• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Random Thought Thread

Do agree on this. I have no doubt there's plenty of Owners, GMs, etc. looking at recent QB deals and the outcomes since (though its only like a 1-2 year sample size) and thinking to themselves "yikes, I don't want to be that guy".

I mean if you go through the deals signed in like the last five years:
Mahomes and Allen are kind of the only deals that look "great" at this point.

After one year, Murray, Watson and Wilson look like disasters.
Dak signed in 2021, and that doesn't look like a particularly great deal at the moment
Stafford won a SB, but he got an extension that kicked in last year and lasts through 2026, and they're simply making roster overhauls
Packers want out of the Rodgers deal one year into a 3 year extension
Matt Ryan and Ryan Tannehill's deals were mostly colossal failures
Raiders moved off of Carr one year into a four year extension
Jared Goff's deal surprisingly looks OK

Like I see maybe 2 for certain, and maybe 3-4 out of 12 total deals in like a 4-5 year period where the team can confidently say "yeah, that was a good decision". Everything else is either a disaster, somebody who's just middling and not winning, or guys that in the first year look dreadful.

And I think Owners and GMs see this stuff and are like "if I'm not getting an elite guy", why am I paying them $45-50M a year?
Yup, now where we fall into this convo, is do we believe Lamar is worth what he’s gonna get? I do believe Lamar is the kinda qb who is able to live up to that contract and I feel pretty strongly that roster health and play calling have been an extreme dead weight for Lamar to try to carry around, but I think he is one of the rare qbs who can just carry a squad for a few weeks if needed, he’s done it time and time again.
 
I think Lamar is tiers above those guys. It seems like the Ravens do too. He's a QB you win because of. The Ravens have asked him to do so much and he usually accomplished it, when healthy
I think he is too. Doesn't mean the Ravens are going to commit 4-5 years of gtd $ to him either. If he plays well, he'll get it all, no matter what he signs. But its basically Owners saying "I'm not Haslam". I'm not giving you $230M fully gtd for five years because you're not Mahomes and I don't know what I'll get out of it. Its great that I MIGHT get an MVP level performer, but its been 3 years since then and the Ravens don't have much to show for it.
 
I think he is too. Doesn't mean the Ravens are going to commit 4-5 years of gtd $ to him either. If he plays well, he'll get it all, no matter what he signs. But its basically Owners saying "I'm not Haslam". I'm not giving you $230M fully gtd for five years because you're not Mahomes and I don't know what I'll get out of it. Its great that I MIGHT get an MVP level performer, but its been 3 years since then and the Ravens don't have much to show for it.
It hasn't been 3 years since he was an MVP level performer.

Two thirds of the way through the 21 season he was the bookies favorite for MVP. Then the Miami collapse happened (which I blame on Roman as at least as much as Lamar- but let's not get into that). Even in the first few weeks of 22 he was being listed among 'early MVP candidates'.

He's shown that he still has that performance level in him.
 
I think he is too. Doesn't mean the Ravens are going to commit 4-5 years of gtd $ to him either. If he plays well, he'll get it all, no matter what he signs. But its basically Owners saying "I'm not Haslam". I'm not giving you $230M fully gtd for five years because you're not Mahomes and I don't know what I'll get out of it. Its great that I MIGHT get an MVP level performer, but its been 3 years since then and the Ravens don't have much to show for it.
To me it’s all about basic economics. Supply and demand. The demand for really good QB’s is always high, while supply is always low. Owners get desperate for that QB who they think can get them a championship. The salary structure is no longer based on merit, but rather potential. They have been doling out crazy money to guys like Watson and Murray for what? Yes they are good QB’s but they have not been difference makers if/when they get to the playoffs. I think the owners are beginning to say maybe we can win with a good but not great QB without paying a high percentage of their salary cap to one position.
 
It hasn't been 3 years since he was an MVP level performer.

Two thirds of the way through the 21 season he was the bookies favorite for MVP. Then the Miami collapse happened (which I blame on Roman as at least as much as Lamar- but let's not get into that). Even in the first few weeks of 22 he was being listed among 'early MVP candidates'.

He's shown that he still has that performance level in him.
Sure, because the first month of the year he looks good. I'm not really interested in whether or not he's an MVP player for a month. That doesn't do anything for me or anybody else.

I have no doubt that he does. That doesn't mean a team is going to pay for "hopes and prayers" either, nor does it dismiss the obvious durability concerns.
 
That's the gamble but I think Monken has more in his playbook for keys downs than "Help me, Lamar" so, hopefully, he can come into the latter part of the season a bit healthier and performing better.
 
To me it’s all about basic economics. Supply and demand. The demand for really good QB’s is always high, while supply is always low. Owners get desperate for that QB who they think can get them a championship. The salary structure is no longer based on merit, but rather potential. They have been doling out crazy money to guys like Watson and Murray for what? Yes they are good QB’s but they have not been difference makers if/when they get to the playoffs. I think the owners are beginning to say maybe we can win with a good but not great QB without paying a high percentage of their salary cap to one position.
Right, but I think the difference is in the last few years, it seems to me that supply is increasing.
Josh Allen
Lamar
Kyler
Daniel Jones
Burrow
Tua
Herbert
Hurts
Lawrence
Fields
Pickett

That's 11 QBs in the last five years that have been drafted, and every single team on that list believes they can win a SB with a QB in that group either now or in the not-too-distant future. They may be wrong, but that's what they've told everybody with their decisions. That means the entire league can probably find a good franchise QB every 15 years (on average). We know some teams do better than others, but on average, that's what that looks like. And given that a lot of good QBs can play at least 10-12 at a high level now, that means the turnaround doesn't have to take that long.

Are most of those guys not "great"? Of course not, and most of them probably won't win anything. But those teams think they will for at least a 4-5 year period, if not longer.

So I think fans have this vision of like "its Mahomes or Burrow, or you have nothing". NFL teams don't think that way. In recent history, there's 2-3 pretty good QBs coming out of every single draft class. Sometimes as many as 4-5, depending on the year.

So I think the future shift is going to be every Owner looks at this and says "am I going to pay $50M a year to somebody who didn't win anything in the 3-5 years they were here", or am I going to take my chances in a draft that has probably 3-4 guys a year who I think can produce the same # of wins (or more) for a lot less $?

Or, are they going to do what they're pretty much doing, which is to stay "we're capping this". Meaning Dak doesn't cost $60M 4 years from now. He'll cost $50M, because we're not inflating the value of QBs that much anymore.
 
Right, but I think the difference is in the last few years, it seems to me that supply is increasing.
Josh Allen
Lamar
Kyler
Daniel Jones
Burrow
Tua
Herbert
Hurts
Lawrence
Fields
Pickett

That's 11 QBs in the last five years that have been drafted, and every single team on that list believes they can win a SB with a QB in that group either now or in the not-too-distant future. They may be wrong, but that's what they've told everybody with their decisions. That means the entire league can probably find a good franchise QB every 15 years (on average). We know some teams do better than others, but on average, that's what that looks like. And given that a lot of good QBs can play at least 10-12 at a high level now, that means the turnaround doesn't have to take that long.

Are most of those guys not "great"? Of course not, and most of them probably won't win anything. But those teams think they will for at least a 4-5 year period, if not longer.

So I think fans have this vision of like "its Mahomes or Burrow, or you have nothing". NFL teams don't think that way. In recent history, there's 2-3 pretty good QBs coming out of every single draft class. Sometimes as many as 4-5, depending on the year.

So I think the future shift is going to be every Owner looks at this and says "am I going to pay $50M a year to somebody who didn't win anything in the 3-5 years they were here", or am I going to take my chances in a draft that has probably 3-4 guys a year who I think can produce the same # of wins (or more) for a lot less $?

Or, are they going to do what they're pretty much doing, which is to stay "we're capping this". Meaning Dak doesn't cost $60M 4 years from now. He'll cost $50M, because we're not inflating the value of QBs that much anymore.
I say this though as someone who made a lot of people mad at me for arguing this exact same position (I swear sometimes with you) about 5-6 months ago: it is going to take a GM with good job security to make that pick. If you pick a QB in the top 10 you are looking at around 30-40% chance to get a hit, aka find a guy on that level, which is probably more than you would have paying the guy and trying to find 2 hits at other positions (aka the 2 players you would be paying instead that you need to replace in the draft).

However, if you miss you probably have a lot less job security so this is why you need a GM not afraid to get fired. Signing the QB and accepting mediocrity is a good way to keep your job but a bad way to win a Super Bowl. You need a team willing to take a shot and go for it knowing that you could end up 4-13 for a year or 2 if you miss on the QB but could just as easily be 13-4 for the next 5 once you get that hit.
 
I say this though as someone who made a lot of people mad at me for arguing this exact same position (I swear sometimes with you) about 5-6 months ago: it is going to take a GM with good job security to make that pick. If you pick a QB in the top 10 you are looking at around 30-40% chance to get a hit, aka find a guy on that level, which is probably more than you would have paying the guy and trying to find 2 hits at other positions (aka the 2 players you would be paying instead that you need to replace in the draft).

However, if you miss you probably have a lot less job security so this is why you need a GM not afraid to get fired. Signing the QB and accepting mediocrity is a good way to keep your job but a bad way to win a Super Bowl. You need a team willing to take a shot and go for it knowing that you could end up 4-13 for a year or 2 if you miss on the QB but could just as easily be 13-4 for the next 5 once you get that hit.
I agree. Job security is a factor.

I think the difference is its pretty clear Ownership is involved in these magnitude of decisions. Like I doubt Steve is meddling in a negotiation for somebody like Ronnie Stanley, but when you're talking about contracts nearing a quarter of a billion dollars, and potentially guaranteeing that much, I know Owners have input. So even if the GM may want to do it, if the Owner says there's a limit to what he'll pay, that's that. There's nothing more to discuss. The Owner can't be fired, so he's not concerned about the GM's job security.

That being said... when you get to these deals like Watson, Murray, etc., and if they don't pan out and pan out quickly, you're still getting fired. No GM is going to survive paying $150-200M gtd to a QB and then not winning anything. Especially with the failures as bad as they were for the likes of Cards, Browns and Broncos this year. Not only didn't they meet expectations, they missed them by a gigantic margin.
 
I say this though as someone who made a lot of people mad at me for arguing this exact same position (I swear sometimes with you) about 5-6 months ago: it is going to take a GM with good job security to make that pick. If you pick a QB in the top 10 you are looking at around 30-40% chance to get a hit, aka find a guy on that level, which is probably more than you would have paying the guy and trying to find 2 hits at other positions (aka the 2 players you would be paying instead that you need to replace in the draft).

However, if you miss you probably have a lot less job security so this is why you need a GM not afraid to get fired. Signing the QB and accepting mediocrity is a good way to keep your job but a bad way to win a Super Bowl. You need a team willing to take a shot and go for it knowing that you could end up 4-13 for a year or 2 if you miss on the QB but could just as easily be 13-4 for the next 5 once you get that hit.
And yes, we've argued this before. I'm not suggesting if a team drafts a Dak Prescott, that every five years they let him walk and draft somebody else. That's not the point of what I'm saying.

The point is at some point Owners are going to stop letting non-elite QB markets continue to grow at rates that are higher than the cap. I don't think the market for Dak Prescott's is going to grow 30% over 5 years, even if the salary cap does. Can call it collusion or whatever, but at some point, the entire league is largely just going to be like "yeah, we're flattening out the growth rate". And they'll do that by nobody give them the offers they seek.
 
And yes, we've argued this before. I'm not suggesting if a team drafts a Dak Prescott, that every five years they let him walk and draft somebody else. That's not the point of what I'm saying.

The point is at some point Owners are going to stop letting non-elite QB markets continue to grow at rates that are higher than the cap. I don't think the market for Dak Prescott's is going to grow 30% over 5 years, even if the salary cap does. Can call it collusion or whatever, but at some point, the entire league is largely just going to be like "yeah, we're flattening out the growth rate". And they'll do that by nobody give them the offers they seek.
Except time has shown that owners are completely willing to let that happen. The only way for the QB market to come down is for some owners to make the decision, that is backed by the math, that they would rather trade their guy and start over then pay him an increasing amount. If you make that decision a trade is really the only way to do it as you want more than a 3rd round comp pick.

Basically until you show that you are better off drafting a new Dak Prescott, versus paying him the 50-55m his extension will be, the market will keep going up.
 
Right, but I think the difference is in the last few years, it seems to me that supply is increasing.
Josh Allen
Lamar
Kyler
Daniel Jones
Burrow
Tua
Herbert
Hurts
Lawrence
Fields
Pickett

That's 11 QBs in the last five years that have been drafted, and every single team on that list believes they can win a SB with a QB in that group either now or in the not-too-distant future. They may be wrong, but that's what they've told everybody with their decisions. That means the entire league can probably find a good franchise QB every 15 years (on average). We know some teams do better than others, but on average, that's what that looks like. And given that a lot of good QBs can play at least 10-12 at a high level now, that means the turnaround doesn't have to take that long.

Are most of those guys not "great"? Of course not, and most of them probably won't win anything. But those teams think they will for at least a 4-5 year period, if not longer.

So I think fans have this vision of like "its Mahomes or Burrow, or you have nothing". NFL teams don't think that way. In recent history, there's 2-3 pretty good QBs coming out of every single draft class. Sometimes as many as 4-5, depending on the year.

So I think the future shift is going to be every Owner looks at this and says "am I going to pay $50M a year to somebody who didn't win anything in the 3-5 years they were here", or am I going to take my chances in a draft that has probably 3-4 guys a year who I think can produce the same # of wins (or more) for a lot less $?

Or, are they going to do what they're pretty much doing, which is to stay "we're capping this". Meaning Dak doesn't cost $60M 4 years from now. He'll cost $50M, because we're not inflating the value of QBs that much anymore.
Right the supply may be increasing but is quality increasing? I mean I think we’re saying the same thing here. All those 10 QB’s have potential but most haven’t earned the right to a huge contract YET. So owners are paying for the potential not for what they have accomplished. Mahomes got a huge deal because he had won a SB before he got his deal. The demand for that special QB will always be high because guys like Mahomes, Brady, Rogers, Manning, etc. don’t come along very often. And guys like Picket, Murray, Lawrence, Watson etc. have potential but for what price?

Also the league revenues have increased over the past 20+ years by 400+%. QB Salary structures seem to be trending in the same direction. Hard for me to wrap my head around the $$ they are throwing at these guys.
 
Right the supply may be increasing but is quality increasing? I mean I think we’re saying the same thing here. All those 10 QB’s have potential but most haven’t earned the right to a huge contract YET. So owners are paying for the potential not for what they have accomplished. Mahomes got a huge deal because he had won a SB before he got his deal. The demand for that special QB will always be high because guys like Mahomes, Brady, Rogers, Manning, etc. don’t come along very often. And guys like Picket, Murray, Lawrence, Watson etc. have potential but for what price?

Also the league revenues have increased over the past 20+ years by 400+%. QB Salary structures seem to be trending in the same direction. Hard for me to wrap my head around the $$ they are throwing at these guys.
Right, and I think long term, the league will establish what that "price" is. It won't be a 10% increase in QB contracts YoY every year.

Also its a pretty obvious indication to the public that the mindset that "because somebody did it once, others will follow suit" isn't a mantra people should be confident in.
 
So I think fans have this vision of like "its Mahomes or Burrow, or you have nothing". NFL teams don't think that way. In recent history, there's 2-3 pretty good QBs coming out of every single draft class. Sometimes as many as 4-5, depending on the year.

you probably need to half that number

there may be 4-5 a year who might be something...
but history suggests that only half of those will amount to anything
 
you probably need to half that number

there may be 4-5 a year who might be something...
but history suggests that only half of those will amount to anything
I said, on average, over the last 5-6 years, there's 2-3 QBs that teams will end up with where they think, after a period of time, they can win a Lombardi with. That includes the Jones/Tua/Carr/Cousins types of the world, as well as the obvious elite guys.

I said 4-5 in rare spots because there have been some. 2020 gave us Burrow, Herbert, Tua and Hurts. They're rare, but so are the years where there's literally like one or none (the Geno Smith year, for example).

Most years have 2-3 pretty strong QBs that teams will draft and build around beyond a rookie deal.
 
Lmfao... reports say Za'Darius is trying to get released from the Vikings but they're having no parts of it. I know I shouldn't be petty but wamp wamp.
Probably because he wants a raise. Though he is due $13.8M if he's on the roster, so not really sure what he's bitching about.
 
Exactly. He flaked on our offer. Took theirs and is probably looking for a new deal. I'm all for players getting their money but this is clown shit from the optics.
I imagine its also the fact that he's a potential cap casualty for them, and that he wants to be released now so he can get a jump start on FA. He can be one of the premier pass rushers on the market and be days ahead of others.
 
Top