Our SB winning formula is toast

[chris98251]

Lets go to the wayback machine, if instead of paying Harvin and Graham we used what we had for the most part other then maybe a pick in the draft at some point and used that money to sign proven O lineman instead of the bargain basement and projects.

Do we win another Super Bowl and are we in better shape to challenge this coming year?

That would follow the Pete Mantra more.

 

[Seymour]

Smith is at 17 million, so you could have him and Graham for the price of Russell at $30M.
Just saying there is at least a discussion there.

 

[adeltaY]

What happens when we go down big in big games? Russ has proven he can get us back in it, do you trust a Smith level QB to do that? Offenses in the playoffs are really good. Even the most elite defenses will struggle against them. Also, Smith signed for 23.5M APY.

 

[Uncle Si]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

Yes, but this was just one year. The franchise QBs in the playoffs were Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Mariota, Goff, Brees, and Newton. Smith arguably was for KC for a while too. Then we had Tyrod, Bortles, Keenum, and Foles. Playoff games are fluke. Brees was a miracle play away from facing Philly. Philly was a Julio drop (or some play like that) away from one and done.

I think if you look back the past decade plus you see that in the AFC the QBs have been Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, and Flacco one year. The past few years for the NFC have been Newton and Ryan, who were MVPs, Wilson twice, as well as Foles and Kaep. I think it was Rodgers and Eli before that. Good QBs are more likely to lead to SB appearances and wins IMO.

I don’t disagree.
But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.

 

[Seymour]

What happens when we go down big in big games? Russ has proven he can get us back in it, do you trust a Smith level QB to do that? Offenses in the playoffs are really good. Even the most elite defenses will struggle against them. Also, Smith signed for 23.5M APY.

Then you go find another Smith for 17 or Kaep for 10. Look I don't want to trade or lose Wilson, I'm simply stating the fact there is a discussion to those that claim there isn't.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

Yes, but this was just one year. The franchise QBs in the playoffs were Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Mariota, Goff, Brees, and Newton. Smith arguably was for KC for a while too. Then we had Tyrod, Bortles, Keenum, and Foles. Playoff games are fluke. Brees was a miracle play away from facing Philly. Philly was a Julio drop (or some play like that) away from one and done.

I think if you look back the past decade plus you see that in the AFC the QBs have been Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, and Flacco one year. The past few years for the NFC have been Newton and Ryan, who were MVPs, Wilson twice, as well as Foles and Kaep. I think it was Rodgers and Eli before that. Good QBs are more likely to lead to SB appearances and wins IMO.

I don’t disagree.
But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.

So is the salary cap.

A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.

 

[gmor]

Successful drafts make it easier to replace players that are older and more expensive. Overpaying players happens if you don't pick well.

 

[Uncle Si]

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

Yes, but this was just one year. The franchise QBs in the playoffs were Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Mariota, Goff, Brees, and Newton. Smith arguably was for KC for a while too. Then we had Tyrod, Bortles, Keenum, and Foles. Playoff games are fluke. Brees was a miracle play away from facing Philly. Philly was a Julio drop (or some play like that) away from one and done.

I think if you look back the past decade plus you see that in the AFC the QBs have been Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, and Flacco one year. The past few years for the NFC have been Newton and Ryan, who were MVPs, Wilson twice, as well as Foles and Kaep. I think it was Rodgers and Eli before that. Good QBs are more likely to lead to SB appearances and wins IMO.

I don’t disagree.
But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.

So is the salary cap.

A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.

I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.

 

[DomeHawk]

Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.

I'm sure Patriot fans laugh this off as just another excuse, but it really is an advantage.

 

[mrt144]

But it's also one that is like, welp, better hope your QB also has a supermodel wife who makes more money than him so he can do that. Jesus, is that going to be a new thing for draftees - must be engaged to supermodel who makes over 40 mil a year?

 

[IndyHawk]

I'm not sure how you can place any blame on the Russell Wilson contract and even the one he hopefully signs for 30M+ next year. If paying a great QB top dollar is so harmful to realizing Pete's vision, then what was the plan? Keep Wilson for four years, let him walk, and what? Draft a QB every year until we found someone who could replace him? How likely was that to happen? I don't get what the alternative is to paying a franchise QB. The hit rate on QBs of Wilson's caliber is super low, even for high first round picks. Trotting out a mediocre signal caller will lose games, especially in the playoffs. That's not a winning formula.

I dont disagree..

But.. Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles were three of the four starting qbs in the conference championship. It begs the question that regardless of how important the QB position is, at what point do you cash in on the investment and try the build team a different way

I think this is a league problem, and they will have to figure out a way to cap the QB position.

This..
My 2 cents or sentences rather would be along SI's lines.

 

[original poster]

Cracking thread :2thumbs:

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Yes, but this was just one year. The franchise QBs in the playoffs were Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Mariota, Goff, Brees, and Newton. Smith arguably was for KC for a while too. Then we had Tyrod, Bortles, Keenum, and Foles. Playoff games are fluke. Brees was a miracle play away from facing Philly. Philly was a Julio drop (or some play like that) away from one and done.

I think if you look back the past decade plus you see that in the AFC the QBs have been Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, and Flacco one year. The past few years for the NFC have been Newton and Ryan, who were MVPs, Wilson twice, as well as Foles and Kaep. I think it was Rodgers and Eli before that. Good QBs are more likely to lead to SB appearances and wins IMO.

I don’t disagree.
But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.

So is the salary cap.

A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.

I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.

Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417

 

[ImTheScientist]

I don't agree with this point at all. The problem with our team is really because some of our players aren't playing at a high enough level. A healthy Seahawks team this year makes a Super Bowl run, period. With Carson, with Kam, with Sherman, and others

We are not healthy because our players are now old. So expecting old players to stay healthy into the future is a bad plan. We held onto our core too long, held onto our coaching staff too long, overpaid players/mortgaged the future.

 

[Uncle Si]

I don’t disagree.
But again... the price tag on QBs is rising.. fast. Somewhere you have to make a choice.

So is the salary cap.

A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.

I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.

Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417

Sure, they are "longer" but not by as much as people are suggesting by this "formula" or "philosophy"

Point is, the numbers indicate the choices are more difficult than just saying "pay the QB and win"

If the Hawks had dumped Wilson at his contract year, and the new young QB (whomever) had taken them to the Super Bowl this year, would that not be considered "long term success" as well?

This is an NFL problem, and until the QB position is independently capped, teams are going to have to determine if they want to pay franchise QBs at the expense of making the rest of the team better.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The problem is that the NFL has boxed itself into a corner.

The rules favor teams with a great QB now. You almost cannot win without a great QB.

Minnesota and the Eagles are maybe showing some pathways teams can use instead but before the rules it was very possible to make it to the SB with a great defense and a great run game.

The biggest rule change is that stupid 5 yard holding automatic first down rule. Holding should be 10 yards. No first down.

I have seen 3rd and 30 plays where a ticky tack holding call gets a first down. It is ridiculous enough that the offense has all the benefit of the doubt, that play tilts the advantage ridiculously in favor of the QB.

Frankly, there needs to be a cap on PI as well. One bad call can put a team on the goal line and I have seen it happen numerous times. Make it 25 yards if you have to but allowing a team to just chuck it up and end up at the 10 because of it is ridiculous.

If we stop putting in rules that overweight the impact of the QB, then the NFL won't subject 80% of the other teams to having no chance because they don't have a premiere QB. That will allow some teams to decide to load up with defense instead of paying QBs 170M and it will stop the ridiculous upward pressure on QB salaries because great QBs are such a scare resource their escalating salaries are pushing up the mediocre QB salaries.

We already have a situation where teams realize that a #1 QB is paramount for long term success and since #1 QBs really can only be gotten with the 1st pick (maybe 2nd or 3rd) - you enter a situation where teams have to compete with each other to be as terrible as possible to get a bad enough record for the 1st pick. Just to get a shot at long term success.

What the NFL did is put rules in place that artificially added close to 30% extra production from the QBs. Remember when the Greatest Show on Turf was throwing for 300 yards and that was impressive? Now everyone throws for 300, because drives are artificially revived with these rules. But it means QBs look better than they are, cost more than they should, and teams without a QB have to keep getting on the Merry-Go-Round draft cycle hoping to get one.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

So is the salary cap.

A franchise QB is the best bet to win long term. If tou have a Boetles or Keenum at QB you need the rest of the team to be elite which is not sustainable long term.

I posted a list of teams who have maintained “long term succes” outside the Patriots since the cap. 5 teams since 1994 have been to multiple Super Bowls over a 6 year period.

Pitt went 2-1 over 6 years. Seattle 1-1 back to back. Denver 1-1 over three years. Giants 2-0. Denver and Dallas went back to back in the 90s. All these teams did have franchise QBs

That’s it for long term success. That’s not very long term.

Except for the Patriots, who don’t pay there franchise qb market value.

Those examples are longer term success than any teams without a franchise QB, besides those numbers are skewed because the AFC has to compete with the Patriots who you dismissed because they pay a little less for their franchise QB (Brady counts 22 mil against the cap, compared to 23 for Russ). Look at all the teams that are in the playoffs year in and year out, they all have franchise QBs. Teams like Minnesota and Jacksonville might make the playoffs a couple years in a row until their defense falls off like nearly every great defense does.

Just look at every teams record over the last 10 years for proof.

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/gallery/e ... 2-1-010417

Sure, they are "longer" but not by as much as people are suggesting by this "formula" or "philosophy"

Point is, the numbers indicate the choices are more difficult than just saying "pay the QB and win"

If the Hawks had dumped Wilson at his contract year, and the new young QB (whomever) had taken them to the Super Bowl this year, would that not be considered "long term success" as well?

This is an NFL problem, and until the QB position is independently capped, teams are going to have to determine if they want to pay franchise QBs at the expense of making the rest of the team better.

The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.

 

[Seymour]

The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.

I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.

I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.

The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.

 

[Uncle Si]

The problem with not having a QB is that you them have to try to keep 21 other players playing at a high level. Its much easier top pay the QB and have a bunch of ok players at the other 21 positions.

I understand your point, but a great QB + 21 OK players will get you around 0-16 in today's league.

The Packers and Colts would tend to disagree with that. Those teams are terrible without their QBs.

But what if they weren't paying their QB 15-20% of the cap? That's the point that's trying to be made.

What if the Seahawk model was to replicate the successes of their 2012-2015 years every 4-5 years through draft? just draft teams and pay young players minimal salaries, mix in vets... restart the process once the young players require big contracts?

Because right now there is no such thing as long term success in the NFL (again, excluding the Patriots who pay their best player half of what he's worth)