Franchise QBs: A Return on your Investment

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I believe this belongs here, as it leads to serious discussion about our franchise QB and how we try to maximize his use before his huge salary, as well as figuring out exactly what he's going to cost us in those coming years.

 

 

Above, is a list of the Super Bowl winning QBs since 2000, and their salary IN that year.

 

The main things that jump out to me are that, few of the QBs that won were QBs with huge contract numbers. The ones that did break into the 10+ million range, were in the early years of those big contracts. They haven't won AGAIN since going over the 15 or pushing towards 20 million mark.

 

Dilfer and Johnson are a wash. They weren't franchise QBs. Although it is interesting that their teams won with them having manageable salaries.

 

The other thing that jumps out to me is how similar Wilson and Brady were in this regard. Brady's first super bowl was won on a 6th rounders salary, at only .314 million. By his third super bowl, he was making a whopping 5.5 million. Today, with his salary up near 18, he's been back twice, but hasn't closed the deal.

 

The biggest salaries belong to Peyton, Brees, and Eli. These were guys who did NOT win in their first contracts (like Ben, Flacco, and Eli the first time). However, even though they won in their heftier contracts, they won early in those contracts, when their numbers were still closer to 10 million than 20. 

 

Without a doubt, it seems like the prime salary for a QB is between 6-12 million. It seems like a catch-22. You need a QB worth 18 million a year, but you need to find a way to pay him only around 10. Some teams did that by winning early when they were young (Ben, Flacco, Wilson, etc) and others by winning early into the mega contracts before they ballooned. 

 

I definitely think it is worth noting that the QBs we think of with the huge salaries (Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers), haven't won a Super Bowl since their salary has reached those points. In fact, Peyton and Brees and Rodgers haven't won more than 1 each, and Brady hasn't since his first big contract.

 

 

 

So with the numbers in mind, how are we looking with RG3. We have what, 2 more years of him on this contract? Are we ready to win a Super Bowl in these 2 years? How much is his resigning going to cost? We certainly don't want to pay him Peyton like numbers, but are Cutler or Stafford like numbers too high to leave us with a winning strategy?

 

How much do you see Robert demanding? How much would you offer?

[Warhead36]

Impossible to know what to offer RG3 without seeing him play the next two years. We just gotta let it play out.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

That's a fair point. Certainly his play over the next two years will be vital. But what happens if his next two years follow his current average?

 

Let's say his next two years are statistically similar, with one year 6-10 and one year limping into the playoffs at 9-7. You can't exactly low ball him, because you know someone WILL pay him.

[SWFLSkins]

Interesting but still would be a trend and not set in stone. Could play out an number of ways/ 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Interesting but still would be a trend and not set in stone. Could play out an number of ways/ 

Definitely the case. Especially with the most recent. Joe Flacco obviously got his second contract immediately, and only got one year since. Russell Wilson is coming right off of the Super Bowl win and won't get a new contract for another year or so. 

 

 

http://overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=QB

 

This website lists all of the current QBs salaries. If you look at the annual salaries, you'll see the list is topped by the usual suspects, with some surprised mixed in (Ryan, Romo, Cutler, etc). 

 

 

I posted this topic because of my biggest fear. My biggest fear is that RG3 will throw for 3500 yards each of the next two seasons nd between 20-30 TDs in the next two seasons. And then we have to ask ourselves, can we get away with 12-16 million per year, or do we HAVE to pay him closer to 20. If Ryan and Romo and Cutler have deals over 18, with Stafford at 17.6, can we get away with paying him less?

 

Rivers makes 15.3 and Ben 14.6; numbers that are much more reasonable. Matt Ryan is far from a top 2 QB, yet there he is, making top 2 money. And the Super Bowl winners don't show that those top 5 guys win while they're making top 5 money.

[planter]

Skins could maximize RGIII's return/use by giving him an offensive line.

Deja Vu: New offensive-oriented Coach asks for patience while he "rebuilds", spends heavily on WRs and settles for less along the O line.Defense deteriorates. Don't let it happen again !

[Laxpunk2006]

Interesting discussion that I'll have to consider further after work. My first thought is that I'd like to see the QB's cost as a % of salary cap rather than as the actual number. A $10 cal hit in 2004 is not the same as in 2014.

[mbws]

It's a team sport. QBs don't win games by themselves. If your D can't stop a game winning drive at the end, like the Pats in their 18-1 2007 season, you can't put that on the QB no matter his salary.

[Ryko]

The main point of this is (as Laxpunk said) the percentage of the cap that the QB takes. If Russell wilson last year gets paid that little 3rd roiund money (not sure of the percentage of the cap) then that means the team has so much more money to pay the rest of the team, rather than a QB like brees peyton brady making close to 20 mil and having 20 mil less to spend. that 18-20 mil is the equivalent of the skins cap hit the last two years. As many have mentioned football is a team sport, so having the best TEAM will win, so there is a bit of a catch-22 with paying QBs such a high percentage of the whole teams cap. Sigh.

[HTTRDynasty]

It will largely be based on what Cam and Kaep get next off-season more-so than what Flacco and Cutler got.  If they are hovering around $20 million, which is what Kaep is demanding, then you can bet RGIII will be asking for just as much if not more. 

 

Something else to consider:  I really hope we sign RGIII to a long term deal before the Colts sign Luck, because once RGIII and his agent see Luck's contract (which will probably set records two years from now) RGIII will be wanting either the same amount or more than the guy he will be compared to for the rest of his career.  Imo, It would be naive to think he wouldn't.

[HuhWHATdefense]

Since qb is the most important position in football, I think as long as your qb develops into the franchise star, paying them isn't an issue. Because 9/10 out of the time, if your star qb is playing at a high level, your whole team is. Rarely do you see a great qb play lights out and his team play like crap. They usually go hand-in-hand, and therefore makes the money invested worth it.

I think any team in the nfl would pony up whatever it cost if they could get a Peyton manning or a Brady in their prime, without thinking twice, and there's a reason for that.

I honestly hope we are able to give Robert a big contract that pays him as one of the best, because that means that he will have earned it and that benefits both sides.

[eaglesfandan]

It will largely be based on what Cam and Kaep get next off-season

I agree, and if Foles has another good season between these three you are going to see what market value is for a franchise QB. Should be interesting.

[Koolblue13]

It's a team sport. QBs don't win games by themselves. If your D can't stop a game winning drive at the end, like the Pats in their 18-1 2007 season, you can't put that on the QB no matter his salary.

while I basically do agree, 2012 was about 75% Robert.

If that is how were going to win, he will be payed heavily. If we win with defense and Almo, we will pay very slightly less heavily.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Interesting. Some of you basically pitching the "team sport" mentality, while others are willing to pay the QB anything.

 

I'll admit, I aways fell into the latter camp. I felt that Rodgers was worth any price. But seeing that few of these guys ever actually won while they had that huge number is interesting.

 

 

If I get the time, I'll try to break down the salaries as a percent of the cap at that time.

[Riggo-toni]

The primary reason we avoided salary cap hell during all the Snyderatto spending binges is because we were paying our QBs peanuts. It will be an interesting turn of events once we are forced to economize because of franchise QB payouts.

[HuhWHATdefense]

I personally, have prayed for the day we would be able to give a qb we drafted a big contract. Because that means we would have finally found our franchise QB, and he would have earned it.

It's much better than being without a franchise qb, IMO. If I was building a team, qb is where I would expect to spend the most (if I have a franchise qb) because I think everyone knows, you can't win consistently without a good to great QB.

Does anyone honestly think the Seahawks win their SB with Matt Flynn as the starter? I don't.. Even though their defense is amazing, you need a qb who can get it done and keep the defense off the field as well.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Alright, here we go.

 

That new image has not only the QB's salary, but what that number was as a percent of that year's cap.

 

Before we discuss, let me note that I used a cap figure of 123 million for the year 2009. This is a repetition of the number for 2008, because 2009 was uncapped, but we all know it wasn't really uncapped. We can discuss how Brees's cap number in 2009 might have been affected by this uncapped year if you guys want.

 

 

 

What I do want to note, is how low many of these numbers are. This year, the cap is 133 million. A QB who makes 20 million is fifteen percent of the cap. That means that the following QBs take up 15% of the cap OR more:

Rodgers

Ryan

Flacco

Brees

 

Sixteen million dollars a year makes up about 12% of the cap. The following QBs take up about 12% of their teams cap or more:

Peyton

Cutler

Romo

Stafford

Eli

 

 

That's nine out of 32 starting QBs taking up 12% of their team's cap or more. When we look at that list, it looks pretty good at first glance. We have 3 Super Bowl rings in each category (Rodgers, Flacco, Brees, Peyton, Eli-2). But when we look back at my attached list, we'll see that not a single one of those rings was earned while that QB actually made that 12%.

 

Peyton's only Super Bowl came when he was earning about 10%. Rodgers win came when he was earning 5.25. Flacco's came before the big contract, when he was under 2.5%. The only ring in that group won by a QB who took up more than 10% of the cap was Brees, who took up 10.25%.

 

The only ring at all in this millennia won by a QB who took up more than 12% of the cap was Brad Johnson. Let that sink in for a moment. By percentage of the cap, Johnson was the highest paid Super Bowl winning QB at the time of their victory. Let's all take a moment to wipe up the vomit.

 

 

 

So really, it looks to me like 10% is around that magic number. Brees and Peyton both won Super Bowls around 10%, and haven't won again since their salary floated up to the 15% mark. Big Ben, Eli, and Brady are the only multiple winners on that list, and they all won in their first contracts, or early into their second contracts, before the numbers inflated too high. 

 

So we have ourselves a problem. Flacco and Ryan are paid 15% of the cap. No one has won taking up more than 12% since Brad Johnson over a decade ago. What do you do?

 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Very interesting thread, and one the makes a lot of sense.  Kudos.

 

I think the short answer to this dilemma is to draft really well.  That way you can have young, affordable talent coming in to replenish the high salary guys that you might have to let go.

 

Easier said than done.  Let's hope we can start that trend in about four weeks.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Yeah, I think you're right. I think, once you win the lottery and get one of these awesome quarterbacks, you have to win quickly. And if you don't win quickly, you have to pay them more than you'd like, and try to win "broken."

 

The Packers, Saints, and Steelers haven't had significant running games in like five years. We all watched the Ravens defense gut itself to make room for Flacco's contract, and things don't look much different for the other guys on that list.

 

The Flacons sold out at the WR position, and let Turner walk. They have Jackson now, but I don't think he's overly successful nor highly paid. The Lions keep bringing in JAGs (  ), but have invested heavily at a handful positions and make due with the rest. The Patriots have basically decided that, in order to field a respectable defense, they can't afford to pay a single wide receiver and have taken a running back by committee approach for years now. 

 

We've all been talking about how the 49ers and Seahawks were basically screwed when their QBs needed 300% raises, but now we're seeing how it actually plays out. 

 

 

So how might the Redskins end up following the trend?

 

For one, I think the unthinkable. I think we won't resign Alfred Morris unless it's to a cheap deal. Other teams seem to invest in the QB and WRs (we currently have 15% of the cap on just two wide outs) but not in their running backs. It hurts, especially us fans, but it doesn't seem to follow the mold.

 

What other sacrifices might we see the Redskins make to offset a QB taking up this large percentage?

[QFFL]

The cost of keeping a OK QB is going up fast.  For the team,  it is actually a good problem to have. I am sure Rams will trade us Bradford for RGIII plus our first pick back.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm surprised no one has directly called this out but........doesn't it make the most sense that the reason highly paid quarterbacks don't have rings is because of what the team sacrifices to pay the. Someone mentioned the Ravens earlier. How many quality players can you get for the $8-10 million the quarterback takes? I'd like to see a quarterback take a small deal so the team can spread it around. I'd rather be a QB making $8mil with a fist full of rings than making $18mil with bare hands.

Of course I say that not having the money in front of me.

[HuhWHATdefense]

Peyton was very close, and all it takes is one of those QB's to win a SB to break that stat. Its like when people used to try to say black qbs cant win SB's.  you can go through history and name a ton of white qbs to win a SB as qb and try to make an argument that you shouldn't draft a black qb because of this. Of course this is absurd, but my point is you can make stats say pretty much anything..

 

I think if your QB is good enough to earn a top notch deal, you pay him that.  (if that is what hes worth)  I think the problem is overpaying for an above-average QB who can't put a team on his shoulder regardless of the talent around him.     What's your other option? letting you qb go to another team because you wanted to try and save a few bucks? I understand the whole "spread it around" but seriously, a franchise QB is priceless and the teams that don't one, would give up whatever it took to sign one... and for a reason. You cannot win consistently without one. period.         Of course, I think most franchise QB's realize football isnt their only avenue of making money and they can work with the team a little.    Also, the cap rises every year, so the earlier you can sign your QB to a long term deal, it will only be a matter of a few years before you have your QB at a pretty fair price....until the next deal. but you deal with that when it comes.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Yeah, some of the guys were close, but they haven't really managed it and part of it is that they haven't really had complete teams because of the salary.

 

 

For me, personally, it's not about not paying your franchise QB. I think we can all agree that Peyton and Tom and Drew and Aaron are worth their price tag. They make their teams competitive week in and week out, and if they fall short, well it happens.

 

But the problem comes from the fact that even mediocre QBs are getting this crazy money. The falcons were caught between a rock and a hard place with Matt Ryan. Is he the 2nd best QB in the league? Absolutely not! He's not worth top 2 money. But what choice do they have? Someone else will happily give it to him.

 

So how do you handle this? How do you avoid paying top 5 money for a guy who's only top 10? How do you avoid paying a guy who is pretty good like he's worth 15% of your cap? Or can you?

[skins island connection]

 Popularity should not have any weight in a salary; it should be 100% in the QB's performance.

 Dilfer, and Johnson, both rode the coattails of a good defense, especially Dilfer, and to this day it surprises me still to see how he is put on a pedestal i.e.; ESPN and looked upon as being most knowledgable in the aspects of a QB.

 

 Griffin will have to prove he is worth the money, but as others stated, it is a team sport, and alot of pieces have to be in place for anything good to happen. Not knocking Griffin, but very little emphasis had been put on Morris in 2012, all of the praise was flowing Griffin's way, and Morris was an 'oh by the way' player.

 

But it starts with coaching, putting players in positions/situations to succeed, o-line working a a unit, defense at least being close to average, WRs and TEs and RBs all being on the same page; we last saw this in 1991, if you want a model of how an entire team came together. It cannot depend on the QB alone, nor should the QB try to put it all on their shoulders; Griffin can be a great QB, and his attributes can aid a bad o-line, but only to a certain point, then it depends on playcalling and players.

 

As much hype that has been put on Griffin has put him in the spotlight, 2013 was an ugly one too. He couldn't survive another season like that, between media and fans, they will mentally destroy him. But the proof should be in the pudding when it comes to contract time; if you have the tools but fail to get deep into playoffs you shouldn't get a nice loaded contract; you should get paid according to your performance, but as I said, he's pretty much already been put into that catagory of high paid QBs. If anything, all players should have a smaller contract but with incentive-based bonuses, not focused on the individual player, but as a team.

A player who has an incentive loaded contract will be a ball hog and never satisfied; but a team, working together as a unit, striving for the same goal, will be a closer group, and players will not be looked upon as greedy, being they are working for each other's incentives, a Championship.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

 Popularity should not have any weight in a salary; it should be 100% in the QB's performance.

 Dilfer, and Johnson, both rode the coattails of a good defense, especially Dilfer, and to this day it surprises me still to see how he is put on a pedestal i.e.; ESPN and looked upon as being most knowledgable in the aspects of a QB.

 

 Griffin will have to prove he is worth the money, but as others stated, it is a team sport, and alot of pieces have to be in place for anything good to happen. Not knocking Griffin, but very little emphasis had been put on Morris in 2012, all of the praise was flowing Griffin's way, and Morris was an 'oh by the way' player.

 

But it starts with coaching, putting players in positions/situations to succeed, o-line working a a unit, defense at least being close to average, WRs and TEs and RBs all being on the same page; we last saw this in 1991, if you want a model of how an entire team came together. It cannot depend on the QB alone, nor should the QB try to put it all on their shoulders; Griffin can be a great QB, and his attributes can aid a bad o-line, but only to a certain point, then it depends on playcalling and players.

 

As much hype that has been put on Griffin has put him in the spotlight, 2013 was an ugly one too. He couldn't survive another season like that, between media and fans, they will mentally destroy him. But the proof should be in the pudding when it comes to contract time; if you have the tools but fail to get deep into playoffs you shouldn't get a nice loaded contract; you should get paid according to your performance, but as I said, he's pretty much already been put into that catagory of high paid QBs. If anything, all players should have a smaller contract but with incentive-based bonuses, not focused on the individual player, but as a team.

A player who has an incentive loaded contract will be a ball hog and never satisfied; but a team, working together as a unit, striving for the same goal, will be a closer group, and players will not be looked upon as greedy, being they are working for each other's incentives, a Championship.

I like this a lot. And I wouldn't pay Griffin more than he's worth. And I believe he'll be worth it all.

 

But what happens if:

 

The 49ers and the Colts make the playoffs in the next two years. Maybe they each win a playoff game in that time span.

The Redskins have one season with no playoffs, and one season as another one and done in the playoffs.

 

Entirely out of our control, Kaepernick and Luck get paid 18 million a season (17% of the cap).

Robert Griffin insists he won't take a penny less.

 

I don't know. If you let him test free agency, someone will pay him. But how can you pay him that much when he hasn't performed like the other guys. I don't want a Stafford situation, where a guy doesn't even have a playoff win to his resume but if paid more than Brady.

 

It makes me real nervous.