QB performance is heavily influenced by the offense around him. The Oline has to provide protection, the receiver needs to get open and catch the ball, and obviously the QB has to deliver. I haven't watched enough of Lawrence to have an opinion on him one way or another, but if the judgement is that he's the goods but everything around him sucks, then I can see paying him. Of course that would only beg the question, what the hell else are we doing with the rest of the team?
but there is also the fact that a GM who drafted a QB high in the first believed in his scouting report at the time, and still believes it a few years later, even if the results have been disappointing.
The statement about Lawrence getting paid based on what he did in college is not incorrect. He has not be terrible, but he is still getting paid based on a forward looking projection more so than what he has shown to date.
Think of it as an investment in a start-up business. What made you get in in the first place is driving you to stay in more so than the actual results which may not be what you had hoped for. If you believe you are a smart guy who did his homework (I would assume most NFL GMs see themselves this way), you trust your decisions until almost all the arrows are pointing down.
we are keeping him if we dont get a top pick and he plays decently.
The Giants are keeping Jones if he has a pulse next year. The structure with a dip in cash next year virtually guarantees that.
Forget about AAV and totals. The Giants only owe Jones 30M in new cash next year, the lowest amount on the four year deal by 6M.
100 percent. If Jones plays at a top-15 level, then the Giants are getting decent value and there should be no rush to overturn the QB position unless a great prospect falls to them in the draft.
I'm not a Jones guy, but I'm more sanguine than most about the Giants being an 8 or 9 win team with the 15h-best QB (if Jones rebounds this year). I actually think there's value in this organization NOT thinking "Superbowl or bust" and just learning how to be competent before they aim for the next level. I believe the root of a lot this team's struggles during the past 12 years come from a belief that a few things just need to fall into place for them to go "on a run" like 2007 and 2011. In reality, those were major outliers and I think there's value in them learning how to build a contender painstakingly, brick by brick.
However, this theory falls apart if the QB room is a disaster this season and the team sucks. We're back to square one then.
Both Jones and Lawrence had Engram as the TE. Engram all of a sudden becomes all pro caliber. But doesn’t have the drops which turned into interceptions and a big drop vs Philly which would have put the game away instead Philly turns around a wins.
Change the statistics. Give Jones all the receptions and Lawrence the interceptions. What then?
Fire away!
RE: Nothing like paying a guy for what he did in college
I agree completely. The reason I would have drafted QB at six is because the regime would have had 2024 and 2025 to evaluate him. At that point, you've either found your QB and are in a win now window OR you trade the QB and draft another in 2026. No harm done. And Jones is completely off the books at this point too.
But, that's not how owners view it. So, if Schoen drafts QB at six he just tied all of his job security to that player. I think that was part of the evaluation.
Both Jones and Lawrence had Engram as the TE. Engram all of a sudden becomes all pro caliber. But doesn’t have the drops which turned into interceptions and a big drop vs Philly which would have put the game away instead Philly turns around a wins.
Change the statistics. Give Jones all the receptions and Lawrence the interceptions. What then?
Fire away!
Engram only made the Pro Bowl (2x now). Never an All Pro.
His ADOT was 5.0. Lots of short routes and design. Really, Evan was good throughout his career beside 2020 when he volleyballed up 6 picks to the defense. Injuries were another haymaker in keeping him on the field.
It was best for them to move on. Pederson knows how to use him, and he had way too many ups and downs in a huge market.
for an evaluation? 4500 yards, near 30 td passing and running and over 7 yards an attempt each of the last two years. Threw for over 4000 yards the last two seasons.
I think you guys have it backwards. If a stiff like Dan Jones can get 40 million a year, Lawrence at age 23 is worth more, and I am sure his reps made that point with the Jaguars who no doubt are cursing Joe Schoen.
The Jaguars just paid Trevor Lawrence on spec. They're hoping he'll become something he's not shown himself capable of being. Would you get on a plane you weren't sure could fly, or drive over a bridge you weren't sure was stable?
I mean, last year a couple billionaires got in a submarine they had no idea wouldn't implode. Maybe it's a dopey billionaire thing.
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
I don't disagree, but if the position is fungible there should be higher turnover. You don't pay fungible players, you replace them
With more fungible possibly worse players?
Yes? If they're fungible that means they're easily replaced. You cycle through until you find one who plays well, and cut them once they don't. Like relievers in baseball.
'getting paid on spec' - isn't that the obvious nature of sport?
Lebron james got drafted in 2003 and didnt win his first ring until 2012. Dirk was drafted in 1998 won his ring in 2011. Finals right now Luka and Tatum haven't won rings yet. Were they all losers because they didnt win almost immediately like Duncan or Kobe (who wouldn't have won immediately without Shaq)?
Peyton didnt win his first super bowl until he was 30 and he was an all time great.
Drew Brees got paid 'on spec' in NO having never won a playoff game and with a bum shoulder. Didnt win his SB until age 30.
Matthew Stafford was considered a loser for how long? he didnt win his first playoff game until he got to Rams at age 33, then won a SB with one of the most impressive game winning drives ever.
Lamar jackson only has 2 playoff wins right now. Herbert has 0.
We'd take those guys 'on spec' right?
Lawrence is 24 years old. He is the same freaking age as Penix and Nix. Drafting players is 'on spec' also, and top 10 picks at any position let alone 1st overall/qb picks carry with them the equivalent of probably $50-100m of vale/cap space. With Justin Jefferson the Vikings got 4 years of the best WR in the NFL for a total of 13.3m. adding 4 'on spec' years for him cost them $140m, so conservatively they got the best WR in football on a deal with 100m+ of surplus value just based on market rate (and possibly more based on the value he produced).
whether paying or drafting, you get the best players you can get and 99.99% of them arent going to be all time no-brainer greats like mahomes/burrow who have literally already "proven" themselves by winning rings (or coming up just short). Those are once/twice in a decade type players. In the 4 full drafts since burrow, im going to go out on a limb re caleb and say that clearly none of the 4 QB1s since are on the level of burrow. as of now lawrence is clearly closest since pickett is traded and bryce young struggled.
Paying guys to do things they've never done before is literally how sports work. If sports were just rewarding and picking from guys who have already won championships, a kindergartener could do that and far more franchises wouldn't have championship droughts that stretch decades. And as our friends the Jets are evidence of, sometimes that doesnt even work. They added HOF ring winners Favre and Rodgers to really good teams and it didnt work. That is sports. Waiting for the next Mahomes or Brady or peyton or burrow isnt a plan it's a wish.
there are only about 5-7 QBs worth long term deals. IF you haven't played like a madman in January and displayed near perfect levels of play, you aint worth shit. Cut him.
What I think many don't want to accept (while they certainly do acknowledge it) is teams are paying QBs not only for what the QB can do going forward but also for the glimpses of what they have done.
You have to exhibit some good faith when it comes to the QB, sometimes. If you don't, you're gonna run the risk of cutting the guy before he had a chance to QB the team when the team is ready to support the talented if somewhat imperfect QB.
I guess I am just amazed at the number of people who refuse to believe that things aren't all on the QB. It's like a perfect meal, the wins and losses and shiny stats and all that fun stuff require so many variables or pieces. To put it all on the QB when they win or lose is just bizarre.
And then, in the same breath some of you will vault a guy like Justin Herbert to the heavens simply based on arm specs and some stats. Guy hasn't won shit but PAY HIM. Lawrence beat this dude one full playoff season ago but he's average.
There are so many moving parts but so many here act like it's black and white all or nothing. Not one GM under the blue sky above would cut Trever Lawrence. HE's too good a talent. And he's obviously displayed hidden traits that fans refuse to appreciate that the coaches place stock in.
how can someone sit here today and say with confidence or certainty that if Eli Manning was the QB in Jax for the last 3 years, that team is vastly better than the one lead by Lawrence? That's exactly what some here are flat out saying. That Lawrence is holding them back. That they can do better and should do better by letting Law walk.
Would Jax be better with HErbert instead of Lawrence? Or maybe Dak Prescott? Or Hurts? Or Purdy?
Other than Mahomes and MAYBE, MAYBe Josh Allen, you can't say that. And I am not even sure Allen takes that team any further last season. They gave up 371 pts last season. That ain't very good. They scored 377 which is slightly above average.
Also, Lawrence was fuct up in December.
QBs get paid. Even the decent ones. Sticker shock.
But impact positions get raises on spec. Within their tier, the next contract awarded builds on the last.
And yeah, Lawerences and Jones numbers are quite similar including career 3.3 TD% (because, you know, Jones can't throw TDs so I guess neither can Lawerence).
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
This is a completely absurd statement.
It's far from absurd. NFL QBs like life in general fall in a bell curve with 10-20% on the extremes. Hence 3-6 elite QBs, 3-6 dogs, and a muddled middle composed of (relatively) equivalent players. Not fungible exactly but not so far off.
Slight digression, but I would strongly prefer rookie contracts be 3 years with no options.
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
They better up the CAP if that happens. And it sucks for fans. Too much player migration.
That's not correct.
The point would be to redistribute the pool of money from older players to younger players. The league and the PA went way too far with the rookie scale.
Outside of the top half of round one, rookie contracts are remarkably low. The 17th overall pick this year signed a 4/16M deal.
Slight digression, but I would strongly prefer rookie contracts be 3 years with no options.
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
They better up the CAP if that happens. And it sucks for fans. Too much player migration.
That's not correct.
The point would be to redistribute the pool of money from older players to younger players. The league and the PA went way too far with the rookie scale.
Outside of the top half of round one, rookie contracts are remarkably low. The 17th overall pick this year signed a 4/16M deal.
We will never agree on this. And you cannot engineer absolute fairness in an entire pay structure for an entire league unless you have strict pay slots and that is not fair to the better players, either.
I think average vets are the ones that have taken the brunt. Rookies have shown nothing and proven nothing and should not be getting precedence over those already proven.
I know it needs tweaking, but minor tweaks.
I just do not want to see teams in constant turmoil. No continuous turnover. Do you really want to be fretting over which players leave every third year. How do you build consistency with that change of roster?
Rookies have shown nothing and proven nothing and should not be getting precedence over those already proven.
Of course not, that's why rookies should make much less money. But how long do they need to prove it? Four and five years out of a career that is statistically more than half over is ridiculous.
Rookies contracts should be three years, every contract should be fully guaranteed, and then players should become UFAs.
This puts more money in the mid range veterans pockets, because they become that at earlier, more valuable ages.
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
This is a completely absurd statement.
It's far from absurd. NFL QBs like life in general fall in a bell curve with 10-20% on the extremes. Hence 3-6 elite QBs, 3-6 dogs, and a muddled middle composed of (relatively) equivalent players. Not fungible exactly but not so far off.
He said 2-3 and everyone else is fungible. If you agree, either you don't watch the NFL or don't understand the meaning of fungible.
What he is saying is that the NY Giants, who have been in the wilderness at the position for almost about 7 years, can just decide tomorrow and grab a Justin Herbert off the shelf. Since that is clearly untrue, the statement is false. Fungible means can be replaced tomorrow. Justin Herbert, Dak Prescott, Trevor Lawrence, the top-10 cannot be replaced tomorrow by some rando on the street.
It's possible you mean to say, maybe a team is better off not paying QBs 6-10 and going with a lesser talent for less money as a team construction strategy. Sure, maybe. But that's not the same as saying after QB1,2,3 the position is fungible. JT039 learned a big word and decided to use it - incorrectly. There is nothing fungible about the top 10 QBs.
Now I do agree there are curves in effect here. And the important curve that people don't acknowledge is that QBs should not be paid on an arithmetic progression, which I have said elsewhere. If you are paying Daniel Jones on an arithmetic progression with Josh Allen, you are managing the payroll improperly. The 20th best QB, or even the 15th best QB shouldn't get 85% of Josh Allen. he should get 20% of Josh Allen, because the lower tier QBs are indeed fungible.
The only reason to declare QB is fungible after the top 2-3 is to forgive Giants management for overpaying Jones.
There are not more than 2-3 elite QBs in the league.
Mahomes
Allen
And maybe Burrow are elite
Lamar is not elite. He can’t win in the playoffs or with an elite defense and still struggles to throw when it matters most.
Herbert has never even won in the playoffs. He’s not elite.
Dak is a notorious playoff choker with elite talent.
Cousins, Hurts, TLaw, are not elite. Stanford and Rodger’s are not elite anymore.
Now can a guy like Herbert or Stroud or Lamar become elite? Sure. But they have not proven they could their teams come playoff time. And you said it so many times under so many handles that winning in the playoffs is the goal. So if they can’t win in them…. Why are they elite?
Rookies have shown nothing and proven nothing and should not be getting precedence over those already proven.
Of course not, that's why rookies should make much less money. But how long do they need to prove it? Four and five years out of a career that is statistically more than half over is ridiculous.
Rookies contracts should be three years, every contract should be fully guaranteed, and then players should become UFAs.
This puts more money in the mid range veterans pockets, because they become that at earlier, more valuable ages.
Good points and bad on fully guaranteed contracts. I am fine with guaranteed if there is an allowance percentage deduction(vs the cap only) in the case of a career ending injury - player gets his money. And perhaps limit 2nd and later contracts to max 3 years too. That would limit teams being stuck with an injured player on a huge contract eating the cap. That also allows an improving player to get a better contract quicker and over multiple contracts
Perhaps a 4 year 1st round contract, no option, and 3 years for the rest.
There are not more than 2-3 elite QBs in the league.
Mahomes
Allen
And maybe Burrow are elite
Lamar is not elite. He can’t win in the playoffs or with an elite defense and still struggles to throw when it matters most.
Herbert has never even won in the playoffs. He’s not elite.
Dak is a notorious playoff choker with elite talent.
Cousins, Hurts, TLaw, are not elite. Stanford and Rodger’s are not elite anymore.
Now can a guy like Herbert or Stroud or Lamar become elite? Sure. But they have not proven they could their teams come playoff time. And you said it so many times under so many handles that winning in the playoffs is the goal. So if they can’t win in them…. Why are they elite?
Thanks for playing. Go away.
Dude in addition to being a creepy stalker you make ignorant statements. And if you insist on your statement, then you do not understand the meaning of the word "fungible". So i would suggest you spend a little time with a dictionary, or google, or an econ textbook.
Fungible does not mean "not elite". It means easily-replaced, interchangeable. I'm not sure if you are really this stupid, or just tripling down on a bad statement.
Justin Herbert and Lamar Jackson may or may not be elite according to whoever you talk to. But whatever the answer to the "elite" question is, they certainly aren't easily replaced. Herbert threw for the most yards in NFL history to begin a career, LJax has 2 MVPs. Not interchangeable.
It's ok to have some humility and admit in the heat of debate you were wrong. But you are clearly, absolutely wrong here.
Due to the fact most QBs can do the same thing and have similar results.
And it’s odd you call me a stalker when you replied to my post and I responded to yours. Is that how a discussion goes?
Well if you think 2x MVP Lamar Jackson and Justin Herbert are easily replaced then you don't know anything about the NFL.
Your statement about knowing the sport has very little meaning being that you have proven to be an absolute joke over the years.
The sad thing is your being a hypocrite and aren’t smart enough to realize it.
You just said two of the best players in the sport, players with major accomplishments under their belts, accolades, awards and mega salaries, are easily replaceable. Ok... you aren't interested in serious football conversation with idiotic takes like that.
We don't have to worry about our QB situation anymore because JT039 assures us we can get an MVP quarterback tomorrow, if we want one. Football is easy!
You’re saying a team with a consistent top 3-5 defense every year, a HOF coach, a HOF kicker, two first round WRs, an all pro TE and lose consistently early in the playoffs can only be done by Lamar Jackson? That’s great to know. Thanks for that keen insight.
As far as Herbert A I won’t consider him fungible until he wins more playoff games than Daniel Jones.
I’ll consider him elite as soon as he wins more playoff games than the number of handles you have.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
You’re saying a team with a consistent top 3-5 defense every year, a HOF coach, a HOF kicker, two first round WRs, an all pro TE and lose consistently early in the playoffs can only be done by Lamar Jackson? That’s great to know. Thanks for that keen insight.
As far as Herbert A I won’t consider him fungible until he wins more playoff games than Daniel Jones.
I’ll consider him elite as soon as he wins more playoff games than the number of handles you have.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
The Giants, are afraid of risk, and would rather trot out a low ceiling player (Jones), in order to maintain some perception of stability, than take a wild swing at a QB who might have a championship upside, but also has "abysmal" in the range of outcomes. It's really only the Giants who are this fearful. Every other team I can think of moves on readily from failed QBs and are willing to take swings with QBs who have unknown ceilings -- Purdy-Levis.
Some of these really overpaid QBs are going to win though
and if they don’t, it’ll continue to be Mahomes. That’s why I don’t think there’s much downside to this deal and actually a fair amount of upside especially if you factor the expected jumps in the salary cap.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
That is absolutely true. Good teams get good by not making the same mistakes as other teams.
Only thing is signing Jones wasn't a mistake. That assessment can't be made till after this season. Saying it is -- even 853,888 times -- doesn't' change that fact.
RE: Some of these really overpaid QBs are going to win though
and if they don’t, it’ll continue to be Mahomes. That’s why I don’t think there’s much downside to this deal and actually a fair amount of upside especially if you factor the expected jumps in the salary cap.
I agree with you. I don't think the Lawrence contract is any big deal. He's a good player who can still be great.
As long as he is the franchise QB they can keep restructuring his deal to minimize the cap hit. It's a bit of a gamble I guess but does anyone really see him bottoming out, I don't, but if it happens there will be one year of cap pain to get rid of him.
lol. He was the last pick in the draft who was QB3 and only got a chance because of two injuries. lol
Yes the 49ers took a big swing on Purdy. They gave him the job over the guy they spent immense draft capital on to get to #3, in the 2nd training camp. Can you see the Giants doing that? They can't move on from Jones after 5 years, because they spent a #6 on him. The Giants didn't put Jones in position to lose his job in any training camp, Lance couldn't get to his 3rd training camp. That is aggressive management by the 49ers. You're having a real good day on here.
lol. He was the last pick in the draft who was QB3 and only got a chance because of two injuries. lol
Yes the 49ers took a big swing on Purdy. They gave him the job over the guy they spent immense draft capital on to get to #3, in the 2nd training camp. Can you see the Giants doing that? They can't move on from Jones after 5 years, because they spent a #6 on him. The Giants didn't put Jones in position to lose his job in any training camp, Lance couldn't get to his 3rd training camp. That is aggressive management by the 49ers. You're having a real good day on here.
You’re wrong again. Lance was the starter in the beginning. Of the year then he broke his leg. Then Jimmy G took over and got hurt. Then Purdy got to play.
Facts matter. Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t watch football?
Is there any possibility of adding another thread designation beyond NFT or NGT to indicate threads where Darwinian and JT039 don't clutter the whole thing with their 3rd grade level slap fight?
I think the board is well aware of the fact they both believe the other is an idiotic dupe. Not sure why it needs to be played out over and over each day to the point you can't read the thread.
Dumb question buts who’s Ricky?
The statement about Lawrence getting paid based on what he did in college is not incorrect. He has not be terrible, but he is still getting paid based on a forward looking projection more so than what he has shown to date.
Think of it as an investment in a start-up business. What made you get in in the first place is driving you to stay in more so than the actual results which may not be what you had hoped for. If you believe you are a smart guy who did his homework (I would assume most NFL GMs see themselves this way), you trust your decisions until almost all the arrows are pointing down.
Quote:
we are keeping him if we dont get a top pick and he plays decently.
The Giants are keeping Jones if he has a pulse next year. The structure with a dip in cash next year virtually guarantees that.
Forget about AAV and totals. The Giants only owe Jones 30M in new cash next year, the lowest amount on the four year deal by 6M.
100 percent. If Jones plays at a top-15 level, then the Giants are getting decent value and there should be no rush to overturn the QB position unless a great prospect falls to them in the draft.
I'm not a Jones guy, but I'm more sanguine than most about the Giants being an 8 or 9 win team with the 15h-best QB (if Jones rebounds this year). I actually think there's value in this organization NOT thinking "Superbowl or bust" and just learning how to be competent before they aim for the next level. I believe the root of a lot this team's struggles during the past 12 years come from a belief that a few things just need to fall into place for them to go "on a run" like 2007 and 2011. In reality, those were major outliers and I think there's value in them learning how to build a contender painstakingly, brick by brick.
However, this theory falls apart if the QB room is a disaster this season and the team sucks. We're back to square one then.
Change the statistics. Give Jones all the receptions and Lawrence the interceptions. What then?
Fire away!
... but we were supposed to tank for Trevor!
This is just another example of why you just have to try to win every game and let the draft chips fall accordingly.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
But, that's not how owners view it. So, if Schoen drafts QB at six he just tied all of his job security to that player. I think that was part of the evaluation.
Change the statistics. Give Jones all the receptions and Lawrence the interceptions. What then?
Fire away!
Engram only made the Pro Bowl (2x now). Never an All Pro.
His ADOT was 5.0. Lots of short routes and design. Really, Evan was good throughout his career beside 2020 when he volleyballed up 6 picks to the defense. Injuries were another haymaker in keeping him on the field.
It was best for them to move on. Pederson knows how to use him, and he had way too many ups and downs in a huge market.
I think you guys have it backwards. If a stiff like Dan Jones can get 40 million a year, Lawrence at age 23 is worth more, and I am sure his reps made that point with the Jaguars who no doubt are cursing Joe Schoen.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
I don't disagree, but if the position is fungible there should be higher turnover. You don't pay fungible players, you replace them
Quote:
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
I don't disagree, but if the position is fungible there should be higher turnover. You don't pay fungible players, you replace them
With more fungible possibly worse players?
I mean, last year a couple billionaires got in a submarine they had no idea wouldn't implode. Maybe it's a dopey billionaire thing.
Quote:
In comment 16536796 JT039 said:
Quote:
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
I don't disagree, but if the position is fungible there should be higher turnover. You don't pay fungible players, you replace them
With more fungible possibly worse players?
Yes? If they're fungible that means they're easily replaced. You cycle through until you find one who plays well, and cut them once they don't. Like relievers in baseball.
Peyton didnt win his first super bowl until he was 30 and he was an all time great.
Drew Brees got paid 'on spec' in NO having never won a playoff game and with a bum shoulder. Didnt win his SB until age 30.
Matthew Stafford was considered a loser for how long? he didnt win his first playoff game until he got to Rams at age 33, then won a SB with one of the most impressive game winning drives ever.
Lamar jackson only has 2 playoff wins right now. Herbert has 0.
We'd take those guys 'on spec' right?
Lawrence is 24 years old. He is the same freaking age as Penix and Nix. Drafting players is 'on spec' also, and top 10 picks at any position let alone 1st overall/qb picks carry with them the equivalent of probably $50-100m of vale/cap space. With Justin Jefferson the Vikings got 4 years of the best WR in the NFL for a total of 13.3m. adding 4 'on spec' years for him cost them $140m, so conservatively they got the best WR in football on a deal with 100m+ of surplus value just based on market rate (and possibly more based on the value he produced).
whether paying or drafting, you get the best players you can get and 99.99% of them arent going to be all time no-brainer greats like mahomes/burrow who have literally already "proven" themselves by winning rings (or coming up just short). Those are once/twice in a decade type players. In the 4 full drafts since burrow, im going to go out on a limb re caleb and say that clearly none of the 4 QB1s since are on the level of burrow. as of now lawrence is clearly closest since pickett is traded and bryce young struggled.
Paying guys to do things they've never done before is literally how sports work. If sports were just rewarding and picking from guys who have already won championships, a kindergartener could do that and far more franchises wouldn't have championship droughts that stretch decades. And as our friends the Jets are evidence of, sometimes that doesnt even work. They added HOF ring winners Favre and Rodgers to really good teams and it didnt work. That is sports. Waiting for the next Mahomes or Brady or peyton or burrow isnt a plan it's a wish.
What I think many don't want to accept (while they certainly do acknowledge it) is teams are paying QBs not only for what the QB can do going forward but also for the glimpses of what they have done.
You have to exhibit some good faith when it comes to the QB, sometimes. If you don't, you're gonna run the risk of cutting the guy before he had a chance to QB the team when the team is ready to support the talented if somewhat imperfect QB.
I guess I am just amazed at the number of people who refuse to believe that things aren't all on the QB. It's like a perfect meal, the wins and losses and shiny stats and all that fun stuff require so many variables or pieces. To put it all on the QB when they win or lose is just bizarre.
And then, in the same breath some of you will vault a guy like Justin Herbert to the heavens simply based on arm specs and some stats. Guy hasn't won shit but PAY HIM. Lawrence beat this dude one full playoff season ago but he's average.
There are so many moving parts but so many here act like it's black and white all or nothing. Not one GM under the blue sky above would cut Trever Lawrence. HE's too good a talent. And he's obviously displayed hidden traits that fans refuse to appreciate that the coaches place stock in.
Must be nice to GM from the couch.
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
Would Jax be better with HErbert instead of Lawrence? Or maybe Dak Prescott? Or Hurts? Or Purdy?
Other than Mahomes and MAYBE, MAYBe Josh Allen, you can't say that. And I am not even sure Allen takes that team any further last season. They gave up 371 pts last season. That ain't very good. They scored 377 which is slightly above average.
Also, Lawrence was fuct up in December.
QBs get paid. Even the decent ones. Sticker shock.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
This is a completely absurd statement.
And yeah, Lawerences and Jones numbers are quite similar including career 3.3 TD% (because, you know, Jones can't throw TDs so I guess neither can Lawerence).
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
They better up the CAP if that happens. And it sucks for fans. Too much player migration.
Quote:
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
This is a completely absurd statement.
It's far from absurd. NFL QBs like life in general fall in a bell curve with 10-20% on the extremes. Hence 3-6 elite QBs, 3-6 dogs, and a muddled middle composed of (relatively) equivalent players. Not fungible exactly but not so far off.
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
They better up the CAP if that happens. And it sucks for fans. Too much player migration.
That's not correct.
The point would be to redistribute the pool of money from older players to younger players. The league and the PA went way too far with the rookie scale.
Outside of the top half of round one, rookie contracts are remarkably low. The 17th overall pick this year signed a 4/16M deal.
Quote:
Slight digression, but I would strongly prefer rookie contracts be 3 years with no options.
The current structure puts so much against young players in their prime years.
The only position with any bargaining power to break that right now is quarterback.
They better up the CAP if that happens. And it sucks for fans. Too much player migration.
That's not correct.
The point would be to redistribute the pool of money from older players to younger players. The league and the PA went way too far with the rookie scale.
Outside of the top half of round one, rookie contracts are remarkably low. The 17th overall pick this year signed a 4/16M deal.
We will never agree on this. And you cannot engineer absolute fairness in an entire pay structure for an entire league unless you have strict pay slots and that is not fair to the better players, either.
I think average vets are the ones that have taken the brunt. Rookies have shown nothing and proven nothing and should not be getting precedence over those already proven.
I know it needs tweaking, but minor tweaks.
I just do not want to see teams in constant turmoil. No continuous turnover. Do you really want to be fretting over which players leave every third year. How do you build consistency with that change of roster?
Of course not, that's why rookies should make much less money. But how long do they need to prove it? Four and five years out of a career that is statistically more than half over is ridiculous.
Rookies contracts should be three years, every contract should be fully guaranteed, and then players should become UFAs.
This puts more money in the mid range veterans pockets, because they become that at earlier, more valuable ages.
Quote:
In comment 16536796 JT039 said:
Quote:
That GMs are not believing what’s coming out of college as much anymore. And overpaying guys they have seen and know.
The fact of the matter is that there is maybe 2-3 elite QBs in the league and any after that are fungible.
This is a completely absurd statement.
It's far from absurd. NFL QBs like life in general fall in a bell curve with 10-20% on the extremes. Hence 3-6 elite QBs, 3-6 dogs, and a muddled middle composed of (relatively) equivalent players. Not fungible exactly but not so far off.
He said 2-3 and everyone else is fungible. If you agree, either you don't watch the NFL or don't understand the meaning of fungible.
What he is saying is that the NY Giants, who have been in the wilderness at the position for almost about 7 years, can just decide tomorrow and grab a Justin Herbert off the shelf. Since that is clearly untrue, the statement is false. Fungible means can be replaced tomorrow. Justin Herbert, Dak Prescott, Trevor Lawrence, the top-10 cannot be replaced tomorrow by some rando on the street.
It's possible you mean to say, maybe a team is better off not paying QBs 6-10 and going with a lesser talent for less money as a team construction strategy. Sure, maybe. But that's not the same as saying after QB1,2,3 the position is fungible. JT039 learned a big word and decided to use it - incorrectly. There is nothing fungible about the top 10 QBs.
Now I do agree there are curves in effect here. And the important curve that people don't acknowledge is that QBs should not be paid on an arithmetic progression, which I have said elsewhere. If you are paying Daniel Jones on an arithmetic progression with Josh Allen, you are managing the payroll improperly. The 20th best QB, or even the 15th best QB shouldn't get 85% of Josh Allen. he should get 20% of Josh Allen, because the lower tier QBs are indeed fungible.
The only reason to declare QB is fungible after the top 2-3 is to forgive Giants management for overpaying Jones.
Mahomes
Allen
And maybe Burrow are elite
Lamar is not elite. He can’t win in the playoffs or with an elite defense and still struggles to throw when it matters most.
Herbert has never even won in the playoffs. He’s not elite.
Dak is a notorious playoff choker with elite talent.
Cousins, Hurts, TLaw, are not elite. Stanford and Rodger’s are not elite anymore.
Now can a guy like Herbert or Stroud or Lamar become elite? Sure. But they have not proven they could their teams come playoff time. And you said it so many times under so many handles that winning in the playoffs is the goal. So if they can’t win in them…. Why are they elite?
Thanks for playing. Go away.
Quote:
Rookies have shown nothing and proven nothing and should not be getting precedence over those already proven.
Of course not, that's why rookies should make much less money. But how long do they need to prove it? Four and five years out of a career that is statistically more than half over is ridiculous.
Rookies contracts should be three years, every contract should be fully guaranteed, and then players should become UFAs.
This puts more money in the mid range veterans pockets, because they become that at earlier, more valuable ages.
Good points and bad on fully guaranteed contracts. I am fine with guaranteed if there is an allowance percentage deduction(vs the cap only) in the case of a career ending injury - player gets his money. And perhaps limit 2nd and later contracts to max 3 years too. That would limit teams being stuck with an injured player on a huge contract eating the cap. That also allows an improving player to get a better contract quicker and over multiple contracts
Perhaps a 4 year 1st round contract, no option, and 3 years for the rest.
Mahomes
Allen
And maybe Burrow are elite
Lamar is not elite. He can’t win in the playoffs or with an elite defense and still struggles to throw when it matters most.
Herbert has never even won in the playoffs. He’s not elite.
Dak is a notorious playoff choker with elite talent.
Cousins, Hurts, TLaw, are not elite. Stanford and Rodger’s are not elite anymore.
Now can a guy like Herbert or Stroud or Lamar become elite? Sure. But they have not proven they could their teams come playoff time. And you said it so many times under so many handles that winning in the playoffs is the goal. So if they can’t win in them…. Why are they elite?
Thanks for playing. Go away.
Dude in addition to being a creepy stalker you make ignorant statements. And if you insist on your statement, then you do not understand the meaning of the word "fungible". So i would suggest you spend a little time with a dictionary, or google, or an econ textbook.
Fungible does not mean "not elite". It means easily-replaced, interchangeable. I'm not sure if you are really this stupid, or just tripling down on a bad statement.
Justin Herbert and Lamar Jackson may or may not be elite according to whoever you talk to. But whatever the answer to the "elite" question is, they certainly aren't easily replaced. Herbert threw for the most yards in NFL history to begin a career, LJax has 2 MVPs. Not interchangeable.
It's ok to have some humility and admit in the heat of debate you were wrong. But you are clearly, absolutely wrong here.
And it’s odd you call me a stalker when you replied to my post and I responded to yours. Is that how a discussion goes?
And it’s odd you call me a stalker when you replied to my post and I responded to yours. Is that how a discussion goes?
Well if you think 2x MVP Lamar Jackson and Justin Herbert are easily replaced then you don't know anything about the NFL.
Quote:
Due to the fact most QBs can do the same thing and have similar results.
And it’s odd you call me a stalker when you replied to my post and I responded to yours. Is that how a discussion goes?
Well if you think 2x MVP Lamar Jackson and Justin Herbert are easily replaced then you don't know anything about the NFL.
Your statement about knowing the sport has very little meaning being that you have proven to be an absolute joke over the years.
The sad thing is your being a hypocrite and aren’t smart enough to realize it.
Quote:
In comment 16536930 JT039 said:
Quote:
Due to the fact most QBs can do the same thing and have similar results.
And it’s odd you call me a stalker when you replied to my post and I responded to yours. Is that how a discussion goes?
Well if you think 2x MVP Lamar Jackson and Justin Herbert are easily replaced then you don't know anything about the NFL.
Your statement about knowing the sport has very little meaning being that you have proven to be an absolute joke over the years.
The sad thing is your being a hypocrite and aren’t smart enough to realize it.
You just said two of the best players in the sport, players with major accomplishments under their belts, accolades, awards and mega salaries, are easily replaceable. Ok... you aren't interested in serious football conversation with idiotic takes like that.
As far as Herbert A I won’t consider him fungible until he wins more playoff games than Daniel Jones.
I’ll consider him elite as soon as he wins more playoff games than the number of handles you have.
Quote:
In comment 16536531 bigbluewillrise said:
Quote:
ha
He is
Clue - most QBs are. Few deliver.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
As far as Herbert A I won’t consider him fungible until he wins more playoff games than Daniel Jones.
I’ll consider him elite as soon as he wins more playoff games than the number of handles you have.
Ok knucklehead.
Quote:
In comment 16536611 MyNameIsMyName said:
Quote:
In comment 16536531 bigbluewillrise said:
Quote:
ha
He is
Clue - most QBs are. Few deliver.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
The Giants, are afraid of risk, and would rather trot out a low ceiling player (Jones), in order to maintain some perception of stability, than take a wild swing at a QB who might have a championship upside, but also has "abysmal" in the range of outcomes. It's really only the Giants who are this fearful. Every other team I can think of moves on readily from failed QBs and are willing to take swings with QBs who have unknown ceilings -- Purdy-Levis.
Quote:
In comment 16536611 MyNameIsMyName said:
Quote:
In comment 16536531 bigbluewillrise said:
Quote:
ha
He is
Clue - most QBs are. Few deliver.
Which is why it's silly to pay the ones who probably won't deliver rather than keep swinging for one who more realistically could.
Teams seem terrified of the great unknown, that they might end up with a QB worse than the incumbent. But value for dollar, would you rather have a mediocre QB choking your cap just because he's a known quantity? Or be willing to risk that the next QB could be worse, but might also be better? Now add to that the very important (IMO) fact that the next QB, if they're on a rookie contract, will cost less than 20% of what the established-but-not-elite QB will make on a full-price second contract. It shouldn't be as difficult a decision as it is, but NFL teams are incredibly risk-averse, often to their own detriment.
Simply declaring that most QBs are overpaid, true as that might be, doesn't justify overpaying a QB whose performance doesn't meet that price. We don't have to use other teams' unforced errors to assuage our own angst about the Giants' mistakes in the same areas.
That is absolutely true. Good teams get good by not making the same mistakes as other teams.
Only thing is signing Jones wasn't a mistake. That assessment can't be made till after this season. Saying it is -- even 853,888 times -- doesn't' change that fact.
I agree with you. I don't think the Lawrence contract is any big deal. He's a good player who can still be great.
As long as he is the franchise QB they can keep restructuring his deal to minimize the cap hit. It's a bit of a gamble I guess but does anyone really see him bottoming out, I don't, but if it happens there will be one year of cap pain to get rid of him.
Yes the 49ers took a big swing on Purdy. They gave him the job over the guy they spent immense draft capital on to get to #3, in the 2nd training camp. Can you see the Giants doing that? They can't move on from Jones after 5 years, because they spent a #6 on him. The Giants didn't put Jones in position to lose his job in any training camp, Lance couldn't get to his 3rd training camp. That is aggressive management by the 49ers. You're having a real good day on here.
Quote:
lol. He was the last pick in the draft who was QB3 and only got a chance because of two injuries. lol
Yes the 49ers took a big swing on Purdy. They gave him the job over the guy they spent immense draft capital on to get to #3, in the 2nd training camp. Can you see the Giants doing that? They can't move on from Jones after 5 years, because they spent a #6 on him. The Giants didn't put Jones in position to lose his job in any training camp, Lance couldn't get to his 3rd training camp. That is aggressive management by the 49ers. You're having a real good day on here.
You’re wrong again. Lance was the starter in the beginning. Of the year then he broke his leg. Then Jimmy G took over and got hurt. Then Purdy got to play.
Facts matter. Maybe you’re the one who doesn’t watch football?
So he played two other guys ahead of him and only played him when they both got hurt.
So again - when did Purdy beat out Lance like you proclaimed?
You remind me of this scene…
Producer on all his threads - ( New Window )
I think the board is well aware of the fact they both believe the other is an idiotic dupe. Not sure why it needs to be played out over and over each day to the point you can't read the thread.