QB Salary Comparison 2010 to 2020

[BigBillsFan]

I wanted to do an analysis of QB salaries. I don’t think the amount is ever my concern, it’s the relationship to the overall cap number which just shows how much you can afford for other players.

 

Salary cap 2020 $198.2 million
Highest 2 salaies  $34.5 mil   17.4%
Median salary $25 mil which is 12.5% of the cap
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/
 
Cap in 2011 (2010 was uncapped) $120 million
Highest 2 salaries: $22 mil  18%
Minus the McNabb overpay it’s for the top 2 salaries at $18.5 mil which is 15.4%
Median salary 10% of the cap at $12 mil
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2010/

 

Median cap for a QB is 12.5% in 2020 vs 10% 10 years ago.

 

Biggest changes: the bottom 1/3rd of salaries was reasonable for their placement in 2010, now it’s a $20 million baseline+ per starter; much closer to the median of $25 mil.

The top 10 guys in 2010 are paid around $15 million on average approximately with more variance from highest to 10th whereas 2020 salaries are much more tightly paid from 1-10 (minus McNabb).

 

QB salaries haven’t moved dramatically for the highest paid guys as a % to the cap, the move is marginally incremental in proportion to the salary cap. The difference is a mid-tier guy is a bit more inflated to the cap with fully guaranteed money.

 

Either you get a stud and try to win with a 15-20% hit to the cap (which it will reach for Mahomes) or you try to win on rookie salaries with more overall talent. I’ve voided the rings for the Cheats and there is more data you win with a rookie and less cap.

 

SBs from 2010-2020
4 Rookies contracts have won, 3 vets (don’t count the Cheats).
Vets QBs behind the Giants, Saints, Broncos were at 10% of the salary cap
In all 7 wins the max value of the QB to SB was 10% at vet (highest Manning at 10.4%) to rookie salaries.

 

Verdict: Some team will break the mold with a high paid QB but the odds are a team with a huge salary is low. This will happen as more teams will be cash-strapped at 10%+ to the QB as that is being normalized in the league. You have to draft unbelievably well and get the right mix of budget vets for it to work and other-worldly QB play.

 

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

I wanted to do an analysis of QB salaries. I don’t think the amount is ever my concern, it’s the relationship to the overall cap number which just shows how much you can afford for other players.

 

Salary cap 2020 $198.2 million
Highest 2 salaies  $34.5 mil   17.4%
Median salary $25 mil which is 12.5% of the cap
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/
 
Cap in 2011 (2010 was uncapped) $120 million
Highest 2 salaries: $22 mil  18%
Minus the McNabb overpay it’s for the top 2 salaries at $18.5 mil which is 15.4%
Median salary 10% of the cap at $12 mil
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2010/

 

Median cap for a QB is 12.5% in 2020 vs 10% 10 years ago.

 

Biggest changes: the bottom 1/3rd of salaries was reasonable for their placement in 2010, now it’s a $20 million baseline+ per starter; much closer to the median of $25 mil.

The top 10 guys in 2010 are paid around $15 million on average approximately with more variance from highest to 10th whereas 2020 salaries are much more tightly paid from 1-10 (minus McNabb).

 

QB salaries haven’t moved dramatically for the highest paid guys as a % to the cap, the move is marginally incremental in proportion to the salary cap. The difference is a mid-tier guy is a bit more inflated to the cap with fully guaranteed money.

 

Either you get a stud and try to win with a 15-20% hit to the cap (which it will reach for Mahomes) or you try to win on rookie salaries with more overall talent. I’ve voided the rings for the Cheats and there is more data you win with a rookie and less cap.

 

SBs from 2010-2020
4 Rookies contracts have won, 3 vets (don’t count the Cheats).
Vets QBs behind the Giants, Saints, Broncos were at 10% of the salary cap
In all 7 wins the max value of the QB to SB was 10% at vet (highest Manning at 10.4%) to rookie salaries.

 

Verdict: Some team will break the mold with a high paid QB but the odds are a team with a huge salary is low. This will happen as more teams will be cash-strapped at 10%+ to the QB as that is being normalized in the league. You have to draft unbelievably well and get the right mix of budget vets for it to work and other-worldly QB play.

 

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

[GunnerBill]

39 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

 

Panthers with Cam too. And I don't believe you can just void the Pats either. Nor can you just discount McNabb and say "that is an overpay". 

 

This analysis has all the hallmarks of someone who had reached his conclusion and now is making the evidence support it.

Edited April 2, 2020 by GunnerBill

[billsfan89]

I remember thinking QB contracts were getting crazy when they eclipsed the 20 million mark around 10 years ago. Of course I did not fully grasp the percentage of cap concept and was just looking at the raw numbers. Now we are well into the 30 million aav range and easily going to get well into the 40 million aav range once Mahomes gets his deal and the cap goes up with more revenue coming in from the 17th game, 2 extra playoff games, and various other squeezings of revenues. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

I remember thinking QB contracts were getting crazy when they eclipsed the 20 million mark around 10 years ago. Of course I did not fully grasp the percentage of cap concept and was just looking at the raw numbers. Now we are well into the 30 million aav range and easily going to get well into the 40 million aav range once Mahomes gets his deal and the cap goes up with more revenue coming in from the 17th game, 2 extra playoff games, and various other squeezings of revenues. 

 

I don't think its wrong to pay a wilson top dollar, or mahomes when his contract comes up.  Rodgers, Brees, etc.  It's the other guys making top dollar where its a concern.  Why is Cousins making so much money?  Goff?  Carr?

 

Tannehill?!  He was so valuable that he threw for under 100 yards in their first 2 playoff games.  And you're going to pay him more than Newton and Brady get on the open market?  

[Thurman#1]

Love most of this post. Great stuff.

 

But voiding the Pats rings is deeply twisting the data.

 

EDIT: And Gunner is right when he says that removing McNabb as an overpay doesn't make sense either. There's always an overpay, that's how it works with a constantly rising cap. Sometimes the guy getting the overpay will be a Mahomes, and other times a guy like Cousins or Goff. That's how it works at every position, the rising cap means rising salaries which generally means whoever got the most recent deal and has a possibility of being really good will get what looks right then like an overpay.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Thurman#1

[BigBillsFan]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Panthers with Cam too. And I don't believe you can just void the Pats either. Nor can you just discount McNabb and say "that is an overpay". 

 

This analysis has all the hallmarks of someone who had reached his conclusion and now is making the evidence support it.

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

55 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

 

Because being the Biggest Loser is great for an NBC show, not so great as a fan. I also don't have time, I wasn't working, now I am so I have to be brief.

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

Love most of this post. Great stuff.

 

But voiding the Pats rings is deeply twisting the data.

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

[Thurman#1]

7 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

 

 

 

 

Of course players took discounts. Some anyway, a few. It's not like that only happened to the Pats. It happens to the top five teams or so in football every year. Not most guys, but some will give discounts.

 

As for the cheating, yeah I think they did it. But it's not the main reason they were a great team year in and year out. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I don't think its wrong to pay a wilson top dollar, or mahomes when his contract comes up.  Rodgers, Brees, etc.  It's the other guys making top dollar where its a concern.  Why is Cousins making so much money?  Goff?  Carr?

 

Tannehill?!  He was so valuable that he threw for under 100 yards in their first 2 playoff games.  And you're going to pay him more than Newton and Brady get on the open market?  

 

Goff was given a deal after putting together back to back very good to great seasons in 2017 to 2018. They just paid him early but at least given the context there was some sense to it. Derek Carr's contract actually makes sense. His aav is 25 million in 2017 which while a high end contract wasn't too bad. He constantly throws for well over 4000 yards, is super accurate, and has a TD to INT ratio that is usually 2 to 1 or better. He is an upper mid-level QB getting paid like one (and the fact that the deal was front loaded makes his current 20 million dollar cap hit better.) 

 

But I agree why pay guys like Tannehill and Cousins so much? Cousins is at best an above average QB who is getting paid like a top 10 QB with an insane guarantee. Who was paying 30 million for Tannehill on the open market? I would rather have lasic surgery Jamis for 10 million than Tannehill or even Tyrod plus 23 million in cap space than Tannehill. I think teams need to start playing hardball with QB's who aren't top players. Let a QB walk if some other team wants to commit 30 million to a guy who can't throw for over 100 yards in a playoff game. 

 

That's why I think the Cowboys were and are smart to franchise Dak, why pay him 30+ million if you can't win with a team constructed around him and a massive cap hit dedicated to him. 

[FireChans]

20 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

 

Because being the Biggest Loser is great for an NBC show, not so great as a fan. I also don't have time, I wasn't working, now I am so I have to be brief.

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

Yeah but you’re trying to draw a conclusion from 10 data points and you started out by throwing out 3 right off the bat. 

 

It’s just not great analysis. The Seahawks could have easily beaten the Pats and the Falcons also could have beaten the Pats. 

 

You draw can all kinds of faulty comparisons if you avoid using a reasonable amount of data.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by FireChans

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

[BigBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

 

That was my point overall. I wasn't saying middle tier QB vets were better, but their cost went up substantially which literally gives you no shot of doing anything. That the only chance to win really was off rookie deals or have stud QBs and nothing in-between.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

Here’s a fun stat. Since 2009, only 3 QB’s of the Super Bowl winning teams didn’t make the ProBowl the same year.

 

Conclusion? You have to be in the better third of QB’s to win a SuperBowl. Guys who do that consistently end up making lots of money. 

 

Bonus points to anybody who guesses the 3 QB’s 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

That was my point overall. I wasn't saying middle tier QB vets were better, but their cost went up substantially which literally gives you no shot of doing anything. That the only chance to win really was off rookie deals or have stud QBs and nothing in-between.

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002. 

 

Since 2003 nobody has taken mid ranking QB on a vet deal and won a Superbowl building around him. Whether they accounted for an average 10% or 12% of the cap. The % increase is irrelevant to that. 

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Here’s a fun stat. Since 2009, only 3 QB’s of the Super Bowl winning teams didn’t make the ProBowl the same year.

 

Conclusion? You have to be in the better third of QB’s to win a SuperBowl. Guys who do that consistently end up making lots of money. 

 

Bonus points to anybody who guesses the 3 QB’s 

 

Foles. Flacco. Peyton Manning

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002. 

 

Since 2003 nobody has taken mid ranking QB on a vet deal and won a Superbowl building around him. Whether they accounted for an average 10% or 12% of the cap. The % increase is irrelevant to that. 

 

Foles. Flacco. Peyton Manning

Oh *****, forgot Wentz didn’t play. There’s a fourth then.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Oh *****, forgot Wentz didn’t play. There’s a fourth then.

 

Hmm. In which case I am going Rodgers. I know Russ did, Eli had his best year the 2nd one he won so I presume he did which leaves me basically with Brady (who makes in every year on reputation even if he isn't spectacular). So I am going ARod. 

[FireChans]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Hmm. In which case I am going Rodgers. I know Russ did, Eli had his best year the 2nd one he won so I presume he did which leaves me basically with Brady (who makes in every year on reputation even if he isn't spectacular). So I am going ARod. 

Incredible. 4/4.

 

I was shocked at Rodgers myself. Peyton and Flacco I think were easy, but Rodgers has been a perennial pro bowler for so long I was shocked he didn’t make it.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, FireChans said:

Incredible. 4/4.

 

I was shocked at Rodgers myself. Peyton and Flacco I think were easy, but Rodgers has been a perennial pro bowler for so long I was shocked he didn’t make it.

 

He only became Aaron Rodgers the superstar after the Superbowl. He was good not great on an injury riddled team the year they won. Then came back and was superman the next year and I think won MVP. 

[BigBillsFan]

32 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for the cheating, yeah I think they did it. But it's not the main reason they were a great team year in and year out. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

 

It's not thinking they did, they did cheat.

 

No connection to winning? Sure it does. It’s a butterfly effect. If the Pats weren’t cheating they probably don’t win a SB as quickly (or at all) and if they don’t win Brady won’t have as much confidence, which stifles his growth.

 

It makes recruiting guys at discounts harder.

 

It helps the league look the other way with penalties:
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

 

How about fumbling rates?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats

 

How about knowing how to tape the other teams and 2 of their assistants turned coaches getting busted as well? How about cheating this year?

 

How about Brady never throwing over 30 TDs in his career and then Moss comes over for a 4th and he goes to 50 and bar is raised. That’s confidence and the Bannister-effect of the 4 minute mile.

 

The difference between winning and losing is very small in the NFL and no team, coach, or individual can consistently beat the odds. Watching Brady throw into the ground and never getting a grounding call is all you need to see this year.

 

I mean it’s endless:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/09/19/tom-brady-raekwon-mcmillan-hit-referee-stay-off-tom-video/2380026001/

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

It's not thinking they did, they did cheat.

 

No connection to winning? Sure it does. It’s a butterfly effect. If the Pats weren’t cheating they probably don’t win a SB as quickly (or at all) and if they don’t win Brady won’t have as much confidence, which stifles his growth.

 

It makes recruiting guys at discounts harder.

 

It helps the league look the other way with penalties:
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

 

How about fumbling rates?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats

 

How about knowing how to tape the other teams and 2 of their assistants turned coaches getting busted as well? How about cheating this year?

 

How about Brady never throwing over 30 TDs in his career and then Moss comes over for a 4th and he goes to 50 and bar is raised. That’s confidence and the Bannister-effect of the 4 minute mile.

 

The difference between winning and losing is very small in the NFL and no team, coach, or individual can consistently beat the odds. Watching Brady throw into the ground and never getting a grounding call is all you need to see this year.

 

I mean it’s endless:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/09/19/tom-brady-raekwon-mcmillan-hit-referee-stay-off-tom-video/2380026001/

 

Yea. They were just better than everyone else. Better coached. Better prepared. Better Quarterbacked. 

[BigBillsFan]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002.

 

Before 1993 free agency changes the league used to be a D-league winner or a stud QB winner.

 

My point is due the rising cost of QBs having a middle of the road QB at the higher price to your salary cap is a horrible idea and you’re better off trying with a new rookie contract and moving on.

 

My other point congruent to that is that it’s horrible for teams because they can’t just put a QB on the slow-burner and develop them as a starter like Big Ben.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

Before 1993 free agency changes the league used to be a D-league winner or a stud QB winner.

 

My point is due the rising cost of QBs having a middle of the road QB at the higher price to your salary cap is a horrible idea and you’re better off trying with a new rookie contract and moving on.

 

My other point congruent to that is that it’s horrible for teams because they can’t just put a QB on the slow-burner and develop them as a starter like Big Ben.

 

I think that is right I just don't think it is that new. It has certainly not changed since 2010. It was embedded long before then. I have been following the NFL since 2002 and it has always been thus. I think as for what do teams do.... well tying yourself in to a Tannehill or a Dalton or a Tyrod or an Alex Smith at big $s long term is a losing strategy. But there is a crowd of guys above that - I think all the 2016 guys are there.... Wentz, Goff and Dak.... well it is just darn hard to find QBs who can play at that level. The drop off from those guys to the guys you don't have to pay but can start for you - Keenum, Fitz etc is significant. 

[BigBillsFan]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think that is right I just don't think it is that new. It has certainly not changed since 2010. It was embedded long before then. I have been following the NFL since 2002 and it has always been thus. I think as for what do teams do.... well tying yourself in to a Tannehill or a Dalton or a Tyrod or an Alex Smith at big $s long term is a losing strategy. But there is a crowd of guys above that - I think all the 2016 guys are there.... Wentz, Goff and Dak.... well it is just darn hard to find QBs who can play at that level. The drop off from those guys to the guys you don't have to pay but can start for you - Keenum, Fitz etc is significant. 

 

I guess I was just pointing out that the concept of a decent quarterback who wins with a strong defense but gets paid more than 10% of the salary cap is a dead idea. They either need an elite defense which requires the QB isn't paid much  but needs moderate competency with a great running game, or be one of the top 4 best in the game or you start over is the best case scenario for ever winning the Superbowl in the modern era.

 

I don't think Big Ben for his 1st SB wasn't very good yet, I think Flacco hit fire in the playoffs but wasn't good otherwise. Mahomes didn't play all that well in the SB either. They all had that little margin for error to lack greatness and still win because of a strong team. My point is that goes away with a highly paid QB. You have to be amazing at the draft and finding FAs that perfectly fit your model to maximize wins.

Edited April 3, 2020 by BigBillsFan

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

We're going to win the Super Bowl.

[GunnerBill]

10 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

I guess I was just pointing out that the concept of a decent quarterback who wins with a strong defense but gets paid more than 10% of the salary cap is a dead idea. They either need an elite defense which requires the QB isn't paid much  but needs moderate competency with a great running game, or be one of the top 4 best in the game or you start over is the best case scenario for ever winning the Superbowl in the modern era.

 

I don't think Big Ben for his 1st SB wasn't very good yet, I think Flacco hit fire in the playoffs but wasn't good otherwise. Mahomes didn't play all that well in the SB either. They all had that little margin for error to lack greatness and still win because of a strong team. My point is that goes away with a highly paid QB. You have to be amazing at the draft and finding FAs that perfectly fit your model to maximize wins.

 

I think Mahomes won his team the Superbowl. He might not have been great all 4 quarters but he was the difference in the game. Flacco and Ben both won the Superbowl you are talking about while on rookie deals supported by strong teams and strong defences, sure. 

 

My point is I don't think it has ever (in my time watching the NFL) been any different. Maybe it was in the 90s that is before my time. But you always needed either a rookie contract QB and a stacked roster or one of the top 5 or 6 QBs in the league capable of hiding other roster flaws. I don't think an increase in the mean QB salary from 10% to 12% has changed that one iota. 

 

EDIT: the reason it is not as easy as just moving off a Matt Stafford or a Dak or a Goff is as we in Buffalo should know only too well the alternative can be 10, 15, 20 years of irrelevance. The Bills didn't go to the draft often enough in that time in my view (Losman, Manuel and a 3rd rounder in Edwards) but the more you do go to the draft well to try and find that guy who might be good enough while on his rookie deal with a stacked roster..... the harder it becomes to build that stacked roster. So while I am sure all NFL teams know how hard it is to win with one of those good not great QBs taking up 12% of their cap they also know that having that can still make you a playoff contender more often than not - see Cousins, Kirk - and the alternative is you being sub .500 ever year. And if you are that GM and Head Coach you are going to get fired.

Edited April 3, 2020 by GunnerBill

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

18 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Goff was given a deal after putting together back to back very good to great seasons in 2017 to 2018. They just paid him early but at least given the context there was some sense to it. Derek Carr's contract actually makes sense. His aav is 25 million in 2017 which while a high end contract wasn't too bad. He constantly throws for well over 4000 yards, is super accurate, and has a TD to INT ratio that is usually 2 to 1 or better. He is an upper mid-level QB getting paid like one (and the fact that the deal was front loaded makes his current 20 million dollar cap hit better.) 

 

But I agree why pay guys like Tannehill and Cousins so much? Cousins is at best an above average QB who is getting paid like a top 10 QB with an insane guarantee. Who was paying 30 million for Tannehill on the open market? I would rather have lasic surgery Jamis for 10 million than Tannehill or even Tyrod plus 23 million in cap space than Tannehill. I think teams need to start playing hardball with QB's who aren't top players. Let a QB walk if some other team wants to commit 30 million to a guy who can't throw for over 100 yards in a playoff game. 

 

That's why I think the Cowboys were and are smart to franchise Dak, why pay him 30+ million if you can't win with a team constructed around him and a massive cap hit dedicated to him. 

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

 

Goff is better than Tannehill. I know he struggled last year but believe me much of that was on coaching. The scheme got figured out and McVay struggled big time to adjust. Finally after the humiliation by the Ravens he did adjust. They abandoned the stretch zone for the most part, went to more of a man blocking power scheme up front and a traditional play action pass game. Goff threw half of his season tally of touchdowns in those last 5 games. Before that the offense was fundamentally broken and while I don't absolve Goff from any of the blame the majority of it belonged on coaching. Matt Patricia hasn't proven much yet as an NFL Head Coach but he was the man who found the recipe to stopping McVay's offense. The Bears and then ultimately the Patriots in the Superbowl were building on the Patricia blueprint. And once the book is out there on you in the NFL.... that is when the challenge begins. We will see how Lamar and the Ravens offense fairs next year because the Bills and McDermott found a blueprint to slowing them too and then the Titans refined it to perfection in the playoffs. Teams will keep using it until the Ravens can overcome.

[JetsFan20]

I find Jameis Winston to be an interesting case study. 
 

I think 10 years ago he would have received a second contract from the Bucs. In today’s game you don’t pay a QB unless you feel he’s upper echelon. 

[T master]

Any way you look at it the contracts are getting pretty foolish unless you have a generational talent might be the only way that kind of money should be paid to any 1 player .

 

Bruce, LT (giants), Bo, Rice,  & the many others that can walk on the field & the entire game changes because that 1 person is there then yah i can see it but IMHO it's just crazy to think a person can make some $25 mill a season or more (& it will be more in the future) is just nuts !! 

 

Just Saying !! 

[BigBillsFan]

I guess that was my point @JetsFan20 and @T master although I should point out what we pay them should be proportionate to the team salary cap.

 

I just think the idea of holding on to a QB will be impossible moving forward unless you are willing to allocate more money than team's previously had who didn't have studs. The Goffs, Prescotts, and Wentzs of NFL give you a shot to be entertaining and potentially in the playoffs annually but they can never be winners without getting more talent.

 

It's a weird situation. Obviously I don't have the time or desire to do a full analysis but it was interesting that McVay said the best time to win was under Goff's rookie deal. Looking at it now it only makes sense if above average QBs went from 10% of the salary cap to to 12%. While it seems marginal it's the difference in $4 million annually to extend to other talent you want to retain.

 

If someone did a full return on investment analysis based on metrics from cap spend that would be fascinating. I'm sure GMs have this hidden metric, but it's obviously the reason why teams aren't signing Winston. There is some hidden metric they have that says they can only allocate X budget to a player if they hit some formula. I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Goff is better than Tannehill. I know he struggled last year but believe me much of that was on coaching. The scheme got figured out and McVay struggled big time to adjust. Finally after the humiliation by the Ravens he did adjust. They abandoned the stretch zone for the most part, went to more of a man blocking power scheme up front and a traditional play action pass game. Goff threw half of his season tally of touchdowns in those last 5 games. Before that the offense was fundamentally broken and while I don't absolve Goff from any of the blame the majority of it belonged on coaching. Matt Patricia hasn't proven much yet as an NFL Head Coach but he was the man who found the recipe to stopping McVay's offense. The Bears and then ultimately the Patriots in the Superbowl were building on the Patricia blueprint. And once the book is out there on you in the NFL.... that is when the challenge begins. We will see how Lamar and the Ravens offense fairs next year because the Bills and McDermott found a blueprint to slowing them too and then the Titans refined it to perfection in the playoffs. Teams will keep using it until the Ravens can overcome.

 

Yeah - there's always a blueprint to stopping an offense.  The execution of that blueprint separates good teams from bad ones.  Disguising rushers, and bringing pressure in unique ways will tank the rams offense.  Teams also had a lot less to worry about with Gurley, so the play action game wasn't as effective.

 

The Ravens are stopped by good secondaries and good front 4's.  If you're disciplined in your rush lanes, and disciplined in your gap integrity - you force him to step up and make the throws.  If they can't run the ball, they'll struggle since its largely a vertical passing attack.  You just have to keep at it even in the 3rd and longs because if he breaks contain he can make it happen.  

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Yeah - there's always a blueprint to stopping an offense.  The execution of that blueprint separates good teams from bad ones.  Disguising rushers, and bringing pressure in unique ways will tank the rams offense.  Teams also had a lot less to worry about with Gurley, so the play action game wasn't as effective.

 

The Ravens are stopped by good secondaries and good front 4's.  If you're disciplined in your rush lanes, and disciplined in your gap integrity - you force him to step up and make the throws.  If they can't run the ball, they'll struggle since its largely a vertical passing attack.  You just have to keep at it even in the 3rd and longs because if he breaks contain he can make it happen.  

 

With the Rams the secret sauce seemed to be the jet motion. Let them have the first down the 4 or 5 times a game they actually hand it off to the motion guy. Just ignore it and on the rest of the snaps you will realise that their offense suddenly becomes a lot more easy and predictable to diagnose. 

 

With the Ravens it is clog the middle. Take Ingram and the traditional run game away and take away those middle of the field passing lanes for Jackson. Make him throw outside the numbers to beat you. 

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, dneveu said:

 

Your thoughts on tannehill match my thoughts on goff.  The team was assembled during his rookie contract.  He was never the engine that made this offense go - 3 deep at WR, a solid (overpaid) TE, and a top 5 RB.  Now the RB is gone, they're trying to move one of the WRs to try and create space to keep Kupp.  The once strong offensive line is no longer a strength. 

 

Wade got the ax again, so we'll see what the new coordinator does.  Depth is an issue when you move so many picks, and have so many high dollar contracts.  They'll eventually have the highest paid corner and highest paid DT, a high paid QB etc.  I think moving on from Gurley helps... that was a terrible deal.  But being unwilling to move on BEFORE you make the mistake is a big problem to me.  

 

Goff could be on his 5th year option right now.. maybe he holds out etc.  But they could just as easily make a run at Cam, or Dalton etc.  

 

 

 

I agree that Goff in large part benefitted from having so much talent around him in 2017 and 2018. But at least Goff had 2 seasons where he sustained a high level of play, Tannehill was given only 6 million less for half an above average season. In my mind Goff was a mistake that one could see coming but at least had some semblance of sense to it. Tannehill was a mind numbing mistake that had no logic at the time nor makes any sense long term. 

 

I think teams are too afraid of losing a QB who is decent. I get that decent QB play is not so easy to find but I don’t think the Redskins really regret not paying Cousins 90 million guaranteed. Whereas the Titans will regret that Tannehill contract soon and the Rams are already hamstrung by that Goff contract. And I think Goff is a good QB (Probably would rank him between 10-12 in terms of QB's) but you can't pay a good QB like a top 3 QB, the Rams probably would slot him in the 28 million range which would have freed up 8 million in space that could have been used to sign a couple of decent starters. 

[Rochesterfan]

20 hours ago, BigBillsFan said:

I guess that was my point @JetsFan20 and @T master although I should point out what we pay them should be proportionate to the team salary cap.

 

I just think the idea of holding on to a QB will be impossible moving forward unless you are willing to allocate more money than team's previously had who didn't have studs. The Goffs, Prescotts, and Wentzs of NFL give you a shot to be entertaining and potentially in the playoffs annually but they can never be winners without getting more talent.

 

It's a weird situation. Obviously I don't have the time or desire to do a full analysis but it was interesting that McVay said the best time to win was under Goff's rookie deal. Looking at it now it only makes sense if above average QBs went from 10% of the salary cap to to 12%. While it seems marginal it's the difference in $4 million annually to extend to other talent you want to retain.

 

If someone did a full return on investment analysis based on metrics from cap spend that would be fascinating. I'm sure GMs have this hidden metric, but it's obviously the reason why teams aren't signing Winston. There is some hidden metric they have that says they can only allocate X budget to a player if they hit some formula. I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

 

I just think some of your premise is way off base.  The change you are talking about is minor for mid-level starters.  Do you actually believe that 2% or about 4 million dollars is the difference for an average QB to suddenly win a SuperBowl?  
 

The difference is not a very low end starter at RB, or a #3 WR.  The team doesn’t win a Super Bowl because they can afford a low end Guard or a back-up level tackle.  The addition of a back-up at DT or DE or maybe a low end starter at LB (think Kiko Alonso) or even a low end #3 CB or safety does not drive the team to a super bowl.

 

The fact that mid level starting QBs saw a 2% increase is not the reason.  How much of an increase has mid level OT increased, or DEs, or even CBs.  Many positions have seen similar increases compared to the cap for mid level players.  Depth across the league is way down because the starter levels get paid many times more than they are worth.  For example - Shaq Lawson.  Many people wanted to give him the 5th year option at just over 10 million.  That is over 2 million more than the Bills valued him at or 1% for a rotational DE.  Now let’s say they had used the option - then his starting request after that as a FA is most likely an increase to 12 million - another 1% increase covering the same difference as your mid level QB.

 

Now the difference between a QB on a Rookie Deal and the second deal.  Now you are talking some money.  The difference for Mahomes is going to be like 30-35 million dollars (15 - 18% of the cap) or essentially 2-3 all pro players at any other position.  That is a huge difference.  Once you start to lop off top end talent around your roster - the QB better be elite and make others better or you are going to struggle.  The Rams tried to keep their elite talent and downgraded a huge percentage of their roster instead - enough that they took a huge step backwards.  I think some of it was that teams started to figure McVay out and some was their talent especially on the O-line and LBs took big steps back.