Josh Allen "Prove it" Season In Year 3

[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.