Signings, Cuts, Trades

[Tank]

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?

As a point of reference Lamar’s 2022 salary represents 11.21% of the cap.

 

[Simba]

 

[UPennChem]

ITS SEYMOUR SZN

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

Doesn't appear to me that everything falls apart once you pay a high end QB. Where are the examples of that happening?
I'm highly confident that the Chiefs, Bills and Packers haven't "fallen apart". All have highly paid QBs and pretty talented rosters.

Would also point out that the reigning SB champs spent well over 20% of the salary cap last year on QB.

 

[rmcjacket23]

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.

1. I know the Giants didn't acquire talent. Because your model can't guarantee that. All your model does is give them potential draft picks and money to spend. What happens if they don't draft well? What happens if they don't spend the money well?
The Giants is what happens. That's what happens when they do what you want them to do, but they don't execute it. Your entire argument is "I get two elite players at that price". Well, the Giants paid that same price tag, except they didn't get two elite players. They got players who just got paid a lot and didn't produce.
Hence, why the model sucks. The model requires the same thing that paying a high end QB does... quality drafting, quality FA signings.
2. Correct, it means you have less money to spend. And it means you need to do better in the draft. I'd rather be in that category, then being in the category of thinking I draft a mid-tier QB, turning out I didn't, and then it doesn't really matter what else I do.
3. Last year the Rams spent over $45M on the QB room, including nearly $25M for a QB that wasn't there. Did it seem like they struggled to get elite players there? Nope, they didn't. They also drafted well.

Imagine that. Teams that have a very good (or better) QB and draft well seem to perform well every year. This ain't rocket science.

 

[Adreme]

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.

The Giants are also a red herring in the entire conversation because it would not matter if they had Mahomes nothing would change for them. They are not a relevant topic in this conversation. It would be like me bringing up the fact that the Lions had a franchise QB for 10 years and could not win. It is not relevant.

The relevant teams are ones that have talent and have a decent QB and asking the simple question: should they have signed the QB or traded the QB? Teams that I could bring up for this are the Eagles, Rams, and even Seahawks as all recent examples in the past decade of teams that signed the QB instead and became worse off for it and no one is arguing that Seattle does not have a franchise guy, but they could not support him with the talent needed. The same has been true in Green Bay with what I still say is the most talented QB in NFL history (note that does not mean best).

 

[Adreme]

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?

Stafford is weird in that the Rams got a discount kind of because by trading for him they were only on the hook for his salary which basically put him in Brady territory.

For a similar reason while I think it was a mistake to sign Dak to that contract, I do not think it would be for sure a mistake to trade for his contract as you have a 2 year 65 million dollar contract which is far under market value and while slightly higher still in that Brady area.

 

[rmcjacket23]

View attachment 4052


As a point of reference Lamar’s 2022 salary represents 11.21% of the cap.

So one thing to point out about this graphic... its ignoring a pretty big issue.
Last years Rams spent almost $45M on QBs. Thats because Stafford cost $20M and Goff (who wasn't on the team) cost nearly $25M. A chart like this assumes that the team only has one expensive QB on the roster, which isn't necessarily true.

The reigning SB champs spent almost 25% of their cap space on QBs last year.

 

[rmcjacket23]

The Giants are also a red herring in the entire conversation because it would not matter if they had Mahomes nothing would change for them. They are not a relevant topic in this conversation. It would be like me bringing up the fact that the Lions had a franchise QB for 10 years and could not win. It is not relevant.

The relevant teams are ones that have talent and have a decent QB and asking the simple question: should they have signed the QB or traded the QB? Teams that I could bring up for this are the Eagles, Rams, and even Seahawks as all recent examples in the past decade of teams that signed the QB instead and became worse off for it and no one is arguing that Seattle does not have a franchise guy, but they could not support him with the talent needed. The same has been true in Green Bay with what I still say is the most talented QB in NFL history (note that does not mean best).

Umm... you don't get to decide who's relevant or not. If they're an NFL team, they're relevant.
You're ignoring them because you acknowledge that they're managed poorly and don't do a great job of evaluating talent.
THAT is the entire argument against your model. Like that's the glaring weakness. Your model doesn't work on GMs or coaches that don't know what they're doing.
Spoiler alert... that population is a LOT bigger than you think it is.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Stafford is weird in that the Rams got a discount kind of because by trading for him they were only on the hook for his salary which basically put him in Brady territory.

For a similar reason while I think it was a mistake to sign Dak to that contract, I do not think it would be for sure a mistake to trade for his contract as you have a 2 year 65 million dollar contract which is far under market value and while slightly higher still in that Brady area.

Well, if people did proper analysis, they would take TOTAL QB costs for the team and divide by total salary cap. Not just select one QB and do the comparison.

Stafford was cheap last year. Goff wasn't. Goff cost the Rams nearly $25M last year. So between the two, they spent nearly $45M in cap space for one QB... Stafford. Also ignores the backup QBs. I'm not losing any sleep over ignoring the backups, HOWEVER, there are teams that pay a decent chunk for backups. Sometimes $5-6M or even more. Not sure these models are doing a good job if we're just pretending like that's immaterial.

I've seen these little "no QB can take up X % of cap" arguments before. They're losing arguments everytime. They cherry pick numbers to make their point, ignore glaring problems in the data, and force conclusions that aren't accurate from the data set.
Not to mention it, again, basically says "if you don't win a SB, you're a loser", as if a team paying lots for a QB that loses in the SB or even makes a Conference title game had a "bad season".

 

[ndub]

Love the in-depth analysis going on, but one thing is certain. Lamar needs to get whatever he wants. He’s keeping this entire team together and has been for a while. Without him, we’re stuck with a piss poor defense, a running game that can’t take off without him (which will hopefully find its way now that Dobbins is back), and Huntley throwing to Andrews/Bateman/Duv and that’s pretty much the offense. We’d be winless right now

 

[Adreme]

Doesn't appear to me that everything falls apart once you pay a high end QB. Where are the examples of that happening?
I'm highly confident that the Chiefs, Bills and Packers haven't "fallen apart". All have highly paid QBs and pretty talented rosters.

Would also point out that the reigning SB champs spent well over 20% of the salary cap last year on QB.

The Chiefs are in year 1 of paying Mahomes ie this year. Josh Allen does not start getting paid until next year. At the moment Allen is still on a rookie deal. Meanwhile the Packers, despite having again all time great QB play, are just not talented enough despite actually being decent at drafting. They are not top 3 in the NFL but they are certainly above average at it.

 

[rmcjacket23]

The Chiefs are in year 1 of paying Mahomes ie this year. Josh Allen does not start getting paid until next year. At the moment Allen is still on a rookie deal. Meanwhile the Packers, despite having again all time great QB play, are just not talented enough despite actually being decent at drafting. They are not top 3 in the NFL but they are certainly above average at it.

OK, so, my argument is correct? Chiefs are good this year. Clear SB contenders. Will be next year too, unless Mahomes gets hurt.

Buffalo is going to be in contention for awhile, and GB has been a SB contender every year in the NFC for like a decade now, including this year.

Whether any of the 3 actually win a SB or even get there, I don't know. That's also not the only metric of success, so I'm not really concerned about it. Your argument is that these teams are supposed to be falling apart or start falling apart any day now. Good luck when that doesn't happen.

 

[Adreme]

Umm... you don't get to decide who's relevant or not. If they're an NFL team, they're relevant.
You're ignoring them because you acknowledge that they're managed poorly and don't do a great job of evaluating talent.
THAT is the entire argument against your model. Like that's the glaring weakness. Your model doesn't work on GMs or coaches that don't know what they're doing.
Spoiler alert... that population is a LOT bigger than you think it is.

Except the Giants are not relevant because they do not actually fit the mold being discussed. I am ignoring them because they are not relevant. There are no shortage of relevant teams and yet you keep focusing on these red herrings rather than actually engage on the merits of the argument.

Here is how you become relevant to this debate and it is very simple:
1. You have a talented roster with a QB on a rookie deal that is achieving success
2. It is time to pay the QB contract and you either do or do not

Teams like the Lions and Giants do not matter for opposite reasons. It does not matter that the Lions had a franchise QB and it does not matter that the Giants do not because they do not have a roster. Until they actually have a roster of actual players talking about whether to pay or not pay a QB is a waste of time because they are nothing either way. The discussion is not about teams that are nothing. It is about teams that are relevant and asking "Is the best way to continue to compete for Super Bowls to sign the QB or trade the QB and keep loading up the roster?" If you were not competing before then you do not matter in that debate.

I am not actually sure how to make it more simple for you.

 

[Tank]

So one thing to point out about this graphic... its ignoring a pretty big issue.
Last years Rams spent almost $45M on QBs. Thats because Stafford cost $20M and Goff (who wasn't on the team) cost nearly $25M. A chart like this assumes that the team only has one expensive QB on the roster, which isn't necessarily true.

The reigning SB champs spent almost 25% of their cap space on QBs last year.

Yeah obviously an outlier, and the Rams had all the pieces in place and restructured some to bring in Stafford.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Except the Giants are not relevant because they do not actually fit the mold being discussed. I am ignoring them because they are not relevant. There are no shortage of relevant teams and yet you keep focusing on these red herrings rather than actually engage on the merits of the argument.

Here is how you become relevant to this debate and it is very simple:
1. You have a talented roster with a QB on a rookie deal that is achieving success
2. It is time to pay the QB contract and you either do or do not

Teams like the Lions and Giants do not matter for opposite reasons. It does not matter that the Lions had a franchise QB and it does not matter that the Giants do not because they do not have a roster. Until they actually have a roster of actual players talking about whether to pay or not pay a QB is a waste of time because they are nothing either way. The discussion is not about teams that are nothing. It is about teams that are relevant and asking "Is the best way to continue to compete for Super Bowls to sign the QB or trade the QB and keep loading up the roster?" If you were not competing before then you do not matter in that debate.

I am not actually sure how to make it more simple for you.

But it does matter.

And it matters because, in your model, teams are supposed to routinely be able to get a Tua-level QB in the draft. That's what you said. You said, league-wide, teams can routinely get Tua-level QBs every 4-5 years.

The Giants can't. That's the point. They're the destroyer of your notion. They're not good enough to draft Tua-level QBs every 4-5 years. And they're not alone. There are legitimately franchised where Tua would be closely matched with the best QB they've had in decades. Not joking either.

So if they can't draft competent QBs in the draft, how does the model work? Answer... it doesn't. The entire model, by your own admission, is predicated on it.

Which is why teams won't adopt your model. Because they can't.

 

[Adreme]

OK, so, my argument is correct? Chiefs are good this year. Clear SB contenders. Will be next year too, unless Mahomes gets hurt.

Buffalo is going to be in contention for awhile, and GB has been a SB contender every year in the NFC for like a decade now, including this year.

Whether any of the 3 actually win a SB or even get there, I don't know. That's also not the only metric of success, so I'm not really concerned about it. Your argument is that these teams are supposed to be falling apart or start falling apart any day now. Good luck when that doesn't happen.

Are the Chiefs good this year? I ask because we just watched them get rolled. They might compete for the division crown because the Chargers are hurt, and the other 2 teams are worse than expected, but are they really a Super Bowl contender? They are at best 3rd right now and that could get worse if the Chargers get healthy or the Bengals figure it out and part of that is that they had to start letting elite talent go. That is not going to stop happening as time goes on. The fact that they are already taking a step back and likely to take more is part of the problem.

If you ask me will the Chiefs make the divisional round most years and the occasional championship game then sure I would agree with that but I do not think they are really a team you are looking at to make the Super Bowl this year and might not be going forward.

There IS an elephant in the room to address though and I am surprised no one else has brought it up so I might as well because I think it is the best counter to my argument. When a team has a rookie QB with a loaded roster they are doing pretty well and the consequence of doing pretty well is your draft position is worse for several years so by the time your QB signs his contract the core of your team went from upper round picks (as in the upper half of each round) to being picked later in each round which should on average mean worse performance. A good example of that is oddly enough Jimmy G because they traded for him, he got hurt and so the 49ers even after signing him had great draft position and with that position were able to keep a loaded roster and compete.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Yeah obviously an outlier, and the Rams had all the pieces in place with the cap they had.

Well, the difference is... I think people are about to find out very quickly that its NOT an outlier.

I think you're going to routinely see SB contenders, appearances, and winners, come from teams who have QB rooms taking up 20-25% of the cap. I think that's rapidly going to approach becoming more normalized.

Its the fallacy of that argument. People pretend like hasn't happened = can't happen. Those people are wrong.

 

[Adreme]

But it does matter.

And it matters because, in your model, teams are supposed to routinely be able to get a Tua-level QB in the draft. That's what you said. You said, league-wide, teams can routinely get Tua-level QBs every 4-5 years.

The Giants can't. That's the point. They're the destroyer of your notion. They're not good enough to draft Tua-level QBs every 4-5 years. And they're not alone. There are legitimately franchised where Tua would be closely matched with the best QB they've had in decades. Not joking either.

So if they can't draft competent QBs in the draft, how does the model work? Answer... it doesn't. The entire model, by your own admission, is predicated on it.

Which is why teams won't adopt your model. Because they can't.

On AVERAGE you should be able to get a Tua level QB with your first round pick. Average being the key word. The thing about the average is that half are better and half are worse. If you are hanging your head on what the word average means than you have a dying argument.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Are the Chiefs good this year? I ask because we just watched them get rolled. They might compete for the division crown because the Chargers are hurt, and the other 2 teams are worse than expected, but are they really a Super Bowl contender? They are at best 3rd right now and that could get worse if the Chargers get healthy or the Bengals figure it out and part of that is that they had to start letting elite talent go. That is not going to stop happening as time goes on. The fact that they are already taking a step back and likely to take more is part of the problem.

If you ask me will the Chiefs make the divisional round most years and the occasional championship game then sure I would agree with that but I do not think they are really a team you are looking at to make the Super Bowl this year and might not be going forward.

There IS an elephant in the room to address though and I am surprised no one else has brought it up so I might as well because I think it is the best counter to my argument. When a team has a rookie QB with a loaded roster they are doing pretty well and the consequence of doing pretty well is your draft position is worse for several years so by the time your QB signs his contract the core of your team went from upper round picks (as in the upper half of each round) to being picked later in each round which should on average mean worse performance. A good example of that is oddly enough Jimmy G because they traded for him, he got hurt and so the 49ers even after signing him had great draft position and with that position were able to keep a loaded roster and compete.

Yes, they're good. I watched them play the Colts. If that's your idea of "getting rolled", we're not even in the same planet in terms of evaluating NFL teams and games.

Chiefs are pretty clearly the second best team in the AFC to me right now, behind Buffalo. If I had to bet on AFCG today, its Bills/Chiefs and its not particularly close either. Every team has holes, but they have the smallest one's of all of the teams I've seen so far.