meaningful roster anymore now that all those college players while Carroll was in USC are all in retirement homes. Can't draft, can't build wisely with FAs.
Wilson could theoretically play for $1 million a year and make them better, but it still won't be as scary as the old days.
applause.gif
Quote:
Carson Wentz is the poster child for QB Hell b/c he was overpaid for his performance.
1. If your team's QB is paid $30-$40M per year and is top 10 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. You are getting what you paid for in these QBs. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson are in this category. If he recovers, then so is Dak.
2. If your team's QB is on rookie salary deal and is below top 15 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. The team might be bad but can still add talent at key positions and move on from the QB at little to now cost. Sam Darnold and Mitch Trubisky are the perfect example of this concept.
3. If your team's QB is paid +25M per year and is below top 10 passer, then you might be in QB hell b/c it limits your ability to win games and add talent to your team. Good examples are Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr. These guys may be good enough to get their teams to the playoffs but they are not super stars.
4. If your team's QB is paid less than $25M per year but can't stay healthy for all 16 games and the team has to resort to a platoon of mediocre back-up QBs cycling into the lineup every week. The Panthers and WFT seem to have this process down pat as they tend to invest in recycled QBs at higher rate then other teams.
5. Your underpaid, over-drafted QB sucks and everyone knows it. This is the Denver Broncos since Payton retired.
Russell Wilson is a very good QB overall but a really overrated QB after New Year's Day. He's not January/February championship pedigree.
He's a form of QB hell himself, and it's only starting to come out now even though some of us could see the writing on the wall 5-6 years ago.
Huge cap hit, while his postseason play isn't remarkable whatsoever (never was really, just good enough in those SB years).
Seahawks can't build a meaningful roster anymore now that all those college players while Carroll was in USC are all in retirement homes. Can't draft, can't build wisely with FAs.
Wilson could theoretically play for $1 million a year and make them better, but it still won't be as scary as the old days.
Disagree on Wilson. The Seahawks are better than they should be because of him. The problem is their complete inability to draft OL and frequent high picks on guys who had no business being drafted high (Germain Ifedi, James Carpenter, Maliek McDowell, Rashaad Penny, Jordyn Brooks, L.J. Collier, etc. - they haven't hit on a first rounder since 2010)
Quote:
In comment 15227497 Osi Osi Osi OyOyOy said:
Quote:
Good enough to lead a strong team to the playoffs but not good enough to carry you to a SB. Good enough to likely be better than your QB for the next year or two which makes you heavily consider “timeline” rather than “potential ceiling/talent”.
Trubisky and the Bears entire QB history came to mind as well. But the Bears answered that question pretty easily this off-season...
with Dalton.
Andy Dalton signed for 1 year 10 million. How does that affect their cap negatively. He is likely a placeholder for when they draft whomever is left. That is too is NOT QB hell.
"QB hell" is when you have so much invested in a player and he becomes less and less significant to the team, but you have to keep paying him. Paying a vet like Fitzpatrick, Dalton or Mariota is NOT QB hell. When you are financially committed to the player and he isnt doing his job effectively is QB hell.
Just because a QB draft pick doesnt work out, is not QB hell given the new salary structuring of draft picks.
Andy Dalton was the Cincy QB for 9 consecutive seasons. He went 70-61-2 and made the playoffs 4 consecutive times. He signed a big ass 2nd contract.
What the Bengals went through this past decade is the definition of QB hell. Dalton was good enough to be the 15th best QB, but he never had a chance to be a Top 7 QB for an extended period of time against the best teams in the playoffs.
The Bears are just a joke when it comes to the QB position and of course they think he could be a starter. They better draft his successor ASAP.
Soooooo....going to the playoffs with a QB is NOT QB hell. When you are in, you have a chance to win it all. That was a fine team and a fine QB....just didnt come up big. Were the Cpwboys with Romo QB hell?
The Browns have been in hell multiple times. The Bills when they signed Bledsoe and did the Rob Johnson/Doug Flutie thing. The Jets were with Testaverde, Lucas and Pennington all on the same team (I think).
The Bengals with Dalton werent and the Bears with Dalyon arent either.
Quote:
In comment 15227070 kdog77 said:
Quote:
Carson Wentz is the poster child for QB Hell b/c he was overpaid for his performance.
1. If your team's QB is paid $30-$40M per year and is top 10 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. You are getting what you paid for in these QBs. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Patrick Mahomes and DeShaun Watson are in this category. If he recovers, then so is Dak.
2. If your team's QB is on rookie salary deal and is below top 15 passer, then you are not in QB Hell. The team might be bad but can still add talent at key positions and move on from the QB at little to now cost. Sam Darnold and Mitch Trubisky are the perfect example of this concept.
3. If your team's QB is paid +25M per year and is below top 10 passer, then you might be in QB hell b/c it limits your ability to win games and add talent to your team. Good examples are Jimmy G, Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr. These guys may be good enough to get their teams to the playoffs but they are not super stars.
4. If your team's QB is paid less than $25M per year but can't stay healthy for all 16 games and the team has to resort to a platoon of mediocre back-up QBs cycling into the lineup every week. The Panthers and WFT seem to have this process down pat as they tend to invest in recycled QBs at higher rate then other teams.
5. Your underpaid, over-drafted QB sucks and everyone knows it. This is the Denver Broncos since Payton retired.
Russell Wilson is a very good QB overall but a really overrated QB after New Year's Day. He's not January/February championship pedigree.
He's a form of QB hell himself, and it's only starting to come out now even though some of us could see the writing on the wall 5-6 years ago.
Huge cap hit, while his postseason play isn't remarkable whatsoever (never was really, just good enough in those SB years).
Seahawks can't build a meaningful roster anymore now that all those college players while Carroll was in USC are all in retirement homes. Can't draft, can't build wisely with FAs.
Wilson could theoretically play for $1 million a year and make them better, but it still won't be as scary as the old days.
One the worst posts I have seen on BBI. Wilson QB hell? FFS sake. Absurd.
LMFAO.
Didn't read it carefully did ya?
If Eli Manning went 1-4 in his last 5 playoff games, there would be some unfavorable talks about him as well regardless of how the team was constructed. And he certainly would be costing big money too.
Don't take my word for it?
Just ask Richard Sherman about Wilson.