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...