Which QB's get long term extensions past year 8 with no deep playoff runs?

[CowboyoWales]

And this highlighted section is the reason why i don't buy the BS excuses people have for Stafford.

Great quarterbacks elevate the talent around them. That's what I was told on this forum. Stafford has been trash his whole career until the Rams carried him to a Superbowl victory.

For those who may not remember, Stafford led the league in interceptions the year the Rams went on a Superbowl run. Nuff said....

In the SB run Stafford's CAP% was just 10.7% .....he played to that 'CAP HIT'. Now, with the extension, what do you think Dak's hit's going to be (taking into account we have to factor in AT LEAST $60M in deferred bonus payments).

 

[DandyDon52]

Good point.............coaching and surrounding talent have a big impact on a QB success.

Do people really think Purdy would be this good if he played for Carolina instead of S.F, where you have one of the best offensive coaches in the game and almost every offensive skill position is a 1st team All-Pro?

I highly doubt it.

Well I partly agree with that, purdy get put down as he is on a good team. but I think he would have success, not as much, anywhere he got to be starter for a season.
Coaches are important, how they use a QB build a game plan around their skills, not try to force them into 1 scheme.
Dallas has never used dak like he should be used or taught him much of anything.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Just wondering if you guys can find a QB that gets a long term extension after never getting to at least a conference title game with the same squad after 8 seasons (post salary cap)-other than the Cowboys.

I looked into it some and came up with one name-Matthew Stafford. He was drafted number 1 overall and could not get the team anywhere in the playoffs. His style of play is very different and his passing abilities are very different from Dak but they held onto him for 12 seasons. He was 21 his first season and Dak was 23.

Detroit had been one of the worst franchises with regards to playoff success in the league in the modern era. They built their current squad through the trade with the Rams and with high draft picks following bad seasons. The rebuild started with a poor season, but the team drastically improved over the course of three seasons. They needed those high picks from the trade and bad seasons though-this turnaround is a direct result of that.

This is not to say Dallas can duplicate that turnaround. I wanted to see if anyone can come up with another name that would fit my initial question (from another team).

Romo.

 

[Blitzen]

Exactly............the same people saying Dak cant win playoff games so let him walk are totally silent when it comes to Lamb wanting to be the highest paid WR in the league or Parsons wanting to be the highest paid defender in the league.

How many career playoff TDs does Lamb have? He sat on the bench sulking most of the Packer game, but all you guys cool with him being the highest paid WR in the game?

How many career playoff sacks does Parsons have? Never heard his name called against the Packers, did he play? But you guys cool with him being highest paid defender in the league?

I'm sorry, but if Dak should not get an extension because he loses playoff games, then logic dictates that Lamb and Parsons should not get extensions either because they dam sure have not done much to win any playoff games either. So, which is it? Everybody else but the QB gets extensions for regular season stats, but the QB is held to playoff success? If the new standard for extensions, is you have to have playoff success, then that has to be applied team-wide, not cherry pick players you do or do not like.

Apples to apples? QB contract extensions and other position player extensions are similar? How much of a team building strategy revolves around a QB equals that of position players? These other position players also have 8 years in the league to go off of?

If you believe that a player is not capable of contributing enough to the team at their position to achieve the team’s ultimate goal -relative to their previous performance and contract length/amount-then you do not extend them.

Is playoff performance at all considered when building around players that have been in the league 8 seasons when discussing building for the future? Or should the team only consider regular season performance? Should each game weigh the same. A 2023 game against Washington equals the playoff game versus GB when looking at team trajectory?

 

[CowboyoWales]

So should the other players on the team get extensions as well after contributing to losses vs "good teams"?

I'm just curious, because if I didn't know any better, I would think Dak was a golfer or boxer playing an individual sport according to what I've read.

That's a counterintuitive argument, if the whole team isnt good enough what part of paying Dak 'market dictated top money' improves that situation?

 

[DandyDon52]

In the SB run Stafford's CAP% was just 10.7% .....he played to that 'CAP HIT'. Now, with the extension, what do you think Dak's hit's going to be (taking into account we have to factor in AT LEAST $60M in deferred bonus payments).

uh nobody wants to think about that esp the dak fans

 

[plymkr]

So when the AFCE sucked for more than a decade that was a bad thing for New England?

I am not tracking or understanding.

First hurtle is to win your division. If your division sucks, then that is a bonus and it gives you the freedom to build your team to compete with the next team in line. For us it would most likely be the Niners or teams in general that can run and stop the run.

If we are stuck figuring out how to beat the Eagles each year, then we will not be prepared for the Niners.

New England made it past the WC round often and frequently went to the AFCCG and won a couple Super Bowls. Yes the AFC East sucked but when they played teams outside the AFC East they continued to win. Unlike us. We’ve reached the step of being able to win in our division but we haven’t reached the next step of winning consistently outside our division against playoff teams. It seems like we’ve been stuck in this part of the process for a couple years.

 

[plymkr]

I'm sorry, but if Dak should not get an extension because he loses playoff games, then logic dictates that Lamb and Parsons should not get extensions either because they dam sure have not done much to win any playoff games either. So, which is it? Everybody else but the QB gets extensions for regular season stats, but the QB is held to playoff success? If the new standard for extensions, is you have to have playoff success, then that has to be applied team-wide, not cherry pick players you do or do not like.

I agree. This echoes a point I made in a post earlier in this thread. I strongly feel that if our players can’t get us past the WC round then they should not be resetting the market for their positions. If our team leaders disappear in playoff games then they are not the leaders we need. I don’t feel we should resign Dak, CD or Micah for their lack of production in the playoffs. I strongly agree if it applies to Dak it applies to everyone.

 

[Typhus]

Actually, every quarterback drafted higher than Dak mysteriously gets the excuses of a "bad team, bad coaching, bad organization" etc.

According to many, it's a team game when every team falls short with other quarterbacks....

When Dallas falls short, It's all on him supposedly.

Here's questions that I've asked many times and it's never been answered, but avoided like the plague.

1. Name any quarterback in NFL history that was drafted in the 4th round and was held to higher standards than 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick quarterbacks like Dak?

2. Why is it a team game when other quarterbacks lose, but not a team game when Dak is part of a losing effort with his team?

Where you are drafted is irrelevant, but your cap hit is most definitely relevant.

 

[Blitzen]

That's a counterintuitive argument, if the whole team isnt good enough what part of paying Dak 'market dictated top money' improves that situation?

It’s just the market for what the player does in the regular season says the Dak defender. Makes argument that no other team has built for the future with an 8 year QB with such a poor playoff history except Stafford (Detroit). Dak defender-but do you extend and build around the guys on rookie contracts that play different positions based on their playoff history (cause the contracts of those players affect the team to the same degree as the QB contract will-plus building around the QB equals building around the position player)?

 

[jterrell]

So when the AFCE sucked for more than a decade that was a bad thing for New England?

I am not tracking or understanding.

First hurtle is to win your division. If your division sucks, then that is a bonus and it gives you the freedom to build your team to compete with the next team in line. For us it would most likely be the Niners or teams in general that can run and stop the run.

If we are stuck figuring out how to beat the Eagles each year, then we will not be prepared for the Niners.

That was one of the weirder takes I've seen.
Philly has been to a couple Super Bowls winning one recently.

Arguing Dallas would have a bad record if they played a tougher schedule is goofy when they went 12-5 three years in a row.
That is a long way from bad and 9-win teams are making the playoffs,.

 

[bottleKids]

Actually, every quarterback drafted higher than Dak mysteriously gets the excuses of a "bad team, bad coaching, bad organization" etc.

According to many, it's a team game when every team falls short with other quarterbacks....

When Dallas falls short, It's all on him supposedly.

Here's questions that I've asked many times and it's never been answered, but avoided like the plague.

1. Name any quarterback in NFL history that was drafted in the 4th round and was held to higher standards than 1st, 2nd and 3rd round pick quarterbacks like Dak?

2. Why is it a team game when other quarterbacks lose, but not a team game when Dak is part of a losing effort with his team?

Fair questions, here are my answers:


1.) I agree - But when an organization wants to market themselves as "American's team" increased scrutiny will come with every aspect of that, including QB play. Also we are going into year 9, I appreciate the success Dak as a 4th rounder has had, but he was also rewarded with a massive contract, and soon a second massive contract. How many 4th rounders get that?

2.) This is true, team game, but there were countless games in the last few years that people on this board gave credit to only Dak winning, so the counter here it has to be a team game when wins and losses happen.

It would be silly for anyone person to shoulder the blame for a loss, we agree on that, but at some point the organization needs to dig into playoff non success and figure it out. When we lost the the 49er's last year it was not because of the defense. Yes - that is one game, but its my example for this argument... to which you will say the Packers game was not on the offense. Which you would be right. Back and forth this can go, where it stops, only Jerry knows..... and there lies the BIGGEST issue with our current org.

 

[jterrell]

3 things can be very true:

1. Dak is a top 10 QB that jumps into top 3 with any extended playoff success but is not top 3 today even with a 2nd place MVP finish.
2. Paying Dak 60M AAV would be a bad value contract and make it harder to win in said playoffs.
3. NFL fans are and will always be stupid and that is most on display when they try to put all blame on the QB for a loss.

*** As for point 3 this seldom happens in any other sport. NBA has 5 guys and your star can be mid and the loss goes to the team or supporting cast more often than not. Soccer you can have Messi lose 2-1 and the talk will be of the other guys getting him service or defending. Only in the NFL is the QB supposed to lift 30 other guys to wins.

**** I watched the best QB on the planet not be able to win in the Big 12. Was NOT his fault. He was scoring 60 points per game. And yet some idiotic scouts were like but he had turnovers.... yes while trying to score a TD every drive, he occasionally had a turnover... that is how it works. Idiots.

***** It took Andy Reid one season to see if he had a good defense and Pat Mahomes he was likely going to the Super Bowl. Reid had a label as an all-offense guy who couldn't win the big games. Look at him now, dummies.

 

[jterrell]

In the SB run Stafford's CAP% was just 10.7% .....he played to that 'CAP HIT'. Now, with the extension, what do you think Dak's hit's going to be (taking into account we have to factor in AT LEAST $60M in deferred bonus payments).

Neutered point because the Rams were paying dead money to Goff post trade. 24.7M.
Thats why the number was so low for Stafford. He was a brand-new contract they could finance out into the future.
His actual salary was essentially the same as Dak's dollar for dollar and Goff before him made only slightly less.
The total cap hit for the 2 was 24.7%.

Dallas could cut Dak and bring in Baker Mayfield for 5M cap hit this year.
It won't change that QB total cap would be insanely high next year.
To bring that number down you have to extend Dak. But you'll only push it further down the line.
Dallas has to have a drop-dead number IMHO. Will you pay 50M? 55M? 60M? 65M? Has to be a number.
Then you work from there on financing models to lower the cap hit.
But walk away cost is well known and isn't cheap.

 

[Jayinem]

In the right situation I think Dak very well could take a team to a super bowl. If SF wanted to trade for him this offseason would they be less likely to make another super bowl run?

I've already argued the opposite, that Dak wouldn't have taken the 49ers to the Super Bowl this past season. People keep underrating Purdy, but he is actually 5 TDs to 1 INTs for his playoff career. (he's counted as 6 playoff games but only really played 5 because he got injured in the first drive against the Eagles) Dak is 14 TDs to 7 INTs. I guarantee 49ers would not even consider a Purdy for Dak trade, as they have the team they need they just need a QB not to screw it up. Dak consistantly screws it up in the playoffs. Dak is fools gold that you see him put up 40 against the Giants and just assume he could win the Super Bowl in the right situation, it's just not true. He chokes when the pressure is on, and that would not change regardless of what team he plays for. He's going to get your team in a hole because he starts slow and he's not a come from behind QB, Purdy did it twice this playoffs against the Packers and Lions, and should have won against the Chiefs but his defense couldn't stop Mahomes.

Plus it's really not fair to just plug Dak into the 49ers making the salary he makes versus the salary Purdy makes on a rookie deal. It's not even possible. The 49ers are taking advantage of Purdy being on his rookie deal.

 

[FanofJerry]

I see this board is right back to manipulation this morning.

A bunch of avatars trying to defend low pay or throwing a negative light on player empowerment.

Not smart enough to make it make sense...just talking in circles and moving goal posts and not having good answers when confronted with reasonable questions.

There is a avatar on here that has a saying of "fat, drunk and stupid isnt a way to go through life"...welll neither is lowering yourself to lie, cheating, stealing and just making existence trashy for others.

The creator wasnt smart enough to make a story that makes sense. Being pro-active in trashy behavior is depressing and waters down existence. What a legacy.

 

[FanofJerry]

3 things can be very true:

1. Dak is a top 10 QB that jumps into top 3 with any extended playoff success but is not top 3 today even with a 2nd place MVP finish.
2. Paying Dak 60M AAV would be a bad value contract and make it harder to win in said playoffs.
3. NFL fans are and will always be stupid and that is most on display when they try to put all blame on the QB for a loss.

*** As for point 3 this seldom happens in any other sport. NBA has 5 guys and your star can be mid and the loss goes to the team or supporting cast more often than not. Soccer you can have Messi lose 2-1 and the talk will be of the other guys getting him service or defending. Only in the NFL is the QB supposed to lift 30 other guys to wins.

**** I watched the best QB on the planet not be able to win in the Big 12. Was NOT his fault. He was scoring 60 points per game. And yet some idiotic scouts were like but he had turnovers.... yes while trying to score a TD every drive, he occasionally had a turnover... that is how it works. Idiots.

***** It took Andy Reid one season to see if he had a good defense and Pat Mahomes he was likely going to the Super Bowl. Reid had a label as an all-offense guy who couldn't win the big games. Look at him now, dummies.

There is no low it wont go to.

It cant even justify its own existence.

Hate for progress? Firm pass from me. Reverse psychology that dabbles in hate? Whats your excuse for it? A future paradise? Firm pass on living in paradise with a bipolar fake illusion.

Can it even come up with a good excuse for its trashiness? To make you a King? Firm pass on being a king and controlling people and having to do trashy things to stay in power.

What are the rewards for all this? Can it come up with a good enough lie?

Definitely not the existence I would create for others. And thats LEGACY

 

[1942willys]

I see this board is right back to manipulation this morning.

A bunch of avatars trying to defend low pay or throwing a negative light on player empowerment.

Not smart enough to make it make sense...just talking in circles and moving goal posts and not having good answers when confronted with reasonable questions.

There is a avatar on here that has a saying of "fat, drunk and stupid isnt a way to go through life"...welll neither is lowering yourself to lie, cheating, stealing and just making existence trashy for others.

The creator wasnt smart enough to make a story that makes sense. Being pro-active in trashy behavior is depressing and waters down existence. What a legacy.

low pay?
Is that what you are saying?
So is $40 million instead of $60 million slave wages?

 

[Jayinem]

3. NFL fans are and will always be stupid and that is most on display when they try to put all blame on the QB for a loss.

I haven't read one person say Dak was 100% at fault for the Green Bay loss. But what I've been very clearly stating is he's not 100% blameless either. You don't get down 27-0 without some blame. You see every time the other team scores you then possess the ball and have an opportunity to score and Dak wasn't awake yet. Stop trying to give him credit for garbage points and say "well if the defense would have held them to 0 in the second half we would have won the game" Dak is a big boy he's the highest paid player on the team and will be one of the highest paid players in the NFL, no excuses will be accepted for him. Yes the defense was awful, but so was the offense. 99% of the time when you get down 27 points at any point of the game, you're just going to lose and that is what happened.

 

[GINeric]

In the SB run Stafford's CAP% was just 10.7% .....he played to that 'CAP HIT'. Now, with the extension, what do you think Dak's hit's going to be (taking into account we have to factor in AT LEAST $60M in deferred bonus payments).

Dak doesn't deserve 60M. That's just my take on it. I hate the growing pains of having to start all over again, but we cannot tie up that much into him, knowing we have greater needs elsewhere.