Jump to content

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


26CornerBlitz

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by billsfan1959
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.” 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RochesterRob
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...