Lawrence showed flashes and had a couple complete games that made you go, "Oh, this is why he was drafted so high."
Fields doesn't even show flashes. He shows next to nothing, so much so that he has thrown 45 passes only.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
Signings, Cuts, Trades
- Thread starter RavensMania
- Start date
Fields doesn't even show flashes. He shows next to nothing, so much so that he has thrown 45 passes only.
An opinion without metrics is still an opinion. Just a list of names and how you think of them is fine. I would agree with that list of "franchise" QBs though I am surprised you left Burrow off that list as I think he is much better than half the QBs you listed. The thing is though if that is the level of a franchise QB you do not need one to have playoff success.
That is why I asked the question: how many teams in the Super Bowl would you say the QB was the driving force of that team, and to make it easy because Brady is a weird case of a QB who gets paid less ideally we can filter Brady? It actually is not that many because the recipe is generally get a good QB on a rookie deal and load up the team with elite talent all around. I know you listed Russ but Russ was a bus driver for those Seahawks defenses. Once the team revolved around him they actually stopped having success.
So if the cheat code is known, trying to keep the cheat code running is the next logical step.
Daniel Jones is a scrub who I am not sure is a competent backup. The Giants have weapons but he is not good enough to take advantage of it. Mac Jones is just someone who I cannot have an opinion on because of the mess in NE. If you put nothing around a QB he will not succeed and so I want to see if the QB can do well with pieces around him before saying what he is or is not. Hurts is looking decent right now because the Eagles are loaded. I do not think he is a franchise QB but he is likely going to join the 40m club if he keeps playing like that (another player who I would absolutely trade because Hurts is not that good and loading up the roster is why they are good).
when he joins the 40m club we will most likely be paying QBs 60m on avg.
rmcjacket23
Ravens Ring of Honor
OK, but this post is precisely why your model fails. Like you literally admitted your model doesn't work in this post, and you probably still don't understand why.
Remind me again... how much do Daniel Jones and Justin Fields cost right now? It is $40M, or is it a lot less than that?
You have "franchise" QBs on rookie deals, and the FO STILL can't figure out how to put a competent roster around them. When that happens, its a wrap. No amount of draft picks, cap spend, etc. is going to change that.
Like this isn't a case where Ravens fans bitch about the FO not investing enough in weapons for Lamar, despite the fact that they're a playoff team every year when he's healthy and they've won about as much on a rookie deal as anybody else ever has. These are teams who made gigantic draft investments in QBs, who apparently STILL can't form even a mediocre season.
The Giants literally did everything you wanted them to do for your model. Did they accumulate a large quantity of first round or high round draft picks? Yes. Giants have had EIGHT first round picks in the last 4 years. Have they had the cap availability to be significant players in FA? Absolutely. They've signed numerous high end players at premium prices, including Olineman and WRs.
And what do they have to show for it? It's almost like slap-in-the-face obvious that having all those things doesn't matter unless a) you can draft good players, regardless of where or when the picks are and b) you have at least a mildly competent QB, which the Giants don't appear to have. And in your model, they did everything right. And yet, they were wrong.
Weird...
Hurst is going to get a top market deal after this season, next season at the latest, and if not top market certainly top 5. He is going to be like "What has Dak won? What has Murray won? My team is (likely) the top seed in the NFC and a serious contender, and I am looking great so its time to pay me like it" which basically means once that money flows he falls to earth. I do not think he deserves it but realistically I do not think Dallas or Arizona should have paid either and it is like the Broncos were wrong as well.
In order for you to make your counterargument you have ignore the question I keep posing. Its a very simple concept that QBs on rookie deals have been the cheat code to playoff success for the past decade. The moment it is time to pay them everything falls apart. If you cannot surround a QB with something then it does not matter whether you have one or not so your counterexamples are pointless. The QB does not even have to be that good. Goff made it to the Super Bowl, the 2017 Eagles with Wentz and Foles won the Super Bowl, Russel Wilson was the bus driver of an all time great defense.
If the recipe is get a young QB load him up with talent and then have success only for it all to fall apart after paying the QB, the question is: why pay the QB? The Eagles quickly were able to load up on great talent the moment they were not paying a QB and they likely might make exactly the same mistake by extending Hurts.
He’s got the same issue burrow had without the weapons (and burrow was much further along in his development when he entered the league) - yes he’s not helped by poor OL play but he’s also been awful at creating his own sacks
He’s holding the ball far too long and not moving through his progressions quickly enough - the main issue he had in college was holding onto downfield reads too long before moving onto his next read
I expected his processing to speed up but so far it hasn’t
He’s not helped much by OL or receivers bailing him out but that’s not the whole deal
Still got more hope for him but there’s a really defined point of improvement he needs to make or else he’ll always be this
It helps to have functional coaching and support for sure
But Lawrence has also taken a big leap in his 2nd year - he was genuinely awful last year - not just on coaching or weapons... he was making terrible mistakes and they went under the radar because Wilson was worse and Urban was setting himself on fire
If this were true then we’d have seen more than 3 QBs on rookie deals win a super bowl in the last 2 decades (and 1 of them was flacco on a 5th year option...)
To be fair, i think only brady has won a SB after rookie deal on his same team.. maybe brees did it also? Im not sure
I mean rookie deals have not existed for 2 decades. Was it 2011ish when that was brought in and Brady kind of skews the numbers. That is why I was looking at making a Super Bowl because at least then we have a broader scope.
If we want to look at the past 2 decades though we should look at how many teams the QB is a driving force on for teams in the Super Bowl which is less than I thought.
Brees was not on his team. Brees was in a weird situation. He was drafted by the Chargers and was awful. So awful in fact that they drafted his replacement, Phillip Rivers. Rivers held out for his contract (bloated rookie contract that it was back then) and so Brees started the season and looked amazing so much so that had he not gotten hurt in the last game of the year the Chargers might have had to try and find a trade partner for Rivers because Brees looked like Brees. He then went to the Saints where he won a Super Bowl.
Pretty much only Brady has been able to do it on his original team because he took that massive discount, as did everyone else who played for the Pats.
well since 2011ish if we include superbowl losers then it's 8 of 22 superbowl QBs (around 37%)
russell wilson x 2
patrick mahomes x 2
joe flacco
colin kaepernick
jared goff
joe burrow
let's broaden it even more though to conference championship games (you could reasonably expect those teams to be thought of as having been as worthy of a superbowl as the superbowl losers potentially):
2021: 3/4 were not on rookie deals
2020: 2/4 were not on rookie deals
2019: 3/4 were not on rookie deals
2018: 2/4 were not on rookie deals
2017: 3/4 were not on rookie deals
2016: 4/4 were not on rookie deals
2015: 4/4 were not on rookie deals
2014: 2/4 were not on rookie deals
2013: 2/4 were not on rookie deals
2012: 1/4 were not on rookie deals
2011: 3/4 were not on rookie deals
29/44 (65%) were not QBs on rookie deals - if rookie QBs were such an advantage, then more of them would go deep in the playoffs
and if paying your QB a shit ton of money was prohibitive of winning superbowls or just generally making deep runs then this would show itself in the numbers... if anything it shows the opposite
what it mostly shows is that good QBs get you deep into the playoffs whether you're paying them yet or not - in many of the rookie deal QBs who got to the conference championships's cases, they were later paid franchise money by their own teams
also worth noting that only 3 of the QBs on rookie deals who appeared that deep in the playoffs, only 3 got there before their 3rd year in the league (wilson, mahomes and kaepernick) which is also worth noting because in your hypothetical you make it seem like your rookie deal QB is going to step in right away and make you a superbowl contender as a rookie, when in all probability, even if they're great, they're not going to give you those sorts of returns until the final 2-3 years of their deal in the likely best case scenario if you're lucky
History does prove this to be true.. however, owners cant look at it that way. With lamar on the team, im sure biscotti is making and gonna make a killing for the next few yrs.. the moment we arent competing, he will likely not see the same profit as he once did. Now if biscotti is ok with his team looking like shit for a few yrs, then idk lol.
The Giants did not accumulate talent though. Just to illustrate my point is there a single position group where you would say the Giants are better than the Ravens? I am not even sure I would say they are better at WR and they spent a lot of money on JAGs.
The fact that they are bricking on the draft means that it does not matter whether they had a QB or not right now. If Jones was Lamar they would have no reason to sign him because they have no parts around him and nothing that suggests they will be good in the next 5 years. So yes if you miss on every pick you are going to be bad no matter what scenario you pick, also known as pulling a Raiders/Lions.
All the Giants have shown is that you need the underlying pieces to be good. If Daniel Jones was good it would not matter because they would never catch up to the rest of the NFL having to largely sit out free agency because they signed their QB. So basically they would have a QB and not be competitive because they would be competing and losing to teams that have deeper rosters because they have a QB on a rookie so they can use all 3 aspects of roster building.
Edit: Basically because you seem to be getting confused (though your tendency to strawman also does not help) the makeup of a Super Bowl team is fairly universal. Get a SB level QB (of which there are about 18-19 in the NFL right now) which means decent but obviously not Pro Bowl level and then surround them with as much talent as possible. The only ways to do that are the draft, free agency, and trades. If you are spending 40-50m on a QB that means 2 less elite players in free agency so if you need to surround your QB with elite talent you now have 2 less than everyone else so you need to somehow make that up in the draft. Alternatively if you trade the QB you are no longer down 2 potential elite signings but you need to find an adequate one in the draft but you also have more picks than everyone else.
Last edited:
Rossie just proved Adremes point is incorrect going all the way back to 2011.
It's not like the Giants haven't tried to draft talent and what makes you think it's that easy. Just because you draft a player doesn't mean they automatically turn into an All Pro.
Yea i think they were talking about something different cause i know for sure only 1 or 2 qbs have won a SB after their rookie contract..yea i was referring to adreme when he mentioned the SB winning qbs after rookie deals..
shouldn't exclude QBs who went to other teams and got a large contract. One would be Stafford and another would be Brady in recent years. Just using QBs that are coming off rookie deals isn't looking at the full picture. What is more important is how large a percentage of the cap that QB gets. The larger percentage, the harder it is for that team to win. @rmcjacket23 what is that percentage?