Our SB winning formula is toast

[Sgt. Largent]

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)

I do think we could if we drafted a Baker Mayfield type of player. Another dynamic young QB that could run around and make plays.

Not saying I don't want Russell anymore, because this plan could backfire HORRIBLY. But for the sake of the conversation? Sure, if we drafted another dynamic young mobile QB, I could see Pete and John doing well with that extra cap space.

And it's significant, 25M is 3-4 REALLY good players.

 

[Uncle Si]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

 

[mrt144]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

With position specific caps in an overall capped league it'd be interesting to see where that excess money would wind up - probably where a lot of the money is heading now - Defensive Line. Also, it's plausible that we might see slightly longer tenures with vets on the edge of opting for retirement staying for a season or two more because the money is too good.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.

 

[Uncle Si]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.

But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.

But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.

QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.

 

[Sports Hernia]

The graham trade was a head scratcher but even more so was picking up joeckel, webb and sowell when you want to be a run first dominant offense. It doesn’t take a football genius to know you can’t run behind those three bums.

The Graham trade SHOULD shave worked out but you had a boneheaded OC that didnt know how to use him even though he had the Saints blueprint right in front of him.

They went away from the player’s enormous strength and tried to make him do something he wasn’t good at.
That’s moronic anyway you spin it.

An OC’s stubbornness and EGO botched that whole situation up.

 

[Uncle Si]

Twisted brought up a good point, and it bears repeating.

The NFL is skewing towards a QB driven league (or has skewed) and that's driving the disparity in paying the position. I think the only way to fix that is to either cut bait and restart on QBs that hit out for the extension after the first big contract... or cap the position's salary

I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.

But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.

QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.

10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up

 

[mrt144]

I think it's been skewing that way for a while, and it won't change because the NFL wants it's league to be star driven, and the QB's are the biggest stars on most teams.

Which I'm fine with, as long as the cap continues to increase with these insane QB contracts.

But the cap isn't rising as fast as the QB salaries.

QB salaries are increasing far less than the annual cap increase.

Last year Stafford was the highest paid QB at 27M, and now Garoppolo is going to average 27.5M, 30M the first year.

The cap's been going up on average 10M a year, 12M last year alone.

So if each new insane QB contract gets a 1-2M at most bump over the previous QB, then we're good with that not taking away from the rest of the roster with the cap increases.

10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up

You have to keep in mind that some percentage of contracts are going to be rookie ones and some percentage are contracts that aren't up for negotiation.

 

[adeltaY]

I strongly disagree that a team with a good QB and 21 okay players goes 0-16. First of all, even if you're paying your QB a ton, the rest of your 21 wouldn't be "okay," you would have some great players, some good players, many meh players, and some bad ones. Look at the Niners this year. Couldn't win a game with Hoyer or Beathard except against the hapless Giants, but go 5-0 with Jimmy G, including wins over the playoff bound Jags and Titans. Most around here don't even think Jimmy G is good, but you can't deny how obvious a change that was.

Also, in the salary cap era it's insanely hard to win multiple SBs in a short period of time (Pats exception). Making the playoffs with consistency is a better marker of how good a team is IMO. Who are the teams consistently making the playoffs? Steelers with Big Ben, Pats with Brady, Seahawks with Russ, Packers with Rodgers, Colts when Luck was healthy, the NFC South teams all have franchise QBs, Denver with Manning when he was playing. Shoot, people may see the Chiefs as an exception, but I think Smith should count as a franchise guy.

You have the Vikings, but what people might be missing is that they had their starting 11 on defense healthy almost all year! That's really good injury luck that is doubtful to repeat in the coming years. Last year, their OL was much worse, but they also had guys in and out of the lineup and their D really suffered and the team went 8-8. The Jags were pretty much healthy this year as well on defense aside from Telvin Smith missing some games. These elite defenses need to keep almost all their pieces together to play at a level necessary to win SBs. We've seen that with our own team.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

10-12 millions divided over 52 players.. with an additional (let's call it 1-1.5 mill after Cousins signs) to one position.

Im not going to do the math, but its obvious. within 3 weeks, the 2 highest paid players in the league will be Garrapolo and Cousins. Think of how that will dynamically impact Rodgers, Wilson, etc when its time re-up

I guess we were using different equations.

I was talking about the QB contracts specifically jumping each year at the same rate as the cap increase. That's when we'll know the train's jumped the tracks.

But it's all convoluted anyway, because the guaranteed money is really all that manners. Rodgers can get 35M or even 40M a year, but if his guaranteed portion is a moderate increase over Cousins and Garoppolo, then that's fine.

Then there's bonus, etc.

Bottom line, it ain't gonna change. The league wants offense, scoring and it loves it some overpaid QB's. So if I had to bet, we're gonna do the same thing and overpay Russell next year.

 

[Seymour]

I strongly disagree that a team with a good QB and 21 okay players goes 0-16. First of all, even if you're paying your QB a ton, the rest of your 21 wouldn't be "okay," you would have some great players, some good players, many meh players, and some bad ones. Look at the Niners this year. Couldn't win a game with Hoyer or Beathard except against the hapless Giants, but go 5-0 with Jimmy G, including wins over the playoff bound Jags and Titans. Most around here don't even think Jimmy G is good, but you can't deny how obvious a change that was.

Also, in the salary cap era it's insanely hard to win multiple SBs in a short period of time (Pats exception). Making the playoffs with consistency is a better marker of how good a team is IMO. Who are the teams consistently making the playoffs? Steelers with Big Ben, Pats with Brady, Seahawks with Russ, Packers with Rodgers, Colts when Luck was healthy, the NFC South teams all have franchise QBs, Denver with Manning when he was playing. Shoot, people may see the Chiefs as an exception, but I think Smith should count as a franchise guy.

You have the Vikings, but what people might be missing is that they had their starting 11 on defense healthy almost all year! That's really good injury luck that is doubtful to repeat in the coming years. Last year, their OL was much worse, but they also had guys in and out of the lineup and their D really suffered and the team went 8-8. The Jags were pretty much healthy this year as well on defense aside from Telvin Smith missing some games. These elite defenses need to keep almost all their pieces together to play at a level necessary to win SBs. We've seen that with our own team.

Exactly my point. But the comment said 21 OK players and that means NO, naada, zilch, great players...period.

You cannot win without a few playmakers on each side on the ball is my point there.

 

[chris98251]

You will not get a QB cap ever, the Union would have to agree to it, they would state every position would need one then and you also have the little capitalism aspect of a player should be able to make what the market will dictate, how is a guy going to take care of his family if he has his salary capped.

 

[mrt144]

You will not get a QB cap ever, the Union would have to agree to it, they would state every position would need one then and you also have the little capitalism aspect of a player should be able to make what the market will dictate, how is a guy going to take care of his family if he has his salary capped.

There are also cautionary tales from the NBA about what happens when you put a hard cap on salaries - essentially you split the league even further into those who have some semblance of a clue as to how to navigate the meta and those that don't and you wind up with a team like the Warriors where they simply pounced earlier and came out way ahead.

In fact every change you make to structure and rules creates an inflection point for those who understand and adapt and those who lag in that regard.

One thing that might be kind of inventive is splitting unused cap space down the middle and padding all player salaries under contract with their half of that split and rolling over the other half going forward. The idea being that if everyone takes a little bit less total, everyone enjoys a small bump overall. It would take more than a few seasons for this to stabalize but it might defray some of the headline numbers while raising salaries all around. Lower paid players would see the most marginal increases under this scheme.

Another potential benefit of this scheme is that it disjoints the value approximation on individuals versus overall team to some extent.

It's a bit more socialist than the current scheme BUT pro sports have to walk the line between capitalist/socialist structures to function. From public goodwill to secure stadium financing to salary caps at all, to the owner/player revenue split, to the collective bargaining agreement. The alternative of a purely free market would sort out winners and losers faster which seems like a good idea in the abstract but would probably neccesitate periodic resets once the winners and losers of the market were entrenched.

Relevant:

https://www.theringer.com/2018/1/9/1686 ... s-patriots

 

[mrt144]

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.

I wanted to revisit this - detractors of RW can go on and on and on until they're blue in the face complaining about salary/value and yet...yet...the resources in both salary and draft picks to take flyers on two offensive players who provided far below those considerations gets a pass? Not even a pass, but a purposeful avoidance in evaluating the salary structure of the Seahawks as a whole?

Come on.

 

[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.

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)

The draft is a crapshoot. Thats why. Its extremely difficult to continually find star players like Seattle did for 2 drafts. So you either have to be extremeley lucky in several draft, or pay a bunch of star players big money. It just doesnt work for more than 1 or 2 years max.

Also I have already provided several examples of teams that have been in the playoffs for most of the last decade simply by having a great QB. Pittsburgh, GB, Indy, New Orleans...and again you keep saying how underpaid Brady is (he is) but you are severely overstating it. He counted 22 mil against the cap this year, 1 mil less than Wilson.

Now find a team that has had consistent success with no QB. There isnt one.

 

[Hawks46]

To correct a slightly flawed line of reasoning in this thread...we don't need to become run HEAVY. We need to run the ball better to become more BALANCED.

In our SB win, we didn't run worth a crap against the Broncos, but they couldn't stop us through the air.

The Patriots also did pretty well against the run against us, and we also passed pretty well against them. Balance. It's what we need.

I think last year was an outlier for injuries. We've typically been fairly healthy. Last year, Washington was the only team that lost more players to IR than we did. I don't see that repeating.

We also have Graham coming off the books. It's doubtful Avril can play again, and I think Kam is just trying to play to get his contract guaranteed this year then he'll bow out. We'll be ok for the time being if we can draft well, and with Griffith, Reed, Clark and others coming in, we're doing ok. Not record setting great like the draft of '12 but we're still hitting.

 

[jammerhawk]

The graham trade was a head scratcher but even more so was picking up joeckel, webb and sowell when you want to be a run first dominant offense. It doesn’t take a football genius to know you can’t run behind those three bums.

The Graham trade SHOULD shave worked out but you had a boneheaded OC that didnt know how to use him even though he had the Saints blueprint right in front of him.

They went away from the player’s enormous strength and tried to make him do something he wasn’t good at.
That’s moronic anyway you spin it.

An OC’s stubbornness and EGO botched that whole situation up.

Added to that was an OLine that couldn’t protect the QB long enough to let Graham be used as a big slot receiver.

Cable and Bevell together made using Graham as he should have been used mostly impossible except in the red zone this last season. Graham too was able to be taken out of games by hitting him often enough that he got short arms other than in the red zone. He disappeared frequently even when he was healthy.

He never was a fit for the team as used. His style doesn’t match what types team wants to do. That something is play strong D and have a grinding possession style O. With zero running game JG is an expensive misused offensive piece and is never maxed-out.

 

[randomation]

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.

Which is why GB went from a super bowl contender to on level with the Browns after rodgers went down

The number of people who want to downplay QB importance on this board is astounding at times.

 

[mrt144]

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.

Which is why GB went from a super bowl contender to on level with the Browns after rodgers went down

The number of people who want to downplay QB importance on this board is astounding at times.

The argument goes that if they had never retained Rodgers after their SB win, they could or would have built a team that could more robustly handle not having Rodgers. And while valid in premise, its so speculative and has very little basis with other teams that have settled for less talent for less money at QB over that period. Over a dozen teams have tried to build a team without Rodgers or even close to equivelant in talent and enjoyed much less success in aggregate over the same period of time.

Also, if you factor in the strategic objective of McCarthy to simply make the playoffs and then see what happens, he's been absolutely money on that objective up until a year sans Rodgers.

The more narrow the parameters for success, the more apparent it becomes to me at least, that the answer to sustained football success is having the GOAT coach and GOAT QB on your roster for almost 2 decades while you plug n play around that. Oh and that GOAT QB is so flush with cash through his nuptuals that he can play below market rates for the value he provides, not only explicitly in his own salary but also providing a modicum of cap relief to the team to build a better supporting cast. That surely is unique.