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

[Mickey]

This is ridiculous. The idea that a team would trade a player like Wentz or Geoff at the end of their rookie contracts is absurd. What for? The chance to draft the next EJ Manuel? Trying this with lesser quarterbacks is only slightly less implausible as they will not garner any picks. Teams would be trading a sure thing for a chance that maybe this draft has a playoff caliber QB in it and maybe they can trade for enough picks so that maybe they will be able to draft that QB before someone else does. Oh, and if he isn't, you're the moron who traded Carson Wentz for a diseased hamster. Brilliant. It's not that there are no GM's brave enough give this a try. There are no GM's dumb enough to set their careers ablaze based on a half-baked twitter born theory.

 

 

[DuckyBoys]

More likely than he is suggesting is that teams use more of their draft capital on QB, LT, pass rusher, and CB than every before.  Each year it feels like we see more QB's being drafted early  I could see a 1st round that is almost exclusively made up of premium position players

[dollars 2 donuts]

27 minutes ago, Mickey said:

This is ridiculous. The idea that a team would trade a player like Wentz or Geoff at the end of their rookie contracts is absurd. What for? The chance to draft the next EJ Manuel? Trying this with lesser quarterbacks is only slightly less implausible as they will not garner any picks. Teams would be trading a sure thing for a chance that maybe this draft has a playoff caliber QB in it and maybe they can trade for enough picks so that maybe they will be able to draft that QB before someone else does. Oh, and if he isn't, you're the moron who traded Carson Wentz for a diseased hamster. Brilliant. It's not that there are no GM's brave enough give this a try. There are no GM's dumb enough to set their careers ablaze based on a half-baked twitter born theory.

 

 

 

It is so dangerous it isn't even worth discussing.

 

One man's Manning becomes another man's Ryan Leaf.

 

Who the hell wants to take that chance when you still get a great QB for approximately a decade?

 

Does anyone really think the Saints hate that Brees has been their QB in the decade since their Super Bowl?

Edited September 27, 2018 by dollars 2 donuts

[H2o]

5 hours 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?

The Pats already do this. They just slide Brady the $$$ through back channels and offshore accounts. 

[2ForMacAdoo]

10 hours 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.

 

Incorrect on the Cheatriots. Brady has made that 18 year dynasty possible on cap friendly contracts. Gronk is arguably (from a statistical perspective) the greatest TE to ever play the game. Until just this year, he was not a top 3 paid TE in the NFL.

[Dr. Who]

Let's hypothetically imagine that Josh Allen turns out to be the qb we hope for. We've waited twenty years for a fella to fill Jim Kelly's shoes. Now you find a genuine franchise qb, but Moneyball suggests trading him for draft capital and salary cap flexibility. You gonna trade the franchise qb bird-in-hand for lottery tickets where the odds are heavily stacked against you winning?  Hairbrained idea.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dr. Who

[Albany,n.y.]

The idea that you can just dial up a franchise QB is absurd.  Another thing that hurts the article is his use of too many mediocre QBs as examples of guys to trade.  If you get a franchise QB, especially a future HOFer, you must retain him as long as he's playing at a high level.  Just ask Bills fans who are on our 7th GM looking for a franchise QB since Jim Kelly retired over 21 years ago.  If you want to jettison your true franchise QB & roll the dice, be prepared for a 17 year playoff drought. 

[CLTbills]

The problem is, what happens in 5 years when he comes off of that rookie contract?

[John from Riverside]

23 hours 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.

We have some qbs in the league that are playing that way right now.....and might fizzle after that hot start.

 

To me I think it is about situation.....the great drafting (where you normally find your QB) cannot stop at the QB...you have to draft talent around him and let them grow together....and free agency should be used to find the pieces that you didnt draft.

 

Coaching and scheme fit are important to

[K-9]

Team building is never a linear process. No matter how much we want to try to convince ourselves that it is. 

[Buddo]

While I can see the thought behind this, I think you should adapt it, in respect of looking to ‘perpetually ‘ restock the other really high priced positions. I.e. LT, DE, DT & CB. Drafting each of those positions regularly. 

[DuckyBoys]

well he is writing the article as the NFL is enjoying a nice run on decent qbs being drafted  Last few years have had a better than average amount of at least short term success drafting the qb position.  I think that is atypical and will revert at some point.  Its really strange that with the rookie salary cap implemented the bust rate for qbs seems to have come down some

[SoTier]

 

On 9/27/2018 at 11:55 AM, 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 problem is that, in reality about half of all first round QBs are busts -- they'll never be better than expensive backups.   Even for consensus first pick QBs, 20% fail.   Add in the first rounders who aren't busts but are disappointments (I'd put both Mariota and Winston in this category), and the chances of getting a true franchise QB is probably maybe 3% (1 out of 32) since most drafts yield, at best, only 1 excellent QB, and great ones are even more rare.  Some drafts, like 2002, 2007, and 2013, don't produce even 1 mediocre QB.

 

On 9/27/2018 at 12:27 PM, Bray Wyatt said:

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!  

 

 

What happens if there is no potential franchise QB to draft as your current franchise QB is at the end of his contract?  What if your guy is only in his fourth year, and you see this great QB to draft ... but if you do, then you'll have to trade your starter early or waste a year with your new QB.  This theory is simply unrealistic.

 

 

[mannc]

On 9/27/2018 at 11:06 AM, QCity said:

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.

Yep.  I generally like Barnwell, but this article is just silly.  No team is going to trade away their 27-year old franchise qb to take a chance on another guy in the draft.  On the other hand, you might see teams try this with not-quite-franchise caliber guys like Carr, Tannehill, or maybe Mariota.  Problem is, those guys won’t bring nearly as much in return.

[Buddo]

12 hours ago, mannc said:

Yep.  I generally like Barnwell, but this article is just silly.  No team is going to trade away their 27-year old franchise qb to take a chance on another guy in the draft.  On the other hand, you might see teams try this with not-quite-franchise caliber guys like Carr, Tannehill, or maybe Mariota.  Problem is, those guys won’t bring nearly as much in return.

 

To an extent, this is what has happened with Alex Smith. At least once he had a couple of years with Harbaugh.

 

I also don't see the ready made production line of BQs. As pointed out earlier by someone else, some years there isn't even one decent one.

 

I'd also say that with the possible exception of Brees, big QB contracts should only really hurt you for a year or two, as the cap keeps going up. Switched on Front Offices, ought to be creating some room for when these contracts are due, to minimise their effect.