The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[mistertim]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Draft a QB that becomes an elite QB that no one expects to become an elite QB outside of the first round.

 

It's a hard thing to do, but many of our "elite" QBs were taken outside the first ten picks of the NFL draft. That's why some GMs advocate drafting a QB every year even if you have one.

 

I was talking purely about FA because the poster I was responding to seemed to basically be saying to ignore drafting a QB and just hope for a top FA QB at some nebulous point in the future, which I think is dumb.

 

As far as drafting an elite QB outside of the first round that nobody expects to become elite...it basically doesn't happen. Or to be more precise, it happens rarely enough that you might as well say it doesn't happen. Hoping for that is basically hoping that if you buy $1 lottery tickets often enough you'll will a million dollars.

 

Everyone wants the next Brady. It will almost certainly never happen again.

 

There's a reason that teams who need QBs also draft them in the 1st round instead of later rounds. Because, even though the bust rate is still up there for QBs in the 1st, it's WAY better than QBs taken after the 1st round.

[mistertim]

Just now, Bonez3 said:

Current successful team that 'hoped' into marquee FA QB like Tampa? They're pretty successful

 

Plus, league is so dynamic that yes, 'marquee' FA QB's probably will be more readily available.  Not 'franchise' QBs, but 'marquee' QBs... yes. And the trade option should encompass this argument, i.e. teams that will part ways with pending FA/bloated contract QB. Wentz, Cousins, Garapolo are all more than competent QBs that have led their teams to SBs/playoff runs and are available almost annually. 

 

This flight of QBs should be our target. Mariota is not that but I would bring him in to take 'the big step' Rivera talked about. A big sep would be a winning season  and Mariota could do this. 

 

Did you even read my post? I mentioned Brady and the fact that the only reason he became a FA was because he was 43 years old, which in football years is usually retirement home territory. He'd also had a couple of down years (down years for Brady) so many people thought he was basically done. That's why I mentioned as one of the 3 options is to wait until an elite QB gets really really old and then go full 2000s Snyder/Vinny style and sign him to a huge contract.

 

And if you think marquee/elite FA QBs will start showing up, please give me some specific examples and why you think they'll become FAs (or even why their team would trade them). And even if a top QB did become available for trade, that's probably 2-3 first round picks + players. Also many of those elite QBs will also have no-trade clauses, meaning they'd have to want to come here. Which is unlikely.

 

I'm not interested in completely mediocre QBs like Jimmy G, Mariota, or Trubisky. That's basically a one way ticket to going from a bad team to just a sort of bad team that can occasionally be around a .500 win team.

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

I was talking purely about FA because the poster I was responding to seemed to basically be saying to ignore drafting a QB and just hope for a top FA QB at some nebulous point in the future, which I think is dumb.

 

As far as drafting an elite QB outside of the first round that nobody expects to become elite...it basically doesn't happen. Or to be more precise, it happens rarely enough that you might as well say it doesn't happen. Hoping for that is basically hoping that if you buy $1 lottery tickets often enough you'll will a million dollars.

 

Everyone wants the next Brady. It will almost certainly never happen again.

 

There's a reason that teams who need QBs also draft them in the 1st round instead of later rounds. Because, even though the bust rate is still up there for QBs in the 1st, it's WAY better than QBs taken after the 1st round.

I actually disagree. I think it's "elite" QBs that rarely happen, but that elite QBs outside the first ten pick are pretty common. Off the top of my head: Brady, Dak, Brees, Rogers, Wilson, Mahones (okay, he was 10 so technically he makes top ten). As for top current top tens: Allen (7), Mahomes (10) Herbert maybe and Burrows maybe (no sure if we consider Herbert and Burrows elite yet). Interestingly, despite how often QB is picked number one, I'm not sure we have an elite Number 1 QB playing right now (I'm probably forgetting someone).

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I actually disagree. I think it's "elite" QBs that rarely happen, but that elite QBs outside the first ten pick are pretty common. Off the top of my head: Brady, Dak, Brees, Rogers, Wilson, Mahones (okay, he was 10 so technically he makes top ten). As for top current top tens: Allen (7), Mahomes (10) Herbert maybe and Burrows maybe (no sure if we consider Herbert and Burrows elite yet). Interestingly, despite how often QB is picked number one, I'm not sure we have an elite Number 1 QB playing right now (I'm probably forgetting someone).

 

Sorry, that's my bad. I missed the "outside of the top 10" part and just saw the "outside of the first round" part of your post.

 

Yes, I agree. Plenty of top QBs were taken outside of the top 10 (or right around there). I just think hoping for a mid or late round QB to become a gem is sort of like deciding that you won't pay your bills until after you win the lottery from those $1 lotto tickets. Not a sound strategy.

[Bonez3]

Jimmy G is 'mediocre' but led his team to a SB. Very well could be available next year

 

Tannehill is mediocre but very well could be leading his team to SB this year and was comeback player of year in 2019 after being traded for peanuts. Chance he may be released pending Derick Henry contract.

 

Wentz is mediocre (probably best in class) and was worth a conditional future 1st and probably will be in the AFC Championship game this year IMO.

 

Cousins, 'Mr. Mediocre', will be on a new team next year, so there you go. And I'm no fan of Cousins but if I saw him playing in the Super Bowl for the NO Saints or Carolina I would not be one bit shocked. 

 

Now, I haven't even mentioned Rodgers/Wilson/Watson, but with a competent FO they will be available as well.

 

So, yes, I did read your post and won't even cite the 'exception' to your argument in Brady. But plenty of marquee QBs will be available and continue to be available. I'd keep gambling on blue chips at other positions and poach a QB down the road.

 

How are these teams not successful?

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Bonez3

[wit33]

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Did you even read my post? I mentioned Brady and the fact that the only reason he became a FA was because he was 43 years old, which in football years is usually retirement home territory. He'd also had a couple of down years (down years for Brady) so many people thought he was basically done. That's why I mentioned as one of the 3 options is to wait until an elite QB gets really really old and then go full 2000s Snyder/Vinny style and sign him to a huge contract.

 

And if you think marquee/elite FA QBs will start showing up, please give me some specific examples and why you think they'll become FAs (or even why their team would trade them). And even if a top QB did become available for trade, that's probably 2-3 first round picks + players. Also many of those elite QBs will also have no-trade clauses, meaning they'd have to want to come here. Which is unlikely.

 

I'm not interested in completely mediocre QBs like Jimmy G, Mariota, or Trubisky. That's basically a one way ticket to going from a bad team to just a sort of bad team that can occasionally be around a .500 win team.

You become mediocre if you pay those guys 10-12% of your cap. At 3-6% of the cap they become assets financially and help build a stronger roster that can support them. 
 

Ryan Tannenhill is set to make 18% of the Titans cap next year lol after going for it this year and being forced to move his money. He will struggle to provide value with his new deal. It’s the same story with the average to good starters. Stay away from these guys if they desire pay anything comparable to the great/elite guys. 
 

Mariota at 3-5% of the cap has great potential value. From afar, I’m more of a Mariota guy than Trubisky. Mariota has provided steadier levels of play than Trubisky for longer periods of time. Supreme athleticism, yes please. The big turn off is I’ve heard Mariota lacks intangibles from a leadership/galvanizing the guys standpoint.

[Redskins 2021]

8 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

Jimmy G is mediocre but led his team to a SB. Very well could be available next year

 

Tannehill is mediocre but very well could be leading his team to SB this year and was comeback player of year in 2019 after being traded for peanuts. Chance he may be released pending Derick Henry contract.

 

Wentz was a conditional future 1st and probably will be in the AFC Championship game this year IMO.

 

Cousins will be on a new team next year, so there you go. And I'm no fan of Cousins but if I saw him playing in the Super Bowl for the NO Saints I would not be one bit shocked. 

 

Now, I haven't even mentioned Rodgers/Wilson/Watson, but with a competent FO they will be available as well.

 

So, yes, I did read your post and won't even cite the 'exception' to your argument in Brady. But plenty of marquee QBs will be available and continue to be available. I'd keep gambling on blue chips at other positions and poach a QB down the road.

I like this. This is what we should try . If we going to take a QB should have been last year. Just like we should have took one the year before we took Haskins. 

If there a QB we love take him don't reach or trade up just to fill a spot make sure it's the guy we have alot of other spots on the team that need to be improved. 

These second time around Qb usually don't work but you never know. Maybe you get a Tanahill situation. Winston this year before he got hurt was playing pretty well. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Redskins 2021

[mistertim]

15 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

Jimmy G is 'mediocre' but led his team to a SB. Very well could be available next year

 

Tannehill is mediocre but very well could be leading his team to SB this year and was comeback player of year in 2019 after being traded for peanuts. Chance he may be released pending Derick Henry contract.

 

Wentz is mediocre (probably best in class) and was worth a conditional future 1st and probably will be in the AFC Championship game this year IMO.

 

Cousins, 'Mr. Mediocre', will be on a new team next year, so there you go. And I'm no fan of Cousins but if I saw him playing in the Super Bowl for the NO Saints or Carolina I would not be one bit shocked. 

 

Now, I haven't even mentioned Rodgers/Wilson/Watson, but with a competent FO they will be available as well.

 

So, yes, I did read your post and won't even cite the 'exception' to your argument in Brady. But plenty of marquee QBs will be available and continue to be available. I'd keep gambling on blue chips at other positions and poach a QB down the road.

 

How are these teams not successful?

 

 

Oh please. Jimmy G did not lead his team to a SB. He was a completely and utterly mediocre QB who rode a lucky/dominant team into a SB appearance. During their playoff run he had 2 TDs and 3 INTs. The Niners got there despite him, not because of him. 

 

These mediocre game manager QBs who end up going to or even winning Super Bowls (Jimmy G, Foles, Kaep, etc) all rode a combination of luck and a great team. And another thing they all have in common? They never again got there or really even sniffed the big game.

 

No, Wilson and Watson will not be available because they have no-trade clauses and their leaked short lists of teams they would waive it for absolutely did not include us. Almost no players actually want to come here if given a choice. Rodgers probably won't be available because the Packers likely won't trade him within the NFC (IF they even agree to trade him). He's also a jackoff who would probably pull some **** like saying there are some teams he'd simply refuse to play for, even though he doesn't have a no-trade clause.

 

So you mentioned absolutely no marquee or top QBs in your post. You mentioned some mediocre ones and how, with a bunch of luck, a super stacked team, and a healthy pinch of fairy dust they might be able to get a team to a SB.

 

Sorry, but I'd much rather swing for the fences with high upside draft picks than settle for bland grey mediocrity with the hope of somehow tripping and falling into a SB. I'd rather keep trying to draft an elite QB who will make us relevant for the next 10-15 years.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

30 minutes ago, wit33 said:

You become mediocre if you pay those guys 10-12% of your cap. At 3-6% of the cap they become assets financially and help build a stronger roster that can support them. 
 

Ryan Tannenhill is set to make 18% of the Titans cap next year lol after going for it this year and being forced to move his money. He will struggle to provide value with his new deal. It’s the same story with the average to good starters. Stay away from these guys if they desire pay anything comparable to the great/elite guys. 
 

Mariota at 3-5% of the cap has great potential value. From afar, I’m more of a Mariota guy than Trubisky. Mariota has provided steadier levels of play than Trubisky for longer periods of time. Supreme athleticism, yes please. The big turn off is I’ve heard Mariota lacks intangibles from a leadership/galvanizing the guys standpoint.

I get that your obsessed with cap hits and I'm not saying that your concerns are entirely unwarranted.

 

What I am saying is that I disagree on the 'value'.  Value for what?  Praying you can run the ball, play good defense, and have Mariota do just enough to maybe make the playoffs.  I'd rather just roll with Heineke for less than 1% of the cap vs. bringing in Mariota, as both seem like an exercise in futility - why waste any more money than you have to?

Edited January 5, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[mistertim]

42 minutes ago, wit33 said:

You become mediocre if you pay those guys 10-12% of your cap. At 3-6% of the cap they become assets financially and help build a stronger roster that can support them. 
 

Ryan Tannenhill is set to make 18% of the Titans cap next year lol after going for it this year and being forced to move his money. He will struggle to provide value with his new deal. It’s the same story with the average to good starters. Stay away from these guys if they desire pay anything comparable to the great/elite guys. 
 

Mariota at 3-5% of the cap has great potential value. From afar, I’m more of a Mariota guy than Trubisky. Mariota has provided steadier levels of play than Trubisky for longer periods of time. Supreme athleticism, yes please. The big turn off is I’ve heard Mariota lacks intangibles from a leadership/galvanizing the guys standpoint.

 

If your point is not to pay a ton for mediocre or just "good" QBs, then I agree. If you're making an overarching point about not giving up more than a certain percentage of your cap for any QB, I disagree. If that's the mentality then the most good it will do you is give you the ability to brag about how clever you are with your cap money while watching other teams in the playoffs on TV.

 

This is just one of the reasons why I'm uninterested in mediocre QBs and I was actually glad that we ended up with Haskins instead of Jones. With Haskins we knew pretty quickly that he was a bust and got rid of him. With Jones he showed just enough glimpses to get the Giants to hold on to him and give them hope. I'd rather have a draft pick either bust big time or become a star.

 

I also have no desire for signing bust retreads with some sort of hope that they'll be good when they get here.

 

Swing for the fences. Home run or strike out.

[Warhead36]

Garopolo is better than mediocre, but he's injury prone and even his team just spent three #1s to get their franchise guy.

 

Tannehill is much better than mediocre. He's Kirk Cousins-tier but with better mobility.

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Garopolo is better than mediocre, but he's injury prone and even his team just spent three #1s to get their franchise guy.

 

Tannehill is much better than mediocre. He's Kirk Cousins-tier but with better mobility.

 

To me Jimmy G is practically the textbook definition of a mediocre NFL QB. He's pretty consistently in that 15-20 range where he can manage games and if he has a stacked team and he doesn't screw up much, you can win with him. He's definitely not a guy who will be able to put a team on his back and win with his arm.

 

Tannehill is certainly better than Jimmy G, but IMO you also have to take into account that, while he was never a bad QB, he didn't turn into a top 10ish sort of guy until he had an unstoppable All Pro running back to lean on. It's probably no coincidence that he happens to be having a down season when Henry has been injured a lot.

[Bonez3]

@mistertim You keep swinging for the fences, I'll stick to building a 'super stacked' team. 

 

To your point, Tannehill became top 10ish when he had a super stacked team... All pro RB, great OL, solid D. Seems like a good way to build a winner

Edited January 5, 2022 by Bonez3

[Jericho]

12 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

To me Jimmy G is practically the textbook definition of a mediocre NFL QB. He's pretty consistently in that 15-20 range where he can manage games and if he has a stacked team and he doesn't screw up much, you can win with him. He's definitely not a guy who will be able to put a team on his back and win with his arm.

 

Tannehill is certainly better than Jimmy G, but IMO you also have to take into account that, while he was never a bad QB, he didn't turn into a top 10ish sort of guy until he had an unstoppable All Pro running back to lean on. It's probably no coincidence that he happens to be having a down season when Henry has been injured a lot.

 

I'd agree with this. Between injuries and sitting behind Brady, Jimmy G has barely even played. Before this year he started 32 games total. In his career. Over 7 seasons. Only one of which did he appear in more than 8 games. And San Fran did make the Super Bowl that year, but it really wasn't because of Jimmy G. He's played most of this year to get up to 46 career starts. He also has 36 career interceptions. He's also now heading for the downside of his career (he'll be 31 next year). He's probably a nominal starter for the next few years for someone who is looking for something better. But that's about it. He's textbook mediocre

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, Bonez3 said:

@mistertim You keep swinging for the fences, I'll stick to building a 'super stacked' team. 

 

Cool. And you hopefully will keep enjoying watching Super Bowls with other teams playing in them while we spend all of our time trying to build stacked teams without an upper echelon QB.

[wit33]

54 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I get that your obsessed with cap hits and I'm not saying that your concerns are entirely unwarranted.

 

What I am saying is that I disagree on the 'value'.  Value for what?  Praying you can run the ball, play good defense, and have Mariota do just enough to maybe make the playoffs.  I'd rather just roll with Heineke for less than 1% of the cap vs. bringing in Mariota, as both seem like an exercise in futility - why waste any more money than you have to?

Obsessed seems to be an attempt to devalue my position lol. 

 

I believe there’s a direct correlation with the average to good guys losing value once they get a big pay day. Admittedly, I might be operating in fantasy land, due to QB demand and FOs willing to over pay for average starters. 

 

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

If your point is not to pay a ton for mediocre or just "good" QBs, then I agree.

 

This is definitely what I’m say, but acknowledge subjectivity then seeps in with who a person feels is just average to good. I prefer the QB to have running ability if average to good to help offset the weaknesses most average to good QBs share (facing good defenses, an average game plan, injuries etc..). That’s subjective though. 

 

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

 

 

If you're making an overarching point about not giving up more than a certain percentage of your cap for any QB, I disagree. If that's the mentality then the most good it will do you is give you the ability to brag about how clever you are with your cap money while watching other teams in the playoffs on TV.

Pay the elite guy whatever, hope that you hav a guy that cares about his legacy and signs a long term extension beyond 3 years (the longer the better for the team). 

 

 

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is just one of the reasons why I'm uninterested in mediocre QBs and I was actually glad that we ended up with Haskins instead of Jones. With Haskins we knew pretty quickly that he was a bust and got rid of him. With Jones he showed just enough glimpses to get the Giants to hold on to him and give them hope. I'd rather have a draft pick either bust big time or become a star.

 

Ive made this same point a few times as well. The middling below average to average guys are dangerous and have crushed many organizations in the past. 

 

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I also have no desire for signing bust retreads with some sort of hope that they'll be good when they get here.

 

A bust and a retread are much different, in my opinion. Mariota and Trubisky weren’t busts. They failed to reach level of good but achieved below average to average for much of their careers. I’m a bit more bullish on Mariota and feel he’s shown a bit more consistency than Trubisky. 
 

I like these types because you can still remain aggressive with pursuit of a young guy. I want the conundrum of Mariota playing well and the young guy chomping at the bit. I will take that controversy all day. 

 

37 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Swing for the fences. Home run or strike out.

Agreed, but as mentioned above, you can hit a double (Mariota) and hope an elite rookie brings you home (Malik Willis). 

[Bonez3]

23 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Cool. And you hopefully will keep enjoying watching Super Bowls with other teams playing in them while we spend all of our time trying to build stacked teams without an upper echelon QB.

Cash me in May and let me know this franchise QB you want at 8-9-10 spot, I'll book my hotel for Super Bowl early

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

31 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Obsessed seems to be an attempt to devalue my position lol. 

 

I believe there’s a direct correlation with the average to good guys losing value once they get a big pay day. Admittedly, I might be operating in fantasy land, due to QB demand and FOs willing to over pay for average starters. 

It's not an attempt to devalue your position.  It's rare you talk about the QB position without mention of cap% and value.  I even qualified it by saying that your stance isn't completely unwarranted.  It's fair to consider cap% and what that means to the rest of the roster makeup.  I just don't think its that simple to isolate the QB position as far as wasted resources (cap%).  Sure they have the highest salary and portion of cap, but that's because it's the most important position on the field.  If you look at most every roster, there are large chunks of the cap allotted to other positions as well - that don't necessarily earn their paycheck.  Some rosters more than others, hence where being savvy at roster makeup and cap management is of great importance.   Just think about the # of non-QB's that have come through Washington, ate up large portions of the cap, and their play didn't match their paycheck.  The most recent example I can think of is Landon Collins.  Cap hit this year of almost $17MM, 14.2MM the year prior.  We still owe him money on the deal.  Sure, him moving positions led to us finally getting some ROI on his deal, but needless to say - the majority of that money is wasted.  That's just one example, and he's a freaking safety that can't cover.  I'd rather overpay for a competent QB than a safety or most any other position.

 

I just feel like folks get too caught up on QB salaries because they are the largest, when there are other dudes down each and every roster in the league taking well more than their fair share of the cap as well.  The key is how much wasted resources do you have, at all positions - and we tend to have more than many other teams and the results speak to that.

 

 

[Koolblue13]

Guys relax. There is nothing to worry about. We're going to get Mitch Trubisky to lead this team.

[Est.1974]

17 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Guys relax. There is nothing to worry about. We're going to get Mitch Trubisky to lead this team.

I think that is the most likely outcome by far. I’m not exactly a major fan of that move but could live with it as long as we also draft a QB in the first round.

 

Thats actually a significant upgrade on our current position.

[Koolblue13]

24 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I think that is the most likely outcome by far. I’m not exactly a major fan of that move but could live with it as long as we also draft a QB in the first round.

 

Thats actually a significant upgrade on our current position.

Huge upgrade. That was my solution at the beginning of the year and I was really high at the trade deadline too. Now it just feels disappointing knowing next season will probably suck again too.

[wit33]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

It's not an attempt to devalue your position.  It's rare you talk about the QB position without mention of cap% and value.  I even qualified it by saying that your stance isn't completely unwarranted.  It's fair to consider cap% and what that means to the rest of the roster makeup.  I just don't think its that simple to isolate the QB position as far as wasted resources (cap%).  Sure they have the highest salary and portion of cap, but that's because it's the most important position on the field.  If you look at most every roster, there are large chunks of the cap allotted to other positions as well - that don't necessarily earn their paycheck.  Some rosters more than others, hence where being savvy at roster makeup and cap management is of great importance.   Just think about the # of non-QB's that have come through Washington, ate up large portions of the cap, and their play didn't match their paycheck.  The most recent example I can think of is Landon Collins.  Cap hit this year of almost $17MM, 14.2MM the year prior.  We still owe him money on the deal.  Sure, him moving positions led to us finally getting some ROI on his deal, but needless to say - the majority of that money is wasted.  That's just one example, and he's a freaking safety that can't cover.  I'd rather overpay for a competent QB than a safety or most any other position.

 

I’ll own the fact I’m on the extreme end with the QB cap percentage, it’s wild the direct correlation  when looking at historical data of the QBs cap hit and winning (playoff, divisional, conference title games). 
 

For example, Im on the side, Brady would have 2-3 Super bowls versus the 6 he has without keeping his cap hit at various times between 5-10%. This is a conversation topic that should be brought up much more when discussing QB play, just as much as a guys QBR, 4th quarter come backs, TD to Int ratio etc. that is commonly highlighted during QB debates.

 

 
 

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I just feel like folks get too caught up on QB salaries because they are the largest, when there are other dudes down each and every roster in the league taking well more than their fair share of the cap as well.  The key is how much wasted resources do you have, at all positions - and we tend to have more than many other teams and the results speak to that.

 

 

Fully admit my data analysis only factors in the QB, and your point other players get over paid is valid and has a negative impact on the cap. 
 

Too much correlation in data that when a QB exceeds 10% of the cap most lose significant value, this is also the case with some elite guys. Russel Wilson since getting paid has declined in value and hasn’t got past the wild card round since getting paid. The elites seem to for most still get there teams to the playoffs while taking up 12-18% of the cap, but struggle to be real contenders over time.
 

Doesn’t surprise me that outside of Rodgers this season the SB contenders coming into the season all are below or at 10% of the cap (Allen, Mahomes, Brady, Stafford, Burrow, and Murray). It’s not absolute, but a lot of data to support it. 
 

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2021/

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by wit33

[Redskins 2021]

7 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

I’ll own the fact I’m on the extreme end with the QB cap percentage, it’s wild the direct correlation  when looking at historical data of the QBs cap hit and winning (conference title games). 
 

For example, Im on the side, Brady would have 2-3 Super bowls versus the 6 he has without keeping his cap hit at various times between 5-10%. This is a conversation topic that should be brought up much more when discussing QB play, just as much as a guys QBR, 4th quarter come backs, TD to Int ratio etc. that is commonly highlighted during QB debates.

 

 
 

Fully admit my data analysis only factors in the QB, and your point other players get over paid is valid and has a negative impact on the cap. 
 

Too much correlation in data that when a QB exceeds 10% of the cap most lose significant value, this is also the case with some elite guys. Russel Wilson since getting paid has declined in value and hasn’t got past the wild card round since getting paid. The elites seem to for most still get there teams to the playoffs while taking up 12-18% of the cap, but struggle to be real contenders over time.
 

Doesn’t surprise me that outside of Rodgers this season the SB contenders coming into the season all are below or at 10% of the cap (Allen, Mahomes, Brady, Stafford, Burrow, and Murray). It’s not absolute, but a lot of data to support it. 
 

I dont think we need elite many teams have won without elite but we need above average. Joe Flacco on ravens

Kirk Cousins

Derrick Carr

Ryan Tanahill 

Carson Wentz

Matt Stafford 

These are the level of play from QB we need.

 

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

Huge upgrade. That was my solution at the beginning of the year and I was really high at the trade deadline too. Now it just feels disappointing knowing next season will probably suck again too.

Not necessarily, especially if the intent is also to draft a QB early. Both put us in a far better spot than our current QB situation and two shots for the future

[lovemaskins]

10 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Not necessarily, especially if the intent is also to draft a QB early. Both put us in a far better spot than our current QB situation and two shots for the future

Both also put us in a place of perpetual 8-9 or 9-8 seasons of maybe maybe not making the playoffs and getting bounced quickly when we do make a playoff.  Above average QBs don’t beat the elite QBs and top teams in the playoffs without generational defenses.