At some point, teams are going to shift their thinking on QB contracts

[kskboys]

I understand we have no idea but we could have some instincts and insight. The point is since Dak isn’t one of those more prolific passers he could fall into that other category. Just saying..it has to be a concern.

And if we’ve poorly evaluated it could cost us.

At this point, unless he explodes next season, paying him huge would surely appear to be a mistake. However, he was showing signs last season of being better, and one thing for sure is that Linehan's crapp schemes were not doing him any favors.

Poor evaluations always cost, but you must have a QB.

 

[Sandyf]

I think everything runs in cycles, and the QB market has become such a high percentage of the cap that eventually the pendulum will have to swing back the other way.

Running backs were considered the franchise player 20 years ago. Then over time the position became devalued. Now it seems to be going back the other way.

It's one thing to have Tom Brady eating up 10 to 15 percent of your cap, but it's a very different matter if you have Andy Dalton eating up 75 percent of that.

Does a team with Blake Bortles, Andy Dalton, Case Keenam, or the like have a high probability of beating a Brady led team? Probably not, in large part to the QB deficit.

Teams are winning SBs with QBs on their rookie deals. Russell Wilson is a recent example of it, as was Ruthlessraper. Dak won 13 games as a rookie. That just goes to show you that if you surround a young QB with a lot of talent he can win.

Conversely, if you pay a QB to carry your team, he had better be able to carry the team. I like Dak Prescott, even though I think Tony should have been the QB when he was healthy. I'm still a Dak fan. But to pay Dak $30M per year would be beyond stupid.

Offer Dak a good deal. $20M per year for 3 years total is plenty. Then they can check out his contract again in two years. If Dak won't go for that, make him play for peanuts this year and if he looks like he is going to sit out, draft a QB early.

If Dak wants outrageous money (he may not be looking for outrageous money) play him and tag him twice. But realistically, there is no way a team is going to be able to afford to sign a player after that second tag, because all of the leverage goes to the player at that point.

Definitely see your point but this is and really always been a QB driven league. Russell Wilson is probably going to get north of $35 million a year on an extension and Wentz will probably get close to the same. Mahomes is probably going to be the first $40 million a year guy. Like it or not it is going to happen.

As to Dak, it probably is going to be north of $25 million average a year, most likely between $27.5 and $28.5 million average a year. If the Cowboys do the contract right then they would be able to get out from under it in around 4 years if they wanted. It will most likely be a 7 year deal around $200 million with around $84 million of that $200 million in guarantees like bonus, roster bonus, etc.

In the NFL, numbers count and I would rather pay Dak that money than Wentz or Goff. Many don't like Dak and I remember when many didn't like Romo and even Aikman at a point in time. Dak wins and that is all one should care about and those are the only numbers that really count.

 

[ItzKelz]

Not even that.

SEA lost their edge when they overpaid Sherman and let Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, and Clinton McDonald walk. The real strength of that team was a deep, talented DLine.

Don't get me wrong, Sherman was a stud, but you simply cannot pay a CB that much.

You could really see it in the TO differential and drop in both sacks and INT's.

When you pay guys and they are not available that hurts the team. See Romo 2015. Would we have been better off keeping DeMarco; maybe but we have no way of knowing if Romo would have led us to a division title with out Demarco that season.

 

[xwalker]

I understand what you are saying but it's a horrible idea to overpay for Andy Dalton, or Ryan Tannehill. That's how these teams get mired in mediocrity.

Part of the problem is the insistence on the "formula" of one franchise QB that stays in the pocket and passes the ball 40 times per game.

A team could add three low level QBs to the roster that have jets for legs, who can pass a little bit, and turn the NFL on its head. The problem hasn't been the success of those teams it is the injuries to the QBs.

At some point the worm will turn in the same way that running backs have experienced a resurgence. There are not enough Pat Mahommes in the world to put one on every team.

The running QB concept has been tried in multiple ways without many if any Super Bowl wins with a running QB that was a below average passing QB.

They tried the dedicated Wildcat QBs combined with traditional pocket passing QBs but defenses adjusted. If the QB's ability to beat defenses with the pass is average or below, then defenses crowd the line and dare the QB to beat them passing.

Defenses also have the luxury of altering their personnel against the running QB.

Mike Vick was one of the fastest, most elusive QBs we've seen. He had a great arm and could throw a reasonably accurate ball. He played many seasons without any significant injury issues; however, he only had more the 8 wins in 1 season of his 14 year career.

Cam Newton made it to the Super Bowl. He has great running ability, a great arm and decent accuracy. In the Super Bowl he got confused as a passer completing only 18 of 41 and they limited his running effectiveness. He had zero TDs passing or running.

RBs became devalued because the NFL became a passing league. Defenses adapted personnel and schemes to play the pass. After years of building defenses focused on the pass, defenses became weaker against the run. This allowed for a mini-resurgence of RB values.

 

[NumOneQB]

It’s not happening. Today’s NFL is tailored to be a QB driven league. QB contracts will continue to go up.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Why would you take the entire length of acontract and compare it to a single years cap?

Just comparing guaranteed money in a deal to that year's cap. As you can see by percentage it's barely changed.

This goes against your notion qb contracts are suddenly getting out of hand.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I get your point
but I need to call you on posting full duration of contract guaranteed dollars as a percentage of only one year of cap.

Not very relevant.

As stated....just comparing guaranteed dollars to the cap at the time. It's barely changed.. Qb contracts aren't suddenly out of control

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Math, ain't it a booger?

The guarantee doesn't come off the cap in one year.

See above.

 

[DFWJC]

As stated....just comparing guaranteed dollars to the cap at the time. It's barely changed.. Qb contracts aren't suddenly out of control

Come on now. Just for starters, you would need to divide that guaranteed money by length of contract...then divide it into the cap. 4 year vs 6 year deal alone would make a difference.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Come on now. Just for starters, you would need to divide that guaranteed money by length of contract...then divide it into the cap. 4 year vs 6 year deal alone would make a difference.

You're not understanding the comparison i'm making. I'm not talking about any 1 year cap hit. I'm just looking at if guaranteed money goin to QBs is suddenly out of whack as the OP suggested. The answer is no.

 

[Verdict]

The running QB concept has been tried in multiple ways without many if any Super Bowl wins with a running QB that was a below average passing QB.

They tried the dedicated Wildcat QBs combined with traditional pocket passing QBs but defenses adjusted. If the QB's ability to beat defenses with the pass is average or below, then defenses crowd the line and dare the QB to beat them passing.

Defenses also have the luxury of altering their personnel against the running QB.

Mike Vick was one of the fastest, most elusive QBs we've seen. He had a great arm and could throw a reasonably accurate ball. He played many seasons without any significant injury issues; however, he only had more the 8 wins in 1 season of his 14 year career.

Cam Newton made it to the Super Bowl. He has great running ability, a great arm and decent accuracy. In the Super Bowl he got confused as a passer completing only 18 of 41 and they limited his running effectiveness. He had zero TDs passing or running.

RBs became devalued because the NFL became a passing league. Defenses adapted personnel and schemes to play the pass. After years of building defenses focused on the pass, defenses became weaker against the run. This allowed for a mini-resurgence of RB values.

Yes, it was easy to see that teams who are built to run the ball would have success against pure passing defenses. The tide was eventually bound to turn.

 

[Verdict]

Absolutely. However, that's due to the importance of the position, and the shortage of good ones.

Will teams learn? Man, most of us already knew that the Dalton's and Tannehill's of the NFL should not have been paid. How did they not know? At this point, I'm not sure I'd pay Cam, and he's better than both.

Exactly!!!

 

[Verdict]

If Brady is worth 12 percent of the cap is Dalton worth 10 percent? No chance. Is he worth 8 percent? No.


Is he worth 5 percent? Probably not, strictly speaking. Teams are handicapping themselves with these bottom 2/3 QBs.

A third of TD teams in the NFL have a legit franchise QB (at most). The rest of the teams should be keeping their powder dry, or investing at other positions.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think everything runs in cycles, and the QB market has become such a high percentage of the cap that eventually the pendulum will have to swing back the other way.

Running backs were considered the franchise player 20 years ago. Then over time the position became devalued. Now it seems to be going back the other way.

It's one thing to have Tom Brady eating up 10 to 15 percent of your cap, but it's a very different matter if you have Andy Dalton eating up 75 percent of that.

Does a team with Blake Bortles, Andy Dalton, Case Keenam, or the like have a high probability of beating a Brady led team? Probably not, in large part to the QB deficit.

Teams are winning SBs with QBs on their rookie deals. Russell Wilson is a recent example of it, as was Ruthlessraper. Dak won 13 games as a rookie. That just goes to show you that if you surround a young QB with a lot of talent he can win.

Conversely, if you pay a QB to carry your team, he had better be able to carry the team. I like Dak Prescott, even though I think Tony should have been the QB when he was healthy. I'm still a Dak fan. But to pay Dak $30M per year would be beyond stupid.

Offer Dak a good deal. $20M per year for 3 years total is plenty. Then they can check out his contract again in two years. If Dak won't go for that, make him play for peanuts this year and if he looks like he is going to sit out, draft a QB early.

If Dak wants outrageous money (he may not be looking for outrageous money) play him and tag him twice. But realistically, there is no way a team is going to be able to afford to sign a player after that second tag, because all of the leverage goes to the player at that point.

I think they have to. We are seeing diminishing results, in terms of wins and losses, from the approach in question. It's a copy cat league and as soon as the idea that QBs alone can not win you championships, that will start to change IMO.

 

[percyhoward]

 

[Proof]

QB is the premier position in football and it will always command top dollar because franchise caliber QBs are rare-- so demand is high, supply is low. Simple economics. What is killing the cap is that the market for other positions continues to balloon astronomically. Virtually any pro bowl caliber player can cash in on huge guaranteed deals now.

Those ideas don’t necessarily go together though. It’s simple economics as far as the elite / franchise guys go. I don’t think anyone bats an eye at paying them what it takes because they’re so rare. Where it gets stupid, is paying guys who are not good exorbitant amounts simple because the good guys cost so much.

When mike Glennom gets 15 million a yr simple because there aren’t many Tom Brady’s, that’s a problem. And more teams should err on the other side. Mike Glennom is closer to Tom Savage or Nathan Peterman than he is Aaron Rodgers, so he should be paid closer to the veterans minimum than a franchise guy. Then if you strike out, who cares. And if you miss out on him, move on to the next bum and hope for the best. But don’t pay a bum franchise money, because you’re crippling your franchise and ****** up the market. I also hate how mistakes become the negotiating point. Like everyone (agents/media/fans) will say “if Kirk Cousins got 28 mil there’s no way you can justify Dak getting less”.

Well yeah, you can. Kirk didn’t deserve it, and that albatross of a contract should serve as a cautionary tale, not a market setter

 

[eastsideboy]

How long before the first crap on Dak post?

This is mutch bigger than dak. This is a league Problem. The only real solution is max contacts on players. Like 10 percent of the cap.

 

[eastsideboy]

Teams are desperate. They get paid more than they should and get drafted higher than they should.

True . But where does that desperation usually get them. I guess we can ask the Vikings.

 

[Flamma]

Unless your quarterback is outstanding you only hurt the team by paying him 20+Mil a year. I'd go with an average QB at a team friendly price until I found that great QB. Then pay him because he's going to have to make up for the players we can't pay.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

I think everything runs in cycles, and the QB market has become such a high percentage of the cap that eventually the pendulum will have to swing back the other way.

Running backs were considered the franchise player 20 years ago. Then over time the position became devalued. Now it seems to be going back the other way.

It's one thing to have Tom Brady eating up 10 to 15 percent of your cap, but it's a very different matter if you have Andy Dalton eating up 75 percent of that.

Does a team with Blake Bortles, Andy Dalton, Case Keenam, or the like have a high probability of beating a Brady led team? Probably not, in large part to the QB deficit.

Teams are winning SBs with QBs on their rookie deals. Russell Wilson is a recent example of it, as was Ruthlessraper. Dak won 13 games as a rookie. That just goes to show you that if you surround a young QB with a lot of talent he can win.

Conversely, if you pay a QB to carry your team, he had better be able to carry the team. I like Dak Prescott, even though I think Tony should have been the QB when he was healthy. I'm still a Dak fan. But to pay Dak $30M per year would be beyond stupid.

Offer Dak a good deal. $20M per year for 3 years total is plenty. Then they can check out his contract again in two years. If Dak won't go for that, make him play for peanuts this year and if he looks like he is going to sit out, draft a QB early.

If Dak wants outrageous money (he may not be looking for outrageous money) play him and tag him twice. But realistically, there is no way a team is going to be able to afford to sign a player after that second tag, because all of the leverage goes to the player at that point.

I think this is more of a 'I wish teams would' instead of it actually being the case. QBs are not RBs. The second KC says, "we've decided to pull back on how much we're gonna offer Patrick Mahomes.." is when the New York Giants mention they have 60m$ in cap space and will give him whatever he wants. Supply and demand, there's only about 10 guys in the world who can do everything you ask of them, so it's worth overpaying the other 20 guys in the league just incase they make that jump.