Free agent QB situations should be leverage for contract negotiations

[OmerV]

oh I know, I’m agreeing with you.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't quite sure what your meaning was. All is good.

 

[Corso]

So, who are these elite guys, and how do you get one? Stop by Walmart and pick one up on the top shelf? Go back to 2005 and draft Aaron Rodgers? Sorry, my flux capacitor is broken.

It's easy to sit around and say a truly elite QB makes it easier to win. There really is no disputing that. But it's much harder to get an elite level QB. As I've said, there are really only about 5 that fit that category, and it takes going back to 20 years worth of drafts to come up with that many.

Walmart? Ha ha ha! No.
Whole Foods though...

 

[CATCH17]

So, who are these elite guys, and how do you get one? Stop by Walmart and pick one up on the top shelf? Go back to 2005 and draft Aaron Rodgers? Sorry, my flux capacitor is broken.

It's easy to sit around and say a truly elite QB makes it easier to win. There really is no disputing that. But it's much harder to get an elite level QB. As I've said, there are really only about 5 that fit that category, and it takes going back to 20 years worth of drafts to come up with that many.

Well.. You draft them... But if you notice I said even the elite QB's aren't winning the Superbowl after they are paid.

 

[OmerV]

Well.. You draft them... But if you notice I said even the elite QB's aren't winning the Superbowl after they are paid.

Drafting with the 17th pick isn't likely to produce an elite QB, but even so, of the guys that fit the elite category, one was drafted in 2017 (Mahomes), one in 2012 (Wilson), one in 2005 (Rodgers), one in 2001 (Brees) and one in 2000 (Brady) … the odds aren't good.

Some are winning Super Bowls after getting paid. Brady won last year for the 6th time, and he has gotten paid, and paid and paid and paid. Brees was halfway into his career when he won. Most QBs are beyond their rookie contracts when the win the SB.

 

[willia451]

Mediocrity at QB got SF to the Super Bowl, and they easily could have won (some would argue that they should have won). Foles was mediocre (at best) and won. Osweiler/Manning was probably less than mediocre and won. Flacco was mediocre and won. Truthfully Eli wasn't much above mediocre, and he won twice.

The thing is, there really isn't an abundance of Mahomes/Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Wilson types to go around. We all would love to have a QB of that quality, but they are rare. So rare that 3 of those 5 guys were drafted 15-20 years ago. The bottom line is that most teams are going to have to find a way to win without having a truly elite QB, whether it's with a strong running game or a balanced offense, or a strong defense or some combination of things.

A team can't afford to decide it can't win without one of those rare, truly elite QB's, and shoot itself in the foot trying to find that needle in a haystack player instead of building an overall team that can win.

Hooo Boy. Now THERE is an idea, isn't it? Good post.

And that mediocre QB your talking about does not have to be Dak if he is demanding crazy money.

 

[CATCH17]

Drafting with the 17th pick isn't likely to produce an elite QB, but even so, of the guys that fit the elite category, one was drafted in 2017 (Mahomes), one in 2012 (Wilson), one in 2005 (Rodgers), one in 2001 (Brees) and one in 2000 (Brady) … the odds aren't good.

Yeah I would be trying to move up for a QB. I don't want one at 17 unless a guy falls.

I think Burrow, Tua, and Herbert are all fantastic QB's.

Burrow, and Tua are better then Herbert right now but Herbert has the most upside of the 3.

I like Eason, his mobility is a concern, but his arm talent is special.

Yes we would have to give up some picks but with the money saved on Dak we could be more active in Free Agency. Get a 1 year rental at QB if need be or start the rookie.

 

[OmerV]

Yeah I would be trying to move up for a QB. I don't want one at 17 unless a guy falls.

I think Burrow, Tua, and Herbert are all fantastic QB's.

Burrow, and Tua are better then Herbert right now but Herbert has the most upside of the 3.

Yes we would have to give up some picks but with the money saved on Dak we could be more active in Free Agency. Get a 1 year rental at QB if need be or start the rookie.

I would give up Dak for Burrow in a heartbeat. Tua's injuries are a bit of a concern, but otherwise I think he would be a good one. I'm much less confident about Herbert.

Problem with Burrow is you would have to give up the farm, the house, the car and your first born to move from #17 to #1.

 

[CATCH17]

I would give up Dak for Burrow in a heartbeat. Tua's injuries are a bit of a concern, but otherwise I think he would be a good one. I'm much less confident about Herbert.

Problem with Burrow is you would have to give up the farm, the house, the car and your first born to move from #17 to #1.

I'm not confident in Herbert either but he is a prototypical QB for modern day football and that is worth the gamble.

 

[CWR]

At this point I would take Dak over all the QBs mentioned.

Brady is the GOAT, but age appears to have finally caught up to him somewhat. When the drop off comes it is usually swift, and that could occur this season. Same with Brees.

I agree but have to admit the idea of seeing one of those 2 under center sound pretty superbowl ish.

 

[OmerV]

I'm not confident in Herbert either but he is a prototypical QB for modern day football and that is worth the gamble.

If we didn't already have a solid NFL QB I would agree, but I don't want to use top draft capital for a guy that we aren't even sure is as good as what we have, and that may be worse or even much worse.

If he falls to the 2nd round, maybe, but only if Dak is franchised. If Dak is signed to a long term contract we need to ride that out and just draft middle round QBs hoping to find someone to develop.

 

[Proof]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't quite sure what your meaning was. All is good.

yeah I didn’t post a very fleshed out thought. My point was that he didn’t accept their offer, they didn’t make him the highest in the league offer, and he didn’t necessarily turn it down because of the number. Imo based on reading between all the lines

 

[gjkoeppen]

How could it not be?

Look at New Orleans..

Brees will be available..

Bridgewater is available.

Taysom Hill is a RFA and I can’t imagine them not wanting to see him on the field ASAP with his contract status and their long term future at that position.

So we could have Drew Brees and Tom Brady both available.

Then there is a long list of other QB’s starting with Winston, Rivers, Mariotta, potentially Derek Carr.

Who knows how the chips could fall...

How is this not a ton of leverage for the Cowboys to use in contract negotiations if they so choose.

Some of those guys are upgrades and some of them would perform just as good as Dak if they were in Dallas.

If Drew Brees becomes available Dallas should be all over that.

Instead we will give Dak a long term deal and some smart team like the Titans will go get Brees or Brady and be better off for it then we are.

Here's why the wannabe GM's plans aren't reality. Brady, if he does sign with another team which there are some doubts right now, will be with a team that has VERY serious chances of winning a Lombardi trophy. The Cowboys with 25 UFA and a new coaching staff and nobody knows for sure what players will be here, people outside of the Cowboys world aren't proclaiming that.. Even the "experts" seriously doubt the Cowboys would be a serious landing spot for Brady and the same for Brees. Now Prescott and his agent also know this so that will have zero negotiating affects. Nobody know this for sure but even if the saints resign Brees and due to his age and the possibility of suffering another injury, the saints very well could be using something like the transitional tag on Bridgewater which will mean getting into a bidding war for him thus driving up his cost. Again both Prescott and his agent know this too and will have no real negotiating power by simply stating that Prescott's numbers last season were better than Bridgewater's in any of his seasons. Rivers, another old QB that has a history of throwing picks in the red zone. As for the rest, there are those types of QB's available just about every year and again both Prescott and his agent know this too and won't be a big factor in the negotiations.

Jumping all over Brady and/or Brees? What and get another season, maybe two if they are EXTREMELY, repeat EXTREMELY lucky not to mention what the costs would be to sign either. Also put giving the defense help off another year because then they would have to draft their future QB this draft to take over after this season or 2021 season if lucky.

I say we let the professionals worry about this.
.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It still takes hindsight to know that. After missing most of the 2018 season it looked like a terrible deal, no matter how it was structured, but now that they got to the Super Bowl, and the biggest part of the guarantee has been paid, it looks very good. At the time it was a pretty big gamble.

OK. Your hyper focused on the player. That's fine. I never liked Garoppolo so I don't care one way or the other.

I just think it was a good deal on behalf of their management, in terms of how they did it. Heck, they could go out, sign Brady today, draft a young QB and it would cost them all of 4.5 mil over three years.

I don't see the gamble at all, to be honest. They weren't good enough to go to the Super Bowl in years past. I mean, where's the gamble really?

 

[Jarv]

Little known fact: @Ranching has never won a game in either of the Dakotas.
Let that sink in for a minute.

Sturgis

 

[OmerV]

OK. Your hyper focused on the player. That's fine. I never liked Garoppolo so I don't care one way or the other.

I just think it was a good deal on behalf of their management, in terms of how they did it. Heck, they could go out, sign Brady today, draft a young QB and it would cost them all of 4.5 mil over three years.

I don't see the gamble at all, to be honest. They weren't good enough to go to the Super Bowl in years past. I mean, where's the gamble really?

I guess we all have our own thoughts, but I don't see how giving a player with only 3 career starts a $137 million contract with $74 million guaranteed isn't a gamble. That's giving one of the richest contracts the NFL has seen (at that time) to a guy with essentially no track record. We've never seen a veteran guy with that kind of history get a contract worth even a tenth of that before or since.

I assume when you say they could sign Brady and draft a young QB and it would only cost $4.5 million over 3 years you are just talking about what they would have to pay Garoppolo if they cut him, and not what they would have to pay Brady? Assuming that's the case, then it means they spent $37 million per year for 2 years worth of service, one of which he only played in 3 games. That's $3.9 million for every regular season game he played in for SF. That doesn't seem like a particular good deal, and that whatever value there is in it only comes from the hindsight knowledge that they made it to the Super Bowl. That was far from guaranteed when they signed him.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I guess we all have our own thoughts, but I don't see how giving a player with only 3 career starts a $137 million contract with $74 million guaranteed isn't a gamble. That's giving one of the richest contracts the NFL has seen (at that time) to a guy with essentially no track record. We've never seen a veteran guy with that kind of history get a contract worth even a tenth of that before or since.

I assume when you say they could sign Brady and draft a young QB and it would only cost $4.5 million over 3 years you are just talking about what they would have to pay Garoppolo if they cut him, and not what they would have to pay Brady? Assuming that's the case, then it means they spent $37 million per year for 2 years worth of service, one of which he only played in 3 games. That's $3.9 million for every regular season game he played in for SF. That doesn't seem like a particular good deal, and that whatever value there is in it only comes from the hindsight knowledge that they made it to the Super Bowl. That was far from guaranteed when they signed him.

Well, they had to pay the guaranteed money either way. If not to JG, then to somebody so I guess they just figured they would take a chance on Garoppolo and structure it in such a way as to be able to get out of it if it didn't work out. I mean, it's really only a 3 year deal averaging less then 25 mil a season. The last two seasons, or 50 mil, or so, is not guaranteed. I mean, it's easy for San Fran to get out of this deal if they want to. Or, they can keep him if that is what they decide to do.

 

[Corso]

Sturgis

Closest I've been is to the ROTT rallies in Austin.

 

[OmerV]

Well, they had to pay the guaranteed money either way. If not to JG, then to somebody so I guess they just figured they would take a chance on Garoppolo and structure it in such a way as to be able to get out of it if it didn't work out. I mean, it's really only a 3 year deal averaging less then 25 mil a season. The last two seasons, or 50 mil, or so, is not guaranteed. I mean, it's easy for San Fran to get out of this deal if they want to. Or, they can keep him if that is what they decide to do.

But the gamble was in paying it to someone with no track record as opposed to someone that had proven he could be an effective passer in the NFL. It was really a pretty dramatic contract at the time for any QB, much less one that had only started 3 NFL games.

But, it did work out, so the gamble paid off.

As for structuring where they could get out of the contract, it really just comes down to the guaranteed money, and the cap hit.

 

[GMO415]

We're not the Broncos. We're going to drop a young QB for old man Brees? Then start over in three years?

 

[joseephuss]

Well, have you read any of my posts? I mean, it's not a stretch. I advocate a young QB option to develop and a Vet QB. Now, obviously Taysom Hill isn't the Vet option right? So what does that make him?

For the record, we don't have a QB. The "QB we have" that you are referring to is who exactly? It's not Dak, he's not under contract. Not even Rush because he's not under contract either, I don't believe. You see Hill in a very different light then I do and then does Nola, BTW. You never answer the question I asked but instead, say that you liked Romo but he turned the ball over too much. Well, I'm here to tell you that Romo was better then Dak was when he became a starter IMO. You say he became the starter because he was lighting it up in Practice. OK, do you know what Hill is doing in Practice? I don't, I just know what I saw him do at BYU. Nola is not a stupid organization and Peyton is far from an average HC. HIll has been working with Payton since 2017. I guarantee he's not the same QB he was coming out and I liked what I saw from him then. Maybe you didn't, but I did.
.

Hill is going to be 30 this year, so he isn't the young QB to develop.

I saw Hill play at BYU. He wasn't a good passer. He completed less than 60% of this throws and threw almost as many interceptions as he did touchdowns. I didn't see anything about him coming out of college that indicated he would be an NFL starting caliber QB. I credit Payton for finding a roll for him, but that is about the extent we will ever see from him.