[OutsiderFan]

This is the best NFL discussion I have ever seen.  It starts out talking about Jimmy Garoppolo and whether the Niners should want to bring him back. It then gets into the issue of QBs being paid more than they are worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuk35p79SQ

The Niners traded DeForrest Buckner because they ostensibly couldn't afford him, assuming they had to pay Garoppolo more because, well NFL team groupthink I guess. Buckner was an All-Pro DL who would command $15 million. Garoppolo a slightly above average QB who costs $25 million. Why should the QB get paid the most when off his rookie deal just because he is a QB?

I absolutely love the idea of an NFL team adopting an organizational philosophy of always having a QB on a rookie contract. This means 5 years if you pick up the 5th year option (only round 1 picks) or 4 years for all others. It also means simplifying your offense so young QBs can pick it up quickly. The idea is that you can spend more money on the rest of your roster and have a better team even if the QB isn't quite as good as those with 30 year old elite QBs.

Give a cheap QB a great OL and have a dominant DL, and you will likely win more than teams with a QB taking 15% of salary cap, that has to go cheap on the rest of the roster.

Dallas might be one of the first teams to pass on signing a "franchise QB" with Dan Prescott. He could cost them $37 million in 2021, or about 20% of the 2021 projected salary cap. They might want to invest the bulk of that money in a fortified roster and go with a draft pick as a rookie. Or maybe they could win with Andy Dalton with a bulked up roster.

And back to the Niners, they could cut Jimmy Garoppolo and go with a rookie. Hell, they could even draft two, sign a Jameis Winston, and make them all compete for the starting and backup jobs.  

I agree with Florio and Simms. NFL teams have become too stuck in a mindset that you have to find one QB and pay him the most. As they say, if you find a Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc., you pay them big bucks.  But if your QB isn't Top 5, why pay through the nose?  Why not pass on anything after a rookie deal to get another cheap QB with a stronger roster than the ones the Top 5 QBs have?

There is more than one way to win. Frankly, if the Jets drafted Panei Sewell, they could move Mekhi Becton to RT, sign Brandon Scherff (best FA Guard) and have the league's most dominant OL. They could then keep Sam Darnold on a cheap rookie deal for a couple more years. Hard to imagine Darnold won't get a lot better with a dominant OL to rely on.

Anyway, I hope some of you find this discussion questioning the wisdom of always paying QBs the most as compelling I did.

[OutsiderFan]

This is the best NFL discussion I have ever seen.  It starts out talking about Jimmy Garoppolo and whether the Niners should want to bring him back. It then gets into the issue of QBs being paid more than they are worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuk35p79SQ

The Niners traded DeForrest Buckner because they ostensibly couldn't afford him, assuming they had to pay Garoppolo more because, well NFL team groupthink I guess. Buckner was an All-Pro DL who would command $15 million. Garoppolo a slightly above average QB who costs $25 million. Why should the QB get paid the most when off his rookie deal just because he is a QB?

I absolutely love the idea of an NFL team adopting an organizational philosophy of always having a QB on a rookie contract. This means 5 years if you pick up the 5th year option (only round 1 picks) or 4 years for all others. It also means simplifying your offense so young QBs can pick it up quickly. The idea is that you can spend more money on the rest of your roster and have a better team even if the QB isn't quite as good as those with 30 year old elite QBs.

Give a cheap QB a great OL and have a dominant DL, and you will likely win more than teams with a QB taking 15% of salary cap, that has to go cheap on the rest of the roster.

Dallas might be one of the first teams to pass on signing a "franchise QB" with Dan Prescott. He could cost them $37 million in 2021, or about 20% of the 2021 projected salary cap. They might want to invest the bulk of that money in a fortified roster and go with a draft pick as a rookie. Or maybe they could win with Andy Dalton with a bulked up roster.

And back to the Niners, they could cut Jimmy Garoppolo and go with a rookie. Hell, they could even draft two, sign a Jameis Winston, and make them all compete for the starting and backup jobs.  

I agree with Florio and Simms. NFL teams have become too stuck in a mindset that you have to find one QB and pay him the most. As they say, if you find a Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc., you pay them big bucks.  But if your QB isn't Top 5, why pay through the nose?  Why not pass on anything after a rookie deal to get another cheap QB with a stronger roster than the ones the Top 5 QBs have?

There is more than one way to win. Frankly, if the Jets drafted Panei Sewell, they could move Mekhi Becton to RT, sign Brandon Scherff (best FA Guard) and have the league's most dominant OL. They could then keep Sam Darnold on a cheap rookie deal for a couple more years. Hard to imagine Darnold won't get a lot better with a dominant OL to rely on.

Anyway, I hope some of you find this discussion questioning the wisdom of always paying QBs the most as compelling I did.

[teejers1]

This is the best NFL discussion I have ever seen.  It starts out talking about Jimmy Garoppolo and whether the Niners should want to bring him back. It then gets into the issue of QBs being paid more than they are worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuk35p79SQ

The Niners traded DeForrest Buckner because they ostensibly couldn't afford him, assuming they had to pay Garoppolo more because, well NFL team groupthink I guess. Buckner was an All-Pro DL who would command $15 million. Garoppolo a slightly above average QB who costs $25 million. Why should the QB get paid the most when off his rookie deal just because he is a QB?

I absolutely love the idea of an NFL team adopting an organizational philosophy of always having a QB on a rookie contract. This means 5 years if you pick up the 5th year option (only round 1 picks) or 4 years for all others. It also means simplifying your offense so young QBs can pick it up quickly. The idea is that you can spend more money on the rest of your roster and have a better team even if the QB isn't quite as good as those with 30 year old elite QBs.

Give a cheap QB a great OL and have a dominant DL, and you will likely win more than teams with a QB taking 15% of salary cap, that has to go cheap on the rest of the roster.

Dallas might be one of the first teams to pass on signing a "franchise QB" with Dan Prescott. He could cost them $37 million in 2021, or about 20% of the 2021 projected salary cap. They might want to invest the bulk of that money in a fortified roster and go with a draft pick as a rookie. Or maybe they could win with Andy Dalton with a bulked up roster.

And back to the Niners, they could cut Jimmy Garoppolo and go with a rookie. Hell, they could even draft two, sign a Jameis Winston, and make them all compete for the starting and backup jobs.  

I agree with Florio and Simms. NFL teams have become too stuck in a mindset that you have to find one QB and pay him the most. As they say, if you find a Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc., you pay them big bucks.  But if your QB isn't Top 5, why pay through the nose?  Why not pass on anything after a rookie deal to get another cheap QB with a stronger roster than the ones the Top 5 QBs have?

There is more than one way to win. Frankly, if the Jets drafted Panei Sewell, they could move Mekhi Becton to RT, sign Brandon Scherff (best FA Guard) and have the league's most dominant OL. They could then keep Sam Darnold on a cheap rookie deal for a couple more years. Hard to imagine Darnold won't get a lot better with a dominant OL to rely on.

Anyway, I hope some of you find this discussion questioning the wisdom of always paying QBs the most as compelling I did.

For the umpteenth time:  the salary mess in the NFL is almost exclusively attributable to rookie deals of 4-5 years, which skew compensation . . . across the league.  Make rookie contracts 2 years, max (no option for a third year), and watch the money flow to those who deserve it, including QBs.  It's a joke that the CBA includes such punitive rookie contracts.  And it makes no sense at all . . . I'd argue from any angle.

But back to your link, I agree 100% with the commentary - and I expect that Jimmy G. has taken his last snap as a 49er (unless there is a substantial renegotiation of his current deal).  That's why they didn't play him the last game or in this upcoming one - to avoid risk of injury.  My understanding is you can't cut an injured player, and the 'Niners didn't want to risk NOT having the flexibility to cut Jimmy G. if he played and was re-injured.

[teejers1]

This is the best NFL discussion I have ever seen.  It starts out talking about Jimmy Garoppolo and whether the Niners should want to bring him back. It then gets into the issue of QBs being paid more than they are worth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQuk35p79SQ

The Niners traded DeForrest Buckner because they ostensibly couldn't afford him, assuming they had to pay Garoppolo more because, well NFL team groupthink I guess. Buckner was an All-Pro DL who would command $15 million. Garoppolo a slightly above average QB who costs $25 million. Why should the QB get paid the most when off his rookie deal just because he is a QB?

I absolutely love the idea of an NFL team adopting an organizational philosophy of always having a QB on a rookie contract. This means 5 years if you pick up the 5th year option (only round 1 picks) or 4 years for all others. It also means simplifying your offense so young QBs can pick it up quickly. The idea is that you can spend more money on the rest of your roster and have a better team even if the QB isn't quite as good as those with 30 year old elite QBs.

Give a cheap QB a great OL and have a dominant DL, and you will likely win more than teams with a QB taking 15% of salary cap, that has to go cheap on the rest of the roster.

Dallas might be one of the first teams to pass on signing a "franchise QB" with Dan Prescott. He could cost them $37 million in 2021, or about 20% of the 2021 projected salary cap. They might want to invest the bulk of that money in a fortified roster and go with a draft pick as a rookie. Or maybe they could win with Andy Dalton with a bulked up roster.

And back to the Niners, they could cut Jimmy Garoppolo and go with a rookie. Hell, they could even draft two, sign a Jameis Winston, and make them all compete for the starting and backup jobs.  

I agree with Florio and Simms. NFL teams have become too stuck in a mindset that you have to find one QB and pay him the most. As they say, if you find a Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, etc., you pay them big bucks.  But if your QB isn't Top 5, why pay through the nose?  Why not pass on anything after a rookie deal to get another cheap QB with a stronger roster than the ones the Top 5 QBs have?

There is more than one way to win. Frankly, if the Jets drafted Panei Sewell, they could move Mekhi Becton to RT, sign Brandon Scherff (best FA Guard) and have the league's most dominant OL. They could then keep Sam Darnold on a cheap rookie deal for a couple more years. Hard to imagine Darnold won't get a lot better with a dominant OL to rely on.

Anyway, I hope some of you find this discussion questioning the wisdom of always paying QBs the most as compelling I did.

For the umpteenth time:  the salary mess in the NFL is almost exclusively attributable to rookie deals of 4-5 years, which skew compensation . . . across the league.  Make rookie contracts 2 years, max (no option for a third year), and watch the money flow to those who deserve it, including QBs.  It's a joke that the CBA includes such punitive rookie contracts.  And it makes no sense at all . . . I'd argue from any angle.

But back to your link, I agree 100% with the commentary - and I expect that Jimmy G. has taken his last snap as a 49er (unless there is a substantial renegotiation of his current deal).  That's why they didn't play him the last game or in this upcoming one - to avoid risk of injury.  My understanding is you can't cut an injured player, and the 'Niners didn't want to risk NOT having the flexibility to cut Jimmy G. if he played and was re-injured.

[OutsiderFan]

For the umpteenth time:  the salary mess in the NFL is almost exclusively attributable to rookie deals of 4-5 years, which skew compensation . . . across the league.  Make rookie contracts 2 years, max (no option for a third year), and watch the money flow to those who deserve it, including QBs.  It's a joke that the CBA includes such punitive rookie contracts.  And it makes no sense at all . . . I'd argue from any angle.

But back to your link, I agree 100% with the commentary - and I expect that Jimmy G. has taken his last snap as a 49er (unless there is a substantial renegotiation of his current deal).  That's why they didn't play him the last game or in this upcoming one - to avoid risk of injury.  My understanding is you can't cut an injured player, and the 'Niners didn't want to risk NOT having the flexibility to cut Jimmy G. if he played and was re-injured.

There is too much league-wide groupthink to materially change how the current CBA works in terms of rookie deals and free agency. But, it only takes one team to buck the trend on paying QBs top dollar, so it seems this will happen before you get your CBA wish, teejers.

As for Jimmy G, these are the relevant facts:

1. He is being held out of games to avoid injury and the only reason is to take advantage of...
2. He can be cut and it will cost the Niners less than $3M of a cap hit to do so
3. Shanahan is pumping him up for next season

The first two don't jibe with the last one. If he is your guy, is healthy, and you want to win games as the #1 priority, why would Garoppolo not play against Seattle?

I want to see an NFL team hire Mike Leach as OC, to develop a QB-friendly offense.  He's never coached at a program that can recruit great payers on defense, or otherwise at the top period. He's now at Mississippi State, which is no higher than #5 in the SEC West pecking order, if not the very bottom. So I don't think it is fair to claim his system can't win championships because he's never operated with the talent needed. Imagine what a roster full of very good NFL players beyond the QB could be if you had a system that is QB-friendly.

All this said, to me is Kyle Shanahan seems to have a very QB-friendly system himself. I mean even though Mullens isn't good enough, it sure seems to me Shanahan got more wins out of him than any other NFL coach could have. Imagine even an Andy Dalton level QB who can stay healthy, as Niners QB, with a stacked OL and defense. The Broncos won a Super Bowl with a dominant defense and clearly mediocre Peyton Manning. It can be done!

[OutsiderFan]

For the umpteenth time:  the salary mess in the NFL is almost exclusively attributable to rookie deals of 4-5 years, which skew compensation . . . across the league.  Make rookie contracts 2 years, max (no option for a third year), and watch the money flow to those who deserve it, including QBs.  It's a joke that the CBA includes such punitive rookie contracts.  And it makes no sense at all . . . I'd argue from any angle.

But back to your link, I agree 100% with the commentary - and I expect that Jimmy G. has taken his last snap as a 49er (unless there is a substantial renegotiation of his current deal).  That's why they didn't play him the last game or in this upcoming one - to avoid risk of injury.  My understanding is you can't cut an injured player, and the 'Niners didn't want to risk NOT having the flexibility to cut Jimmy G. if he played and was re-injured.

There is too much league-wide groupthink to materially change how the current CBA works in terms of rookie deals and free agency. But, it only takes one team to buck the trend on paying QBs top dollar, so it seems this will happen before you get your CBA wish, teejers.

As for Jimmy G, these are the relevant facts:

1. He is being held out of games to avoid injury and the only reason is to take advantage of...
2. He can be cut and it will cost the Niners less than $3M of a cap hit to do so
3. Shanahan is pumping him up for next season

The first two don't jibe with the last one. If he is your guy, is healthy, and you want to win games as the #1 priority, why would Garoppolo not play against Seattle?

I want to see an NFL team hire Mike Leach as OC, to develop a QB-friendly offense.  He's never coached at a program that can recruit great payers on defense, or otherwise at the top period. He's now at Mississippi State, which is no higher than #5 in the SEC West pecking order, if not the very bottom. So I don't think it is fair to claim his system can't win championships because he's never operated with the talent needed. Imagine what a roster full of very good NFL players beyond the QB could be if you had a system that is QB-friendly.

All this said, to me is Kyle Shanahan seems to have a very QB-friendly system himself. I mean even though Mullens isn't good enough, it sure seems to me Shanahan got more wins out of him than any other NFL coach could have. Imagine even an Andy Dalton level QB who can stay healthy, as Niners QB, with a stacked OL and defense. The Broncos won a Super Bowl with a dominant defense and clearly mediocre Peyton Manning. It can be done!

[magnus]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

[magnus]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

[BostonCard]

I'm not sure that Mike Leach's system would work well in the NFL.  It largely relies on beating a DB one on one, which you can do in college (especially going up against a team's fifth or sixth DB), but you generally aren't going to do in the NFL.  It's also why Leach can consistently beat undermanned defenses (including Stanford's over the last 4 years while he was at WSU) but struggles against good and disciplined defenses (look at Stanford's 2013 55-17 win where Connor Holliday was knocked out of the game).

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not sure that Mike Leach's system would work well in the NFL.  It largely relies on beating a DB one on one, which you can do in college (especially going up against a team's fifth or sixth DB), but you generally aren't going to do in the NFL.  It's also why Leach can consistently beat undermanned defenses (including Stanford's over the last 4 years while he was at WSU) but struggles against good and disciplined defenses (look at Stanford's 2013 55-17 win where Connor Holliday was knocked out of the game).

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

BC

[OutsiderFan]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

I think the problem with this is that it would be highly rare for a QB of high quality to be as cheap as a rookie, even on the downside. I mean Tom Brady and Philip Rivers are both getting $25M in 2020. Ditto Drew Brees. And as far as "lesser QBs." even Teddy Bridgewater and Matthew Stafford are at $23M+, so it seems the only way to "Moneyball" the QB position is with guys on rookie deals.  

What's nuts is Kirk Cousins is sitting at $21M in 2020, which is actually below Stafford and Bridgewater, and you think, ya, Cousins doesn't deserve more.  The thing is, what is he REALLY worth?  Is he worth just 15% less than Tom Brady? Hell no.  He's worth 50% less. But just because he plays QB you want to pay him $20M? This is silly. The first NFL team that recognizes how much QBs are overpaid, and adjusts accordingly, is going to do a lot of winning.

[OutsiderFan]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

I think the problem with this is that it would be highly rare for a QB of high quality to be as cheap as a rookie, even on the downside. I mean Tom Brady and Philip Rivers are both getting $25M in 2020. Ditto Drew Brees. And as far as "lesser QBs." even Teddy Bridgewater and Matthew Stafford are at $23M+, so it seems the only way to "Moneyball" the QB position is with guys on rookie deals.  

What's nuts is Kirk Cousins is sitting at $21M in 2020, which is actually below Stafford and Bridgewater, and you think, ya, Cousins doesn't deserve more.  The thing is, what is he REALLY worth?  Is he worth just 15% less than Tom Brady? Hell no.  He's worth 50% less. But just because he plays QB you want to pay him $20M? This is silly. The first NFL team that recognizes how much QBs are overpaid, and adjusts accordingly, is going to do a lot of winning.

[SamuelMcF]

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

I will say "getting more with less" also applies to Mississippi State. A similarly harder place to recruit to, relative to conference peers.

My gut generally agrees with you, but we'll have to wait a few years until the team is rebuilt. He can raid the transfer portal and get top JuCo guys from in-state to plug holes in the meantime.

[SamuelMcF]

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

I will say "getting more with less" also applies to Mississippi State. A similarly harder place to recruit to, relative to conference peers.

My gut generally agrees with you, but we'll have to wait a few years until the team is rebuilt. He can raid the transfer portal and get top JuCo guys from in-state to plug holes in the meantime.

[magnus]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

I think the problem with this is that it would be highly rare for a QB of high quality to be as cheap as a rookie, even on the downside. I mean Tom Brady and Philip Rivers are both getting $25M in 2020. Ditto Drew Brees. And as far as "lesser QBs." even Teddy Bridgewater and Matthew Stafford are at $23M+, so it seems the only way to "Moneyball" the QB position is with guys on rookie deals.  

What's nuts is Kirk Cousins is sitting at $21M in 2020, which is actually below Stafford and Bridgewater, and you think, ya, Cousins doesn't deserve more.  The thing is, what is he REALLY worth?  Is he worth just 15% less than Tom Brady? Hell no.  He's worth 50% less. But just because he plays QB you want to pay him $20M? This is silly. The first NFL team that recognizes how much QBs are overpaid, and adjusts accordingly, is going to do a lot of winning.

I'd say Brady and Rivers are both a tier higher than the game managers that might make an elite surrounding cast work.  Someone like or perhaps slightly better than Andy Dalton.   Perhaps a Flacco?

Doesn't Cousins make closer to $30M?  He signed 3 for nearly $90 (turned down $90M from the Jets, iirc).  Looks like he restructured this past year?  Oh and his cap hit is $21M, but he makes more than that.  Proves your point about him being overpaid even more. =)

[magnus]

In this alternate philosophy, why rely on rookie contracts for QBs.  Do as OF alludes to...grab a veteran QB who has seen better days, but at least has learned how to game manage and put them into a great supporting cast a la Trent Dilfer.

I think the problem with this is that it would be highly rare for a QB of high quality to be as cheap as a rookie, even on the downside. I mean Tom Brady and Philip Rivers are both getting $25M in 2020. Ditto Drew Brees. And as far as "lesser QBs." even Teddy Bridgewater and Matthew Stafford are at $23M+, so it seems the only way to "Moneyball" the QB position is with guys on rookie deals.  

What's nuts is Kirk Cousins is sitting at $21M in 2020, which is actually below Stafford and Bridgewater, and you think, ya, Cousins doesn't deserve more.  The thing is, what is he REALLY worth?  Is he worth just 15% less than Tom Brady? Hell no.  He's worth 50% less. But just because he plays QB you want to pay him $20M? This is silly. The first NFL team that recognizes how much QBs are overpaid, and adjusts accordingly, is going to do a lot of winning.

I'd say Brady and Rivers are both a tier higher than the game managers that might make an elite surrounding cast work.  Someone like or perhaps slightly better than Andy Dalton.   Perhaps a Flacco?

Doesn't Cousins make closer to $30M?  He signed 3 for nearly $90 (turned down $90M from the Jets, iirc).  Looks like he restructured this past year?  Oh and his cap hit is $21M, but he makes more than that.  Proves your point about him being overpaid even more. =)

[BostonCard]

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

I will say "getting more with less" also applies to Mississippi State. A similarly harder place to recruit to, relative to conference peers.

My gut generally agrees with you, but we'll have to wait a few years until the team is rebuilt. He can raid the transfer portal and get top JuCo guys from in-state to plug holes in the meantime.

I think the median SEC defense is better than the median PAC-12 or Big12 defense, so I think he will struggle to win games in conference.  Within their division, they will be able to beat Arkansas, may be competitive with Auburn and Ole Miss depending on the year, and will probably struggle with Alabama, LSU, and Texas A&M most years.  That adds up to a lot of 2-4 seasons in division.  Next year they play Kentucky and Vandy in the East, so they might chock up two more wins, and they should get some cupcake out of conference opponents, so I see a bunch of 5-7 to 7-5 seasons.  Moorhead was fired after going 8-4, 6-7 so I wonder how long Leech will last.

BC

[BostonCard]

Leach is well suited for getting more with less in places like Texas Tech and WSU, but we will see whether he will be able to as much against the SEC.  My guess is he will win a coupe games a year against teams like Vandebilt and Arkansas, and will crush the four non-conference patsies the play but will struggle in the SEC (and not just on defense).

I will say "getting more with less" also applies to Mississippi State. A similarly harder place to recruit to, relative to conference peers.

My gut generally agrees with you, but we'll have to wait a few years until the team is rebuilt. He can raid the transfer portal and get top JuCo guys from in-state to plug holes in the meantime.

I think the median SEC defense is better than the median PAC-12 or Big12 defense, so I think he will struggle to win games in conference.  Within their division, they will be able to beat Arkansas, may be competitive with Auburn and Ole Miss depending on the year, and will probably struggle with Alabama, LSU, and Texas A&M most years.  That adds up to a lot of 2-4 seasons in division.  Next year they play Kentucky and Vandy in the East, so they might chock up two more wins, and they should get some cupcake out of conference opponents, so I see a bunch of 5-7 to 7-5 seasons.  Moorhead was fired after going 8-4, 6-7 so I wonder how long Leech will last.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

My favorite moment of that video was:

How does it make sense to pay Jared Goff $28 million to run bootlegs and throw 5 yard passes?

Now the Rams are forced to play a game they might need to win to make the playoffs, with a QB who has never taken a snap in an NFL game, this weekend against the Cardinals. This is in part because they paid a king's ransom for a slightly better than average QB and didn't invest anything in a capable backup.

The Rams paid Jared Goff $28 million to be rank #22 in QBR in 2020. Just insane. Interestingly, they paid Aaron Donald $25 million to be the best DL in the game. Just goes to show the sheer folly of adopting a "the QB is the highest paid guy" groupthink that plagues the NFL. Aaron Donald should be the highest paid player on the Rams.  Good for him that he's the highest paid DL, but the fact Goff is paid more really has to be questioned.

[OutsiderFan]

My favorite moment of that video was:

How does it make sense to pay Jared Goff $28 million to run bootlegs and throw 5 yard passes?

Now the Rams are forced to play a game they might need to win to make the playoffs, with a QB who has never taken a snap in an NFL game, this weekend against the Cardinals. This is in part because they paid a king's ransom for a slightly better than average QB and didn't invest anything in a capable backup.

The Rams paid Jared Goff $28 million to be rank #22 in QBR in 2020. Just insane. Interestingly, they paid Aaron Donald $25 million to be the best DL in the game. Just goes to show the sheer folly of adopting a "the QB is the highest paid guy" groupthink that plagues the NFL. Aaron Donald should be the highest paid player on the Rams.  Good for him that he's the highest paid DL, but the fact Goff is paid more really has to be questioned.

[lex24]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. And then there’s a market. There are only 32 starting NFL quarterbacks. There a hell of a lot more starters at the other position groups. It’s logical that quarterback is the highest paid position

Look at this years playoffs. The favorites: KC and Buffalo in AFC. Seattle, GB and NO in the NFC. Only Brees, at this stage is not elite. (Allen has played at elite level this year) And of course Brees was elite for many years prior. He just has no arm left.

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

[lex24]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. And then there’s a market. There are only 32 starting NFL quarterbacks. There a hell of a lot more starters at the other position groups. It’s logical that quarterback is the highest paid position

Look at this years playoffs. The favorites: KC and Buffalo in AFC. Seattle, GB and NO in the NFC. Only Brees, at this stage is not elite. (Allen has played at elite level this year) And of course Brees was elite for many years prior. He just has no arm left.

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

[OutsiderFan]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. 

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to is that guy that can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

Did you watch the video?

[OutsiderFan]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. 

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to is that guy that can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

Did you watch the video?

[lex24]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. 

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to is that guy that can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

Did you watch the video?

Yes. Look at a list of SB winners. Tell me how many didn’t have elite QB’s.  I get that you can win earlier with a QB now.  So you get that rookie contract break.   But your hope obviously is that that rookie blossoms into somebody who can win you a Super Bowl. And if that’s the case when it’s time to renegotiate you’re going to back up the truck and dump a bunch of money on his lawn. If not,  then you realize your mistake and go to Plan B.

 As for the comments on JG it’s what we’ve all been saying all along so nothing particularly new there.

[lex24]

If your goal is to be a Championship team you need an elite QB.  With very few exceptions the SB is won with an elite QB. And an elite QB can turn around a franchise. Look at what Luck did prior to retiring. 

You can win games with a serviceable QB.  But generally you are limited. And you won’t  take home the prize. 

The goal is to win the SB.  The trick is determining if the guy you want to give the massive contract to is that guy that can give you that chance. JG shined in a bunch of meaningless games in ‘17 and the Niners backed the money truck up.  In hindsight, a mistake.

Did you watch the video?

Yes. Look at a list of SB winners. Tell me how many didn’t have elite QB’s.  I get that you can win earlier with a QB now.  So you get that rookie contract break.   But your hope obviously is that that rookie blossoms into somebody who can win you a Super Bowl. And if that’s the case when it’s time to renegotiate you’re going to back up the truck and dump a bunch of money on his lawn. If not,  then you realize your mistake and go to Plan B.

 As for the comments on JG it’s what we’ve all been saying all along so nothing particularly new there.

[BostonCard]

Although the metric is somewhat of a black box, the estimates are that an elite QB (Mahomes now, Brady at the peak of his career), is worth about 5 wins over a replacement QB.  By contrast, even an elite running back (McCaffrey last year, for instance) is only worth about 1 WAR.  most Defenders are worth even less, because the defense is worth about as much as the weakest player, not the strongest.  You can have an elite lockdown corner on one side, but if your nickel is below average, or you have a lousy linebacker in coverage, the other team can just have a field day exploiting them.

Teams are not overpaying for elite qb’s.  Teams are overpaying for mediocre QB’s though.

BC

[BostonCard]

Although the metric is somewhat of a black box, the estimates are that an elite QB (Mahomes now, Brady at the peak of his career), is worth about 5 wins over a replacement QB.  By contrast, even an elite running back (McCaffrey last year, for instance) is only worth about 1 WAR.  most Defenders are worth even less, because the defense is worth about as much as the weakest player, not the strongest.  You can have an elite lockdown corner on one side, but if your nickel is below average, or you have a lousy linebacker in coverage, the other team can just have a field day exploiting them.

Teams are not overpaying for elite qb’s.  Teams are overpaying for mediocre QB’s though.

BC

[Mick]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

[Mick]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

[BostonCard]

Brad Johnson, who won SuperBowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buckaneers is probably the least elite QB to win a SB.
Trent Dilfer, who won SuperBowl XXXV with Baltimore would be the second least elite QB to win a SB.

BC

[BostonCard]

Brad Johnson, who won SuperBowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buckaneers is probably the least elite QB to win a SB.
Trent Dilfer, who won SuperBowl XXXV with Baltimore would be the second least elite QB to win a SB.

BC

[French Rage]

Brad Johnson, who won SuperBowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buckaneers is probably the least elite QB to win a SB.
Trent Dilfer, who won SuperBowl XXXV with Baltimore would be the second least elite QB to win a SB.

BC

Dilfer has to be worse than Johnson, right?

[French Rage]

Brad Johnson, who won SuperBowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buckaneers is probably the least elite QB to win a SB.
Trent Dilfer, who won SuperBowl XXXV with Baltimore would be the second least elite QB to win a SB.

BC

Dilfer has to be worse than Johnson, right?

[BostonCard]

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

[lex24]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

Namath was certainly considered elite in his prime. Maybe a tad overrated. But his career was hampered by injuries.

---

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

Off the top of my head:  Dilfer, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, Theisman and Mark Rypien come to mind.

Which brings me to Joe Gibbs.  3 SB wins with 3 QB’s none of whom were great players. Williams probably the best. (Actually Theisman (pronounced Theesman prior to ND promoter) was better, but I couldnt stand the guy....)  Gibbs is a very underrated coach.

[lex24]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

Namath was certainly considered elite in his prime. Maybe a tad overrated. But his career was hampered by injuries.

---

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

Off the top of my head:  Dilfer, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, Theisman and Mark Rypien come to mind.

Which brings me to Joe Gibbs.  3 SB wins with 3 QB’s none of whom were great players. Williams probably the best. (Actually Theisman (pronounced Theesman prior to ND promoter) was better, but I couldnt stand the guy....)  Gibbs is a very underrated coach.

[teejers1]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

Namath was certainly considered elite in his prime. Maybe a tad overrated. But his career was hampered by injuries.

---

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

Off the top of my head:  Dilfer, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, Theisman and Mark Rypien come to mind.

Which brings me to Joe Gibbs.  3 SB wins with 3 QB’s none of whom were great players. Williams probably the best. (Actually Theisman (pronounced Theesman prior to ND  promoter) was better, but I couldnt stand the guy....)  Gibbs is a very underrated coach.

Yeah, I'm inclined to side with those who think you do not need a super-elite QB to win a Super Bowl.  Does anyone here think Jimmy G. is elite?  I think he is good, when healthy.  But he had a great team and the 'Niners could have won that game with one stop on 3rd and 15 (though I think KC probably goes for it on fourth down there).  And I also put more blame for the L on some dubious late-game play calling by Shanahan, particularly on a second and short call where the pass was deflected.  But I'm shaky on details now as I've tried to repress that disappointing L.

And in this day and age, if you have to pay elite QBs ridiculous money, then it will get much harder for those QBs to win SBs, as the organization will not be able to field a sufficiently competitive rest-of-team.  I think we'll start to see that more with all these ridiculous second QB contracts.  In this salary cap world, I'm not sure any QB - even Mahomes - is worth 30+ million/year.  But if anyone is, it's him.  Amazing to watch that guy play.

[teejers1]

Interesting thread on Super Bowl QBs and their ratings.  Very few non-Elite QBs won super bowls.  Namath and Plunkett were probably closest to that definition (although I've always considered Plunkett to be an elite QB):

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid286797

Namath was certainly considered elite in his prime. Maybe a tad overrated. But his career was hampered by injuries.

---

I mean, at least Dilfer was a first round draft pick (Johnson was a 9th round pick), but it's tough.  Johnson has slightly better career numbers, but both of them easily fit the definition of "journeymen".

BC

Off the top of my head:  Dilfer, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, Theisman and Mark Rypien come to mind.

Which brings me to Joe Gibbs.  3 SB wins with 3 QB’s none of whom were great players. Williams probably the best. (Actually Theisman (pronounced Theesman prior to ND  promoter) was better, but I couldnt stand the guy....)  Gibbs is a very underrated coach.

Yeah, I'm inclined to side with those who think you do not need a super-elite QB to win a Super Bowl.  Does anyone here think Jimmy G. is elite?  I think he is good, when healthy.  But he had a great team and the 'Niners could have won that game with one stop on 3rd and 15 (though I think KC probably goes for it on fourth down there).  And I also put more blame for the L on some dubious late-game play calling by Shanahan, particularly on a second and short call where the pass was deflected.  But I'm shaky on details now as I've tried to repress that disappointing L.

And in this day and age, if you have to pay elite QBs ridiculous money, then it will get much harder for those QBs to win SBs, as the organization will not be able to field a sufficiently competitive rest-of-team.  I think we'll start to see that more with all these ridiculous second QB contracts.  In this salary cap world, I'm not sure any QB - even Mahomes - is worth 30+ million/year.  But if anyone is, it's him.  Amazing to watch that guy play.