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

Lamar Jackson

rmcjacket23 said:
Right but if you have 10-20, and your scouting department isn't good, what are you?
The only teams that are going to perpetually contend are the one's with elite QBs. Every data point you will find will prove that. You'll get a team that has a good year or two with a mediocre QB, despite the fact that the QB will almost always be cheap for at least 3-4 years, and oftentimes 5-6 years. But they can't seem to find long term sustainability.

And that's because a mediocre QB isn't going to be great often enough to mask the failures in other areas.

Its interesting that you chose teams like the Dolphins or Giants to make your case, but you ignored teams like the Bengals or the Chargers or teams that have high-end QBs and will keep them. Are they going to be good for a long term position? If the QB plays the way they continue to, then yes, they will be. Regardless of how expensive they are.

The reality is it still comes down to the scouting and development areas in both situations. If you have a mediocre QB, and you scout well, you'll do fine. If you have a mediocre QB, and you don't scout well, you're dead.
Similarly, a great expensive QB with a great scouting department will win lots of Lombardi's. And a great QB with a poor scouting department will be competitive, though not SB competitive (see Buffalo).
Click to expand...
Howie Roseman is arguably the best GM and wrt the 49ers it is definitely of advantage to have Shanahan. His offenses perform well no matter who they put under center.
And I agree over time you need a top 10 qb to be a contender every year
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right but if you have 10-20, and your scouting department isn't good, what are you?
The only teams that are going to perpetually contend are the one's with elite QBs. Every data point you will find will prove that. You'll get a team that has a good year or two with a mediocre QB, despite the fact that the QB will almost always be cheap for at least 3-4 years, and oftentimes 5-6 years. But they can't seem to find long term sustainability.

And that's because a mediocre QB isn't going to be great often enough to mask the failures in other areas.

Its interesting that you chose teams like the Dolphins or Giants to make your case, but you ignored teams like the Bengals or the Chargers or teams that have high-end QBs and will keep them. Are they going to be good for a long term position? If the QB plays the way they continue to, then yes, they will be. Regardless of how expensive they are.

The reality is it still comes down to the scouting and development areas in both situations. If you have a mediocre QB, and you scout well, you'll do fine. If you have a mediocre QB, and you don't scout well, you're dead.
Similarly, a great expensive QB with a great scouting department will win lots of Lombardi's. And a great QB with a poor scouting department will be competitive, though not SB competitive (see Buffalo).

Basically, if you have a top 5-6 QB, as an example, your "floor" is playoff team with SB aspirations. The ceiling is Lombardi's
If you have a top 12-15 QB, as an example, your "floor" is bottom 10 team in the league, because the QB isn't consistent enough and you need a consistent, high-end roster to compete. And the ceiling is likely SB contender. So the ceilings are essentially the same, but one has a massively lower floor.
Click to expand...
The only team for which a QB on the 2nd market contract has a ceiling of a SB is the Chiefs. For all the other ones your ceiling is losing to a team with a rookie QB and selling your fanbase the lie you have a chance. The Bills window is closed. They are not a Super Bowl contender anymore. Their ceiling is the division round if they make the playoffs and get to face the AFC South and the ball bounces their way, but that is their ceiling. If the Bills were an NFC team maybe you could argue they might make a conference title game where they would lose to either of the teams with rookie QB deals. (note how somehow they just happen to be the 2 best teams).

If I were to do a consensus top 5 right now it would probably have some combination of: Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, and Hurts aka 4 players coincidentally on a rookie deal (yes Allen's just ended but him being on it this year is relevant) and Mahomes. If we take another list in 3 years you probably do not have Allen or Hurts on it anymore just as mysteriously Wentz went from MVP to scrub once all the talent left and the same was true of Goff (who magically got better once he was playing for a team with a mid level cap hit so they could add talent). For another good one, are the Browns a Super Bowl contender right now? Watson was a top 5 QB by lists fairly recently (again when on his rookie deal) so the Browns floor should be the playoffs and the ceiling the Super Bowl but no one seriously thinks that the Browns are even a top 5 pick in the AFC to make a Super Bowl.

The Bengals and Chargers will fall off just the same. I also used the Bills who have a QB considered to be in the same tier as the Bengals and Chargers. They just were not worth talking about because of redundancy. Pointing out 3 more teams felt like gilding the lily. We have been told time after time that THIS set of QBs on a rookie deal will be able to sustain it. Goff and Wentz would sustain it, Wilson would sustain it and they also failed almost immediately after getting paid. We are watching it happen to the Bills. The rookie wage scale is simply too powerful and unless you have someone on the level of Mahomes, or Rodgers before him, who is able to win with far less, then your window is that rookie deal and when it ends you can either accept just being around in the playoffs for awhile but never a real contender or you can try and find a new window by getting a new QB. Those really are the options.

This has happened over and over again I am not expecting a different result. Top 10-20 QBs with the odd top 7 are not going to suddenly stop appearing in the draft looking great when you can get them a top 10 OLine and a legit pair of WRs. They will be better than the current QBs who will be trying to do with an average OLine and maybe 1 good WR or TE because that is all the team can afford.
 
Adreme said:
The only team for which a QB on the 2nd market contract has a ceiling of a SB is the Chiefs. For all the other ones your ceiling is losing to a team with a rookie QB and selling your fanbase the lie you have a chance. The Bills window is closed. They are not a Super Bowl contender anymore. Their ceiling is the division round if they make the playoffs and get to face the AFC South and the ball bounces their way, but that is their ceiling. If the Bills were an NFC team maybe you could argue they might make a conference title game where they would lose to either of the teams with rookie QB deals. (note how somehow they just happen to be the 2 best teams).

If I were to do a consensus top 5 right now it would probably have some combination of: Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, and Hurts aka 4 players coincidentally on a rookie deal (yes Allen's just ended but him being on it this year is relevant) and Mahomes. If we take another list in 3 years you probably do not have Allen or Hurts on it anymore just as mysteriously Wentz went from MVP to scrub once all the talent left and the same was true of Goff (who magically got better once he was playing for a team with a mid level cap hit so they could add talent). For another good one, are the Browns a Super Bowl contender right now? Watson was a top 5 QB by lists fairly recently (again when on his rookie deal) so the Browns floor should be the playoffs and the ceiling the Super Bowl but no one seriously thinks that the Browns are even a top 5 pick in the AFC to make a Super Bowl.

The Bengals and Chargers will fall off just the same. I also used the Bills who have a QB considered to be in the same tier as the Bengals and Chargers. They just were not worth talking about because of redundancy. Pointing out 3 more teams felt like gilding the lily. We have been told time after time that THIS set of QBs on a rookie deal will be able to sustain it. Goff and Wentz would sustain it, Wilson would sustain it and they also failed almost immediately after getting paid. We are watching it happen to the Bills. The rookie wage scale is simply too powerful and unless you have someone on the level of Mahomes, or Rodgers before him, who is able to win with far less, then your window is that rookie deal and when it ends you can either accept just being around in the playoffs for awhile but never a real contender or you can try and find a new window by getting a new QB. Those really are the options.

This has happened over and over again I am not expecting a different result. Top 10-20 QBs with the odd top 7 are not going to suddenly stop appearing in the draft looking great when you can get them a top 10 OLine and a legit pair of WRs. They will be better than the current QBs who will be trying to do with an average OLine and maybe 1 good WR or TE because that is all the team can afford.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not buying any of this. I think in the next decade your argument is going to get shattered into a billion pieces, because there just won't be the quantity of franchises with QBs on rookie deals who are able to put together teams who are good enough to defeat high end QB-led teams in the long run. There's just exponentially too many barriers to it.

Are the SB contenders right now? Of course they are. If they got Texans-level play out of Watson, they're going to shit all over their division. Have a top 5 roster in football. They won 7 games without a QB last year. The only barrier to them being a top 2-3 team in football is the play of the QB and some mid-tier defensive upgrades.

These "this teams window is closed" shit isn't a real thing. If you get high level play for another decade out of some of these guys, which plenty of them you will, there will be 2-3 more "windows" available during that period.

Its the old "past outcomes are an indicator of future results". It's one of the biggest fallacies in the world.
 
Adreme said:
The only team for which a QB on the 2nd market contract has a ceiling of a SB is the Chiefs. For all the other ones your ceiling is losing to a team with a rookie QB and selling your fanbase the lie you have a chance. The Bills window is closed. They are not a Super Bowl contender anymore. Their ceiling is the division round if they make the playoffs and get to face the AFC South and the ball bounces their way, but that is their ceiling. If the Bills were an NFC team maybe you could argue they might make a conference title game where they would lose to either of the teams with rookie QB deals. (note how somehow they just happen to be the 2 best teams).

If I were to do a consensus top 5 right now it would probably have some combination of: Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, and Hurts aka 4 players coincidentally on a rookie deal (yes Allen's just ended but him being on it this year is relevant) and Mahomes. If we take another list in 3 years you probably do not have Allen or Hurts on it anymore just as mysteriously Wentz went from MVP to scrub once all the talent left and the same was true of Goff (who magically got better once he was playing for a team with a mid level cap hit so they could add talent). For another good one, are the Browns a Super Bowl contender right now? Watson was a top 5 QB by lists fairly recently (again when on his rookie deal) so the Browns floor should be the playoffs and the ceiling the Super Bowl but no one seriously thinks that the Browns are even a top 5 pick in the AFC to make a Super Bowl.

The Bengals and Chargers will fall off just the same. I also used the Bills who have a QB considered to be in the same tier as the Bengals and Chargers. They just were not worth talking about because of redundancy. Pointing out 3 more teams felt like gilding the lily. We have been told time after time that THIS set of QBs on a rookie deal will be able to sustain it. Goff and Wentz would sustain it, Wilson would sustain it and they also failed almost immediately after getting paid. We are watching it happen to the Bills. The rookie wage scale is simply too powerful and unless you have someone on the level of Mahomes, or Rodgers before him, who is able to win with far less, then your window is that rookie deal and when it ends you can either accept just being around in the playoffs for awhile but never a real contender or you can try and find a new window by getting a new QB. Those really are the options.

This has happened over and over again I am not expecting a different result. Top 10-20 QBs with the odd top 7 are not going to suddenly stop appearing in the draft looking great when you can get them a top 10 OLine and a legit pair of WRs. They will be better than the current QBs who will be trying to do with an average OLine and maybe 1 good WR or TE because that is all the team can afford.
Click to expand...
I believe that Herbert is truly special. He will do better
 
Thezone27 said:
yeah I guess, but in the short term, while Tua is on his rookie deal I think the Dolphins are Super Bowl contenders
Click to expand...
If the Dolphin are SB contenders it's because they drafted Waddle high then traded for Tyreek. Their WRs (and offensive coaching) are so good they can generate a good passing offense with an average QB.

Even if they had the cheapest QB in the league, the Ravens would never invest in the passing game in the same way (as we saw when Lamar was even cheaper than Tua). They used the same opportunity to invest heavily in defense while having one of the cheapest offenses in the league, because it's always 2000 in Baltimore.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
If the Dolphin are SB contenders it's because they drafted Waddle high then traded for Tyreek. Their WRs (and offensive coaching) are so good they can generate a good passing offense with an average QB.

Even if they had the cheapest QB in the league, the Ravens would never invest in the passing game in the same way (as we saw when Lamar was even cheaper than Tua). They used the same opportunity to invest heavily in defense while having one of the cheapest offenses in the league, because it's always 2000 in Baltimore.
Click to expand...
Because we don’t live in Miami weather . That’s why you invest in Defense in Baltimore
 
Adreme said:
The only team for which a QB on the 2nd market contract has a ceiling of a SB is the Chiefs. For all the other ones your ceiling is losing to a team with a rookie QB and selling your fanbase the lie you have a chance. The Bills window is closed. They are not a Super Bowl contender anymore. Their ceiling is the division round if they make the playoffs and get to face the AFC South and the ball bounces their way, but that is their ceiling. If the Bills were an NFC team maybe you could argue they might make a conference title game where they would lose to either of the teams with rookie QB deals. (note how somehow they just happen to be the 2 best teams).

If I were to do a consensus top 5 right now it would probably have some combination of: Herbert, Burrow, Mahomes, Allen, and Hurts aka 4 players coincidentally on a rookie deal (yes Allen's just ended but him being on it this year is relevant) and Mahomes. If we take another list in 3 years you probably do not have Allen or Hurts on it anymore just as mysteriously Wentz went from MVP to scrub once all the talent left and the same was true of Goff (who magically got better once he was playing for a team with a mid level cap hit so they could add talent). For another good one, are the Browns a Super Bowl contender right now? Watson was a top 5 QB by lists fairly recently (again when on his rookie deal) so the Browns floor should be the playoffs and the ceiling the Super Bowl but no one seriously thinks that the Browns are even a top 5 pick in the AFC to make a Super Bowl.

The Bengals and Chargers will fall off just the same. I also used the Bills who have a QB considered to be in the same tier as the Bengals and Chargers. They just were not worth talking about because of redundancy. Pointing out 3 more teams felt like gilding the lily. We have been told time after time that THIS set of QBs on a rookie deal will be able to sustain it. Goff and Wentz would sustain it, Wilson would sustain it and they also failed almost immediately after getting paid. We are watching it happen to the Bills. The rookie wage scale is simply too powerful and unless you have someone on the level of Mahomes, or Rodgers before him, who is able to win with far less, then your window is that rookie deal and when it ends you can either accept just being around in the playoffs for awhile but never a real contender or you can try and find a new window by getting a new QB. Those really are the options.

This has happened over and over again I am not expecting a different result. Top 10-20 QBs with the odd top 7 are not going to suddenly stop appearing in the draft looking great when you can get them a top 10 OLine and a legit pair of WRs. They will be better than the current QBs who will be trying to do with an average OLine and maybe 1 good WR or TE because that is all the team can afford.
Click to expand...
When you actually look at the last twenty years of SBs it's a mix of QBs that have won it. The stats don't support the idea of rookie deal QBs giving you a better chance. Honestly, the only trend at all was Tom Brady winning a lot.

Hell, the past three Super Bowls were won by QBs that aren't on rookie deals.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
If the Dolphin are SB contenders it's because they drafted Waddle high then traded for Tyreek. Their WRs (and offensive coaching) are so good they can generate a good passing offense with an average QB.

Even if they had the cheapest QB in the league, the Ravens would never invest in the passing game in the same way (as we saw when Lamar was even cheaper than Tua). They used the same opportunity to invest heavily in defense while having one of the cheapest offenses in the league, because it's always 2000 in Baltimore.
Click to expand...
stop being so cynical. Just cuz it's like this now doesn't mean it always will be
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Yeah I'm not buying any of this. I think in the next decade your argument is going to get shattered into a billion pieces, because there just won't be the quantity of franchises with QBs on rookie deals who are able to put together teams who are good enough to defeat high end QB-led teams in the long run. There's just exponentially too many barriers to it.

Are the SB contenders right now? Of course they are. If they got Texans-level play out of Watson, they're going to shit all over their division. Have a top 5 roster in football. They won 7 games without a QB last year. The only barrier to them being a top 2-3 team in football is the play of the QB and some mid-tier defensive upgrades.

These "this teams window is closed" shit isn't a real thing. If you get high level play for another decade out of some of these guys, which plenty of them you will, there will be 2-3 more "windows" available during that period.

Its the old "past outcomes are an indicator of future results". It's one of the biggest fallacies in the world.
Click to expand...
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

5 years ago people insisted that this crop of teams (Seahawks, Eagles, etc) could keep their success going and fight for a Super Bowl once they paid their QB and none of them could. 5 years from now when none of these current teams can, we are going to be sitting here having this exact conversation where you, or someone who shares your position, will be saying that the next crop of teams who are dominant (perhaps whoever Caleb Williams goes to as an example) with a rookie will be able to sustain it and the last group with Tua and Allen and Hurts were not reflective of what will happen now.

The fallacy you cite is actually one of the most improperly used fallacies in the world. It has one strict application and that is when a decision is made without context it does not lend itself to proving or disproving what the next decision will be. Its most common correct application is in gambling as people often win making the provably wrong decision but they lose in the end because in the long run you can prove what is likely to happen. That is the important part. If I gave you 10 random instances where a 10-0 team played an 0-10 team and gave you even odds, and a straight up game, would you really bet on the 0-10 team ever? The 0-10 team will probably win 1 of those 10 or maybe even 2 but you will lose in the long run betting on the 0-10.

Or to give a more concrete example, if I gave you 35-1 odds that the Texans would win the Super Bowl would you take that bet, and bet on the Texans to win it all? If past performance truly does not indicate future results, you should take that bet, but, and we both know this it would be a terrible bet to take.

The correct use of that fallacy is to accept that the trends over time will tend to continue regardless of individual outliers. Its the reason teams pay great players because they performed well and based on past players of similar age and playtime that is likely to continue. To truly follow through on that fallacy you should never pay anyone and trade all your picks to maximize 6th and 7th round picks because if past performance does not matter you can just draft 70 random players each year and have a contender because you took more shots. Yes this is an insane notion but that is the fundamental problem with that taking that "fallacy" literally. In business there are always people who think they can succeed where others failed and they usually fail but sometimes they do succeed but that does not make the latter correct more often than not (and when they do it is not by following the exact same formula).
 
RaineV1 said:
When you actually look at the last twenty years of SBs it's a mix of QBs that have won it. The stats don't support the idea of rookie deal QBs giving you a better chance. Honestly, the only trend at all was Tom Brady winning a lot.

Hell, the past three Super Bowls were won by QBs that aren't on rookie deals.
Click to expand...

Tom Brady sort of proves the point that unless you are paying a top 5 QB well below market value you are not going to be a true contender. Tom Brady taking less lead to his resurgence right around the rookie wage scale and as contracts were starting to balloon because he took less when everyone else took more. Yes Mahomes and Rodgers before him can do more with less but that has always been the exception rather than the rule. People have noted that young team with rookie deal QB is more successful, even if the rookie is only a top 10-20 QB, than the teams with top 10 QBs signing big money extensions. Every top 10 QB thinks they are top 5, and so do their fanbases, but only 5 of them are and when those top 10 QBs make top 5 money the run ends and even if you are top 5 like the Bills the run has ended.
 
I'm not sure that the answer is a qb on a rookie deal being the answer simply based on how that pay level affects payroll. Sure they cost less and you can allot more capital in other areas of the team, but that is only part of the issue. The real issue is performance at the position. The bigger question is can teams find non-marquee-type QB's who can be effective enough on non-marquee-type contracts. Seeing what Teddy Bridgewater, for example, does this year will be interesting, because he's a backup who had a resurgence. Was the performance an anomaly or is he the caliber QB who is able to perform well enough but will never command top dollar? Dare I say, teams will be looking for game managers... Finding a 2nd tier guy who fits a system... That has to really be every team's dream.
 
Adreme said:
Tom Brady sort of proves the point that unless you are paying a top 5 QB well below market value you are not going to be a true contender. Tom Brady taking less lead to his resurgence right around the rookie wage scale and as contracts were starting to balloon because he took less when everyone else took more. Yes Mahomes and Rodgers before him can do more with less but that has always been the exception rather than the rule. People have noted that young team with rookie deal QB is more successful, even if the rookie is only a top 10-20 QB, than the teams with top 10 QBs signing big money extensions. Every top 10 QB thinks they are top 5, and so do their fanbases, but only 5 of them are and when those top 10 QBs make top 5 money the run ends and even if you are top 5 like the Bills the run has ended.
Click to expand...
Brady was the top paid QB in the league a couple times, and it's hard to prove anything using him when you have the greatest QB ever and possibly the greatest coach ever.

You keep saying it's a fact that teams have done better with QBs on a rookie deal but there's zero actual stats to prove it. When you look at playoff history it hasn't shown any increase in wins for rookie deal QBs.
 
Thezone27 said:
stop being so cynical. Just cuz it's like this now doesn't mean it always will be
Click to expand...
I'm undeniably cynical about the Ravens right now.

I think the team's on-field and off-field philosophies are a bad fit with today's NFL. I think the key decsion makers are stale and complacent and I think wrecking your relationship with your star QB - something that's basically unheard of in the NFL- should be a sackable offense.

Things I do like about the current Ravens... well, Marlon Humphrey seems very likable, but that's about it.
 
1680985921603.png

Tag him and bag him. He done.
 
QtR Nevermore said:
I'm undeniably cynical about the Ravens right now.

I think the team's on-field and off-field philosophies are a bad fit with today's NFL. I think the key decsion makers are stale and complacent and I think wrecking your relationship with your star QB - something that's basically unheard of in the NFL- should be a sackable offense.

Things I do like about the current Ravens... well, Marlon Humphrey seems very likable, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
How did the Ravens wreck their relationship with Lamar? From all indications it’s LJ that has wrecked the relationship, not the FO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top