Signings, Cuts, Trades

[rmcjacket23]

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.

LOL, no, I destroyed your little average argument two days ago. That's why you don't use averages. Because, by definition, it means that 50% of your time your model works, and 50% of the time it doesn't.

Who the fuck would ever adopt a model with a 50/50 chance of succeeding? If that's the baseline of your model... I've got a model. Tell the GM to flip a fucking coin for every decision he makes. I'll do just as good.

 

[Deebo813]

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?

I think brady only signed like a 2yr 55 million deal with bucs the 1st time around

 

[Tank]

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.

The Rams didn’t have 25% of their cap space taken up by their QB room, half of the hit was in the Lions QB room. lol

 

[JoeyFlex5]

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.

They didn’t accumulate talent, they accumulated picks and they didn’t pan out. Which is precisely why trading an elite qb for a bunch of picks does not automatically mean they’ll pan out

 

[Tank]

LOL, no, I destroyed your little average argument two days ago. That's why you don't use averages. Because, by definition, it means that 50% of your time your model works, and 50% of the time it doesn't.

Who the fuck would ever adopt a model with a 50/50 chance of succeeding? If that's the baseline of your model... I've got a model. Tell the GM to flip a fucking coin for every decision he makes. I'll do just as good.

Browns. lol

 

[JoeyFlex5]

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).

Bruh you’re the one that brought the giants and Daniel jones into this. “Red herring” my ass.

 

[rmcjacket23]

The Rams didn’t have 25% of their cap space taken up by their QB room, half of the hit was in the Lions QB room. lol

Right, but it was a part of the Rams salary cap. That's what that table is showing... QB contracts divided by total salary cap. If you're only counting Stafford, that's incomplete analysis, because it ignores the fact that the Rams had a nearly $25M cap hit for a player that wasn't there.

Like think about the logic behind that "analysis". The argument has always been "you can't pay a QB more than 15% of the cap and win a SB". OK, cool. So you can't pay ONE QB more than 15%, but you can pay TWO QBs almost 25%, and win it.
If people think that's logical, go ahead and die on that hill.

 

[Adreme]

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.

Its not just the Colts though. When they beat the Cardinals I also thought they were for sure a top 3 possibly even top 2 or 1 team in the AFC but with the benefit of more games the Cardinals are not very good (perhaps they should have stuck to that study clause). They beat an injured Chargers team (the Chargers might be the only team that consistently has worse injury luck than the Ravens) and lost to a bad Colts team. So their entire schedule is them beating a terrible team and playing close games against borderline playoff teams does inspire confidence. Right now I do not have them top 2 and I have them at 4th and I reserve the right if the Bengals become good or the Chargers get healthy or Denver figures out how to throw a football to call them the 5th best team in the AFC.

Mahomes is still fantastic but something does not look right with KC. I still think they should win on Sunday because the NFC is bad and I would pick any of the top 5 in the AFC to win the NFC, but you cannot tell me they do not look worse than previous years.

 

[Adreme]

Bruh you’re the one that brought the giants and Daniel jones into this. “Red herring” my ass.

I did not bring up Daniel Jones. I was talking about MAC JONES and other people assumed I meant Daniel Jones. Those are 2 different players. One is the QB of the Patriots the other is the QB of the Giants. Forget the same division, they are not even in the same conference.

 

[Tank]

Right, but it was a part of the Rams salary cap. That's what that table is showing... QB contracts divided by total salary cap. If you're only counting Stafford, that's incomplete analysis, because it ignores the fact that the Rams had a nearly $25M cap hit for a player that wasn't there.

Sure, part of the analysis and fortunate the Rams were able to make it work. But I doubt it’s a model that will become the norm, it’s an unusual scenario that will most likely never happen again.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Its not just the Colts though. When they beat the Cardinals I also thought they were for sure a top 3 possibly even top 2 or 1 team in the AFC but with the benefit of more games the Cardinals are not very good (perhaps they should have stuck to that study clause). They beat an injured Chargers team (the Chargers might be the only team that consistently has worse injury luck than the Ravens) and lost to a bad Colts team. So their entire schedule is them beating a terrible team and playing close games against borderline playoff teams does inspire confidence. Right now I do not have them top 2 and I have them at 4th and I reserve the right if the Bengals become good or the Chargers get healthy or Denver figures out how to throw a football to call them the 5th best team in the AFC.

Mahomes is still fantastic but something does not look right with KC. I still think they should win on Sunday because the NFC is bad and I would pick any of the top 5 in the AFC to win the NFC, but you cannot tell me they do not look worse than previous years.

I don't really care if they look worse than prior years. Worse than prior years means they lose in the AFCG instead of the SB. And if you can make it to the AFCG, you're a contender for the SB. Duh.

I'm not going to go back and worth and argue the merits of their "competitiveness" over a 3 game sample. I don't think the Dolphins are nearly as good as they've shown, nor do I think the Bengals are this bad. But the AFC is a LOT weaker than I thought it would be thus far. Broncos and Raiders are basically total shit at this point, everybody in the AFC South is pedestrian, Steelers are pedestrian, and the Browns are dead without Watson.

That leaves me with Buffalo, Miami, Ravens, Bengals, Chiefs, Chargers. I'll take Chiefs in a playoff game over most of those teams.

 

[Adreme]

Sure, part of the analysis and fortunate the Rams were able to make it work. But I doubt it’s a model that will become the norm, it’s an unusual scenario that will most likely never happen again.

I am sure it will happen again at some point. Maybe once in the next decade or 15 years it will happen again. There are just too many teams for it not to happen to go that way one more time. The one thing that @rmcjacket23 and I agree on is that just because something is unlikely does not make it impossible. The debate is over which is the more likely way to build a winner.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Sure, part of the analysis and fortunate the Rams were able to make it work. But I doubt it’s a model that will become the norm, it’s an unusual scenario that will most likely never happen again.

Right, but a team winning a SB with a QB taking up 15-20% of the cap is going to happen. And I think its going to start happening a lot.

Cap is going to rise to possibly $220M next year. I have no doubt a team with a QB costing $35-40M can easily win the SB. Historically, apparently, that's impossible.

 

[gtalk12]

You guys want to see what a dead body looks like?


Lmfaoooo

 

[Deebo813]

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.

Yea i watched that game too and i def agree

 

[gtalk12]

If the player wasn’t a QB and we made a trade a got a ton of picks it would make sense.

A QB? In the NFL? No. Ravens of all teams know just how hard it is to win even with an elite defense and elite run game.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Jesus Christ I hate this forum sometimes

 

[Tank]

Right, but a team winning a SB with a QB taking up 15-20% of the cap is going to happen. And I think its going to start happening a lot.

Cap is going to rise to possibly $220M next year. I have no doubt a team with a QB costing $35-40M can easily win the SB. Historically, apparently, that's impossible.

Sure, could definitely happen. But 5+ year fully guaranteed contracts being the norm? I doubt that ever happens.

 

[Nurps]

How do I get my eyes to uncross?

 

[UPennChem]

Yeah we need tomorrow to come asap