2013 NFL Draft: Year-five option makes QBs more valuable?

[kearly]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/blog ... e-valuable

That was a thought provoking article by Rob Rang at NFLDraftScout.com. The gist: Normally draft picks only get 4 year contracts, but 1st round picks get a 5th year. Obviously, you badly want that extra year for a QB since it's the most expensive position in the sport. Might we see a bunch of teams trading into the late 1st on the cheap to secure this low-cost extra year? Maybe not just for that reason, but it certainly adds a ton of extra incentive, especially since the late 1st/early 2nd QB group is looking unusually strong this year.

 

[Scottemojo]

It certainly makes turning those guys with 2nd round projections into late first rounders a good idea. I expect Buffalo and a couple of others to move back in the first, or move back into the first.

 

[Hasselbeck]

This is why I've always felt a guy like say.. Matt Barkley.. will go Round 1. Cheaper guaranteed money than pre CBA for first round picks + that extra year.

 

[kearly]

Knowing what they know now, I bet Seattle almost wishes they had taken Wilson in the first. His initial contract would have been for about $6 million more, but it would have meant one less season of paying him $20+ million.

 

[Lady Talon]

hopefully this little fact translates into more decent pass rushing DTs getting within our reach. If its between Logan and S. Williams, I think I'd trade down and draft depth elsewhere.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I can kind of see it. But really it's just an extra 'franchise tag lite' available. It's still a very hefty sum for that 5th year.

A team is going to come out ahead by simply extending that same rookie after year three. Rather than forcing them to stay and then coercing them another year with a franchise designation.

I can see the rosterbation theory behind it. But I think it breaks down in it's execution. I actually think it makes more sense for non QB players, as the league averages for those positions is going to be ridiculously lower than market value.

Getting a 2nd round quality player in the first round still only gets you a 2nd round quality talent. Those guys aren't typically your starter guys anyway. Who is going to want to spend 12 million a season on a backup?

Let's put it in motion. Denver picked Brock Osweiler to be their QBOTF after getting Peyton Manning. Now of course it's still early -- but after year 4, what's the likelihood that he's going to be worth that 12m/yr option? Probably not very high. Whereas if the team likes him, but doesn't LOVE him, they can extend him for up front money and a cheap cap friendly back end after just 3 seasons.

For a 2nd round quality QB, the latter is much more likely than the former. Except that team has now just spent a 1st round pick on that same backup 'meh' QB and lost out on a bona fide 1st round starter quality guy elsewhere for the team.

I think Rang was overthinking this. Once I applied the idea to real case scenarios, I'm left with thinking this is generally a very bad idea. Not even considering the wasted draft value aspect either.