Josh Allen "Prove it" Season In Year 3

[DuckyBoys]

Long as he continues to show improvement I dont see what the hurry is.  He was  a physically freakish project qb coming out. Bills did nothing but throw him into the lions den with a steak around his neck year one  .  Year two they added some support around him but the conservative play calling and washed up Frank Gore and lack of a second outside wr hurt his production.  Year three the O line should be better.  Diggs gives the Bills two wrs who can win on the outside and Singeltary plus whomever they bring in has to be an improvements of what was left of Frank Gore.   Until McDermott quits sitting on small leads he still might struggle to push up to 240 yards a game.  The defense is good enough that a 10 point lead and Daboll takes a quarter off from even trying to push the ball 

[longtimebillsfan]

2 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

This is part of the reason why I liked the Diggs trade.  The Bills weren’t going to be on Jerry Juedy or CeeeeDeeee Lamb.  Even if they did,

rookie WR’s sometimes take time to develop.  
 

No excuses with Diggs 
 

 

Agreed.  Like Beans said, dogs is our first found draft pick.  All in on this trade. 

43 minutes ago, DuckyBoys said:

Long as he continues to show improvement I dont see what the hurry is.  He was  a physically freakish project qb coming out. Bills did nothing but throw him into the lions den with a steak around his neck year one  .  Year two they added some support around him but the conservative play calling and washed up Frank Gore and lack of a second outside wr hurt his production.  Year three the O line should be better.  Diggs gives the Bills two wrs who can win on the outside and Singeltary plus whomever they bring in has to be an improvements of what was left of Frank Gore.   Until McDermott quits sitting on small leads he still might struggle to push up to 240 yards a game.  The defense is good enough that a 10 point lead and Daboll takes a quarter off from even trying to push the ball 

Supposedly,  the retraints are coming off this year.  I would love to see what Josh will do in a wide open offense.

[BuffaloBills1998]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:33 AM, jrober38 said:

 

We have a year to figure it out which is good. I think he needs to improve a lot.  

 

At his current level, I don't think he warrants the $30 mil/year he'll likely ask for.

 

Recent history has shown that paying non elite QBs has major effects on that team's ability to win football games after the new contract kicks in. 

Would you rather see us in QB purgatory again? Allen’s the best QB we’ve had since Kelly and it seems like everyone wants him out. ***** ridiculous, most spoiled fans in the NFL, cousins isn’t worth half the money he’s being paid but guess what he’s getting paid because that’s the QB market, I mean Jesus Christ look at what Tennessee just gave ***** Tannehill 

Edited April 4, 2020 by BuffaloBills1998

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:31 AM, Cripple Creek said:

It most definitely is.  If it were your money would you be ready to pony up 35-40m/season based on what you've seen to this point?

Never

On 3/23/2020 at 11:40 AM, whorlnut said:

Make what happen?  Bring his team back to win games?  You realize that he already does that as well as anyone in the league right?

Somebody drug test this poster   for his own good

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:53 AM, Cal said:

Best trio lol

LSU and Alabama had, in 19' better trios than we have

On 3/23/2020 at 12:03 PM, TuelTime said:

How much would you pay Josh Allen if he were a FA today? 10, 15, 20 mil a year??

 

Russell Wilson gets 35 a year, Tom Brady just got 25, and Tyrod and Fitz are at 5.5.

 

He already makes 5.2 a year so I doubt he would take less than that, but in your most objective opinion, how much do you think Josh Allen is worth? How many years and how much guaranteed? Teddy Bridgewater just got 21 million a year.. Has Josh shown enough yet to be worth more than Bridgewater?

 

 

uhhhhhh, NO. But he would get big money from some sucker GM and/or coach will think they can tame the untamable stallion

[njbuff]

Never mind the missed block in OT against Houston.

 

It was the shot he took on that play that should have us worried.

 

It doesn't matter how big Allen is, shots like that cannot continue or Allen will be washed up like Newton at a young QB age of 31.

[TuelTime]

7 hours ago, MOVALLEYRANDY said:

LSU and Alabama had, in 19' better trios than we have

uhhhhhh, NO. But he would get big money from some sucker GM and/or coach will think they can tame the untamable stallion

 

I like Allen, but putting myself in an objective GM's shoes, I'd find it VERY hard to sign Allen to any type of long term contract for big money. His level of production has been very mediocre and if he doesn't turn the corner in the next season, he is likely to end up on the bench in season following.

 

He has played quite a few games now and while I do still see his potential, I am definitely not sold. If he were a free agent today I'd be hard pressed to give him 2 years at 15-18 with 20 guaranteed.

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by TuelTime

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, TuelTime said:

 

I like Allen, but putting myself in an objective GM's shoes, I'd find it VERY hard to sign Allen to any type of long term contract for big money. His level of production has been very mediocre and if he doesn't turn the corner in the next season, he is likely to end up on the bench in season following.

 

I don't agree, and the only reason I can give you is subjective.   

 

The one guy I think Allen looks and plays most like is Elway.   Same size, same rocket arm, same toughness at the end of runs, same desire to win.   Elway could will his team into the end zone, often by willing himself into the end zone.  His team followed that leadership and came together behind it.   

 

It took Elway nine years to break out of the mold of just ordinary QB.  NINE.   Eventually it all clicked, and for the next three or four seasons he was one of the dominant QBs in the league.  It's not going to take Allen nine years to get there, but whenever he gets there, you don't want to be the GM who gave up on him too early.   Allen's gotta regress this season before the Bills will begin to have doubts.    

 

I think you have to look at it this way:   In what people thought was one of the best quarterback draft classes in a couple decades, who was the guy generally acknowledged to have the best upside?   Allen, hands down.  The sky was the limit.  Highest upside.   The knock on Allen was all the other things, but no one was worried about Allen having any physical limitations.   When they looked at all the other stuff, they began to think the risks were big enough that of the four Allen may also have the highest bust potential.    That's why his stock dropped.   

 

Now forward to the present.   Has Allen's upside changed?   No.  Maybe tarnished a bit because of the poor long-ball production, but that's it.   People can still see in him all the potential they saw during the draft.   What about the knocks, all the other things?   Well, generally speaking, he's been checking them off, one by one.  Not completely, not yet:  Hero ball, accuracy, lack of big-time college experience.   He has been showing that those aren't problems.   Not completely, but I think you have to admit that he is significantly less a risk to bust today than he was during the draft.   

 

So his upside is still great, and his downside is smaller.   He isn't failing, he's still growing.  The bust risk is smaller.   So if you're drafting today, and teams know all of that about Allen, he won't get past the first pick or two.   

 

No way do the Bills let him go.  

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, TuelTime said:

 

I like Allen, but putting myself in an objective GM's shoes, I'd find it VERY hard to sign Allen to any type of long term contract for big money. His level of production has been very mediocre and if he doesn't turn the corner in the next season, he is likely to end up on the bench in season following.

 

He has played quite a few games now and while I do still see his potential, I am definitely not sold. If he were a free agent today I'd be hard pressed to give him 2 years at 15-18 with 20 guaranteed.

 

I think that's crazy.   His price would skyrocket to $25 or more, for multiple years.   

 

If he were a free agent today, it's like he's the #1 guy in the draft.   This is a supremely talented young quarterback who is succeeding to some degree, and more importantly hasn't failed in the NFL.   That makes him more valuable than ANY QB in the draft.   He hasn't shown any real limitations, just things he hasn't done really well yet.   How much would you spend for the #1 pick in the draft if you were a team that needed a QB?   If you could buy a guy like that in free agency, you'd gladly write a contract approaching $80-$100 million.  Minnesota did more than that for Cousins, and after two years into each guy's career I'd definitely have taken Allen over Cousins.  Heck, Cousins didn't even play for his first three years.  

 

That's not to say Allen is a sure thing.   I'm really high on Allen, but he still has to do it, he has to play like a champion quarterback.   But he has great potential, and he's less likely to fail, than any QB in the draft.   Every guy in the draft is a crapshoot, in a sense.   Manning and maybe Luck are the only guys who were locks coming out of college, everyone else is a big bet.   Someone would be willing to place a big bet Allen.  

[Don Otreply]

Reading the blow hard posts in this thread is so tiring, on the bright side this individual makes the rest of us appear much smarter.. ?

okay, back to boat projects, ordered a water maker and an AIS transponder that need to be installed... more boat yoga ?

 

Go Bills!!!

[Billl]

19 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think that's crazy.   His price would skyrocket to $25 or more, for multiple years.   

 

If he were a free agent today, it's like he's the #1 guy in the draft.   This is a supremely talented young quarterback who is succeeding to some degree, and more importantly hasn't failed in the NFL.   That makes him more valuable than ANY QB in the draft.   He hasn't shown any real limitations, just things he hasn't done really well yet.   How much would you spend for the #1 pick in the draft if you were a team that needed a QB?   If you could buy a guy like that in free agency, you'd gladly write a contract approaching $80-$100 million.  Minnesota did more than that for Cousins, and after two years into each guy's career I'd definitely have taken Allen over Cousins.  Heck, Cousins didn't even play for his first three years.  

 

That's not to say Allen is a sure thing.   I'm really high on Allen, but he still has to do it, he has to play like a champion quarterback.   But he has great potential, and he's less likely to fail, than any QB in the draft.   Every guy in the draft is a crapshoot, in a sense.   Manning and maybe Luck are the only guys who were locks coming out of college, everyone else is a big bet.   Someone would be willing to place a big bet Allen.  

Do you think Cincinnati would trade the top pick for him if McBeane offered?

[Shaw66]

15 minutes ago, Billl said:

Do you think Cincinnati would trade the top pick for him if McBeane offered?

Pardon my ignorance.  I pay little attention to the draft.  The Bengals have the top pick?   I assume you're asking would I trade the #1 pick this year for Allen.   

 

I wouldn't.   What I've seen of Burroughs (is that the kid's name from LSU?) he looks like a really special player.   I wouldn't trade him.   

 

But I wouldn't have traded Allen after his rookie year for that kid the Cards got.   

 

I said it here or in another thread.   When Allen came out, in a great QB class, everyone knew he had the highest ceiling of any QB in that class.  The problem with Allen was that there just were a lot of questions, a lot of things he hadn't done yet.   Now it's two years later, and his upside is still just as high, and the perceived problems have been slipping away, one by one.   He still has more to improve, for sure, but compared to two years ago, a lot of the risk is now gone.   

 

Think about this:   The Bills just traded the equivalent of the 18th pick in the first round to get Diggs.   Some people think the Bills spent too much.   So, if Minnesota offered to give all those picks back, plus we keep Diggs and the pick they gave us, and we just had to give them Allen, would you do it?    Allen for the 18th pick in the draft?   No football GM in his right mind is trading Allen for the 18th.   Or for the 10th pick.   Nobody would do that.   QB is the position that demands that you have the right guy or you won't win.   When you have the rights to a guy who still has the potential to be one of the all time greats and who after two years, a guy still hasn't shown any uncorrectable faults, when you have a guy like that, you do not trade him for any pick in the first round except #1.  And you only make the trade if you think the guy you can get is more likely to be a HOF QB.    

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Pardon my ignorance.  I pay little attention to the draft.  The Bengals have the top pick?   I assume you're asking would I trade the #1 pick this year for Allen.   

 

I wouldn't.   What I've seen of Burroughs (is that the kid's name from LSU?) he looks like a really special player.   I wouldn't trade him.   

 

But I wouldn't have traded Allen after his rookie year for that kid the Cards got.   

 

I said it here or in another thread.   When Allen came out, in a great QB class, everyone knew he had the highest ceiling of any QB in that class.  The problem with Allen was that there just were a lot of questions, a lot of things he hadn't done yet.   Now it's two years later, and his upside is still just as high, and the perceived problems have been slipping away, one by one.   He still has more to improve, for sure, but compared to two years ago, a lot of the risk is now gone.   

 

Think about this:   The Bills just traded the equivalent of the 18th pick in the first round to get Diggs.   Some people think the Bills spent too much.   So, if Minnesota offered to give all those picks back, plus we keep Diggs and the pick they gave us, and we just had to give them Allen, would you do it?    Allen for the 18th pick in the draft?   No football GM in his right mind is trading Allen for the 18th.   Or for the 10th pick.   Nobody would do that.   QB is the position that demands that you have the right guy or you won't win.   When you have the rights to a guy who still has the potential to be one of the all time greats and who after two years, a guy still hasn't shown any uncorrectable faults, when you have a guy like that, you do not trade him for any pick in the first round except #1.  And you only make the trade if you think the guy you can get is more likely to be a HOF QB.    

 

I don't agree re: Kyler Murray (in terms of if I was the Cards I'd have picked Murray rather than swap that pick for Allen). I do agree from the Bills side whether you would trade Allen for a 1st round pick though. Of course you wouldn't. Teams can trade 2 years in advance so if someone offered you three #1s for Allen would you take it is a better question? I am still inclined to say no because I think there remains a chance he can be a top 5 QB. Until I think that chance has gone the ONLY thing you trade Allen for is a young proven top 5 Quarterback. And people don't trade those. Not even Bill O'Brien. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't agree re: Kyler Murray (in terms of if I was the Cards I'd have picked Murray rather than swap that pick for Allen). I do agree from the Bills side whether you would trade Allen for a 1st round pick though. Of course you wouldn't. Teams can trade 2 years in advance so if someone offered you three #1s for Allen would you take it is a better question? I am still inclined to say no because I think there remains a chance he can be a top 5 QB. Until I think that chance has gone the ONLY thing you trade Allen for is a young proven top 5 Quarterback. And people don't trade those. Not even Bill O'Brien. 

I agree.   Three successive first round picks?   Probably not, but at least I could understand thinking about it.   

[PrimeTime101]

Fact time. 

Pre Josh this team got rid of big stars to get Josh here

 

Year one, josh made lots of rookie.mistakes and showed progress late. Josh had to run for his life or throw lots of deep balls quick cause it took that long for wr to get seperation.

 

Year 2 Josh had to learn to throw to new receivers (takes time) and learn how a brand new offensive line forms um in front of him. He did not have his linemen together healthy most if not all of the preseason and again. Stuff takes time.

 

Yet through all of the changes Josh has had to endure.. And learn at the NFL level .. My god Josh took good positive steps last year.. Complaining about a QB's first experience in the playoffs is something im not prepared to do.. 4th quarter he was running for his life.. Again..

 

Now we have Diggs.. Teams can not throw 8 in the box with our 3 WR set out there and this is the year I feel Josh will break 60% completion and that in itself will be considered a step up for Josh this year. This is the most complete team we have had in over 20 years. This isnt about blind faith in our qb. This is about having faith in this team as a whole.

 

I have to laugh.. How many people said "build around Tyrod Taylor and he will be great" then it was "Tyrod will be great in Cleveland". The theory of making Tyrod better though having great players around Tyrod did not work out.. Now lets see how the same theory works for Josh. I dont need to see josh throw the ball for 300 yards to call him a franchise qb but just one game early in season would not hurt.

 

1-2 300 yard+ games yis year with a 60%+ completion percentage top 20 QB in the league.. The man will get paid. This is a small step for any starting franchise qb.. Every starting franchise qb should have one or 2 games where they light it ul and throw for 60%.. If thats to much to ask?

 

 

[LSHMEAB]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:52 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

He played at a top 10 level last year. Sure. I am a fan of the method that once a guy is in his 5th year or beyond you should throw out his best year. And throw out his worst year. What you are left with is who he is. And Tannehill is a below average starting Quarterback. 

Agreed. I think the Titans just felt comfortable enough with the rest of that REALLY GOOD squad that they decided to stick with Tannehill for now. Not to say he doesn't offer them value; he's good at what that particular team asks him to do. Where he excels is in the screen game, and because of their OL/run game, those are gonna be open. He can find the right guy downfield when the box is stacked and they take a shot. He was really good at protecting the football. So they figured they'd ride it out for a little while.

 

The notion that he's turned into some kind of franchise QB after years of "seasoning" is not a belief I share.

 

They're close and they didn't feel like changing "captains." They'll be looking for their franchise guy soon enough.

On 4/3/2020 at 2:31 PM, Gugny said:

 

For years I said that I wished Miami never figured out that Matt Moore was the best QB on their roster.  They never did.

The one thing I always wanted to know during the Tannehill era was whether he or Moore were going to start against BUF. Felt a lot better about our chances if it was RT.

Edited April 6, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[GreggTX]

He needs to finish the season with a passing efficiency greater than 100 and cut the number of fumbles down. I won't get into completion rate, YPA, TD's and picks because that all factors into the passing efficiency rating anyways.

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, GreggTX said:

He needs to finish the season with a passing efficiency greater than 100 and cut the number of fumbles down. I won't get into completion rate, YPA, TD's and picks because that all factors into the passing efficiency rating anyways.

What do you mean, he needs to?   If his passer rating is 95, you're going to shop him and go looking for a new QB?   That's absurd.  That points out exactly why it is not a prove it year.   

 

Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers, Deshaun Watson and Carson Wentz didn't have a passer rating of 100.  Are you cutting them loose, too?

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

What do you mean, he needs to?   If his passer rating is 95, you're going to shop him and go looking for a new QB?   That's absurd.  That points out exactly why it is not a prove it year.   

 

Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers, Deshaun Watson and Carson Wentz didn't have a passer rating of 100.  Are you cutting them loose, too?

 

Some people prefer ultimatums to reasonableness. I’m good with progress, but I can’t put numbers on that. I’ll know it when we see it, and I feel pretty confident we will see it. But I’m not expecting a finished product. Why set anyone up for disappointment? 

[LSHMEAB]

One thing I gotta say about this Ryan Tannehill talk; there's not a SINGLE NFL ORGANIZATION in their right mind who would sign up for 6 years of mediocrity and a boom in year 7 that may or may not reflect growth. He walked into a perfect situation in Tennessee and played very well in relatively limited action. The jury is very much out as to whether that production will continue moving forward. No team would give up a first round pick, let alone a top 10 pick for that. As a matter of fact, teams would social distance from even being in that situation so they'd never bring that in unless they were going to sit him on the bench for a long stretch of time.

 

Not saying Allen can't be better than Tannehill, but if he isn't; that's a SERIOUS problem.

 

JA is going to bust his *** because he's got incredible work ethic. He's a great kid who desperately wants to get better, which is far more than you can say about someone like Jay Cutler.

 

But the proof will be in the pudding and that proof SHOULD come to fruition in 2020.

Edited April 7, 2020 by LSHMEAB

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:35 AM, jrober38 said:

 

I think QB could become e the new RB of the NFL.

 

Draft a guy, keep him on his rookie deal and then trade him for picks and draft another one. 

 

Recent history shows it's very risky to pay guys who aren't truly elite. 

 

GM's just need to start paying good but non-elite QB's what they are truly worth. Not every QB like Goff, Cousins and Dak should be making 30 million a year. But yeah, the problem is, when you draft a QB, and you are ready to extend that QB beyond their rookie deal it pretty much is telling the QB you are all in on them so then they and their agent get the idea that they should be paid like a top five QB.

[jrober38]

20 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

GM's just need to start paying good but non-elite QB's what they are truly worth. Not every QB like Goff, Cousins and Dak should be making 30 million a year. But yeah, the problem is, when you draft a QB, and you are ready to extend that QB beyond their rookie deal it pretty much is telling the QB you are all in on them so then they and their agent get the idea that they should be paid like a top five QB.

 

Sure.

 

To do that teams need to start letting QBs walk and test free agency.

 

As QB play declines across the NFL it won't make any sense to just pay a starting QB top dollar like you do top players in the NBA a "max" contract.

 

There needs to be tiers, but in the current system each guy who signs a new deal seems to make more money than the last guy despite not actually being an elite player. 

The system is absurd. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

18 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Sure.

 

To do that teams need to start letting QBs walk and test free agency.

 

As QB play declines across the NFL it won't make any sense to just pay a starting QB top dollar like you do top players in the NBA a "max" contract.

 

There needs to be tiers, but in the current system each guy who signs a new deal seems to make more money than the last guy despite not actually being an elite player. 

The system is absurd. 

 

 

Yep. And when they do test free agency the other QB needy GM's need to toe the line. Don't be like the Vikings and give Kirk Cousins $90 million guaranteed.

[jrober38]

Just now, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

 

Yep. And when they do test free agency the other QB needy GM's need to toe the line. Don't be like the Vikings and give Kirk Cousins $90 million guaranteed.

 

I think the system is going to change. It has to.

We're going from an era where guys played for the same team for 15-20 years (Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Manning, Rivers) to one where I think we're going to see a lot more turnover at the QB position. 

 

Right now teams want their $35 mil/year QBs for be the face of the franchise for 10+ years but it's not going to happen because the current QBs just aren't good enough. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Just now, jrober38 said:

Right now teams want their $35 mil/year QBs for be the face of the franchise for 10+ years but it's not going to happen because the current QBs just aren't good enough. 

 

Teams still want that face of the franchise. And it's good for the fans and the league.  But what needs to change in the system is more guys need to be paid 2nd tier money in the $20-$25 million per year range on long term contracts. Allen might not ever be a $35 million a year guy but he can hopefully be a $20-$25 million QB with the extra money going to better help across the board.

 

Part of the problem though to I think is the agents and the Qb fraternity as a whole want even the low level back up QB's to make 8-10 million per year. If they can keep the second string QB salary high it will be even higher for the starters.

 

[jrober38]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

Teams still want that face of the franchise. And it's good for the fans and the league.  But what needs to change in the system is more guys need to be paid 2nd tier money in the $20-$25 million per year range on long term contracts. Allen might not ever be a $35 million a year guy but he can hopefully be a $20-$25 million QB with the extra money going to better help across the board.

 

Part of the problem though to I think is the agents and the Qb fraternity as a whole want even the low level back up QB's to make 8-10 million per year. If they can keep the second string QB salary high it will be even higher for the starters.

 

 

I get it, I just don't think it makes financial sense. It seems like many of the highest paid NFL QBs fail to make the playoffs every year so why devote so many resources to guys who can't carry a team on their own. 

 

On a side note, I'd love if the NFL became more like the NBA with it's trades and free agency. I wish they'd get rid of the franchise tag to let more players test the market. 

 

I think the number of mega trades the NBA has makes it so much more interesting for fans in the sense that the league essentially sees a bunch of it's best players reshuffled every few seasons. 

[Shaw66]

58 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Sure.

 

To do that teams need to start letting QBs walk and test free agency.

 

As QB play declines across the NFL it won't make any sense to just pay a starting QB top dollar like you do top players in the NBA a "max" contract.

 

There needs to be tiers, but in the current system each guy who signs a new deal seems to make more money than the last guy despite not actually being an elite player. 

The system is absurd. 

I agree it's absurd, but it also makes sense at the same time.   

 

The position is so important that you simply can't afford to make a mistake.   When you have a guy like Goff, who looks really good but isn't there yet, you're going to extend him and pay his price.   He's close, and the chances are the next guy you get won't get as close.    It's really tough to get the right guy, and when you get one he's worth everything.  A Brady, a Rodgers, a Brees.   So if you're close, like with a Goff, you extend him.   It would take real guts to let him go and start over.  A Parcells would do that, but it takes real courage.  I'm not saying it's the right call; I'm just saying that when you have a relatively young guy who is close, the fear is he's too valuable to let go.

 

Look at Jerry Jones and Dak Prescott.   What do you do with Prescott?   The guy has looked like an absolute world beater sometimes, but he gives me the feeling that he may never take the next steps.  You gonna let him go and then start trying to position yourself in the draft over the next couple of years so you can hope the stars align and you get another Aikman?   There are a lot more teams looking for QBs than there are Aikmans floating around. 

 

Or Cousins.   Someone was going to pay Cousins.   His numbers were great, but there was something about him that I always found uninspiring.   He just doesn't look or feel like the kind of guy you're going to win with.   But he's awfully close, and maybe he'll get over the top.   That's the fear that drove Washington to tag him, even as the price kept going up.   Washington finally decided they wouldn't pay it, they just weren't sure, but Minnesota was ready, in a heartbeat.   It's hard to say no to a QB who's close.  

 

[Shaw66]

29 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

On a side note, I'd love if the NFL became more like the NBA with it's trades and free agency. I wish they'd get rid of the franchise tag to let more players test the market. 

 

I think the number of mega trades the NBA has makes it so much more interesting for fans in the sense that the league essentially sees a bunch of it's best players reshuffled every few seasons. 

I never looked at the NBA from that perspective.   I'd think if you were a fan of a particular team, the NBA's system sucks unless your owner happens to land the right combination of players for a couple of years.   If he doesn't, if he never does, you're the Knicks.   What fun is that. 

 

But I have to admit that as sort of casual NBA fan, it IS fun to see different teams every year or two.  Who's Lebron paired with this year?   Will that work?    Those two guys at Houston - Hardin and Westbrook - can't possibly make it work together, can they?  I don't know, let's see.   That is fun. 

 

But I don't think it would work in the NFL, because winning depends so much on teamwork, and teamwork is enhanced greatly by continuity.   The talents of guys coming are offset by the declining continuity and teamwork.    How much better do the Chiefs get if they two lights out receivers to go with what they already have, a guy who would send Watkins to the bench?     Maybe you'd end up with Jerry Jones buying all the best players, and they would crush everyone, but I doubt the best players would want to share the limelight or the coach would be willing to put up with trying to mold a new bunch of guys into a team every year.   

[Billl]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

 

Yep. And when they do test free agency the other QB needy GM's need to toe the line. Don't be like the Vikings and give Kirk Cousins $90 million guaranteed.

Since they signed him, Cousins has thrown 56 TDs and 16 INTs.  If anything, he’s outperformed his contract.  People just love to hate the guy for some reason, but what QBs other than maybe Mahomes or Wilson do you think will put up numbers like that over the next 2 seasons?  He’s absolutely a top 10 QB since going to Minnesota.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Billl said:

Since they signed him, Cousins has thrown 56 TDs and 16 INTs.  If anything, he’s outperformed his contract.  People just love to hate the guy for some reason, but what QBs other than maybe Mahomes or Wilson do you think will put up numbers like that over the next 2 seasons?  He’s absolutely a top 10 QB since going to Minnesota.

Yeah, his numbers look great, but somehow he doesn't win.    So do you still pay him?

 

Was Rivers worth all the money he got?   His numbers were great, but he didn't win.   

 

I don't know.  I really don't.   It's clear guys are overpaid.    But it's so important to have a really good QB, so if you've got a guy with what seems to be close, a Prescott or a Cousins, he's close but not there, you're hard pressed to let him go.  

 

GMs have gotten smart about overpaying other positions.   Clowney is finding that out.   But they'll spend on QBs.  

Edited April 7, 2020 by Shaw66

[JESSEFEFFER]

QBs used to have to win consistently to get big money.  Now they get paid for racking up big passing stats because it seems like the two are connected.  

 

I posted in a different thread about the Bills big road wins vs. the Vikings and Cowboys.  Josh made plays and Cousins/Prescott had big passing stats in games their teams were not even close.

[reddogblitz]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:26 AM, Shaw66 said:

I agree.   Three successive first round picks?   Probably not, but at least I could understand thinking about it.   

 

A team's 2020, 2021, and 2022 first round pick for Josh Allen?

 

I would. And sign Andy Dalton.

 

For 2 I would not.

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

 

Yep. And when they do test free agency the other QB needy GM's need to toe the line. Don't be like the Vikings and give Kirk Cousins $90 million guaranteed.

 

Collusion.

[GunnerBill]

The problem with the system for QB contracts is the NFL continues to drive up revenues and the CBA continues to require the players get their cut. And while the cap is going up $10-12m each year you essentially create hyper inflation. If you are Dak now looking at his production and his ability in 4 years and the current market he probably belongs at around the number he would get this year playing on the tag $31.5m. Wentz is at $32m and Goff at $33.5m and while they have both probably had higher highs to this point in their NFL career they have most definitely had worse stretches of play than Dak has ever had too. So somewhere in that $31.5 to 33.5 range. 

 

But if I am Dak's agent there is no way I am willing to let him sign for that on a 5 year deal. Because by year 3 he is going to be well undervalued on that basis as other guys come up for renewal. That is a problem that simply can't be resolved while the cap escalation is as it is. There are two possible part mitigations as I see it and the Vikings when they originally signed Cousins were kind of the exemplar on both. Shorter but fully guaranteed or close to fully guaranteed deals. That means QBs taking less long term security against injury etc in return for the ability to re-up every 2 or 3 years which will still lead to salary increases but might avoid the hyper inflation being caused by the current system where when I negotiate a new deal for a QB now I am not negotiating against today's market I am negotiating against where I project the market to be in 3 years time. 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

QBs used to have to win consistently to get big money.  Now they get paid for racking up big passing stats because it seems like the two are connected.  

 

I posted in a different thread about the Bills big road wins vs. the Vikings and Cowboys.  Josh made plays and Cousins/Prescott had big passing stats in games their teams were not even close.

 

I keep saying it but the "not winning" is not a fair knock on Dak. He is 40-24 as a starter, has won 2 division titles and has a playoff win under his belt all after coming in as a 4th rounder and starting immediately because of Romo's injury. He has been a winning quarterback. Romo (for contrast) was the Cowboys' starter for 10 years and only won one more division title and 1 more playoff game than Dak has managed in 4 years. He isn't just a stat compiler. He has been a winning Quarterback. 

[jrober38]

9 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree it's absurd, but it also makes sense at the same time.   

 

The position is so important that you simply can't afford to make a mistake.   When you have a guy like Goff, who looks really good but isn't there yet, you're going to extend him and pay his price.   He's close, and the chances are the next guy you get won't get as close.    It's really tough to get the right guy, and when you get one he's worth everything.  A Brady, a Rodgers, a Brees.   So if you're close, like with a Goff, you extend him.   It would take real guts to let him go and start over.  A Parcells would do that, but it takes real courage.  I'm not saying it's the right call; I'm just saying that when you have a relatively young guy who is close, the fear is he's too valuable to let go.

 

Look at Jerry Jones and Dak Prescott.   What do you do with Prescott?   The guy has looked like an absolute world beater sometimes, but he gives me the feeling that he may never take the next steps.  You gonna let him go and then start trying to position yourself in the draft over the next couple of years so you can hope the stars align and you get another Aikman?   There are a lot more teams looking for QBs than there are Aikmans floating around. 

 

Or Cousins.   Someone was going to pay Cousins.   His numbers were great, but there was something about him that I always found uninspiring.   He just doesn't look or feel like the kind of guy you're going to win with.   But he's awfully close, and maybe he'll get over the top.   That's the fear that drove Washington to tag him, even as the price kept going up.   Washington finally decided they wouldn't pay it, they just weren't sure, but Minnesota was ready, in a heartbeat.   It's hard to say no to a QB who's close.  

 

 

I think my issue is that there hasn't been a "Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger" type drafted in the past 10 years. 

 

I think Mahomes will be that guy, but otherwise I see the league filled with guys who show some flashes but will probably never put it all together. 

 

With the salaries QBs are making, I think we're nearing the point where it no longer makes any sense to pay the guy because you're scared of the unknown. 

 

It's proven to be very detrimental to pay a QB $35 mil/year if they're not actually good enough to carry a team without a depleted supporting cast. 

9 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I never looked at the NBA from that perspective.   I'd think if you were a fan of a particular team, the NBA's system sucks unless your owner happens to land the right combination of players for a couple of years.   If he doesn't, if he never does, you're the Knicks.   What fun is that. 

 

But I have to admit that as sort of casual NBA fan, it IS fun to see different teams every year or two.  Who's Lebron paired with this year?   Will that work?    Those two guys at Houston - Hardin and Westbrook - can't possibly make it work together, can they?  I don't know, let's see.   That is fun. 

 

But I don't think it would work in the NFL, because winning depends so much on teamwork, and teamwork is enhanced greatly by continuity.   The talents of guys coming are offset by the declining continuity and teamwork.    How much better do the Chiefs get if they two lights out receivers to go with what they already have, a guy who would send Watkins to the bench?     Maybe you'd end up with Jerry Jones buying all the best players, and they would crush everyone, but I doubt the best players would want to share the limelight or the coach would be willing to put up with trying to mold a new bunch of guys into a team every year.   

 

That makes sense. 

 

I think I'd just prefer to watch that system play out from a fans perspective. 

 

Getting rid of the franchise tag would make things a lot more fun. 

[Mango]

I’ve said it before, the NFL should roll coaching, scouts, and training staffs into. And I think it makes sense in this discussion. I think it makes sense for this discussion as teams would have to decide whether player identification, progression, health etc. is more important, or is it the player themselves.

 

Might make sense to go a similar route as the NBA with imposing a max contract but each side of the ball. So 2 per team, regardless of position. Then a positional max after that. It then gives teams the freedom to decide if they would rather pay a single stud WR, CB, edge rusher, or better to fill out with decent depth. 

[Billl]

14 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I keep saying it but the "not winning" is not a fair knock on Dak. He is 40-24 as a starter, has won 2 division titles and has a playoff win under his belt all after coming in as a 4th rounder and starting immediately because of Romo's injury. He has been a winning quarterback. Romo (for contrast) was the Cowboys' starter for 10 years and only won one more division title and 1 more playoff game than Dak has managed in 4 years. He isn't just a stat compiler. He has been a winning Quarterback. 

For comparison, the Packers have gone 36-28 with 2 division titles during that same stretch.  

[Shaw66]

9 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I think my issue is that there hasn't been a "Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger" type drafted in the past 10 years. 

 

I think Mahomes will be that guy, but otherwise I see the league filled with guys who show some flashes but will probably never put it all together. 

 

With the salaries QBs are making, I think we're nearing the point where it no longer makes any sense to pay the guy because you're scared of the unknown. 

I agree with your view, but it isn't the way the GMs thing about it.   Sure, there hasn't been a HOF QB to come out of the draft in 10 years, except maybe Mahomes.   And one or two, maybe, who aren't yet identifiable.  

 

I'm just saying that no GM wants to be the guy who had a guy who turned out to be a HOFamer and let him go.  The Chargers have had a good quarterback for the past 15 years, but they could have had Drew Brees.   That was about as big a single personnel decision that any GM has made in the past fifteen years.   Trading for Mahomes may have been another.   

 

Whoever the Chargers GM was, "Let Drew Brees go" is not on his resume.   Nobody wants that on his resume.   At the time you're faced with the decision, you're thinking, "I don't want to be known as the guy who let Dak Prescott go, or the guy who let Jared Goff go, or the guy who let Carson Wentz go."   It's tough to have the courage to do that, knowing that the next QB you get may be Rivers, who doesn't quite get you there, or RGIII, who blows up, or someone in between.   It's just a huge decision if the guy you have has shown real promise. 

[JESSEFEFFER]

16 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I keep saying it but the "not winning" is not a fair knock on Dak. He is 40-24 as a starter, has won 2 division titles and has a playoff win under his belt all after coming in as a 4th rounder and starting immediately because of Romo's injury. He has been a winning quarterback. Romo (for contrast) was the Cowboys' starter for 10 years and only won one more division title and 1 more playoff game than Dak has managed in 4 years. He isn't just a stat compiler. He has been a winning Quarterback. 

 

I will fess up to an having an anti Cowboys hype agenda.   It's lasted most of my lifetime.  The "America's Team" label handed to them, the number of times we get force fed their games in primetime, the lingering angst from the Super Bowl losses,   the reptilian mug of Jerry Jones and  the amphibian one of Jimmy Johnson.  As for Dak, starting 64 of 64 is maybe his best stat. That is not easy.  I would counter that the Cowboys were +10 wins his rookie year and only +6 his last 3 years combined.  There has been something wrong with that team and I doubt that Mike McCarthy fixes it.    I think it may be a culture problem, maybe too many "me guys."   Dak will get paid but I doubt he ever wins the Super Bowl or even plays in one.  Just my very biased opinion.