STOP THE INSANITY RANT---THE CASE OF THE OVERPAID POSITION OF QUARTERBACK

[red]

i don't understand the thinking behind why every starting player at a position should be making around the same money

the brady's, brees' , mahomes and a-rods of the league are the top players out there, they are the MVPs of the leagues. they should be making the most.

when a-rod gets 30 million a year, that shouldn't mean that the going rate for starting QB's is now 30 million. it means that elite QBs are worth 30 million

same goes for every position. when a guy has a massive year and gets paid, that shouldn't mean the entire pay scale for that position goes up

i just don't understand how the meatheads that run the teams can think that is a-rod is worth 30 million, then kirk cousins is also worth that much because he also plays that position

if team managers were actually smart they would be trading guys like rodgers and brees for tons of picks all the time

[pbmax]

How many decent starting QBs are even in the league rn? Once you answer this question, you'll realize why teams overpay.

You'd think these days people would recognize a market shortage when they see one.

The better question is why do owners keep hiring coaches who insist the only way to win is to find the next Carson Palmer or Peyton Manning in the draft?

You answer that question, the shortage is greatly reduced.

[pbmax]

But his point, and mine for past 18 months or so, is that paying a merely "decent" QB like he is a game changer kills your cap and leaves you unable to retain/obtain talent.

Give me Blake Bortles for practically free. Find me any number of game managers who do the basics. Combine them with a monster run game and defense. Unless you have a young Rodgers or Maholms paying a QB 30M a year is insane.

Edit: Saints went 5-0 without Brees. They found a good game manager they weren't paying much and won.

The current evidence seems to suggest no one agrees with you yet. At least, not with enough certainty to sign and start Bortles as Plan A.

Same reason why teams are so reluctant to run a non pro style offense are in play for why they don't sign lesser QBs and build around other aspects of the team. The play of the QB in all its myth and hype literally determines what kind of reaction fans have and the coverage you get. Unless you have the 85 Bears defense, its hard to convince anyone you are on the right path. Bortles had the one year and then the wheels came off and the team was dismantled. Even Coughlin couldn't sustain the approach.

That is why GM fear a QB like that as Plan A. If the team doesn't win consistently, people will become convinced that your approach to QBs is boneheaded and you will be appearing from 5-5:15 AM on KDKA explaining to Boner and the Man why that wasn't a prevent defense last Sunday on TV.

Unless you are the Giants. The Giants are determined to find another Eli and win 2 are Super Bowls. They will probably do it too.

[Bretsky]

But his point, and mine for past 18 months or so, is that paying a merely "decent" QB like he is a game changer kills your cap and leaves you unable to retain/obtain talent.

Give me Blake Bortles for practically free. Find me any number of game managers who do the basics. Combine them with a monster run game and defense. Unless you have a young Rodgers or Maholms paying a QB 30M a year is insane.

Edit: Saints went 5-0 without Brees. They found a good game manager they weren't paying much and won.

[red]

The current evidence seems to suggest no one agrees with you yet. At least, not with enough certainty to sign and start Bortles as Plan A.

Same reason why teams are so reluctant to run a non pro style offense are in play for why they don't sign lesser QBs and build around other aspects of the team. The play of the QB in all its myth and hype literally determines what kind of reaction fans have and the coverage you get. Unless you have the 85 Bears defense, its hard to convince anyone you are on the right path. Bortles had the one year and then the wheels came off and the team was dismantled. Even Coughlin couldn't sustain the approach.

That is why GM fear a QB like that as Plan A. If the team doesn't win consistently, people will become convinced that your approach to QBs is boneheaded and you will be appearing from 5-5:15 AM on KDKA explaining to Boner and the Man why that wasn't a prevent defense last Sunday on TV.

Unless you are the Giants. The Giants are determined to find another Eli and win 2 are Super Bowls. They will probably do it too.

the problem is, if you sign bortles to be a your starting QB, is he gonna then demand 20-25 million a year?

[smuggler]

Does Bottles really want to start? If you're the only team offering him $4 mil a year, and he wants to start, I don't think you really run into trouble.

Not that I'm an advocate of this plan. Just saying.

[mraynrand]

If the team doesn't win consistently, people will become convinced that your approach to QBs is boneheaded and you will be appearing from 5-5:15 AM on KDKA explaining to Boner and the Man why that wasn't a prevent defense last Sunday on TV.

I heard that APB needs a second job.

[bobblehead]

one each year

Except the Ravens model, which refuses to pay a QB a ton has won 2 with Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer. Many avg. to below avg QBs win Owls.

[bobblehead]

Fair enough, but here's what he got paid:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/carolina...gewater-14441/

Talk to me when they finish 9-7 next year.

[bobblehead]

The current evidence seems to suggest no one agrees with you yet. At least, not with enough certainty to sign and start Bortles as Plan A.

I didn't read past this point, but it doesn't matter who agrees with me. Many thought TT should bring back Brent and let ARod rot. Many people think a lot of wrong things. Not saying I'm always right, but I think my batting average is pretty good compared to the rest of the league.

[bobblehead]

The current evidence seems to suggest no one agrees with you yet. At least, not with enough certainty to sign and start Bortles as Plan A.

Same reason why teams are so reluctant to run a non pro style offense are in play for why they don't sign lesser QBs and build around other aspects of the team. The play of the QB in all its myth and hype literally determines what kind of reaction fans have and the coverage you get. Unless you have the 85 Bears defense, its hard to convince anyone you are on the right path. Bortles had the one year and then the wheels came off and the team was dismantled. Even Coughlin couldn't sustain the approach.

That is why GM fear a QB like that as Plan A. If the team doesn't win consistently, people will become convinced that your approach to QBs is boneheaded and you will be appearing from 5-5:15 AM on KDKA explaining to Boner and the Man why that wasn't a prevent defense last Sunday on TV.

Unless you are the Giants. The Giants are determined to find another Eli and win 2 are Super Bowls. They will probably do it too.

Now reading the entire post I ask you. If the Titans got Blake on a 3 year deal at $1 million a year with an $8 million signing bonus and a clause saying its forfeit if he ever holds out but still isn't released from contract...would that be better than Ryan Tannehill at 31 years old and 29.5 million a year. Tell me honestly, which way would you rather go?

[mraynrand]

Except the Ravens model, which refuses to pay a QB a ton has won 2 with Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer. Many avg. to below avg QBs win Owls.

Yeah, not buying it. Even most so called ‘bad’ QBs played pretty damn well the year they won Superbowls or at least down the stretch. Sure it helps if you can target your great QB and get the SBs in during a rookie contract. But targeting that way sometimes requires luck (Seattle) or long term planning (KC). No NFL team in the past several decades is really thinking hey we can win with a crappy QB. Except maybe Chicago. And you can’t win with an average playing QB through 3 and often 4 playoff games unless you have a pretty dominant defense. Even then it’s not certain.

[bobblehead]

the problem is, if you sign bortles to be a your starting QB, is he gonna then demand 20-25 million a year?

See above post. You structure it to lock him down for a bit.

[bobblehead]

Yeah, not buying it. Even most so called ‘bad’ QBs played pretty damn well the year they won Superbowls or at least down the stretch. Sure it helps if you can target your great QB and get the SBs in during a rookie contract. But targeting that way sometimes requires luck (Seattle) or long term planning (KC). No NFL team in the past several decades is really thinking hey we can win with a crappy QB. Except maybe Chicago. And you can’t win with an average playing QB through 3 and often 4 playoff games unless you have a pretty dominant defense. Even then it’s not certain.

Ryan Tannehill got run out of Miami on the midnight rail. He just got paid 62 million fully guaranteed. That is simply insane. Jimmy G. is an average to below average QB WHO GOT PAID and they still were a whisper from winning an Owl...and he didn't play well down the stretch. Brady has won several Owls based on the strength of their defense. Eli completed a mountain of miracle throws and is the luckiest human to ever win 2 Owls...he is not a great QB...I would call him an average starter.

[pbmax]

Except the Ravens model, which refuses to pay a QB a ton has won 2 with Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer. Many avg. to below avg QBs win Owls.

Well, do you remember how much of a hurry they were in to dump Dilfer? To pay Elvis Grbac? To draft Kyle Boller in the first?

They actually paid Flacco elite money at the time after his Owl.

So yes, they went the modest QB route once unwillingly (Dilfer was only functional option), once by overestimating the peak (Flacco) and once by choice and design (Jackson).

Give the Ravens (and Ozzie) credit though. They did embrace Dilfer for a time. They worked hard to adjust the offense for Flacco's strengths and limitations and they never stopped trying to improve through means other than rebuilding. They are ahead of the curve in many respects.

But even they have taken the obvious path just once by design.