Josh Allen "Prove it" Season In Year 3

[JA082390]

Allen in 2020:

 

30+ Passing TDs

10+ Rushing TDs

 

MVP candidate. Breakout player of the year.

[billsfan_34]

Staying where I am at so I haven’t looked. I wonder what the uptick is in season ticket sales this year?

[jrober38]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:47 PM, Shaw66 said:

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. 

 

The NFL is a copycat league. 

 

Eventually an NFL GM will start playing "money ball" with the QB position, have success and other GMs will follow along.

 

In a league where "top" starters get $35 mil a year and mediocre starters get $8-10 mil/year, despite there being hardly much of a difference between them.

 

Eventually teams will figure out that they're better off saving that extra $25 mil and using to sign another top player at a different position. 

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Eventually teams will figure out that they're better off saving that extra $25 mil and using to sign another top player at a different position. 

I don't think this is accurate.   I think that the link is not only constantly evolving, it's constantly evolving into something more complex.    And the good coaches have books filled with how all the various complexities work and how to stop them.   McDermott has those books, and Belichick, and plenty of others.  

 

So if the Dolphins start running the single wing, it may surprise teams for a week or two, but then everyone stops it.   The wildcat.  The K-gun.   The Packers power run game.  

 

The defensive solution to all of these problems, and the modern nuances like the rub plays, are known, and coaches keep developing defensive schemes for their teams to master in order to stop each nuance.   The offensive coordinators respond by adding wrinkles on top of last season's wrinkles.   

 

The result is that receivers now are much more sophisticated than they used to be.   There was a time when they it never occurred to them to practice the back shoulder throw and catch, but not it's a skill that's been added to everything else they already know.    The necessary knowledge and skills keep increasing. 

 

The problem with all of this that you have one guy on the field who has to understand all of it and react to all of it.   He has to understand all of the things the defense does, including the things it CAN do but hasn't for the past few weeks.  He has to understand everything each of his offensive teammates is supposed to do, and he has to put them in a position to do it.   If he's playing against the Bills, this means he's looking at a defense that is prepared for everything and that shows nothing about what they intend to do until after the snap.   

 

QB is an extraordinarily difficult job, and each year it gets a little more difficult.   You can't hide the shortcomings of your quarter back with talent at other positions, because the other positions are only able to do the difficult things they have to do to beat the defense if the QB gets them into the right play and the right position on the field.   

 

So I don't see that top players at other positions can save you.  

 

What can save you is going the Lamar Jackson, Tyler Murray route, bring in a guy and give him a gimmicky offense that takes the league a couple of years to figure out, like the K-Gun.  If you do that, you can hope you can hope to win a Super Bowl in a couple of years, but if it doesn't work, the league will catch up with the gimmicks and you'll either have to teach you QB to be a real QB like Brees or Rodgers, or you'll have to get a new QB, look for a new gimmick, and see if you can steal a Super Bowl in the couple of years the new gimmick will last.  

 

I don't see any time in the future when GMs won't be chasing after a top-10 QB.  As I've said earlier, that's exactly why the decisions on Prescott and Goff are so tough.   I think Goff signed up early, but the Cowboys had to tag Prescott because they just weren't sure.   If they believed in your theory, they would have let him go and gone and started down the lightning in a bottle route.   Yes, I suppose the league may ultimately move on to a Kyler Murray/Lamar Jackson model, but that only makes sense if guys with marginally less talent than Murray can succeed doing it.  Baker Mayfield is one of those guys, and I'm sure the Browns were less than thrilled with what they saw last season.  

 

Put another way, the quarterbacks who develop into the really talent QBs in the mental aspects of the game are gold, because they can make your team competitive for ten years, assuming it takes them five years to get up the learning curve.   The QBs who can't develop into top guys at the mental game have to bring some other extraordinary skills to the field AND has to have a team designed to play around him.   There is a small window of time when that system will work, and then defenses will close the window.  

 

 

[jrober38]

On 4/9/2020 at 9:57 PM, Shaw66 said:

I don't think this is accurate.   I think that the link is not only constantly evolving, it's constantly evolving into something more complex.    And the good coaches have books filled with how all the various complexities work and how to stop them.   McDermott has those books, and Belichick, and plenty of others.  

 

So if the Dolphins start running the single wing, it may surprise teams for a week or two, but then everyone stops it.   The wildcat.  The K-gun.   The Packers power run game.  

 

The defensive solution to all of these problems, and the modern nuances like the rub plays, are known, and coaches keep developing defensive schemes for their teams to master in order to stop each nuance.   The offensive coordinators respond by adding wrinkles on top of last season's wrinkles.   

 

The result is that receivers now are much more sophisticated than they used to be.   There was a time when they it never occurred to them to practice the back shoulder throw and catch, but not it's a skill that's been added to everything else they already know.    The necessary knowledge and skills keep increasing. 

 

The problem with all of this that you have one guy on the field who has to understand all of it and react to all of it.   He has to understand all of the things the defense does, including the things it CAN do but hasn't for the past few weeks.  He has to understand everything each of his offensive teammates is supposed to do, and he has to put them in a position to do it.   If he's playing against the Bills, this means he's looking at a defense that is prepared for everything and that shows nothing about what they intend to do until after the snap.   

 

QB is an extraordinarily difficult job, and each year it gets a little more difficult.   You can't hide the shortcomings of your quarter back with talent at other positions, because the other positions are only able to do the difficult things they have to do to beat the defense if the QB gets them into the right play and the right position on the field.   

 

So I don't see that top players at other positions can save you.  

 

What can save you is going the Lamar Jackson, Tyler Murray route, bring in a guy and give him a gimmicky offense that takes the league a couple of years to figure out, like the K-Gun.  If you do that, you can hope you can hope to win a Super Bowl in a couple of years, but if it doesn't work, the league will catch up with the gimmicks and you'll either have to teach you QB to be a real QB like Brees or Rodgers, or you'll have to get a new QB, look for a new gimmick, and see if you can steal a Super Bowl in the couple of years the new gimmick will last.  

 

I don't see any time in the future when GMs won't be chasing after a top-10 QB.  As I've said earlier, that's exactly why the decisions on Prescott and Goff are so tough.   I think Goff signed up early, but the Cowboys had to tag Prescott because they just weren't sure.   If they believed in your theory, they would have let him go and gone and started down the lightning in a bottle route.   Yes, I suppose the league may ultimately move on to a Kyler Murray/Lamar Jackson model, but that only makes sense if guys with marginally less talent than Murray can succeed doing it.  Baker Mayfield is one of those guys, and I'm sure the Browns were less than thrilled with what they saw last season.  

 

Put another way, the quarterbacks who develop into the really talent QBs in the mental aspects of the game are gold, because they can make your team competitive for ten years, assuming it takes them five years to get up the learning curve.   The QBs who can't develop into top guys at the mental game have to bring some other extraordinary skills to the field AND has to have a team designed to play around him.   There is a small window of time when that system will work, and then defenses will close the window.  

 

 

 

 

I don't think this really addresses what I was talking about.

 

I'm saying, would you rather have Jared Goff and a replacement level receiver or a QB on a rookie contract like Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield, Daniel Jones, Mitch Trubisky or Sam Darnold AND Julio Jones/Deandre Hopkins?

 

I'm trying to say that I don't think there's enough of a difference between pretty much any of the highest earning QBs in the league like Goff, Wentz, Prescott, etc and a 1st rounder on a rookie deal to justify paying the veteran guy an extra $25-30 mil a year after their rookie deal runs out. 

 

I think the rookie QB with the exponentially better weapon (could be any other position, I'm just making a very basic example) is probably what I would opt to do. 

 

I guess I'm essentially arguing that these QBs seem to peak in year 2 or 3 and don't get a whole lot better after that, even though they're being paid like they're the type of elite QBs we saw from 2000-2015. 

 

Just my two cents. 

[Shaw66]

12 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

 

I don't think this really addresses what I was talking about.

 

I'm saying, would you rather have Jared Goff and a replacement level receiver or a QB on a rookie contract like Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield, Daniel Jones, Mitch Trubisky or Sam Darnold AND Julio Jones/Deandre Hopkins?

 

I'm trying to say that I don't think there's enough of a difference between pretty much any of the highest earning QBs in the league like Goff, Wentz, Prescott, etc and a 1st rounder on a rookie deal to justify paying the veteran guy an extra $25-30 mil a year after their rookie deal runs out. 

 

I think the rookie QB with the exponentially better weapon (could be any other position, I'm just making a very basic example) is probably what I would opt to do. 

 

I guess I'm essentially arguing that these QBs seem to peak in year 2 or 3 and don't get a whole lot better after that, even though they're being paid like they're the type of elite QBs we saw from 2000-2015. 

 

Just my two cents. 

Let me say a couple of things.  First, and I really mean it, thanks for responding.   I really enjoy these discussions because they help me see things about football more clearly.   And even though I write as though what I say is absolutely true, I actually do understand that I could be dead wrong about what I think.

 

Here's what I think about what you just said:   I agree completely.    I think what you're saying about combinations of players is generally true.  Obviously, there's no formula, and there are so many variables it's impossible to call everything equal, but as a general rule, I agree.    To restate what you said, I think one way to approach being a big winner in the NFL is to have an overpaid mediocre starter on his second contract surrounded by a supporting cast that is limited because you've spent so much on a QB that you can't afford stars at any other position.   I know that overstates it, but that's essentially your point.   Another way to approach being a big winner is to have a QB on his rookie contract who is an impact player for a few years because he's surrounded by quality talent and a coach who can make the combination work (even though the league may figure out eventually how to stop the QB).    It's similar to the Florida Marlins'/Milwaukee Brewers' approach - collect a whole bunch of super talented guys in the minors and try to win a World Series before they hit free agency and leave for bigger contracts.  So you get a Tyler Murray, who may or may not be a long-term star, but you know you can do something with him at least for a few years, and then you go get yourself an Andre Hopkins and pay him a lot.  

 

I think it's fair to equate those two scenarios as more or less equally ways to attack winning.   And you'll say, and I'll agree, that there's a built-in problem with the overpaid guy on his second contract, and that is that you can't go about actually getting better for several years, because your stuck with the guy.  No one will trade for him, and you're gonna take a big cap hit if you cut him.   At least with the guy on his rookie contract, you can decide it's time to move on and try something else, like going and getting a Tyrod Taylor after you've seen EJ Manuel for a couple of years.    I'd never really thought of it that way, so if you're saying the rookie-contract approach is better, I won't argue.

 

I'm saying something a little different.  I'm saying that although either of those approaches may work to make your team a winner, and maybe overpaying a guy is less desirable than the rookie-contract approach, having a true franchise QB is better than either.  

 

Now, I'm not suggesting you didn't already know that.   We all know it.   If you can have a Brees or a Rodgers or a Brady or the right Manning, or maybe even the other Manning, your team can be a threat to be competitive every year.   The other two approaches are short-term, catch-lightning-in-a-bottle approaches; having a franchise QB means your team can be good for ten years, and that's simply a much better position to be in.   Drew Brees running an offense with Zay Jones receiving is a much better approach to winning than Tyrod Taylor throwing to Julio Jones, or even Jared Goff throwing to Julio Jones.    Matt Stafford couldn't win with Megatron, but Tom Brady could win with Chris Hogan (I know, Brady had some other, better guys, but really?  Chris Hogan was an important receiver on a Super Bowl winner?  That's what a Tom Brady is worth.) 

 

So what I'm saying is this:  When a GM has a talented QB whose rookie contract is coming to an end, a QB who has done a lot of good things, maybe had a season in the top 10 and couple of seasons in the second 10 among quarterbacks, a guy who is not yet and maybe never will be a Brees or a Brady, that guy still has the potential to become a franchise quarterback.   Yes, the risk of signing that second contract is that you might end up exactly where you say, with a guy who is mediocre and who is eating too much cap room.  What I'm saying is that having a franchise quarterback is so much better than the other options, that GMs almost always will err on the side of holding onto the guy who could become a franchise QB.   It's very difficult to let that guy go, so they take the risk.  They'd rather take the risk of giving Flacco a big contact and having it not work than letting a Drew Brees go.   

 

Which is why I absolutely do not think 2020 is a prove it season for Allen.   Allen has enormous talent, and until he plateaus for a couple of years, no one is going to take the chance of letting him go.  So to plateau for two seasons, he has to have a 2020 AND a 2021 at more or less the same level as 2019, two seasons where he doesn't improve over 2019.   (Some might say that's THREE seasons, but that's wrong.  You can't say Allen plateaued in 2019, because he was better than 2018.   2020 is the first season he can plateau, and 2021 is the second season).  

 

I don't think Allen is the same guy as Cam Newton, and I don't think Allen is on the same trajectory as Newton, but Newton's career is a good example.  He was coming into his option year on his rookie contract.   For four seasons, his passer rating had bounced around the 80s, and his completion percentage, a component of the passer rating, had averaged just below 60.   He was a serious running threat.   He had a big body.   His team knew that he still had to learn to be a more effective passer, because it wasn't reasonable to expect to rely on his running into the future.   (You can say pretty much all of that about Josh Allen today.)

 

Carolina wrote the big contract.   I don't think they had much of a choice.   He had all the basic abilities and skills to be a franchise QB, he'd played well but not consistently enough to be a top-five or even a top-ten quarterback.   In other words, he still had potential.  He still looked like a guy who could grow over the next few years into someone who would be talked about in the same breath with Brees and Rodgers and the others.  Or maybe a Roethlisberger.   It doesn't mean he would play the same style, with the same skills as those guys, but none of those guys looked exactly like Favre or like Montana - the great ones all are unique.   It's not that the guy is the same as any of those - the question is whether the guy can be a consistent winner.   Newton still looked like he could be one of those guys, a consistent winner, with more growth, development, maturation.   So the Panthers bit the bullet.

 

I think Allen is the same.  Unless he stumbles badly in 2020 or 2021, the Bills can't afford to let him go.   If he hasn't stumbled badly, and if he hasn't blossomed enormously, if he's just playing and getting better but not dominating, you have to sign him at whatever the market demands.   There's maybe one chance in five he's going to grow into a dominant QB like Ben or Elway, and there's maybe four chances in five that he's going to have a career like Newton or a Matt Ryan or a Flacco or a Stafford (or worse).   I think most GM's take that bet.   The odds of winning are one in five, but the payout if you win is 20 (or 50 to one if you get a Brady).   

 

Look at the bet the Saints made on Brees.   It was a no-brainer.    He had shown, in a different way, as much promise as Newton.   I say in a different way because he'd already had a season as a passer better than any season Newton ever had.   He was a guy with the potential to be great and who had not yet failed or plateaued.   Because of his injury, they gave him a six-year deal for $60 million, but with limited guaranteed money.   Still, it was a big contract.   Without the injury, there would have been much more guaranteed money.   

 

Did the Saints know Brees was going to become Drew Brees?   No.   But the possibility that he might become Drew Brees made him a better bet than Aaron Brooks, who was a Lamar Jackson type before Lamar Jackson.  He was Tyrod Taylor.  They could have had Brooks on a reasonable contract.  Why take Brees over Brooks?  Because Aaron Brooks looked like he HAD plateaued - even if Sean Payton might still figure out how to win with Brooks, Brooks had shown he never was going to be in the elite class.   Brees still had the potential, and GMs will pay for the potential.  

[Mango]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Let me say a couple of things.  First, and I really mean it, thanks for responding.   I really enjoy these discussions because they help me see things about football more clearly.   And even though I write as though what I say is absolutely true, I actually do understand that I could be dead wrong about what I think.

 

Here's what I think about what you just said:   I agree completely.    I think what you're saying about combinations of players is generally true.  Obviously, there's no formula, and there are so many variables it's impossible to call everything equal, but as a general rule, I agree.    To restate what you said, I think one way to approach being a big winner in the NFL is to have an overpaid mediocre starter on his second contract surrounded by a supporting cast that is limited because you've spent so much on a QB that you can't afford stars at any other position.   I know that overstates it, but that's essentially your point.   Another way to approach being a big winner is to have a QB on his rookie contract who is an impact player for a few years because he's surrounded by quality talent and a coach who can make the combination work (even though the league may figure out eventually how to stop the QB).    It's similar to the Florida Marlins'/Milwaukee Brewers' approach - collect a whole bunch of super talented guys in the minors and try to win a World Series before they hit free agency and leave for bigger contracts.  So you get a Tyler Murray, who may or may not be a long-term star, but you know you can do something with him at least for a few years, and then you go get yourself an Andre Hopkins and pay him a lot.  

 

I think it's fair to equate those two scenarios as more or less equally ways to attack winning.   And you'll say, and I'll agree, that there's a built-in problem with the overpaid guy on his second contract, and that is that you can't go about actually getting better for several years, because your stuck with the guy.  No one will trade for him, and you're gonna take a big cap hit if you cut him.   At least with the guy on his rookie contract, you can decide it's time to move on and try something else, like going and getting a Tyrod Taylor after you've seen EJ Manuel for a couple of years.    I'd never really thought of it that way, so if you're saying the rookie-contract approach is better, I won't argue.

 

I'm saying something a little different.  I'm saying that although either of those approaches may work to make your team a winner, and maybe overpaying a guy is less desirable than the rookie-contract approach, having a true franchise QB is better than either.  

 

Now, I'm not suggesting you didn't already know that.   We all know it.   If you can have a Brees or a Rodgers or a Brady or the right Manning, or maybe even the other Manning, your team can be a threat to be competitive every year.   The other two approaches are short-term, catch-lightning-in-a-bottle approaches; having a franchise QB means your team can be good for ten years, and that's simply a much better position to be in.   Drew Brees running an offense with Zay Jones receiving is a much better approach to winning than Tyrod Taylor throwing to Julio Jones, or even Jared Goff throwing to Julio Jones.    Matt Stafford couldn't win with Megatron, but Tom Brady could win with Chris Hogan (I know, Brady had some other, better guys, but really?  Chris Hogan was an important receiver on a Super Bowl winner?  That's what a Tom Brady is worth.) 

 

So what I'm saying is this:  When a GM has a talented QB whose rookie contract is coming to an end, a QB who has done a lot of good things, maybe had a season in the top 10 and couple of seasons in the second 10 among quarterbacks, a guy who is not yet and maybe never will be a Brees or a Brady, that guy still has the potential to become a franchise quarterback.   Yes, the risk of signing that second contract is that you might end up exactly where you say, with a guy who is mediocre and who is eating too much cap room.  What I'm saying is that having a franchise quarterback is so much better than the other options, that GMs almost always will err on the side of holding onto the guy who could become a franchise QB.   It's very difficult to let that guy go, so they take the risk.  They'd rather take the risk of giving Flacco a big contact and having it not work than letting a Drew Brees go.   

 

Which is why I absolutely do not think 2020 is a prove it season for Allen.   Allen has enormous talent, and until he plateaus for a couple of years, no one is going to take the chance of letting him go.  So to plateau for two seasons, he has to have a 2020 AND a 2021 at more or less the same level as 2019, two seasons where he doesn't improve over 2019.   (Some might say that's THREE seasons, but that's wrong.  You can't say Allen plateaued in 2019, because he was better than 2018.   2020 is the first season he can plateau, and 2021 is the second season).  

 

I don't think Allen is the same guy as Cam Newton, and I don't think Allen is on the same trajectory as Newton, but Newton's career is a good example.  He was coming into his option year on his rookie contract.   For four seasons, his passer rating had bounced around the 80s, and his completion percentage, a component of the passer rating, had averaged just below 60.   He was a serious running threat.   He had a big body.   His team knew that he still had to learn to be a more effective passer, because it wasn't reasonable to expect to rely on his running into the future.   (You can say pretty much all of that about Josh Allen today.)

 

Carolina wrote the big contract.   I don't think they had much of a choice.   He had all the basic abilities and skills to be a franchise QB, he'd played well but not consistently enough to be a top-five or even a top-ten quarterback.   In other words, he still had potential.  He still looked like a guy who could grow over the next few years into someone who would be talked about in the same breath with Brees and Rodgers and the others.  Or maybe a Roethlisberger.   It doesn't mean he would play the same style, with the same skills as those guys, but none of those guys looked exactly like Favre or like Montana - the great ones all are unique.   It's not that the guy is the same as any of those - the question is whether the guy can be a consistent winner.   Newton still looked like he could be one of those guys, a consistent winner, with more growth, development, maturation.   So the Panthers bit the bullet.

 

I think Allen is the same.  Unless he stumbles badly in 2020 or 2021, the Bills can't afford to let him go.   If he hasn't stumbled badly, and if he hasn't blossomed enormously, if he's just playing and getting better but not dominating, you have to sign him at whatever the market demands.   There's maybe one chance in five he's going to grow into a dominant QB like Ben or Elway, and there's maybe four chances in five that he's going to have a career like Newton or a Matt Ryan or a Flacco or a Stafford (or worse).   I think most GM's take that bet.   The odds of winning are one in five, but the payout if you win is 20 (or 50 to one if you get a Brady).   

 

Look at the bet the Saints made on Brees.   It was a no-brainer.    He had shown, in a different way, as much promise as Newton.   I say in a different way because he'd already had a season as a passer better than any season Newton ever had.   He was a guy with the potential to be great and who had not yet failed or plateaued.   Because of his injury, they gave him a six-year deal for $60 million, but with limited guaranteed money.   Still, it was a big contract.   Without the injury, there would have been much more guaranteed money.   

 

Did the Saints know Brees was going to become Drew Brees?   No.   But the possibility that he might become Drew Brees made him a better bet than Aaron Brooks, who was a Lamar Jackson type before Lamar Jackson.  He was Tyrod Taylor.  They could have had Brooks on a reasonable contract.  Why take Brees over Brooks?  Because Aaron Brooks looked like he HAD plateaued - even if Sean Payton might still figure out how to win with Brooks, Brooks had shown he never was going to be in the elite class.   Brees still had the potential, and GMs will pay for the potential.  

 

I think you always pay a future HOF player. Brees' first contract was not bad with the Saint. 10M per year. He didn't start to push the scale until he was franchised a few years later. At that point he had grown into a stud already. 

I think the overarching theme is, you don't pay a Dak or Goff salary for their production, when you could pick up a Bridgewater, Foles, Brissett number. As we see more performances like the Eagles, Rams, etc, and the data in this case study gets larger, I suspect you see less over valued second contracts. I would prefer a situation where we are able to keep Tre, Edmunds, Milano, Dawkins, add an elite pass rusher, and keep a 1a/1b receiving corp. with a tandem of Diggs (who will ask for a new contract) and Brown, and pair with a Teddy Bridgewater-esque player. I think you add a 30/35M QB contract we are looking at a receiving corp that is pretty similar to last years (or Diggs and lesser depth), and we can't resign everybody on the defensive side of the ball. 

 

[Billl]

5 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

I think you always pay a future HOF player. Brees' first contract was not bad with the Saint. 10M per year. He didn't start to push the scale until he was franchised a few years later. At that point he had grown into a stud already. 

I think the overarching theme is, you don't pay a Dak or Goff salary for their production, when you could pick up a Bridgewater, Foles, Brissett number. As we see more performances like the Eagles, Rams, etc, and the data in this case study gets larger, I suspect you see less over valued second contracts. I would prefer a situation where we are able to keep Tre, Edmunds, Milano, Dawkins, add an elite pass rusher, and keep a 1a/1b receiving corp. with a tandem of Diggs (who will ask for a new contract) and Brown, and pair with a Teddy Bridgewater-esque player. I think you add a 30/35M QB contract we are looking at a receiving corp that is pretty similar to last years (or Diggs and lesser depth), and we can't resign everybody on the defensive side of the ball. 

 

So your plan would be to let a guy who put up 30/9 with 4,900 yards walk so that you could sign Jacoby Brissett for half as much?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Mango said:

 

I think you always pay a future HOF player. Brees' first contract was not bad with the Saint. 10M per year. He didn't start to push the scale until he was franchised a few years later. At that point he had grown into a stud already. 

I think the overarching theme is, you don't pay a Dak or Goff salary for their production, when you could pick up a Bridgewater, Foles, Brissett number. As we see more performances like the Eagles, Rams, etc, and the data in this case study gets larger, I suspect you see less over valued second contracts. I would prefer a situation where we are able to keep Tre, Edmunds, Milano, Dawkins, add an elite pass rusher, and keep a 1a/1b receiving corp. with a tandem of Diggs (who will ask for a new contract) and Brown, and pair with a Teddy Bridgewater-esque player. I think you add a 30/35M QB contract we are looking at a receiving corp that is pretty similar to last years (or Diggs and lesser depth), and we can't resign everybody on the defensive side of the ball. 

 

In terms of how to build a long-term successful franchise, I think what you're saying will get you there a lot less often than what I'm saying.   If I'm 30 years old and own an NFL team, and I'm going to live 50 more years, what am I going to do?  Am I going to spend 50 years having a string up of Foles and Brissett, 50 years of those guys?   Who has won Super Bowls doing that?  Or am I going to spend 50 years trying to get a Favre and then a Rodgers?   Or a Bradshaw and a Roethlisberger?   Or a Simms and a Manning?   Or a Staubach and an Aikman?   

 

I think it's obvious that having a stud QB trumps everything.   Paul Brown figured that out in the 1940s with Otto Graham, and football has been dominated by quarterbacks ever since.   You can say it's changing, but I don't think it is.   Nobody is being successful by dumbing down the QB position so more guys can play it successfully.   It just keeps getting more complicated to succeed, and the QBs keep seeing and learning more.  

 

The name of the game still is finding a HOF QB.  So when you have a highly talented QB coming to the end of his rookie contract, and if he's shown you some good stuff and he isn't failing - he's holding his own or more in the league, playing well enough to be an NFL starter, if you have a guy like that, you can't let him go.   He's a guy who, compared to most QBs in the league, has real potential.   Most of the guys in the league have already demonstrated they aren't HOF QBs.  Foles and Brissett among them.   But Newton, as I said, still had potential.  The Panthers paid him.   The Rams paid Goff, early, I'll admit, but they paid him.   

 

If Allen has a flat year in 2020, say gets his passer rating even up to 90, or even under 90, I think that there would be at least a half dozen coaches in the league who would jump if they could trade their #1 pick in the draft for Allen.   

 

If the guy has potential and hasn't failed, he's very valuable. 

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

 

I don't think this really addresses what I was talking about.

 

I'm saying, would you rather have Jared Goff and a replacement level receiver or a QB on a rookie contract like Josh Allen, Baker Mayfield, Daniel Jones, Mitch Trubisky or Sam Darnold AND Julio Jones/Deandre Hopkins?

 

I'm trying to say that I don't think there's enough of a difference between pretty much any of the highest earning QBs in the league like Goff, Wentz, Prescott, etc and a 1st rounder on a rookie deal to justify paying the veteran guy an extra $25-30 mil a year after their rookie deal runs out. 

 

I think the rookie QB with the exponentially better weapon (could be any other position, I'm just making a very basic example) is probably what I would opt to do. 

 

I guess I'm essentially arguing that these QBs seem to peak in year 2 or 3 and don't get a whole lot better after that, even though they're being paid like they're the type of elite QBs we saw from 2000-2015. 

 

Just my two cents. 

 

The problem is how do you ensure you go from Dak to the next Dak and not Dak to the third QB in that class - Paxton Lynch. The reason the middle tier QBs get that money is because finding someone that good is not as easy as it looks. 

1 hour ago, Mango said:

 

I think you always pay a future HOF player. Brees' first contract was not bad with the Saint. 10M per year. He didn't start to push the scale until he was franchised a few years later. At that point he had grown into a stud already. 

I think the overarching theme is, you don't pay a Dak or Goff salary for their production, when you could pick up a Bridgewater, Foles, Brissett number. As we see more performances like the Eagles, Rams, etc, and the data in this case study gets larger, I suspect you see less over valued second contracts. I would prefer a situation where we are able to keep Tre, Edmunds, Milano, Dawkins, add an elite pass rusher, and keep a 1a/1b receiving corp. with a tandem of Diggs (who will ask for a new contract) and Brown, and pair with a Teddy Bridgewater-esque player. I think you add a 30/35M QB contract we are looking at a receiving corp that is pretty similar to last years (or Diggs and lesser depth), and we can't resign everybody on the defensive side of the ball. 

 

 

Totally disagree with this. Dak or Goff are worth wins over Bidgewater and Foles that you can't just make up with a good skill player. Foles in spot duty - great. When he was the starter last year? Awful. Bridgewater this year will be the same. Book it. 

[Shaw66]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is how do you ensure you go from Dak to the next Dak and not Dak to the third QB in that class - Paxton Lynch. The reason the middle tier QBs get that money is because finding someone that good is not as easy as it looks. 

 

Totally disagree with this. Dak or Goff are worth wins over Bidgewater and Foles that you can't just make up with a good skill player. Foles in spot duty - great. When he was the starter last year? Awful. Bridgewater this year will be the same. Book it. 

I think this is correct.   The difference between Bridgewater and Allen is that Allen hasn't failed yet - he hasn't shown fundamental flaws in his game, or in another sense hasn't plateaued yet.  He still has potential.  

 

So not only are Dak and Goff worth wins, what's more important is the door seems to still be open for them to move up to the next level.  They still have some meaningful potential.  

 

So you stay invested in the Dak's and Goffs of the world, because they might become a Ben or a Rodgers.  Why?   Because there's so much more upside for your team when you have a shot at a Ben or a Rodgers, a lot more than if you're playing with the Foleses and Bridgewaters.  

 

It's simple four-card draw poker.   If you're dealt four good cards, you don't throw in four and start over.   You keep the four and look for one good card to come your way.   If you have a pair of aces and nothing else, you throw three.  What you do in every case is keep the cards that have potential.   When who have a QB who has potential, you keep him until you win big or bust.   

[C.Biscuit97]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Let me say a couple of things.  First, and I really mean it, thanks for responding.   I really enjoy these discussions because they help me see things about football more clearly.   And even though I write as though what I say is absolutely true, I actually do understand that I could be dead wrong about what I think.

 

Here's what I think about what you just said:   I agree completely.    I think what you're saying about combinations of players is generally true.  Obviously, there's no formula, and there are so many variables it's impossible to call everything equal, but as a general rule, I agree.    To restate what you said, I think one way to approach being a big winner in the NFL is to have an overpaid mediocre starter on his second contract surrounded by a supporting cast that is limited because you've spent so much on a QB that you can't afford stars at any other position.   I know that overstates it, but that's essentially your point.   Another way to approach being a big winner is to have a QB on his rookie contract who is an impact player for a few years because he's surrounded by quality talent and a coach who can make the combination work (even though the league may figure out eventually how to stop the QB).    It's similar to the Florida Marlins'/Milwaukee Brewers' approach - collect a whole bunch of super talented guys in the minors and try to win a World Series before they hit free agency and leave for bigger contracts.  So you get a Tyler Murray, who may or may not be a long-term star, but you know you can do something with him at least for a few years, and then you go get yourself an Andre Hopkins and pay him a lot.  

 

I think it's fair to equate those two scenarios as more or less equally ways to attack winning.   And you'll say, and I'll agree, that there's a built-in problem with the overpaid guy on his second contract, and that is that you can't go about actually getting better for several years, because your stuck with the guy.  No one will trade for him, and you're gonna take a big cap hit if you cut him.   At least with the guy on his rookie contract, you can decide it's time to move on and try something else, like going and getting a Tyrod Taylor after you've seen EJ Manuel for a couple of years.    I'd never really thought of it that way, so if you're saying the rookie-contract approach is better, I won't argue.

 

I'm saying something a little different.  I'm saying that although either of those approaches may work to make your team a winner, and maybe overpaying a guy is less desirable than the rookie-contract approach, having a true franchise QB is better than either.  

 

Now, I'm not suggesting you didn't already know that.   We all know it.   If you can have a Brees or a Rodgers or a Brady or the right Manning, or maybe even the other Manning, your team can be a threat to be competitive every year.   The other two approaches are short-term, catch-lightning-in-a-bottle approaches; having a franchise QB means your team can be good for ten years, and that's simply a much better position to be in.   Drew Brees running an offense with Zay Jones receiving is a much better approach to winning than Tyrod Taylor throwing to Julio Jones, or even Jared Goff throwing to Julio Jones.    Matt Stafford couldn't win with Megatron, but Tom Brady could win with Chris Hogan (I know, Brady had some other, better guys, but really?  Chris Hogan was an important receiver on a Super Bowl winner?  That's what a Tom Brady is worth.) 

 

So what I'm saying is this:  When a GM has a talented QB whose rookie contract is coming to an end, a QB who has done a lot of good things, maybe had a season in the top 10 and couple of seasons in the second 10 among quarterbacks, a guy who is not yet and maybe never will be a Brees or a Brady, that guy still has the potential to become a franchise quarterback.   Yes, the risk of signing that second contract is that you might end up exactly where you say, with a guy who is mediocre and who is eating too much cap room.  What I'm saying is that having a franchise quarterback is so much better than the other options, that GMs almost always will err on the side of holding onto the guy who could become a franchise QB.   It's very difficult to let that guy go, so they take the risk.  They'd rather take the risk of giving Flacco a big contact and having it not work than letting a Drew Brees go.   

 

Which is why I absolutely do not think 2020 is a prove it season for Allen.   Allen has enormous talent, and until he plateaus for a couple of years, no one is going to take the chance of letting him go.  So to plateau for two seasons, he has to have a 2020 AND a 2021 at more or less the same level as 2019, two seasons where he doesn't improve over 2019.   (Some might say that's THREE seasons, but that's wrong.  You can't say Allen plateaued in 2019, because he was better than 2018.   2020 is the first season he can plateau, and 2021 is the second season).  

 

I don't think Allen is the same guy as Cam Newton, and I don't think Allen is on the same trajectory as Newton, but Newton's career is a good example.  He was coming into his option year on his rookie contract.   For four seasons, his passer rating had bounced around the 80s, and his completion percentage, a component of the passer rating, had averaged just below 60.   He was a serious running threat.   He had a big body.   His team knew that he still had to learn to be a more effective passer, because it wasn't reasonable to expect to rely on his running into the future.   (You can say pretty much all of that about Josh Allen today.)

 

Carolina wrote the big contract.   I don't think they had much of a choice.   He had all the basic abilities and skills to be a franchise QB, he'd played well but not consistently enough to be a top-five or even a top-ten quarterback.   In other words, he still had potential.  He still looked like a guy who could grow over the next few years into someone who would be talked about in the same breath with Brees and Rodgers and the others.  Or maybe a Roethlisberger.   It doesn't mean he would play the same style, with the same skills as those guys, but none of those guys looked exactly like Favre or like Montana - the great ones all are unique.   It's not that the guy is the same as any of those - the question is whether the guy can be a consistent winner.   Newton still looked like he could be one of those guys, a consistent winner, with more growth, development, maturation.   So the Panthers bit the bullet.

 

I think Allen is the same.  Unless he stumbles badly in 2020 or 2021, the Bills can't afford to let him go.   If he hasn't stumbled badly, and if he hasn't blossomed enormously, if he's just playing and getting better but not dominating, you have to sign him at whatever the market demands.   There's maybe one chance in five he's going to grow into a dominant QB like Ben or Elway, and there's maybe four chances in five that he's going to have a career like Newton or a Matt Ryan or a Flacco or a Stafford (or worse).   I think most GM's take that bet.   The odds of winning are one in five, but the payout if you win is 20 (or 50 to one if you get a Brady).   

 

Look at the bet the Saints made on Brees.   It was a no-brainer.    He had shown, in a different way, as much promise as Newton.   I say in a different way because he'd already had a season as a passer better than any season Newton ever had.   He was a guy with the potential to be great and who had not yet failed or plateaued.   Because of his injury, they gave him a six-year deal for $60 million, but with limited guaranteed money.   Still, it was a big contract.   Without the injury, there would have been much more guaranteed money.   

 

Did the Saints know Brees was going to become Drew Brees?   No.   But the possibility that he might become Drew Brees made him a better bet than Aaron Brooks, who was a Lamar Jackson type before Lamar Jackson.  He was Tyrod Taylor.  They could have had Brooks on a reasonable contract.  Why take Brees over Brooks?  Because Aaron Brooks looked like he HAD plateaued - even if Sean Payton might still figure out how to win with Brooks, Brooks had shown he never was going to be in the elite class.   Brees still had the potential, and GMs will pay for the potential.  

1) if Allen comes close to Newton, i will consider it a very success draft pick.  The amount of disrespect Newton gets on this board is stupid.  All the crying about Allen’s “terrible” weapons, look at some of the scrubs newton had to throw to the majority of his career.  Allen has a long way to get to Newton peak territory. 
 

2). What in the world is the Lamar Jackson comparison to Aaron Brooks?  I thought this didn’t make sense because they are 2 totally different qbs.  Brooks had a career high rushing season of 358.  He never went over 300 in any other season.  Jackson has almost 400 more rushing yards in 2 years than Brooks had in his 7 year career! 
 

additionally, Jackson completed 66% of his passes this year which is 10% than Brooks’ career rate.  Very lazy and bad comparison. Jackson is another player this board loves to tear down. ? If Allen has Jackson’s last season, we could be sending petitions for the Bills to pay him a billion dollars instead of trying to pick him apart.

[Shaw66]

31 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

1) if Allen comes close to Newton, i will consider it a very success draft pick.  The amount of disrespect Newton gets on this board is stupid.  All the crying about Allen’s “terrible” weapons, look at some of the scrubs newton had to throw to the majority of his career.  Allen has a long way to get to Newton peak territory. 
 

2). What in the world is the Lamar Jackson comparison to Aaron Brooks?  I thought this didn’t make sense because they are 2 totally different qbs.  Brooks had a career high rushing season of 358.  He never went over 300 in any other season.  Jackson has almost 400 more rushing yards in 2 years than Brooks had in his 7 year career! 
 

additionally, Jackson completed 66% of his passes this year which is 10% than Brooks’ career rate.  Very lazy and bad comparison. Jackson is another player this board loves to tear down. ? If Allen has Jackson’s last season, we could be sending petitions for the Bills to pay him a billion dollars instead of trying to pick him apart.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion.  My opinion is that

 

1.  Newton never came close to mastering NFL QB skills.  He had an outstanding season.   He was not a leader, not at all.   He was all smiles when things were going well, he pouted when they weren't.   Very, very talented, but he never learned to be a winning QB.   He won, but he wasn't a winning QB.   He didn't make his team better around him.  

 

I think saying that if Allen comes close Newton, it'll be a successful pick is way wrong.  That's essentially saying Newton as a #1 overall pick was a success.    I don't see that at all.    In nine seasons he took his team to 7 playoff games.  He was in the top 10 in passer rating once - once!  Tyrod Taylor was lot cheaper and was in the top 10 in passer rating once.  Newton got injured last season, and by the time it looked like he could play again his team decided his backup was the better choice.  Then they cut Newton loose.   Going into his 10th season, your QB taken at #1 is a failure if he is not the presumptive starter.  If Allen has a career that looks like that, the pick will have been a failure.  

 

2.  Jackson is no question better than Brooks.   My point, and I thought it was clear, is that I think with Jackson, as was the case with Brooks, he has a style of play that you have to build around, both in terms of your offense and your personnel.  He doesn't look to me like a guy who is going to have ten years of big-time success in the league - I can't envision him and his team winning 10+ games year after year playing his game.   The big time successes in the league play a different style.   They can and do succeed with a wider range of players in the roster.   I think the league will catch up with Jackson, and as the league does, he will have to learn to read defenses better, to make a broader range of throws, etc.  So I think Jackson has potential like Allen, because he's an amazing athlete and he's shown himself so far to be a good thinker on the field.   But I actually like Allen's potential better, because Allen already is playing a more complete offense, in terms of style and how it attacks the whole field, and because Allen depends less on his pure running ability, so he's less likely to be affected when injuries and age set in.  It's obvious that Allen isn't playing better than Jackson - what I said is that I think his potential is less limited than Jackson's.   

[Billl]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

2). What in the world is the Lamar Jackson comparison to Aaron Brooks?  I thought this didn’t make sense because they are 2 totally different qbs.  Brooks had a career high rushing season of 358.  He never went over 300 in any other season.  Jackson has almost 400 more rushing yards in 2 years than Brooks had in his 7 year career! 

Lamar Jackson is basically Warren Moon.

[Shaw66]

24 minutes ago, Billl said:

Lamar Jackson is basically Warren Moon.

Well, he's possibly worse, and also possibly better.   You'll know a lot more about Jackson three years from now.  

[Mango]

36 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Everyone is entitled to his opinion.  My opinion is that

 

1.  Newton never came close to mastering NFL QB skills.  He had an outstanding season.   He was not a leader, not at all.   He was all smiles when things were going well, he pouted when they weren't.   Very, very talented, but he never learned to be a winning QB.   He won, but he wasn't a winning QB.   He didn't make his team better around him.  

 

I think saying that if Allen comes close Newton, it'll be a successful pick is way wrong.  That's essentially saying Newton as a #1 overall pick was a success.    I don't see that at all.    In nine seasons he took his team to 7 playoff games.  He was in the top 10 in passer rating once - once!  Tyrod Taylor was lot cheaper and was in the top 10 in passer rating once.  Newton got injured last season, and by the time it looked like he could play again his team decided his backup was the better choice.  Then they cut Newton loose.   Going into his 10th season, your QB taken at #1 is a failure if he is not the presumptive starter.  If Allen has a career that looks like that, the pick will have been a failure.  

 

2.  Jackson is no question better than Brooks.   My point, and I thought it was clear, is that I think with Jackson, as was the case with Brooks, he has a style of play that you have to build around, both in terms of your offense and your personnel.  He doesn't look to me like a guy who is going to have ten years of big-time success in the league - I can't envision him and his team winning 10+ games year after year playing his game.   The big time successes in the league play a different style.   They can and do succeed with a wider range of players in the roster.   I think the league will catch up with Jackson, and as the league does, he will have to learn to read defenses better, to make a broader range of throws, etc.  So I think Jackson has potential like Allen, because he's an amazing athlete and he's shown himself so far to be a good thinker on the field.   But I actually like Allen's potential better, because Allen already is playing a more complete offense, in terms of style and how it attacks the whole field, and because Allen depends less on his pure running ability, so he's less likely to be affected when injuries and age set in.  It's obvious that Allen isn't playing better than Jackson - what I said is that I think his potential is less limited than Jackson's.   

 

I don't really get this. 

 

Newton was league MVP, set half a dozen rookie records (including passing and scoring), has the most rushing TD's by a QB. His playing style was always going to shorten his career because of his size and speed. Part of his skill set is that he can take on LB's. Josh is doing the same thing. Eventually injury will shorten his (JA) if he does not become a more proficient passer. Both can be streaky and inconsistent when it comes to being a passer. But Newton is much better with the big play, proof being his gaudy passing numbers. He was a quality starter for the Panthers for a decade. I don't think anybody in Caroline is regretting that pick.

 

Cam's worst season (outside of 2019) still outclasses Josh's best year. Newtons best seasons are years away from anything Josh has ever done in college or the NFL. I think just about every franchise would be happy if they had a QB with Cams production for 10 years. Everybody cannot be Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Wilson, etc. 

[Billl]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

So I think Jackson has potential like Allen, because he's an amazing athlete and he's shown himself so far to be a good thinker on the field

There’s no need to talk about potential with Lamar.  He just delivered a historically great season.  36/6 TD/INT while rushing for over 1,200 yards and 7 TDs.  Allen could go on to have a HOF career without ever having a season like that.  
 

With Lamar, it’s not just what he does that’s great.  It’s what he doesn’t do, and that’s put the ball in harm’s way.
 

LJ:  577 touches, 6 INTs, 9 fumbles 

JA:  570 touches, 9 INTs, 14 fumbles

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

I don't really get this. 

 

Newton was league MVP, set half a dozen rookie records (including passing and scoring), has the most rushing TD's by a QB. His playing style was always going to shorten his career because of his size and speed. Part of his skill set is that he can take on LB's. Josh is doing the same thing. Eventually injury will shorten his (JA) if he does not become a more proficient passer. Both can be streaky and inconsistent when it comes to being a passer. But Newton is much better with the big play, proof being his gaudy passing numbers. He was a quality starter for the Panthers for a decade. I don't think anybody in Caroline is regretting that pick.

 

Cam's worst season (outside of 2019) still outclasses Josh's best year. Newtons best seasons are years away from anything Josh has ever done in college or the NFL. I think just about every franchise would be happy if they had a QB with Cams production for 10 years. Everybody cannot be Brady, Rodgers, Manning, Wilson, etc. 

I'm not saying Allen is better now than Newton ever was.  So even if it were true, which it isn't, that Newton's worst year outclassed his best year, it doesn't respond to what I said.   Check out 2014 and 2016.

 

The question is whether Newton was a successful pick.   He was drafted to be an all-round NFL QB, not a running QB.   It was said over and over again that he had to stop running so much and learn to play QB at an elite level.   That was his challenge from year two.   He couldn't do it, and he didn't do it.   Allen was drafted for the same reason.   If Allen succeeds  because of his legs, he will have failed.   

 

It's very simple.   When you take a QB #1 overall, or when you invest the draft capital in a guy like the Bills invested in Allen, barring injury or some other things, the day you draft him you expect him to be your presumptive starter in year 10.   You expect him to be a master QB who actually has just come into his prime.   He's 34, 35, he has 8-10 years experience, and he has a threat to beat anybody, any time.   That's what a franchise quarterback is.   If you're releasing the guy going into year his tenth year, he did not achieve what you drafted him for.   

 

Matt Ryan, taken third overall, is a successful draft pick.  I'm not a Ryan fan.   He makes a lot of plays, but he hasn't ever been the kind of guy who makes you worried when he has the ball with two minutes left in the game.   But whether I like him or not, he's been a success.   Why?  Because year after year, he's the presumptive starter.   No one ever says that the Falcons should be looking for another guy.   Maybe they should be, but year after year, when they look at the QB spot, the coaches aren't saying to themselves, "we need another guy."    

 

Newton hasn't been that guy for a few years, and that means the draft pick was a failure.   Nice player and all, but he didn't do what you drafted him for.  

 

Sure, Newton put some nice numbers here and there, and he went to a Super Bowl, but no one wants him today because he hasn't learned how to play QB at a high level.  

 

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, Billl said:

There’s no need to talk about potential with Lamar.  He just delivered a historically great season.  36/6 TD/INT while rushing for over 1,200 yards and 7 TDs.  Allen could go on to have a HOF career without ever having a season like that.  
 

With Lamar, it’s not just what he does that’s great.  It’s what he doesn’t do, and that’s put the ball in harm’s way.
 

LJ:  577 touches, 6 INTs, 9 fumbles 

JA:  570 touches, 9 INTs, 14 fumbles

No doubt about it.   It was incredible.   How about 20/5, rushing for 800 and 7 TDs.   Would you take that?    That's RG III.  Where is he now?   

[Mango]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not saying Allen is better now than Newton ever was.  So even if it were true, which it isn't, that Newton's worst year outclassed his best year, it doesn't respond to what I said.   Check out 2014 and 2016.

 

The question is whether Newton was a successful pick.   He was drafted to be an all-round NFL QB, not a running QB.   It was said over and over again that he had to stop running so much and learn to play QB at an elite level.   That was his challenge from year two.   He couldn't do it, and he didn't do it.   Allen was drafted for the same reason.   If Allen succeeds  because of his legs, he will have failed.   

 

It's very simple.   When you take a QB #1 overall, or when you invest the draft capital in a guy like the Bills invested in Allen, barring injury or some other things, the day you draft him you expect him to be your presumptive starter in year 10.   You expect him to be a master QB who actually has just come into his prime.   He's 34, 35, he has 8-10 years experience, and he has a threat to beat anybody, any time.   That's what a franchise quarterback is.   If you're releasing the guy going into year his tenth year, he did not achieve what you drafted him for.   

 

Matt Ryan, taken third overall, is a successful draft pick.  I'm not a Ryan fan.   He makes a lot of plays, but he hasn't ever been the kind of guy who makes you worried when he has the ball with two minutes left in the game.   But whether I like him or not, he's been a success.   Why?  Because year after year, he's the presumptive starter.   No one ever says that the Falcons should be looking for another guy.   Maybe they should be, but year after year, when they look at the QB spot, the coaches aren't saying to themselves, "we need another guy."    

 

Newton hasn't been that guy for a few years, and that means the draft pick was a failure.   Nice player and all, but he didn't do what you drafted him for.  

 

Sure, Newton put some nice numbers here and there, and he went to a Super Bowl, but no one wants him today because he hasn't learned how to play QB at a high level.  

 

 

I could have gotten behind this post if it was only the bolded.