Barnwell: Building a Team Around a QB on a Rookie Contract

[26CornerBlitz]

 

The Seahawks, Eagles, and Rams come to mind immediately.  Hopefully the Bills will follow suit within the next few seasons. 

[eball]

Is this new?  I thought it was common knowledge that's what teams have been doing when they "get it right" with a young QB.

[Teddy KGB]

I though Barnwell said we should keep tuhrod forever. 

[Starr Almighty]

I have to believe this is the plan. They went and got a QB and cleaned up the cap situation.

[bmur66]

Duh!. That is why the Bills should win a Superbowl within the next 5 years

Edited September 27, 2018 by bmur66

[Royale with Cheese]

How would you guys feel if they made adjustments to the salary cap in regards to the QB?  Something like X QB makes $25 million a year but only counts $18 million towards the cap? Come up with some sort of formula.

 

That way one position doesn’t eat so much up and you can still have money to build the roster?

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

I like the thought process behind this - if you move Goff for a 1st (or more) to a QB-desperate team you can draft his replacement and maintain the majority of your core.  

 

I would also probably be taking shots every year at QBs if that was the case.  Find a late round gem and hes even cheaper than a 1st rounder on a rookie contract.

[billsfan1959]

I read this article this morning. There are numerous examples of teams going south after paying franchise money to their QBs. IMHO, (1) it is difficult to keep a lot of top tier talent on the roster when a team is paying a QB franchise money, (2) a true franchise QB (i.e.; Brady, Rodgers, Brees) can carry a team that is stocked with two or three other top tier players, but mostly good, second tier talent and solid young players on rookie contracts (relying on good talent evaluation in the draft and free agency), and, unfortunately, (3) in a QB driven/starved league, there are far too many teams paying franchise money to non-franchise QBs.

Edited September 27, 2018 by billsfan1959

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, eball said:

Is this new?  I thought it was common knowledge that's what teams have been doing when they "get it right" with a young QB.

I didn’t read it but I think that the suggestion is that when you get near the end of the rookie deal you move to the next rookie deal. Maybe you even tag and trade the QB for a boatload of assets. 

[eball]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I didn’t read it but I think that the suggestion is that when you get near the end of the rookie deal you move to the next rookie deal. Maybe you even tag and trade the QB for a boatload of assets. 

 

Oh.  Maybe.  I didn't read it either.

[billsfan1959]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I didn’t read it but I think that the suggestion is that when you get near the end of the rookie deal you move to the next rookie deal. Maybe you even tag and trade the QB for a boatload of assets. 

That was the suggestion. You had better be spot on in your evaluation if you trade a top QB for a top draft pick to select another QB

[LeviF]

The idea Barnwell is putting forward is not "build a team around a good rookie QB" but "build a team around a long succession of rookie-deal QBs" by trading said rookie deal QB during/after the fourth year of their rookie deal.  The idea being that you can trade said QB for another top pick, pick another QB, and continue the same process again and again.

 

The obvious question is whether or not a team can continuously draft good QBs who will produce in such a way that they can get those high value picks.  Barnwell points out that with that trade you're not just getting another top QB prospect, but also the opportunity to put the money saved towards other key pieces of your team.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, billsfan1959 said:

That was the suggestion. You had better be spot on in your evaluation if you trade a top QB for a top draft pick to select another QB

I don't think you do it if you have a top guy, but when the QB is decent it may be worth shipping him out and using the assets on another low cost swing instead of re-upping the contract. Guys like Mariota and Winston are guys that wouldn't make the cut imo.

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

That was the suggestion. You had better be spot on in your evaluation if you trade a top QB for a top draft pick to select another QB

Yeah, it’s risky but it comes with high upside. Football guys are typically the last to adapt so I doubt that we ever see it. It’s an interesting thought. As an example if the Raiders would have played out Derek Carr’s deal, tagged him and traded him for a bunch of picks the Raiders may have been better off?

 

If we ever get to that point I think that you will start to see starting QB salaries drop and maybe even a new middle class of QBs that play an important role in case the team misses on the “next guy.” 

[BillsVet]

In other words, QBs cost too much and reducing the investment in one with a similar or good enough level of play is essential. 

 

I will say it's easier to get decent to good QB play now than it was 10 or 15 years ago when the rules weren't slanted toward offense as much. 

 

I think all of this is market driven. If there are more guys capable of playing, the options for a team are greater and cost should go down. But we've not seen that yet with the passing game being primary to successful offenses.  I also don't think there will be, unless offenses evolve even further toward the college game, enough supply of QBs for this concept to work. 

 

 

[Soda Popinski]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

How would you guys feel if they made adjustments to the salary cap in regards to the QB?  Something like X QB makes $25 million a year but only counts $18 million towards the cap? Come up with some sort of formula.

 

That way one position doesn’t eat so much up and you can still have money to build the roster?

I don't think that is necessary the cap is going to hit 200 million very soon.   I know QBs eat up a significant chunk of that but at the same time the cap is what levels the playing field so teams that aren't paying a franchise QB can be competitive. 

[RochesterRob]

44 minutes ago, dneveu said:

I like the thought process behind this - if you move Goff for a 1st (or more) to a QB-desperate team you can draft his replacement and maintain the majority of your core.  

 

I would also probably be taking shots every year at QBs if that was the case.  Find a late round gem and hes even cheaper than a 1st rounder on a rookie contract.

   Move Goff THEN draft his replacement?  I don't want to overstate team morale/chemistry but that will have the rest of the roster scratching their heads at the least.  Most teams like the idea of late round gems but it is easier said than done.  Otherwise trade ups in the draft would be pretty rare occurrences.

Edited September 27, 2018 by RochesterRob

[Cheektowaga Chad]

I think you will start to see this with a lot of guys like flacco or a guy like Carr. The qb's that are good solid starters but not worth the long term big money commitment. Teams will never trade a guy that's a Brady Rodgers brees mvp type qb as these guys make the team.

[billsfan1959]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I don't think you do it if you have a top guy, but when the QB is decent it may be worth shipping him out and using the assets on another low cost swing instead of re-upping the contract. Guys like Mariota and Winston are guys that wouldn't make the cut imo.

 

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yeah, it’s risky but it comes with high upside. Football guys are typically the last to adapt so I doubt that we ever see it. It’s an interesting thought. As an example if the Raiders would have played out Derek Carr’s deal, tagged him and traded him for a bunch of picks the Raiders may have been better off?

 

If we ever get to that point I think that you will start to see starting QB salaries drop and maybe even a new middle class of QBs that play an important role in case the team misses on the “next guy.” 

I think there are very few GMs that would have the balls to do it; however, QBs like Carr, Mariota, and Winston would be the exact type of players would be in the "I might consider it" range

[RyanC883]

This is an interesting idea.   Ideally you would trade the younger guy (i.e. Carr), get a high draft pick, draft a QB, and then ALSO bring in a veteran such as Fitzpatrick, etc. who can play if the rookie falters and/or until ready.   While you are doing that, you build out a great support staff of O-line and D.   Put a system in place that can win with someone like Foles.  

[BillsFan130]

It depends on the QB.

 

No way I would move someone like Ben, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Cam, Ryan. 

 

But I for sure agree if they are talking about QBs like Dalton, Tannehill, Flacco, maybe even Stafford. (Mid level to above average guys that make a descent amount of money)

[RyanC883]

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think there are very few GMs that would have the balls to do it; however, QBs like Carr, Mariota, and Winston would be the exact type of players would be in the "I might consider it" range

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

[Jay_Fixit]

1 hour ago, Teddy KGB said:

I though Barnwell said we should keep tuhrod forever. 

I could see that. Barnwell was a huge Tyrod supporter. 

 

Thats what happens when you dont watch him every game like we did.

 

Now people know.

[RyanC883]

Just now, billsfan11 said:

It depends on the QB.

 

No way I would move someone like Ben, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Wilson, Rivers, Cam, Ryan. 

 

But I for sure agree if they are talking about QBs like Dalton, Tannehill, Flacco, maybe even Stafford. (Mid level to above average guys that make a descent amount of money)

 

Big Ben is interesting in that the Steelers arguably went the opposite direction of what this article suggests.  They ditched high-priced guys and replaced them (Mike Wallace, kept AB, not signing Bell, etc).  You have to hit on a lot of draft picks.  But a QB like Ben makes a lot of the offense look great.  The D on the other hand has taken a while.  

[BillsFan130]

Just now, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

Ya those are good points you make. 

 

I can't see teams giving away 1st round picks for Mariota, etc.

 

Very tough decisions GMs have to make.

 

Overpay for a guy who is descent? Or move him for what you can get, and try your luck again in the draft

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

It totally depends on the circumstances. It was only a couple short years ago that the Vikings traded a 1st and a future 3rd/2nd/1st for Samuel 'Deer in the headlights' Bradford.

[billsfan1959]

Just now, RyanC883 said:

 

the question is: what return do you get for trading a guy like Mariota or Winston.  I think Carr could still get you a decent haul, but the lower end guys your looking at a 3rd or 2nd rounder at best.  

 

I agree that few GM's would have the balls to do this.   

The same thought runs through my mind and, then, I see teams like the Denver Broncos dish out 36 million to Case Keenum. I think there will always be teams that think look at guys like Mariota and Winston and think they could win now with them

[Bray Wyatt]

the issue I have with this article, the theory relies on being able to scout and draft well. Most would agree that picking a qb is the toughest position. Wouldnt it make more sense to keep the QB, and draft the other positions? Its like saying trade Kahlil Mack and then draft a rookie DE and see how much money you save!  

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[Fadingpain]

28 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

The idea Barnwell is putting forward is not "build a team around a good rookie QB" but "build a team around a long succession of rookie-deal QBs" by trading said rookie deal QB during/after the fourth year of their rookie deal.  The idea being that you can trade said QB for another top pick, pick another QB, and continue the same process again and again.

 

The obvious question is whether or not a team can continuously draft good QBs who will produce in such a way that they can get those high value picks.  Barnwell points out that with that trade you're not just getting another top QB prospect, but also the opportunity to put the money saved towards other key pieces of your team.

The flaw with his thinking is that there is not a universal supply of high quality QBs out there waiting to be picked up by a savvy team every 5 years.

 

It's just the opposite; high quality QBs seem to be discovered by accident and are few and far between, so that when you find one, you should hold onto them for dear life until they can no longer play.

 

Enjoy the winning while the good QB is in his playing window...and constantly look to find his replacement along the way, assuming that most of the time you will not find that person.

 

 

 

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

[mannc]

Just now, buffalobloodfloridahome said:

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

Stafford is a bad example.  He is mediocre.

[billsfan1959]

1 minute ago, Fadingpain said:

The flaw with his thinking is that there is not a universal supply of high quality QBs out there waiting to be picked up by a savvy team every 5 years.

 

It's just the opposite; high quality QBs seem to be discovered by accident and are few and far between, so that when you find one, you should hold onto them for dear life until they can no longer play.

 

Enjoy the winning while the good QB is in his playing window...and constantly look to find his replacement along the way, assuming that most of the time you will not find that person.

 

 

 

I guess it would depend on your definition of a "high quality" QB. To me, they are guys like Brady, Rodgers, and Brees, who do not come along very often - and sometimes they are found by accident (Brady) and sometimes they obvious (Manning). However, guys like Mariota and Winston seem to come along every couple of years or so.

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

3 minutes ago, mannc said:

Stafford is a bad example.  He is mediocre.

Still one of the highest paid QB's in the game.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

   Move Goff THEN draft his replacement?  I don't want to overstate team morale/chemistry but that will have the rest of the roster scratching their heads at the least.  Most teams like the idea of late round gems but it is easier said than done.  Otherwise trade ups in the draft would be pretty rare occurrences.

 

The idea is that the team will be dismantled if you extend him anyway.  5th year option buys you a year.  Then he gets his extension and it becomes a major problem to keep players. 

 

The late round guy would be brought in say - this years draft in the 3rd.  Then when goff hits 5th year option, you can look to move him if you are comfortable with the 3rd rd replacement for at least a year (he's had time in the offense, etc).  And can use the picks you get to replenish depth, and possibly draft the next goff.

 

It is not conventional - but the article shows how teams with expensive QBs aren't doing particularly hot anyway - Ravens, Bengals, Raiders, 49ers, Colts, Lions, Chargers - etc. 

 

You keep the strong defense together, you keep your top level playmakers, and you build in the trenches.  It also becomes a QB desirable location from a FA perspective if you need a player for a year.

Edited September 27, 2018 by dneveu

[RochesterRob]

25 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

The idea is that the team will be dismantled if you extend him anyway.  5th year option buys you a year.  Then he gets his extension and it becomes a major problem to keep players. 

 

The late round guy would be brought in say - this years draft in the 3rd.  Then when goff hits 5th year option, you can look to move him if you are comfortable with the 3rd rd replacement for at least a year (he's had time in the offense, etc).  And can use the picks you get to replenish depth, and possibly draft the next goff.

 

It is not conventional - but the article shows how teams with expensive QBs aren't doing particularly hot anyway - Ravens, Bengals, Raiders, 49ers, Colts, Lions, Chargers - etc. 

 

You keep the strong defense together, you keep your top level playmakers, and you build in the trenches.  It also becomes a QB desirable location from a FA perspective if you need a player for a year.

  If it were only as easy as devising a plan then all teams would be contenders.  The problem is that a majority of the time a prospect does not live up to expectations.  It's easy to say that a team will draft a QB in the 3rd and he will be ready when you want to trade your starter but it seldom happens that way.  The owners did it to themselves by offering outrageous contracts to lure or keep key players.  Now they have to deal with certain positions being top heavy in salary.  By the way you need to have players around that are productive over multiple years.  If you are lucky you get 3 long term answers per draft and most contracts are up within 5 years.  So you have to break the cycle of turning players over before you establish a nucleus.  This is done in part with good scouting ahead of the draft and renewing positions that are not cap breakers in terms of salary.  Even that is easier said than done but you have to start there before you can do the specific if/ then's like you are talking with the QB position.

[dollars 2 donuts]

Tangential to this:  what does everyone think of Carr?

 

Was that a mistake by the Raiders or is he just a victim of what's going on right now with that team?

 

That's what scares me a bit.  A QB who looks great, you give him the bucks and then he turns out not to be what you would consider a franchise QB.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

17 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  If it were only as easy as devising a plan then all teams would be contenders.  The problem is that a majority of the time a prospect does not live up to expectations.  It's easy to say that a team will draft a QB in the 3rd and he will be ready when you want to trade your starter but it seldom happens that way.  The owners did it to themselves by offering outrageous contracts to lure or keep key players.  Now they have to deal with certain positions being top heavy in salary.  By the way you need to have players around that are productive over multiple years.  If you are lucky you get 3 long term answers per draft and most contracts are up within 5 years.  So you have to break the cycle of turning players over before you establish a nucleus.  This is done in part with good scouting ahead of the draft and renewing positions that are not cap breakers in terms of salary.  Even that is easier said than done but you have to start there before you can do the specific if/ then's like you are talking with the QB position.

 

It's different and unconventional.  It's just an idea.  Otherwise they go down the same road of either slowly beginning to rebuild their roster in year 1, or fully gutting their roster on year 2 or 3 of a QB contract.  

13 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

Tangential to this:  what does everyone think of Carr?

 

Was that a mistake by the Raiders or is he just a victim of what's going on right now with that team?

 

That's what scares me a bit.  A QB who looks great, you give him the bucks and then he turns out not to be what you would consider a franchise QB.

 

He seems like... a good not great QB.  Somewhere around that dalton/flacco/tannehill level.  They all have moments where they look great, and moments where they look inconsistent.

[QCity]

The Rams traded 6 high-round draft picks to get Goff. The notion of trading Goff after 5 years if he is successful is ridiculous. I can't fathom the amount of hubris it would take for this. The QB is the foundation of your team that you want to build upon, not some part you swap out. The only thing you'll get from trading a young, star quarterback is an unemployment check.

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, buffalobloodfloridahome said:

Packers are a glaring example of a team with an incredible QB and very little depth around him. Ravens spent so much on Flacco couldn't afford talent around him. Stafford has always had a weak defense because they don't have the money for it. Patriots keep dumping talent and having to reload because of Brady and Gronk salaries.

 

the ravens haven't drafted well to put talent around flacco so everyone thinks he's awful. Now he's off to a nice start because...he's got some weapons.  They've been able to keep the defense going with two great signings in the secondary.  You're right about the packers and lions.  Neither team seems to be able to find a run game to balance the offense.  The year the pack won the superbowl they had a top 5 defense.  The lions turn over coaches and systems along with their poor drafting and the losing just continues.  

 

Belichick and the steelers always seem to get talent on their rosters to go along with elite qb play.  guess who's in afc title games every year? them.  same staffs and systems. draft well and you win games. 

[wppete]

We are in the perfect position to build around Allen and the Defense. $80-$90million in cap room and 10 Draft picks. Hopefully some quality free age system want to come to Buffalo.