CFZ Recent QB Contracts/Extensions and warning sign results

[Hawkeye0202]

What that amounts to, in my two cents opinion, is 20% of the QB's listed played above the level of the contract they were given and 60% played well below the contracts given.

Good post! I actually did a similar comparison with other positions a few years ago. To be honest, the results with other positions are about the same. How often do we hear/see where DEs sack numbers go down AFTER getting their big contract, or CBs interceptions, or WRs/TEs catches and we as fans say they are not living up to their contract? Know why? Its coz value assigned to most positions are stat/number base and more times than not players get their big when their stats/number peak or are at their highest. Good example is DLaw........Stephen Jones promised him new contract after his rookie but only if got double-digit sacks two straight years. DLaw did exactly that and got his new contract but has had double-digit sacks since.

My point is......I would argue most if not all player contracts are overvalued to the point they are never going to match the numbers/stats that were used to get the deal. '

Something interesting is OLinemen values are just the reverse .......... fewer numbers/stats ( sacks, pressures) means more value/money.

 

[cnuball21]

I'd argue that the Cowboys are in better position that nearly every team that you mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to point that out.

Yea. I mean outside of Mahomes and Allen we’re in the best shape of all those teams.

 

[baltcowboy]

You can make the argument that Dak is right there with Allen except the Buffalo quarterback has a team. The big argument for Allen was that game against Kansas City that he lost last playoffs but nobody seems to remember what Dak did against Tampa that actually might be more impressive because Tampa had a bettter defense. Dak wet the bed twice against the best defense in football but Allen stinks it up against the Bengals at home. Let’s blame receivers I guess.

 

[rambo2]

Yea. I mean outside of Mahomes and Allen we’re in the best shape of all those teams.

 

[rambo2]

Yea. I mean outside of Mahomes and Allen we’re in the best shape of all those teams.

I'd say that they are in better shape than Buffalo with Allen who has an arm issue and who will eventually get another injury with his style of play.

 

[shabazz]

Gads no. Jackson will never take you there. Watson might.

A healthy Jackson very well could but availability is the whole issue....watson can at least deliver from the pocket so there's that

 

[USArmyVet]

Good write up. Not only the NFL but all sports are crazy with all these huge contracts.
I think the Texas Rangers are still paying off A-Rod.

Hell, Bobby Bonillas is long since retired but the Mets are paying him $1M/year until the year 2035 in deferred money.

 

[USArmyVet]

I'd argue that the Cowboys are in better position that nearly every team that you mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to point that out.

I disagree as only KC is in a good position based on contract vs. results. As for Dallas, Dak now has to be restructured which kicks the financial problem down the road for a debatable Top 10 QB.

 

[rambo2]

I disagree as only KC is in a good position based on contract vs. results. As for Dallas, Dak now has to be restructured which kicks the financial problem down the road for a debatable Top 10 QB.

And yet the Cowboys are on the verge of winning 12 games for the third year in a row. That puts them up there with KC, especially if they get over the hump this year.

 

[cnuball21]

I disagree as only KC is in a good position based on contract vs. results. As for Dallas, Dak now has to be restructured which kicks the financial problem down the road for a debatable Top 10 QB.

Yea but the point is everyone over pays for QB. It’s the nature of FA and the position.

I’d much rather be in the 3rd best position on that list than the last. Our fans are on here arguing if Dak is a top 8 / 10 / 12 QB while Denver fans are arguing if Russ is the worst QB in football.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

One would expect the market tends toward efficiency, and at some point would correct to equilibrium. The problem is twofold though: 1) The "supply" is very thin at the top. There are only a handful of real difference making QB's. and 2) All it takes is one or two teams (the "demand" side) to really skew the market. Look at what Denver just did with Wilson, or worse, what Cleveland did with Watson. It makes it difficult to retain a quality QB when the team has to match the highest offer.

This affects the value of draft picks too. If QB's have become so expensive that the best way to win is to have a QB on a cheap rookie deal, and use the money to surround him with superior talent- then the value of the draft picks to obtain such a QB increases. It should all balance out in an efficent market, but for reasons stated it is not (efficient).

Personally, I would love a league rule that limits the percentage of the salary cap for a single player- but that will never happen.

 

[Nova]

Good post and research.

There are times when a free market tends to overvalue something. The price goes up for one and others follow on like lemmings driving prices higher and higher. Eventually there is a correction. I'm starting to see signs that people in and around the NFL are figuring out that these massive QB salaries are a problem.

We are still probably a few years away from a league wide adjustment as I'm sure the agents are going to keep trying to hold organizations hostage with threats of "either pay this QB 20%+ of the cap or you have no QB".

I suspect that the whole Purdy thing was eye opening. Guys like Mahomes are rare and valuable. Don't get me wrong here but just because Mahomes is valuable, it doesn't mean Deshaun Watson is worth that much. If you have a good team (coaches, defense, O line and skilled position) there are a LOT of players who you can plug in and they will look fine. Not Mahomes, but fine. IMO, teams are better off spreading the wealth unless they have a Mahomes (or maybe Burrow).

As a last point, in the NFL i think that the O line is undervalued. A good O line helps the QB, the RB's and even the defense by keeping them off the field. Beyond that, O linemen have some of the longest careers at a high level. If you are going to pick which guys to keep around on second contracts, I would argue that O line is the place to go.

Good points

We seem to be in a new era. A franchise QB was a must from the start of the salary cap era until about the mid 2010s.

It feels like the gap between top veterans and guys on rookie deals is narrowing.

This is partially because QBs are taking less time to develop than before, and partially because there are fewer truly special talents at the top.

 

[Nova]

One would expect the market tends toward efficiency, and at some point would correct to equilibrium. The problem is twofold though: 1) The "supply" is very thin at the top. There are only a handful of real difference making QB's. and 2) All it takes is one or two teams (the "demand" side) to really skew the market. Look at what Denver just did with Wilson, or worse, what Cleveland did with Watson. It makes it difficult to retain a quality QB when the team has to match the highest offer.

This affects the value of draft picks too. If QB's have become so expensive that the best way to win is to have a QB on a cheap rookie deal, and use the money to surround him with superior talent- then the value of the draft picks to obtain such a QB increases. It should all balance out in an efficent market, but for reasons stated it is not (efficient).

Personally, I would love a league rule that limits the percentage of the salary cap for a single player- but that will never happen.

Also, I'm not so sure QB salaries can realistically be moderated.

It's basically the agenda of the NFLPA and the players to get every dime they can (as they should) and they use past examples to fight for it.

Outside of RB, I'd be curious to know if any position has accepted that they are not as valuable as they once were.

 

[fivetwos]

There are a lot of teams paying big money to a QB, but I suppose we are the only ones that can’t get better as a result.

 

[CouchCoach]

Is the cap taken up by Prescott really keeping this team from putting better talent around him?

Good GM's that are good talent evaluators and cap managers will do well paying their QB's 40-50M.

It is not the QB's job to manage the cap and even help them do it. He is out to get as much as he can, just like every other player in the game. Rodgers close bud is Adams and he knew he was risking losing him if he went for the gold but he did and Adams was probably fine with that.

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

Hell, Bobby Bonillas is long since retired but the Mets are paying him $1M/year until the year 2035 in deferred money.

I mean if Bonillas negotiated that contract , good for him. It's not like the people paying him got hood winked. I would say it was more than fair compensation. I think people fail to realize

We are talking Billionaires here (Sports Teams). They got that way by being smart with their investments. Jerry is lampooned on this board and in the media on a Daily basis, and yet the Dallas Cowboys are the Most Valuable franchise in

Sports. Trust and believe for every million he pays Prescott, he makes that much more money OFF of Prescott. When the bottom line is met Prescott will get axed. It the way of the world.

 

[conner01]

If Jerry didn’t help create the salary cap from the start the Cowboys would not be in the position they are currently in. Jerry chose money over championships. Let’s not blame quarterbacks or any other player’s salary it’s the owner’s fault.

Jerry was just ahead of his time. The nfl has a very fair payment structure where the people actually putting their bodies on the line share in the revenue
Seems like a perfect idea to me. There are tweaks I’d like such as exempting one drafted player or Atleast part of his salary but overall sharing revenue is the fair thing to do

 

[zeke21]

I've been saying this for years.. the QB position is ironically bother undervalued and overvalued.. there is no more important position in sports that can determine team success but the contract sizes that NFL QBs have been getting have made success all but unobtainable unless you are a team lucky enough to find a Mahomes.

Teams need to correct the pay scale at QB and it starts by not giving money to guys before they have proven worth it. I'd be in favour of giving rookie QBs more money (especially if they are playing) but make their rookie contract longer and more team friendly. You could then also have a version of the 'exclusive tag' option that is only for QBs that gives the recruiting team some cap relief (so the QB can still make his money, but it doesn't eat as much cap for a team that put in the hard yards developing him).

That way.. you could create a situation where you only really have to take a massive hit on your QB if he is on year 9-10. And then it is an easy call usually.. if he hasn't won anything/done anything in that time.. then don't pay him.

Clearly it would need to be thought out fully.. but something has to give.. the amount of dead cap space going to QBs is too high and it is creating so much unbalance in the league. The difference between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is just growing.

 

[75boyz]

I've been saying this for years.. the QB position is ironically bother undervalued and overvalued.. there is no more important position in sports that can determine team success but the contract sizes that NFL QBs have been getting have made success all but unobtainable unless you are a team lucky enough to find a Mahomes.

Teams need to correct the pay scale at QB and it starts by not giving money to guys before they have proven worth it. I'd be in favour of giving rookie QBs more money (especially if they are playing) but make their rookie contract longer and more team friendly. You could then also have a version of the 'exclusive tag' option that is only for QBs that gives the recruiting team some cap relief (so the QB can still make his money, but it doesn't eat as much cap for a team that put in the hard yards developing him).

That way.. you could create a situation where you only really have to take a massive hit on your QB if he is on year 9-10. And then it is an easy call usually.. if he hasn't won anything/done anything in that time.. then don't pay him.

Clearly it would need to be thought out fully.. but something has to give.. the amount of dead cap space going to QBs is too high and it is creating so much unbalance in the league. The difference between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is just growing.

Nice post.
Deserving a second contract in the NFL and especially QB, has reached an imaginary market value that rewards not so successful wannabes. These QBs are now signing for way more than their worth because of this weirdly accepted practice that the last QB who signed his contract's was this...
Then my contract has to at least exceed his by this...
And this is the so called market value they currently use in negotiations.

 

[Rockport]

While I understand your point at the end I am not on the owners side but rather on the fans side, especially those of us that have waited nearly 30 years to see Dallas in the Super Bowl again.

Hey McFly, the Cowboys haven’t been to the Super Bowl in 26 years because of the QB play but because of the GM. But we get it. You hate Dak.