-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
Lamar Jackson
- Thread starter Ice Bowl
- Start date
JAAM
Hall of Famer
I was like “how tf I get added to this” lmao
The Ravens were not a QB away. Buffalo did not go all in until year 3 trading for and signing big players. The Falcons were also not very good.
Going from one of the worst records in the league to SB is very rare because to be that you have to be either massively injured, in which all those players are likely not back at full strength, or not talented and you don’t go from awful to top 5 NFL talent in one offseason and draft.
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
there is one way: in offseason trade all your players for crazy picks and get like 25 firsts.
Basically it’s a causation problem.
For an easier example, teams that run more win. The implication bet that the more you run the more likely you are to win so you should build a run first team.
However the problem is that the thinking is backwards. Imagine if I phrased it “if you are winning at halftime you are more likely to win”. You would say of course to that, but that is the true form of the run more theory. If you are winning you run more to kill clock whereas if you are losing you pass more.
To bring it back to my previous argument it’s less so that “having a rookie QB makes you less likely to win a SB” and more that if you are drafting in the top 10 your team isn’t very good and teams that weren’t good last year are unlikely to win next year’s Super Bowl.
Except we aren’t just looking in the past. I’m fact I would argue you are more likely to find a 2nd contract who won a SB going back because you can get pre rookie wage scale.
This year’s conference championship games were 3 rookie contracts and Mahomes. The division round was 6 rookie contracts Mahomes, and Dak who made it by default because either him or Brady had to win the WC matchup.
The current numbers seem to reflect that having a top 12-22 rookie is better than a top 7-15 QB on a 2nd contract.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
Right but thats also not sustainable. Because eventually all those rookies will get 2nd contracts, there will be 20+ teams who have veterans on 2nd contracts, and many of them will start winning more.
This is just a deviation due to the transition from the "old guard" of QBs who routinely dominated the playoffs for decades. The Brees, Manning's, Brady's of the world. The only players left to pick up those pieces were rookie contract players. Now many of them will be getting large, 2nd contracts, and almost certainly will continue to win.
The difference is going to be that NFL GM's are doing a much better job and innovating with cap usage, and so as many of the current rookie contract players get 2nd deals, it won't be that prohibitive against the cap to continue to maintain success.
Also it was 5 of 8 divisional round. Josh Allen wasn't on a rookie contract. Technically it was also 4 of 8, as the 49ers second most expensive player was a veteran QB not on a rookie deal (Jimmy G). He was just on a very cheap deal, given he took a paycut to come back and the 49ers wisely frontloaded the shit out of his deal when he signed it.
As has been the case for the last several years, the model is either have a high end QB who's playing well (regardless of price point) or have a mid-tier veteran/rookie with a loaded roster around them. Basically be the 49ers.
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
for example?
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
but yes
We have been dealing with this transition for years now. By the time it finishes we will be talking about the next transition. Also Josh Allen was on his 5th year option of his rookie deal. An extension is an extension it does not replace the already existing years so Josh Allen was on his rookie deal but Dak was in year 2 of his 2nd deal and Mahomes was in year 1. This is not me arguing semantics as that is a 5th cheap year and the cheap years end now (though still far cheaper than a lot worse QBs are going to be).
There is a 3rd option though that you failed to consider. We can talk about the innovation with the cap but it seems like it does not change the core problem: once your rookie hits his extension you basically have to pick between him and 2-3 high impact players. At some point GMs will pick the 3rd option: trade the QB, get a top 12-20 rookie over their top 6-15 QB and be more successful because the worse QB is surrounded with more talent.
Just as a relatively weak example, lets assume the worst case scenario for a trade and the Colts give up their number 4 and their 2nd and that is it. Lets also just ignore the 2nd round pick for the sake of this though the 35 pick should be considered to have some value. You make that trade and you grab a rookie QB. Now you can make deals for an OBJ and trade for DHop because now you have the cap to do so and while the deal with Slay fell through you now have the room to also try and sign or trade for another CB player because you have the room. I would argue that team is built better to win next year and beyond even though, assuming Lamar bounces back from the past 2 years, Lamar will be the better QB.
Looking around at all of these teams that are either extending or about to extend their QB, and ones with expensive QBs, and I struggle to see which one I would pick to be successful going forward. Dolphins, no, Eagles, no (we saw this exact script with Wentz already), Cardinals no (already falling apart and it has not even started yet), Denver is a no, Bills are not finishing 1 in their division next year quite frankly might be 3rd or miss playoffs next year, and Giants are not going to go anywhere either. None of these teams seem better off. If you could get a QB for 30m, either by trade or them taking a discount, then ya you can work with that but the current numbers are just not sustainable.
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
Dolphins will do good
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
Well we've discussed this ad nauseum, but this notion that GM's are going to get high quality QBs, let them play for 4-5 years, then trade them for picks, ain't happening. They don't have the job security to make that happen, and the Owner himself doesn't have the balls to stomach it. All it takes is one bad evaluation of a new draft pick or even a veteran stopgap and everybody gets fired. It ain't happening.
The problem with your examples in the last paragraph is, with the exception of the Eagles (which I'll explain why they don't work in your model in a moment), none of those teams have QBs playing at a high level, except for Buffalo.
Kyler hasn't been playing well. Daniel Jones hasn't been playing well. Russell Wilson hasn't been playing well. Tua misses half the games. If your QB isn't playing well, you're not winning. It doesn't matter if they cost $50M or $5M.
Buffalo is an interesting topic, only because their roster building really isn't that great, which is mostly a productive of bad GM work as opposed to a QB making too much $.
Philly will have sustained success even with Hurts, provided he plays well. They're big on void years, and so it won't be a question of not getting 2-3 high end players, because they'll just backload high-end player deals to the hills and slap 2-3 void years on every deal. They'll do what the Rams did... sign 2-3 high end players to 1-2 year deals, turn those deals into 4-5 year deals with void years, and their cap hits in the years they are there will be quite small. They'll get a $15M player for $6-7M. How do you think they keep adding players?
I mean you take Hill and Amstead and lets pick a defender like Howard to reach the numbers we are talking about, off the team and suddenly they are not contenders anymore. I basically just took 2-3 players that you will not be able to have anymore and so you are reliant on somehow being drastically better, or luckier, than everyone else at drafting which seems unlikely. The Chiefs had Mahomes but unless your guy is Mahomes, of which their is usually only one every 10-15 years or so, then you do not have a guy who you can plug anyone in with and win.
I will say though the Dolphins will not be awful, they will just mediocre, hanging out in the 6-9 win category, like what a lot of these other teams will be because the QB is good enough to keep them from being awful but not good enough to overcome the lack of talent around him. The GM that goes "I would rather risk being bad for a year or 2 and stay on the rookie QB wheel" is going to be the one winning in the NFL consistently.
ravenslord
Ravens Ring of Honor
Damn shame we don't see this any more over the last two seasons:
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
yeah I guess, but in the short term, while Tua is on his rookie deal I think the Dolphins are Super Bowl contenders
Thezone27
Ravens Ring of Honor
You do not need high quality, you need 10-20 or basically to have average results and you will go from stuck in mediocrity to potential contender. Now granted you could get below average and have to do it again (like what the Cardinals did) but if you miss twice in a row on an average player with a high pick that is 25% odds and that is just on your scouting department at that point.
Tua is not a great player. Daniel Jones is certainly not a great player. Brock Purdy is an unknown but probably not a top 10-12 QB. All of these teams are going to be successful because their players are cheap. The 49ers despite not having 1s because they wasted them on their backup QB. Here is a fun thought activity, imagine the 49ers had all the players those picks became and then ANYONE could have started at QB (their P could be their QB) and they would have won that game against the Eagles. That is how important talent is. With enough even Foles can be a SB champion.
The Eagles are weird in that I do not think they were as good as they looked, but they also might not need to be. They also are not in a bad cap situation because they basically lost half their defense. Hot take though: their defense was terrible but benefited from avoiding great offenses. When they played and Dak and Goff, not exactly worldbreakers, that defense got exposed. On one hand losing a lot of your key players seems bad, considering they were the best they had, but on the other hand if your defense was already drastically overrated, is going from below average to bad a huge dropoff? Their biggest benefit is trying to find another team beyond the 49ers who you look at and say have actual aspirations of success this year. Dallas is probably the only other team and then there is a lot of squinting and trying to assume a big jump from someone.
The NFC is just weird and there is no other word for it. None of them have a guy and only the Panthers are going to be drafting potentially a guy this year but their roster is also not close to ready for prime time. The rest are using castoffs from other teams. I am all for trying to draft a guy but you need to actually try to draft the guy in order to do the QB rotation.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
Right but if you have 10-20, and your scouting department isn't good, what are you?
The only teams that are going to perpetually contend are the one's with elite QBs. Every data point you will find will prove that. You'll get a team that has a good year or two with a mediocre QB, despite the fact that the QB will almost always be cheap for at least 3-4 years, and oftentimes 5-6 years. But they can't seem to find long term sustainability.
And that's because a mediocre QB isn't going to be great often enough to mask the failures in other areas.
Its interesting that you chose teams like the Dolphins or Giants to make your case, but you ignored teams like the Bengals or the Chargers or teams that have high-end QBs and will keep them. Are they going to be good for a long term position? If the QB plays the way they continue to, then yes, they will be. Regardless of how expensive they are.
The reality is it still comes down to the scouting and development areas in both situations. If you have a mediocre QB, and you scout well, you'll do fine. If you have a mediocre QB, and you don't scout well, you're dead.
Similarly, a great expensive QB with a great scouting department will win lots of Lombardi's. And a great QB with a poor scouting department will be competitive, though not SB competitive (see Buffalo).
Basically, if you have a top 5-6 QB, as an example, your "floor" is playoff team with SB aspirations. The ceiling is Lombardi's
If you have a top 12-15 QB, as an example, your "floor" is bottom 10 team in the league, because the QB isn't consistent enough and you need a consistent, high-end roster to compete. And the ceiling is likely SB contender. So the ceilings are essentially the same, but one has a massively lower floor.
Last edited: