The Danger Of Overpaying Quarterbacks

[toffee]

We are in no danger of overpaying any QB this season, in fact, our three QBs on roster are more or less making 'minimum wage' as far as NFL starting QBs go. May we be seduced to pay a franchise type of QB next season when one of those became available? I rather suck this year then draft an elite game manager type next year.

Interesting video, watch and enjoy.

 

[Palmegranite]

I'll I got from this was Vikings, not good, Washington, good? WTF?

 

[Natethegreat]

What about overpaying receivers on a team that hardly passes?

 

[TwistedHusky]

Its a mind-blowingly simpleminded take. Not all QBs are equal.

Yes, if you pay your Jimmy G quality QB, Jimmy G money - you are screwed for a few years.
You overpay for Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers? Then you have a few down years, followed by being a top contender and playoff team for years.
If you are stupid enough to pay a QB the quality the Vikings had that kind of money? Yes, you are screwed.
But it would be interesting to contrast that with teams that don't pay their top tier QBs, but I think we are the only team stupid enough to do that. We will see. Sounds like the NFL version of the Randy Johnson trade all over again to me - but the ideal outcome is I am completely wrong.
Because ask teams like the Browns or Saints, you don't have a QB...then you don't have a chance.
Or ask the Bengals what happens when you GET a good QB.

No QB. Nobody cares about you. Because you don't matter until you not only get one - but get a top tier one.
This is why nobody cares about the Titans, Vikings, or WFT. Even though they do some good things occasionally during the regular season. Because they don't matter. Neither do we. For the same reasons.
Nobody that pays Cousins or Tannehill gets to do anything. Neither does any team going into the season with Lock or Geno Whashisname.
You can hope to get a bad record and use to get a good draft pick to get a good young QB. You have about a 1 in 4 chance for that one (ie high pick in the right year since they tend to come in batches).

But you usually pay your top tier QBs, because if you don't someone else will.





Also, Carroll has to have a great QB to make up for his many shortcomings. The poor gameplanning alone requires an exceptional QB to overcome. Carroll is a gameday negative, you have to have a gameday positive to offset it.

 

[Scout]

Overpaying for MVP caliber QBs is fine to a degree (eg Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady).

QBs that have their MVP days behind them or never were in the conversations should not be overpaid. Matt Ryan is no longer playing at an MVP level and should not be paid like he still has MVP caliber play left as an example.

 

[SeaWolv]

Matt Stafford is a good QB but not elite, that's the kind of QB you need to win it all. He was making $27mil a year which is about right where you need it to be for a franchise to afford to field a balanced team around him. Now because he won the SB they had to pay him $40mil to keep him which is still better than having to pay $50mil like the Packers are for Sharon.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Stafford is a bad example unless you are the Rams because he had a lot of help and STILL did his best to give that game away.

The NFL was trying to put the Rams in the SB for years. Ask the Saints.

That Rams team got plenty of help getting to that SB, with lots of assistance in the regular season. (Remember the Seahawks game vs the Rams?) and then even in the SB (They had to call a BS penalty to put the Rams near the GL after what would have been a stop. That doesn't happen and the Bengals win)

Stafford normally doesn't win anything for you, unless you are the Rams that formula isn't repeatable.
(Also, The Rams have a loaded roster because they trade their draft picks away. Only that kind of roster will win you anything with Stafford. Are we advocating trading all our draft picks away too?)
You overpay for a QB like Stafford, you basically end up repeating what the Vikings did with Cousins unless you have the entire NFL behind you trying to help you win because they want that media market.




But regardless, the biggest takeaway has to be that good enough isn't enough. If you are not top 5, worst case top 8 - then the team needs to spin again. Paying for guys like Cousins rarely works. Somehow the 49ers made it work but the 49ers are not consistent winners. They are peak and valley type of team. SB one year, near .500 the other. If you want 8-10+ year of consistent winning and playoff trips? Then you need a great QB. This is why they are expensive.
That teams are stupid enough to pay for mid-tier QBs when they should be kicking them back and spinning again is not being explored deeper.
The NFL has skewed the rules. It isn't that QBs are greater. Just that it is easier to be great now. But that is how it is.

 

[chrispy]

How does watching the same video result in such disparate interpretations?

It said no team, ever, in the history of the league, has ever won a SuperBowl with the QB making more than 12.2% of Cap (Brady/Tampa)... and that's the highest ever. In 2022, 12.2% of the 208MM cap is 25 million.

Doesn't that disprove the idea that paying for an elite QB is a realistic way to win a SB?

 

[toffee]

How does watching the same video result in such disparate interpretations?

It said no team, ever, in the history of the league, has ever won a SuperBowl with the QB making more than 12.2% of Cap (Brady/Tampa)... and that's the highest ever. In 2022, 12.2% of the 208MM cap is 25 million.

Doesn't that disprove the idea that paying for an elite QB is a realistic way to win a SB?

For some 12s, our Russ is way more elite than Brady, it's like could Brady run as fast? Throw as far, as hard? As elusive out of the procket? As accurate when running? As good at cooking?

 

[Palmegranite]

How does watching the same video result in such disparate interpretations?

It said no team, ever, in the history of the league, has ever won a SuperBowl with the QB making more than 12.2% of Cap (Brady/Tampa)... and that's the highest ever. In 2022, 12.2% of the 208MM cap is 25 million.

Doesn't that disprove the idea that paying for an elite QB is a realistic way to win a SB?

Well, it seems that a number of 12.2% is pretty arbitrary on the surface. So I'm going to assume that Brady, Brees, Rodgers etc were making 12.1% when they were part of SB winning teams?

 

[Maelstrom787]

What about overpaying receivers on a team that hardly passes?

Dunno. Doesn't really make sense when taking about Seattle, though, seeing as they pass at a pretty average rate.

 

[Natethegreat]

Dunno. Doesn't really make sense when taking about Seattle, though, seeing as they pass at a pretty average rate.

Do you think that will continue?

 

[sutz]

Do you think that will continue?

I do. People continue to misunderstand and misstate Pete's philosophy. Pete wants a balanced attack, not run heavy, or even run first. He does want to be able to run the ball effectively, especially in the 2nd half if you have a lead because it is the safest way to run down the clock.

We'll have a more balanced attack, with 15-25 pass attempts per game or so, with a similar amount of run plays.

 

[keasley45]

The chances of winning the big game when you've got a top talent qb are offset by the impact paying that player has on the rest of the team.

Didn't Brady win the majority of his Superbiwls while not breaking the bank? Seems there are plenty of examples of teams going to the big game with sub top cap hit qb's.

The best and highest paid qb in the league (was) A Rodgers has won how many rings? Mahomes has been there in his first few years the same number of times we were at the start of Pete's tenure, and you can see them struggling now to retain talent.

Thr Packers? I doubt they will seriously contend again. But there's a considerable window open now for the league's young guns while they're either yet to break the bank, or their teams are yet to really feel the effects of having to pay them.

And the argument that the money doesn't matter anymore or that 50 mil isn't what it used to be is right and wrong. It's not like the other positions salaries aren't also going through the roof... still have to make the money work.

And honestly, if you have me the choice of being the Titans right now or the Packers, I'd pick Tennessee. They have a team with a better chance to shore up gaps in talent and make a push given the cap hit their qb is taking. The Packers have arguably the best qb if all time, multiple MVP winner, but have mortgaged future success to keep him happy. I'd put my money on Carr and Adams and the rest of the Raiders over Rodgers and whoever he's throwing to this season.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Do you think that will continue?

Perhaps. Either way, even the run-heaviest teams need receivers. Good ones, too.

 

[Natethegreat]

I do. People continue to misunderstand and misstate Pete's philosophy. Pete wants a balanced attack, not run heavy, or even run first. He does want to be able to run the ball effectively, especially in the 2nd half if you have a lead because it is the safest way to run down the clock.

We'll have a more balanced attack, with 15-25 pass attempts per game or so, with a similar amount of run plays.

15-25 passes per game is well below league average. 35 is about league average. By the way Maelstrom the Seahawks averaged 24 attempts per game last year well below average. So the answer is no. This team will be well below league average in pass attempts. Something that should be completely obvious to everyone.

 

[Natethegreat]

My point being is that we are about to overpay a wide receiver who will get maybe 6 targets a game yet everyone is flipping out about paying the most important position in the game by FAR AND A WAY. Seems kind of hypocritical to criticize paying a QB yet on the other hand wanting to pay a really good receiver a mass contract when he hardly touches the ball and your QB's stink.
Its a waste of cap space.
When they moved on from Russ they should have moved on from D.K. and got draft capital for him. Go back to the days of finding undrafted receivers like Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse and spend elswhere.

 

[FrodosFinger]

Simply put it becomes harder, more bothersome and frankly a pain in the ass trying to maintain quality when 2 dudes cost more and produce less like Bobby and Russ. This reset is perfect for the kind of team that has nastiness already on both sides of the ball

 

[keasley45]

My point being is that we are about to overpay a wide receiver who will get maybe 6 targets a game yet everyone is flipping out about paying the most important position in the game by FAR AND A WAY. Seems kind of hypocritical to criticize paying a QB yet on the other hand wanting to pay a really good receiver a mass contract when he hardly touches the ball and your QB's stink.
Its a waste of cap space.
When they moved on from Russ they should have moved on from D.K. and got draft capital for him. Go back to the days of finding undrafted receivers like Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse and spend elswhere.

That's making a ton of assumptions about what this offense will be and who our future qb might be.

 

[Maelstrom787]

15-25 passes per game is well below league average. 35 is about league average. By the way Maelstrom the Seahawks averaged 24 attempts per game last year well below average. So the answer is no. This team will be well below league average in pass attempts. Something that should be completely obvious to everyone.

You're using volume stats to evaluate how pass-heavy a team is? Dear god.

The Seahawks ranked 19th in the percentage of pass plays they call vs. the percentage of run plays they call. You know, percentages. Not volume stats.

You use percentages to determine how pass heavy a team is. Something that should be completely obvious to everyone.