CFZ Two different philosophies to build an NFL championship roster

[kskboys]

Whether Hurts is elite is irrelevant, it's how integral he is to the success for the team. The benefit he has is that he's proved that by getting to a SB, playing well (whilst coming back from an injury). The question for their FO is whether they can continue at that level when existing vets start retiring and they cant afford to replace them.


I don't know, they did with Wentz. The difference is FO outlook, Eagles are a lot more progressive where we are rose tinted love for 'our guys'.

Wentz was sucking badly. Completely different scenario.

 

[kskboys]

Turn that around and answer how many of these QB's that won on their expensive second contracts had won it all in their Rookie Deals.....the argument is that if the QB hasnt proved himself when he's young and cheap, he's unlikely to do it when he's become expensive. Second Contracts are successful when you're certain that that QB can overcome the CAP restricted roster.

I think that's very fair.

Basically, there's only going to be 1-3 or 4 QBs at any given time in the NFL who are going to be able to overcome the slaughtering of the roster just to pay him.

And I'm still fascinated to see what happens to Mahomes once those huge salaries start kicking in.

 

[Diehardblues]

The overwhelming majority of SB winning QBs since the cap came into play in what, 1995 have not been on rookie deals. Drew brees, Rodgers, Payton, Favre, Rodgers, Eli, ... the only one I can think of is Russel Wilson... I guess you could count Brady since I think his 1st title was on a rookie deal, but he won a few more not on a rookie deal.

Big Ben won in his second season, Mahomes his 3rd but both won another one after 2nd contract. Didn’t Flacco? Russel you mentioned.

What would be interesting is to list how many made it to championship game or SB. I think too often we place everything on winning a SB when just making it to champ game is quite a feat.

And where Bobs 2nd alternative might be more pertinent. Personally I’d rather have one of these Elite QB’s as you have suggested and pay them. Which I believe is best scenario.

But it would appear most franchises believe if they find a QB good enough to build around are intent on paying and attempting to surround him as best they can. While it may not bring a championship it delivers stability and a more consistent playoff contender.

But if you can’t find that then perhaps Bobs alternative might be another way to go. Which in some ways they have been doing continuing to look for their next franchise QB. Those are usually more bottom feeders until they hit big on a QB. Like the Bengals.

 

[Bobhaze]

I think that's very fair.

Basically, there's only going to be 1-3 or 4 QBs at any given time in the NFL who are going to be able to overcome the slaughtering of the roster just to pay him.

And I'm still fascinated to see what happens to Mahomes once those huge salaries start kicking in.

And if any given team doesn’t have a Mahomes or Burrow, they can’t just say “oh well, guess we’re not going to compete”. They still have to find a way to build a roster with strengths in other areas.

As you said, it’s always interesting to see if a team can win it all based solely on their QB. Even Aaron Rodgers only made it to one SB. His gargantuan cap hit hamstrung the pack for years.

I’m not convinced (yet) that Hurts is a long term top QB. The frequency of his running is going to catch up with him at some point. And I believe much of his passing success is the threat of his running ability. If he gets injured and can’t run as much, his success will be diminished because his passing skills are not that great.

 

[Diehardblues]

Rothlisberger

But, once again, I agree w/ your premise.

Might see more rooks winning it as the monster contracts start weighing heavily on the cap. Gonna be interesting for sure.

We also might see more vets being traded to teams such as the Rams who go all in for a year or two.

Could be but if the Cap continues increasing and the percentage of these big QB contracts is still relative , it may not impact as much as we think .

These Franchise QB’s, elite or not bring stability to a franchise. It might not bring championships but if it brings a consistent playoff contender it staves off the pressure from the media and critics.

And where Jethro is right in a sense that maintaining interest and relevant product is the basis for more of a calmness to build around,

The NFL basically comes down to you either have your franchise QB or are looking for one. Then it comes down to building around it. The better your front office and coaching staff is at achieving that while the closer your QB is too Elite often determine how far you go,

 

[Diehardblues]

And if any given team doesn’t have a Mahomes or Burrow, they can’t just say “oh well, guess we’re not going to compete”. They still have to find a way to build a roster with strengths in other areas.

As you said, it’s always interesting to see if a team can win it all based solely on their QB. Even Aaron Rodgers only made it to one SB. His gargantuan cap hit hamstrung the pack for years.

I’m not convinced (yet) that Hurts is a long term top QB. The frequency of his running is going to catch up with him at some point. And I believe much of his passing success is the threat of his running ability. If he gets injured and can’t run as much, his success will be diminished because his passing skills are not that great.

I totally agree.

But Rodgers brought much more than 1 SB championship. He brought a contender for almost 2 decades. 5 championship appearances. 8 straight playoff appearances and only missed a couple times when he was healthy.

That brings stability to a franchise. Which I’d argue is the top priority. If championships come as a result then that’s gravy on top. But having that core established is what all franchises dream for to build around.

 

[kskboys]

Could be but if the Cap continues increasing and the percentage of these big QB contracts is still relative , it may not impact as much as we think .

These Franchise QB’s, elite or not bring stability to a franchise. It might not bring championships but if it brings a consistent playoff contender it staves off the pressure from the media and critics.

And where Jethro is right in a sense that maintaining interest and relevant product is the basis for more of a calmness to build around,

The NFL basically comes down to you either have your franchise QB or are looking for one. Then it comes down to building around it. The better your front office and coaching staff is at achieving that while the closer your QB is too Elite often determine how far you go,

Since the Qbs are taking up 25%ish of the cap now, the cap would have to pretty much double w/o QB contracts going up to make your scenario accurate.

 

[Diehardblues]

Since the Qbs are taking up 25%ish of the cap now, the cap would have to pretty much double w/o QB contracts going up to make your scenario accurate.

According to this site there’s only 3 NFL QB’s over 20% of the cap with 22% the highest in 2023.

20 teams are under 10% with the rest under 20%.

I didn’t know until I looked it up.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/quarterback/

 

[Diehardblues]

• In fact, over the past seven seasons, the league has seen its salary cap per club increase by no less than$10 million per year; since 2012, the cap for each club has risen from $120.6 million to $198.2 million in 2020.

The Salary Cap did decrease in 2021 due to Covid .

2023 is up to 224.8 million. That means it’s almost doubled in last 10 years. So if we did the math and it doubles again in 10 years the highest QB contracts will be closer to 100 mil per year than 50 with similar cap implications.

 

[kskboys]

According to this site there’s only 3 NFL QB’s over 20% of the cap with 22% the highest in 2023.

20 teams are under 10% with the rest under 20%.

I didn’t know until I looked it up.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/quarterback/

And that's why I said 25ish. I'm not interested in exact percentages here.

 

[kskboys]

• In fact, over the past seven seasons, the league has seen its salary cap per club increase by no less than$10 million per year; since 2012, the cap for each club has risen from $120.6 million to $198.2 million in 2020.

The Salary Cap did decrease in 2021 due to Covid .

2023 is up to 224.8 million. That means it’s almost doubled in last 10 years. So if we did the math and it doubles again in 10 years the highest QB contracts will be closer to 100 mil per year than 50 with similar cap implications.

Yup. Which makes my point. The cap going up won't make contracts such as these OK.

 

[Sydla]

Super 57 was not only a good game to watch, it was an interesting matchup showing two different philosophies to build a championship roster.
Those two philosophies are:

• Build a roster around a highly paid QB (Traditional model)
• Build a more complete roster with a decent QB on a rookie deal (New model)

The last decade or more, conventional thinking was that if you find a young starting QB that is good enough to be a success in the regular season and can get you to the playoffs, you hang onto that QB and pay them market value to build around. It has been a popular idea but the loss of additional cap space to the QB position puts a ton of pressure on the FO to be able to build an overall quality roster without much cap space to work with.

As hard as it is to find even decent QBs, most teams that found a good young QB were willing to make that commitment. To the joy of some fans and the frustration of others, the Cowboys FO made that commitment to Dak Prescott going into the 2021 season with a big contract at market value. Agree or disagree, it was a “traditional” model decision. It what JJ clearly prefers going back years. So far, it has certainly not worked out well for the Cowboys with both Tony Romo and Dak.

BUT…there are many teams these days choosing not to go the traditional route. They are spending cap space not on a QB but on other positions on both sides of the ball. They are aggressive in both trades and FA signings coupled with their drafts to build a roster that is not centered on the QB.

So which model is working? Answer: Both. SB champ Kansas City is certainly an example of a traditional model with Pat Mahomes as the big centerpiece. But the NFC champ eagles were an example of a team built around a rookie deal QB and a lot of help in multiple positions.

There are good and bad points to either model. Frankly, unless you have a Mahomes or Brady, committing huge amounts of cap space to the QB makes it harder to build a total roster. On the other hand, the rookie deal QB model only works if you have a young QB that’s good enough to win some playoff games with a lot of help.

I’m starting lean toward favoring the new philosophy because it does not tie your cap space down for a long time like these big contracts teams typically give to QBs on a second deal. I don’t think Jerry would ever go for the new way of thinking anyway because it would mean you’re drafting QBs every other year and rebuilding the roster often too. It does seem like the wave of the future though.

Thoughts?

I don't think that teams actually have really adopted strategy #2. I think it's just the circumstances and teams have taken advantage of it. Name a team that just discards good young QBs due for a big contract in order to take another young QB to groom?

The closest might be Philly. But that's not quite the same thing. They gave Wentz a massive deal and quickly realized it was a mistake and took Hurts as insurance in case Wentz flamed out. And now they aren't looking to move on from Hurts in order to keep churning the "build around a cheap, young QB" model. They are likely going to hand him a massive contract at some point.

 

[Diehardblues]

And that's why I said 25ish. I'm not interested in exact percentages here.

These few that are over 20% aren’t the norm in NFL. Only 3 of 32.

So if the average percentage for top 12 QB’s cap space is between 10- 20% , where do you think it should be?

 

[Diehardblues]

Yup. Which makes my point. The cap going up won't make contracts such as these OK.

Understood but my point is it’s not going to change much as it’s going to be about same percentage.

After looking at these Cap numbers I was actually surprised how low most were.

23 teams under 15%. 20 under 10%.
Top 9 paid QB 16-22%

 

[CowboyoWales]

The overwhelming majority of SB winning QBs since the cap came into play in what, 1995 have not been on rookie deals. Drew brees, Rodgers, Payton, Favre, Rodgers, Eli, ... the only one I can think of is Russel Wilson... I guess you could count Brady since I think his 1st title was on a rookie deal, but he won a few more not on a rookie deal.

Nope, you're missing the point, the issue isnt necessarily Rooke vrs 1st FA Contract, it's all about CAP% and whether the successful route is BALANCED TEAM or ELITE QB (taking high CAP Hit and the responsibility that comes with it).

Mahomes this year was taking 17% of the CAP........over the past 20 years of SUPERBOWL winners, the next highest CAP% was Brady ('18 and '20) which was 12.2% of the CAP.

Historical odds dont look good for paying Dak: 21.5% ('23), 20.4% ('24) and 7.7% just for the Void portion of '25.......figures compiled per OVERTHECAP and taking into account the CAP increase due to tv deal.

And if any given team doesn’t have a Mahomes or Burrow, they can’t just say “oh well, guess we’re not going to compete”. They still have to find a way to build a roster with strengths in other areas.

Yep, spot on, if you've got a QB that's repeatedly leading the team to success (I suppose as with Brady) you pay them accordingly, if not you may well be better off saying this QB is too expensive and whilst a good player isnt likely to take us over the top.

 

[kskboys]

I don't think that teams actually have really adopted strategy #2. I think it's just the circumstances and teams have taken advantage of it. Name a team that just discards good young QBs due for a big contract in order to take another young QB to groom?

The closest might be Philly. But that's not quite the same thing. They gave Wentz a massive deal and quickly realized it was a mistake and took Hurts as insurance in case Wentz flamed out. And now they aren't looking to move on from Hurts in order to keep churning the "build around a cheap, young QB" model. They are likely going to hand him a massive contract at some point.

Very few good QBs have been left out there by their teams. Sure, Cousins, but just how good is he? Maybe WASH saw what he was and realized he simply wasn't the one. Smart, if that's what happens.

The Cousins of the world will keep you playing .600 ball, but won't win you super bowls.

 

[kskboys]

Understood but my point is it’s not going to change much as it’s going to be about same percentage.

After looking at these Cap numbers I was actually surprised how low most were.

23 teams under 15%. 20 under 10%.
Top 9 paid QB 16-22%

To make that accurate you'd have to take out the rookie deals and adjust for QBs considered topflight. And you'd want to take the average of their salary, as often any given year is lower or higher as the team works to fit the money in.

 

[foofighters]

Super 57 was not only a good game to watch, it was an interesting matchup showing two different philosophies to build a championship roster.
Those two philosophies are:

• Build a roster around a highly paid QB (Traditional model)
• Build a more complete roster with a decent QB on a rookie deal (New model)

The last decade or more, conventional thinking was that if you find a young starting QB that is good enough to be a success in the regular season and can get you to the playoffs, you hang onto that QB and pay them market value to build around. It has been a popular idea but the loss of additional cap space to the QB position puts a ton of pressure on the FO to be able to build an overall quality roster without much cap space to work with.

As hard as it is to find even decent QBs, most teams that found a good young QB were willing to make that commitment. To the joy of some fans and the frustration of others, the Cowboys FO made that commitment to Dak Prescott going into the 2021 season with a big contract at market value. Agree or disagree, it was a “traditional” model decision. It what JJ clearly prefers going back years. So far, it has certainly not worked out well for the Cowboys with both Tony Romo and Dak.

BUT…there are many teams these days choosing not to go the traditional route. They are spending cap space not on a QB but on other positions on both sides of the ball. They are aggressive in both trades and FA signings coupled with their drafts to build a roster that is not centered on the QB.

So which model is working? Answer: Both. SB champ Kansas City is certainly an example of a traditional model with Pat Mahomes as the big centerpiece. But the NFC champ eagles were an example of a team built around a rookie deal QB and a lot of help in multiple positions.

There are good and bad points to either model. Frankly, unless you have a Mahomes or Brady, committing huge amounts of cap space to the QB makes it harder to build a total roster. On the other hand, the rookie deal QB model only works if you have a young QB that’s good enough to win some playoff games with a lot of help.

I’m starting lean toward favoring the new philosophy because it does not tie your cap space down for a long time like these big contracts teams typically give to QBs on a second deal. I don’t think Jerry would ever go for the new way of thinking anyway because it would mean you’re drafting QBs every other year and rebuilding the roster often too. It does seem like the wave of the future though.

Thoughts?

Just do the opposite of the Jones boys. You're bound to do better than their 30 year plan.

 

[Diehardblues]

To make that accurate you'd have to take out the rookie deals and adjust for QBs considered topflight. And you'd want to take the average of their salary, as often any given year is lower or higher as the team works to fit the money in.

Yep

So what percentage of the Cap do you think is ideal in order to build an adequate team around your QB?

Surely Rookie deals aren’t the only or best option. We’ve seen several teams win with QB in second contract that are in the 10-20% range. I suppose it depends on how close to Elite your QB is.

Can we really set a number or are there too many intangibles and contributing factors ?

Looks like to me most teams are willing to resign their franchise QB whether he’s Elite or not . And do the best they can surrounding him.

Don’t Franchise QB on the most part bring stability to a franchise to build around with a consistent playoff contender. Championships aren’t guaranteed of course .

I value your insight on this and look forward to your thoughts .

 

[Reid1boys]

Nope, you're missing the point, the issue isnt necessarily Rooke vrs 1st FA Contract, it's all about CAP% and whether the successful route is BALANCED TEAM or ELITE QB (taking high CAP Hit and the responsibility that comes with it).

Mahomes this year was taking 17% of the CAP........over the past 20 years of SUPERBOWL winners, the next highest CAP% was Brady ('18 and '20) which was 12.2% of the CAP.

Historical odds dont look good for paying Dak: 21.5% ('23), 20.4% ('24) and 7.7% just for the Void portion of '25.......figures compiled per OVERTHECAP and taking into account the CAP increase due to tv deal.

Yep, spot on, if you've got a QB that's repeatedly leading the team to success (I suppose as with Brady) you pay them accordingly, if not you may well be better off saying this QB is too expensive and whilst a good player isnt likely to take us over the top.

Im not missing any point. IN the context of Bob's post, please tell me what I have missed. NOBODY builds rosters by TRYING to stay on the cheap at QB. Teams stay on the cheap at QB when they have no better option. Cousins is a good example.... and Id argue Washington would have been better off keeping Cousins. Who has been better since Cousins got to the Vikings? Washing or Minnesota?

Teams are starting a QB on a rookie deal because they likely have been in QB hell. The ONLY reason Dallas had a QB on a 1st contract starting is because of Romo's injury. Philly had garage, drafted Hurts in the 2nd as a gamble... Hurts started because the other choice stunk.

Chargers.... Herbert took over because Rivers went away and their other choice stunk.
Burrow started because the Bengals were the worst team in the NFL and Burrows HAD TO BE GOOD for them to be better.
We can keep going..... lets see.........who has a solid veteran qb and the team is going to take Bob's second approach and get rid of the vet JUST to see if they can hit with a rookie. 1st rd QBs are being drafted almost exclusively by teams that have garbage at the position.