Signings, Cuts, Trades

[Adreme]

Yeah so I have many issues with this thought process:
1. The entire league, in total, could find a franchise QB every 4-5 years consistently. But in your scenario, you're extrapolating that to assume that a single franchise can, theoretically, churn out a mid-tier franchise QB every 4-5 years consistently.
The obvious issue is that, historically, we know a franchise can't do that. Because we have a lot of franchises that you could make a case haven't had even a mid-size franchise QB in 20, 25, 30 years. Certainly not from lack of effort, because those same franchises have drafted many, many, many QBs in that time, signed others, and it didn't seem to matter. High picks, low picks, traded picks, etc.

So in order for that scenario to work, you'd need to show me a franchise that can consistently compete, in 4-5 year cycles, while changing QBs in that window.

2. The other glaring problem with this discussion is that you're assigning "Pass" as a SB trophy, and "Fail" as literally every other outcome. I don't think anybody can stand behind that opinion logically. SBs are hard to get to, let alone win them. So are Conference Championship games. All perfectly fine metrics for success.
So a more prudent model would be to assess the overall success of that team during the example of a 4-5 year window.

3. The main reason why NFL franchises aren't doing this, and likely won't, is because NFL teams are run by people who like to collect paychecks and keep their jobs. So the first time that a franchise opts not to keep a high level franchise QB, and instead decides to invest on a mid-tier player (via draft or wherever), and that doesn't work (which it frequently won't work), the person making those decisions, along with many other people, will get fired.

But at a high level, the biggest fallacy with the thought process is that you're assuming that all NFL franchises are actually competent enough to obtain mid-tier franchise QBs on a recurring basis in a 4-5 year window. That's not an opinion that has any real basis.

Number 3 was touched on later in that conversation as the NFL is run by people afraid to take risks. You saw it for years in coaching where going for it on 4th and 2 from the 40 was considered crazy. It took coaches just deciding to and being successful for that to just become common sense now just as it will take a GM just deciding to for it to work in the NFL.

I also did not assign Pass as SB trophy and fail as anything else. I was responding to the question about Super Bowl winners who had franchise QBs. Frankly I would consider making the SB to be a pass as if you are building a SB roster you should want to make it to the Super Bowl to be successful.

Also the entire league is finding a QB or two every year and is batting about 50% on them. They are actually batting better at finding franchise QBs then they are at trying to win with franchise QBs who they extended (and are under said extension). You can on average draft Tua in the first round, certainly in the upper half and so you now have a Tua on average and can pick up 2 elite WRs to go with him or 2 elite WRs and an elite OLine or elite DLine for the same cost as extending your QB.

Considering that in the NFL you win by having a franchise guy (of which I would count 18-19 QBs as that about 4-6 unknowns) and surrounding them with more talent than the other 17-18 teams it seems like you would be better able to add that talent if you instead of eating big contract you instead took the multiple 1s (and possibly 2s as well if you have a truly elite one) and used both the cap space and picks to keep loading up on talent.

 

[Adreme]

1. Some of the guys who are "coming back soon" aren't on IR anyway, so they're not taking up another roster spot when they come back. It's the same roster spot they've been taking up. Most of the guys out injured have longer-term injuries and won't be back in a week or two anyway.
2. You already have a practice squad, so it's fairly straight forward to use elevations to fill those spots and then replenish your PS weekly. Gets you the ability to see some guys work out that you wouldn't normally.
3. Positional availability matters. Some of the elevations or even signings you could be doing are at positions where you're getting thinner (like Offensive Tackle at the moment).

Bowswer will be coming back and there is likely no cut when he comes back, Edwards will come back and that will probably mean a cut, Obajo will be a few more weeks but when he comes back there will also likely not be a cut which brings us to 53. Any LT they sign will likely need a week or 2 to learn the system at which point Stanley is likely back and they are likely not even active on gameday so what was the point when the roster spot is needed for others?

 

[allblackraven]

Number 3 was touched on later in that conversation as the NFL is run by people afraid to take risks. You saw it for years in coaching where going for it on 4th and 2 from the 40 was considered crazy. It took coaches just deciding to and being successful for that to just become common sense now just as it will take a GM just deciding to for it to work in the NFL.

I also did not assign Pass as SB trophy and fail as anything else. I was responding to the question about Super Bowl winners who had franchise QBs. Frankly I would consider making the SB to be a pass as if you are building a SB roster you should want to make it to the Super Bowl to be successful.

Also the entire league is finding a QB or two every year and is batting about 50% on them. They are actually batting better at finding franchise QBs then they are at trying to win with franchise QBs who they extended (and are under said extension). You can on average draft Tua in the first round, certainly in the upper half and so you now have a Tua on average and can pick up 2 elite WRs to go with him or 2 elite WRs and an elite OLine or elite DLine for the same cost as extending your QB.

Considering that in the NFL you win by having a franchise guy (of which I would count 18-19 QBs as that about 4-6 unknowns) and surrounding them with more talent than the other 17-18 teams it seems like you would be better able to add that talent if you instead of eating big contract you instead took the multiple 1s (and possibly 2s as well if you have a truly elite one) and used both the cap space and picks to keep loading up on talent.

Or, you know, you can keep your franchise QB and draft better.

 

[RavensMania]

Or, you know, you can keep your franchise QB and draft better.

end of discussion

 

[rmcjacket23]

Bowswer will be coming back and there is likely no cut when he comes back, Edwards will come back and that will probably mean a cut, Obajo will be a few more weeks but when he comes back there will also likely not be a cut which brings us to 53. Any LT they sign will likely need a week or 2 to learn the system at which point Stanley is likely back and they are likely not even active on gameday so what was the point when the roster spot is needed for others?

1. Bowser and Edwards will require roster cuts to come back, since they're not on the active roster.. Neither is practicing, so they're not close. It'll be 2-3 weeks, minimum, from the start of practice, before they show up on gameday. So they're both a month away, optimistically, at this point. Ojabo is longer, and I'm not banking on really anything from Ojabo or Edwards this year.
2. A Tackle we sign (which is realistically just PS elevations at this point) doesn't have the luxury of waiting a week or two. We don't literally have the bodies for that.
Stanley may be back this week, but if he's not, you have Moses and Faalele and basically nobody else. Your swing tackle, and maybe even a 4th tackle if you really had to have it, are coming from your PS and waivers. There's no place else to find one.

I think Stanley plays this week, but I don't know for sure.

Regardless, you elevate from the PS, and you sign somebody else to the PS, because you actually want PS players to feel like they have a shot of being elevated. Otherwise, they'll be signing elsewhere the first chance they get.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Number 3 was touched on later in that conversation as the NFL is run by people afraid to take risks. You saw it for years in coaching where going for it on 4th and 2 from the 40 was considered crazy. It took coaches just deciding to and being successful for that to just become common sense now just as it will take a GM just deciding to for it to work in the NFL.

I also did not assign Pass as SB trophy and fail as anything else. I was responding to the question about Super Bowl winners who had franchise QBs. Frankly I would consider making the SB to be a pass as if you are building a SB roster you should want to make it to the Super Bowl to be successful.

Also the entire league is finding a QB or two every year and is batting about 50% on them. They are actually batting better at finding franchise QBs then they are at trying to win with franchise QBs who they extended (and are under said extension). You can on average draft Tua in the first round, certainly in the upper half and so you now have a Tua on average and can pick up 2 elite WRs to go with him or 2 elite WRs and an elite OLine or elite DLine for the same cost as extending your QB.

Considering that in the NFL you win by having a franchise guy (of which I would count 18-19 QBs as that about 4-6 unknowns) and surrounding them with more talent than the other 17-18 teams it seems like you would be better able to add that talent if you instead of eating big contract you instead took the multiple 1s (and possibly 2s as well if you have a truly elite one) and used both the cap space and picks to keep loading up on talent.

I agree on part 1. But why should they take risks? Does the Owner get like a $100M profit bonus from winning a SB? No they don't. They take risks that involve rewards. While I think all Owners want to win, I don't think all Owners are willing to do everything it takes to win, including fronting huge cash outlays and making limited profits to do it.
With Coaches and GMs, of course they don't want to take the risk. What does the risk do for them? If they fail, they get fired. If they succeed, they get a pay raise that's nice, but not like wildly more than they were making before. There aren't GM's or Coaches making like $25M a year. Even the great one's.

The problem with the last paragraph is you're assuming NFL GM's are competent enough to execute the strategy, which I think clearly, they're not. It doesn't matter how many picks you have or how much money you have to spend. Only thing that matters is what you do with it. If you spend them on not good football players, what you have? You spent a lot of money and drafted a lot of guys, and they're not good.

You realize we've seen that many times before, right? Like I just described the Jaguars for like the last 15 years. The Raiders for about the last 20 years.

The differences between us is you're putting a franchise in a THEORETICAL position to succeed, by giving them tools to go after assets. I'm saying these guys aren't good enough at what they do to turn those tools into assets. They're betting off keeping the one's they have and go shopping for better one's at Target instead of at Saks. Because they know more about what's at Target than they do about what's at Saks. And they also know more about the assets they already have.

Your scenario is basically giving an 18 year old in college a credit card with a $10K monthly limit, and expecting them to spend it wisely.

 

[rossihunter2]

1. Bowser and Edwards will require roster cuts to come back, since they're not on the active roster.. Neither is practicing, so they're not close. It'll be 2-3 weeks, minimum, from the start of practice, before they show up on gameday. So they're both a month away, optimistically, at this point. Ojabo is longer, and I'm not banking on really anything from Ojabo or Edwards this year.
2. A Tackle we sign (which is realistically just PS elevations at this point) doesn't have the luxury of waiting a week or two. We don't literally have the bodies for that.
Stanley may be back this week, but if he's not, you have Moses and Faalele and basically nobody else. Your swing tackle, and maybe even a 4th tackle if you really had to have it, are coming from your PS and waivers. There's no place else to find one.

I think Stanley plays this week, but I don't know for sure.

Regardless, you elevate from the PS, and you sign somebody else to the PS, because you actually want PS players to feel like they have a shot of being elevated. Otherwise, they'll be signing elsewhere the first chance they get.

most of those guys are a while away are but reporting is right now that bowser could be available to play very soon after being activated - he's been working out a bunch on adjacent practice fields for weeks

 

[Adreme]

Or, you know, you can keep your franchise QB and draft better.

You are right, why didnt any of the 32 GMs just think to draft 2 more all pro players than every other team was a decent QB? Also to do it with less picks than those teams because they did not trade for multiple 1s.

Maybe instead of having 2 all pro players more than the best teams in the NFL while at the same time having to find a few more elite players in the draft at the same time, it might be easier to instead only have to hit on 1 pick.

Considering that hitting on a QB is not particularly harder than hitting other positions, maybe it is easier to only need to hit on 1-2 things versus needing to hit on 4-5.

And as @RavensMania would say: end of discussion

 

[Adreme]

1. Bowser and Edwards will require roster cuts to come back, since they're not on the active roster.. Neither is practicing, so they're not close. It'll be 2-3 weeks, minimum, from the start of practice, before they show up on gameday. So they're both a month away, optimistically, at this point. Ojabo is longer, and I'm not banking on really anything from Ojabo or Edwards this year.
2. A Tackle we sign (which is realistically just PS elevations at this point) doesn't have the luxury of waiting a week or two. We don't literally have the bodies for that.
Stanley may be back this week, but if he's not, you have Moses and Faalele and basically nobody else. Your swing tackle, and maybe even a 4th tackle if you really had to have it, are coming from your PS and waivers. There's no place else to find one.

I think Stanley plays this week, but I don't know for sure.

Regardless, you elevate from the PS, and you sign somebody else to the PS, because you actually want PS players to feel like they have a shot of being elevated. Otherwise, they'll be signing elsewhere the first chance they get.

They do not require roster cuts because there are not 53 people on the active roster right now (believe there are either 51 or 52 as of now). There is no point in putting 53 people on the roster if none of the extra people are going to be playing come gameday because only 47 dress (+2 practice squad) so if Bowswer and Edwards and Obajo are coming back then what is the point of signing a 52nd and 53rd person to the roster who will not be suiting up on Sunday. Its just wasting cap space for the sake of it.

 

[Adreme]

I agree on part 1. But why should they take risks? Does the Owner get like a $100M profit bonus from winning a SB? No they don't. They take risks that involve rewards. While I think all Owners want to win, I don't think all Owners are willing to do everything it takes to win, including fronting huge cash outlays and making limited profits to do it.
With Coaches and GMs, of course they don't want to take the risk. What does the risk do for them? If they fail, they get fired. If they succeed, they get a pay raise that's nice, but not like wildly more than they were making before. There aren't GM's or Coaches making like $25M a year. Even the great one's.

The problem with the last paragraph is you're assuming NFL GM's are competent enough to execute the strategy, which I think clearly, they're not. It doesn't matter how many picks you have or how much money you have to spend. Only thing that matters is what you do with it. If you spend them on not good football players, what you have? You spent a lot of money and drafted a lot of guys, and they're not good.

You realize we've seen that many times before, right? Like I just described the Jaguars for like the last 15 years. The Raiders for about the last 20 years.

The differences between us is you're putting a franchise in a THEORETICAL position to succeed, by giving them tools to go after assets. I'm saying these guys aren't good enough at what they do to turn those tools into assets. They're betting off keeping the one's they have and go shopping for better one's at Target instead of at Saks. Because they know more about what's at Target than they do about what's at Saks. And they also know more about the assets they already have.

Your scenario is basically giving an 18 year old in college a credit card with a $10K monthly limit, and expecting them to spend it wisely.

I think that while risky it is a MUCH easier strategy to execute than trying to win with a QB on an extension which is why depending on your metrics of success it has either not happened or rarely happened with the exception of the Brady outlier but he is taking less so it is hard to count that. Hitting an average first round QB (even if you pull an Arizona and draft 1 back to back) gets you what you need to be a contender whereas to be a contender with a franchise QB you need to hit about 2 elite talents or 4-5 above average talents more than the other teams in the NFL who are using rookie QBs when it comes to drafting. This is why it does not really happen because it is harder to do.

Like going for it on 4th down though until someone does it and it works it will not become common place to do so and losing with a franchise QB still lets you have a job whereas taking the risk, risks your job even if it is a safer bet. The Lions and Eagles as an example are pretty happy with dumping their franchise guy and in the former case they were stuck with another team's own overpaid scrub for 2 years but might make the playoffs despite themselves (I LOVE both their picks as an aside even if the other is tbd). The Eagles built a pretty solid roster that even with a QB that is really not great they are still contenders now and that would not be possible if said QB was making an extra 40m AAV.

 

[Adreme]

most of those guys are a while away are but reporting is right now that bowser could be available to play very soon after being activated - he's been working out a bunch on adjacent practice fields for weeks

It is kind of annoying that the Bills and Dolphins had to be 2 of the first 4 games. Either it will affect seeding for the Wild Card or for a potential bye but those are the 2 biggest non division games on the schedule.

 

[rossihunter2]

It is kind of annoying that the Bills and Dolphins had to be 2 of the first 4 games. Either it will affect seeding for the Wild Card or for a potential bye but those are the 2 biggest non division games on the schedule.

sure - but let's worry about winning the division first lol
it's nice that without those guys we havent had to play a single division game yet

 

[RavensMania]

You are right, why didnt any of the 32 GMs just think to draft 2 more all pro players than every other team was a decent QB? Also to do it with less picks than those teams because they did not trade for multiple 1s.

Maybe instead of having 2 all pro players more than the best teams in the NFL while at the same time having to find a few more elite players in the draft at the same time, it might be easier to instead only have to hit on 1 pick.

Considering that hitting on a QB is not particularly harder than hitting other positions, maybe it is easier to only need to hit on 1-2 things versus needing to hit on 4-5.

And as @RavensMania would say: end of discussion

hitting on a QB is much harder than other position. Less frequently do you get a stud QB at the top of the round. Just because we got lucky with Lamar Jackson at pick 32, doesn't mean it happens every day. If you have noticed, most of the elite franchise QBs have been taken in the top 10 of the draft, if not the top 5.

 

[allblackraven]

You are right, why didnt any of the 32 GMs just think to draft 2 more all pro players than every other team was a decent QB? Also to do it with less picks than those teams because they did not trade for multiple 1s.

Maybe instead of having 2 all pro players more than the best teams in the NFL while at the same time having to find a few more elite players in the draft at the same time, it might be easier to instead only have to hit on 1 pick.

Considering that hitting on a QB is not particularly harder than hitting other positions, maybe it is easier to only need to hit on 1-2 things versus needing to hit on 4-5.

And as @RavensMania would say: end of discussion

Chiefs and Packers didn't have a problem letting go Hill and Adams.

It's certainly easier to find great players in other positions than a QB.

 

[Adreme]

hitting on a QB is much harder than other position. Less frequently do you get a stud QB at the top of the round. Just because we got lucky with Lamar Jackson at pick 32, doesn't mean it happens every day. If you have noticed, most of the elite franchise QBs have been taken in the top 10 of the draft, if not the top 5.

Your average first round QB, based on the past decade, is about on the level of Tua (also Hurts though I know he was 2nd round), which while far worse than Lamar is someone who you can demonstrably win with especially for 10-15% of the price. Its easier to get one average pick than need to hit multiple all pro picks. I remember seeing WR had a 40% success rate but I would have to line up every 1st WR pick to see what the article defined as success and the same is true for other positions. Even if it is a similar rate though hitting multiple elite picks is harder than hitting one good pick before even factoring in the extra pick.

Also I realized rereading my own post that came off as snarkier than I meant for it to which is a bit of an oops.

 

[Adreme]

Chiefs and Packers didn't have a problem letting go Hill and Adams.

It's certainly easier to find great players in other positions than a QB.

The Chiefs started paying Mahomes this year, so maybe they can be the exception, and the Packers are an example of not quite having enough talent overall despite having the most talented QB in the history of the NFL on their roster. They are not bad at drafting, they are not bad in free agency, they just are not quite better than everyone else which you have to be to overcome having to pay your QB which they sadly are not.

 

[RavensMania]

Your average first round QB, based on the past decade, is about on the level of Tua (also Hurts though I know he was 2nd round), which while far worse than Lamar is someone who you can demonstrably win with especially for 10-15% of the price. Its easier to get one average pick than need to hit multiple all pro picks. I remember seeing WR had a 40% success rate but I would have to line up every 1st WR pick to see what the article defined as success and the same is true for other positions. Even if it is a similar rate though hitting multiple elite picks is harder than hitting one good pick before even factoring in the extra pick.

Also I realized rereading my own post that came off as snarkier than I meant for it to which is a bit of an oops.

if that's your reasoning, then we don't have anything to talk about. We are in total disagreement, which is fine, because that is your opinion.

 

[RavensMania]

Great QBs make the players around them better and that is what Lamar is doing, not what Jalen Hurts and Tua are doing where they need the talent around them to be great to succeed.

 

[Dom McRaven]

It is kind of annoying that the Bills and Dolphins had to be 2 of the first 4 games. Either it will affect seeding for the Wild Card or for a potential bye but those are the 2 biggest non division games on the schedule.

sure - but let's worry about winning the division first lol
it's nice that without those guys we havent had to play a single division game yet

Keep in mind, Adreme, that the rest of our division still has to play that division too. Best thing to do is get this 4-week stretch out of the way early.

 

[rossihunter2]

hitting on a QB is much harder than other position. Less frequently do you get a stud QB at the top of the round. Just because we got lucky with Lamar Jackson at pick 32, doesn't mean it happens every day. If you have noticed, most of the elite franchise QBs have been taken in the top 10 of the draft, if not the top 5.

the other thing is... it's a lot less franchise altering to miss on a 1st rounder at other positions vs QB - your whole franchise is reliant on hitting at that position