If you swapped the two, the Bills would have gotten their first playoff win in 25 years last year. Allen with this OL, these receivers and this coach.... we'd have been begging to trade up for Herbert or Tua.
The answer is to make developing QB's a continuing priority even when you already have one. And for the record I don't think a great QB is needed to win a Super Bowl title. I think a good one will do. The great ones win titles when the rest of the team is good to go. Paying them like they are great, well that usually means the rest of the team is not good to go. It's not a paradox. It's an inability of NFL front offices/ownerships to recognize an over-riding truth about the nature of the cap and competition.
Given that it's difficult to land a good QB, I'm not sure if teams can count on developing one after getting a FQB. When a FQB is on the team, conventional wisdom suggests that the FO should build around him and acquire players on D who can knock down the opposing QB.
You can always find a franchise QB if you have a good scouting department and people who know talent. While first-rounders dominate the conversation many great QB's have been found as mid-to-late rounders or UDFA's. Most of the time these QB's were found by a process commonly known as "getting lucky as hell" but the fact that they can be found in every era of the modern NFL suggests that there is a vast pool of potential franchise QB's out there. If there were not such a pool we would not have names like Unitas, Staubach, Jurgensen, Fouts, Montana, Moon and Warner in the Hall of Fame. We would not have names like Brady, Wilson and Prescott playing right now. I've left out the 2nd rounders as corner-cases. The Green Bay Packers took a raw but talented QB in the first round in 2005 because they knew they had time to develop him and a need that was growing stronger by the year to find another QB. Every team in the NFL should be spending at least one draft pick on a potential replacement QB every couple of years at the outside. They should be spending a high pick on a potential replacement whenever they both have the opportunity and are likely to need a replacement in the next few years due to economics, age or just a general feeling that the QB was driving the team places it can't afford to go. The Green Bay Packers (again) are the poster boy for what you need to do at QB - even when you have a great one (twice now). This is not to say that a team can't waste a lot of picks at QB. We know the Jets have done this and recently. You have to have good talent evaluation and you have to treat scouting as though it is the lifeblood of the team - because it is.
Who exactly has that conventional wisdom worked for over the last two decades? The only teams that have managed to both keep their franchise QB and win a title after his second contract are the Patriots (cheaters on the cap) and the Giants (and it was 9-7 lucky the second time and straight downhill after that.) You win with FQB's on their first contract. Once you get to the second the teams with rising QB's on their first (and the Pats who are an abomination) win all the rings.
Broncos with Manning Steelers with Roethlisberger Packers with Rodgers Saints with Brees Pats with Brady Giants with Manning all teams to win a SB recently with a QB on their 2nd or 3rd contract. You only had the Giants and Pats. you also have to consider that if Shanahan Jr. doesn’t blow 2nd half leads - twice! There would be 2 more SB winning teams with QBs on their second contract - Falcons and 49ers. Anything can happen in 1 game, I think we can agree both those teams were built to win the title
Steelers did not pay Roethlisberger until after 2008. His cap number in 2008 was $7.9M which was 6.9% of their cap. Saints did not pay Drew Brees until after 2009. His cap number in 2009 was $10.6M which was 8.7% of their cap. Packers did not pay Aaron Rodgers until after 2010. His cap number in 2010 was $6.5M which was under 6% of their cap. Giants won in 2011 with Eli Manning making $14.1M, which was 11.7% of their cap. They went 7-7 and then they won out in one of the most unusual SB runs in history. Definitely not a model for teams to follow. They beat the Jets, who were also 7-7, to start the run. Manning and Brady just don't work as comps in the argument. The Broncos won despite Peyton Manning having a terrible year, getting injured and playing poorly in the Super Bowl. The Pats were cooking the books so heavily that you never actually knew what Brady was being compensated from year to year. With the new CBA cooking the books is not an option and ta-da, no more Brady in New England. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
The Packers had a 35 year old QB who was contemplating retirement in 2005, so it made sense for them to take a QB who many felt should've been taken with the first pick. And I saw their reasoning for taking a QB early this year who can develop before starting. My issue with the Packers draft was that they didn't take a WR in a deep class for the position. But a franchise QB in his prime is harder to replace because no QB prospect is a guarantee to succeed in the NFL and the goal is to win a Lombardi trophy. Take the Chiefs. They just won a Super Bowl with a 24 year old QB who might be the best in the game right now. They will have to pay him soon. They could also trade him for a boat load of picks, but what are the odds that any QB they get from those selections becomes half as great as the QB they have now? I'm all for taking a QB every few years even with a franchise QB already on the roster. But, I find it dangerous to bank on the draftee replacing the incumbent in a few years. It's more likely the draftee becomes a backup, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as we saw with the Eagles in 2017. BTW, I don't completely disagree with you. But, you gave an example of a team with aging starting QB's in 2005 and 2020. If they had a 25 year old star QB who was about to get paid, their fanbase would revolt if they traded him.
The getting paid part does more to level the franchise than any other single thing that management could do. It breaks up great defenses. It prevents retaining other stars on offense. It lowers the quality of depth beyond acceptable levels. If Sam Darnold gets a huge contract in a couple of years it will be because the Jets have won a Super Bowl or because they can't break out of the mindset that he will win a Super Bowl for them despite the odds on that happening approaching zero after he has been paid. The reality of the cap and NFL football is that teams that have a great QB on their first contract have the best chance to win their first Super Bowl in a window. Teams that have a good to great veteran QB on a (for whatever reason) 2nd-tier cap number for the year have the next best chance. All other teams have a fluke chance (Manning in 2011) or Tom Brady. Period. Brady of course was at 2nd-tier numbers for much of his career. Going back to 2001: 2001 - Brady on 1st contract. 2002 - Brad Johnson on 2nd-tier contract. 2003 - Brady on 1st contract. 2004 - Brady on 1st contract. 2005 - Roethlisberger on 1st contract. 2006 - Peyton Manning on 2nd contract at 10.4% of cap 2007 - Eli Manning on 1st contract. 2008 - Roethlisberger on 1st contract. 2009 - Brees on 1st contract in New Orleans at 8.7% of cap. 2010 - Rodgers on 1st contract. 2011 - Eli Manning on 2nd contract at 11.7% of cap. 2012 - Flacco on 1st contract. 2013 - Wilson on 1st contract. 2014 - Brady at 10.6% of cap. 2015 - Peyton Manning at 11.7% of cap. 2016 - Brady at 8.6% of cap. 2017 - Foles at 0.9% of cap. Wentz at 3.4% of cap. 2018 - Brady at 12.2% of cap. 2019 - Mahomes at 2.4% of cap. That's 19 years and 14 rings on the fingers of QB's on their 1st contract or a 2nd-tier contract. The exceptions? 2006 Peyton Manning finally wins a Super Bowl at one of his lower cap numbers. 2007 Eli Manning gets lucky as hell and wins out with a team that barely qualifies for the playoffs. Helluva pass rush there too. 2014 Tom Brady at 10.6%. 2015 Peyton Manning gets lucky as hell, getting carried to his 2nd ring. Helluva pass rush. 2018 Tom Brady at 12.2% of the cap. Now make me a case for paying Sam Darnold a huge sum on his second deal based on those numbers. There isn't one in my opinion. If we win a Super Bowl in the next two years we will be paying Darnold for past glory unlikely to be repeated. If we don't win a Super Bowl in that time we will be paying him purely for marketing purposes with virtually no chance to win a Super Bowl with him at QB. Note that since 2001 only Peyton Manning has won his first ring after getting paid.
You need to also do that analysis for Super Bowl losers, playoff appearances, W-L records, etc. When you only have a sample of 19, Brady can single-handedly skew your conclusions.
I'm not interested in Super Bowl losers, playoff appearances and W-L records. I'm interested in what it takes to win a Super Bowl. If you didn't have Tom Brady or one of the Manning brothers over the last two decades that included not paying your QB like he was the be-all and end-all towards winning a championship. Without Eli's lucky run in 2011 and Peyton getting carried to a ring in 2015 in his last year of play you have Tom Brady twice and Peyton in 2006 on the plus side of the ledger. You have 14 trophies going to teams that were not paying their QB like he was 10% of the team instead of 1 out of 22 regulars. Notably only 6 teams won w/o a guy capable of leading the NFL in passing over that span, those being the 2002 Bucs, the 2007 and 2011 Giants, the 2012 Ravens, the 2013 Seahawks and the 2017 Eagles. However Peyton Manning was toast in 2015 and retired after the season so he probably belongs on that list also despite being all-world in 2014. The worst situation to be in is a QB with a high cap figure who is not a great passer. Only the Broncos managed the trick over the last 19 seasons, with Peyton, and he had one of the best seasons of all time the year before but predictably fell short because the cap matters.
It isn't about what you're interested in. The problem is that using a sample size of 19 when 6 of those observations are the same person isn't statistically sound.
No, he didn't. Anything else is pure fantasy. Pete Carroll failed with the Patriots. Pete Carroll is on record as saying that it took getting fired from both the Jets and the Patriots and being unemployed for him to sit down and do some honest self-evaluation. It was during that time that he realized many of his mistakes, and made big changes in his attitude and approach to coaching. He said THAT is what enabled him to be successful at USC and then get the Seahawks job.
Wolf may have been involved in the decision to hire Bowles. It was my understanding that it was supposed to be the two working together, but they could have been working independently with each making their own recommendations and then Woody went with whom he believed/trusted more. Even if Wolf was involved in that decision, Bowles was the hot young D coordinator at the time. If memory serves me correctly, the choice came down to Bowles or Quinn, and the Jets had to wait on Quinn. They panicked and went with Bowles. That's what they get for consistently opting for HC candidates with a defensive background rather than an offensive background. If Wolf was involved in Mac's hiring, then yes, he should be brought before the Tribunal as well, but with the understanding that he did so due to senility. I think that was all Casserly. Mac was Casserly's protegé and friend. They had worked together for the Texans.
I agree. I think many fans give too much credence to the HC/OC/QB Coach for a QB's success or failure. I think that most of them innately have the drive, the intelligence (football IQ), talent, and ability to get it done, or they don't. I'm sure that that triumvirate can help a QB be better and enhance his chances of winning, and that they can also hamper him by trying to use him in a scheme that doesn't fit his strengths, putting him behind an awful OL, and giving him a lack of quality weapons around him. I think the better QBs figure out a way to make chicken salad out of chicken shit and they become very good players whether they win a SB or not. Identifying those players is not an exact science. Ron Wolf correctly identified that Favre had great potential and Ted Thompson the same thing with Aaron Rodgers, but I think both missed on a number of other QBs they drafted. We'll see if Brian Gutekunst is as good or lucky with Love as Wolf and Thompson were with Favre and Rodgers, respectively. Even when a GM can identify a great QB prospect, when he already has one, it can be impossible to get into position to draft the next one because his team is winning more games than they lose every year and the costs of trading up are too steep, where even if they did trade up and get that QB, they'd soon have holes popping up all over their roster because of the number of high draft picks they had to use to move up. The problem with "conventional wisdom" is that finding an elite pass rusher is just as difficult as finding a FQB. That's why DCs have developed so many disguised coverages and exotic blitzes. When a team has an elite pass rusher, the alignment or scheme can make some difference in his success, but just like a FQB, he will find a way to be successful even in a bad scheme. There are always exceptions to every "rule" or theory, but in general, I don't think a coach turn a mediocre talent into an elite player. Even when a player is supremely gifted physically, a coach can't make him "elite" if the player doesn't have the right mental makeup, or a coach can't make a player with a great instincts and football IQ an "elite" player if that player only has mediocre physical ability.
There is no case for Sam getting a big money contract after his rookie deal expires. If that's what he and his agent demand, it'll be time to get a new starting QB. I actually agree that a team's best chance to win is when the QB is great and on his rookie contract. Which is why Sam will have to be on a 2nd tier cap number as you put it in 2023(assuming his 5th year option is picked up). I don't see the Jets having a fighting chance until 2021 at the earliest as the OL needs to gel and Sam needs to develop chemistry with his new weapons among other things. My point was it's not easy to replace a great QB in his prime. The Chiefs just won a Super Bowl, but their chances at winning more after 2021 will depend on how much they give Mahomes. There's no way they're trading him. Or is there....
The Chiefs just won their first Super Bowl in 50+ years. Andy Reid loves his QB's - even when their contracts are hurting the team (see Donovan Reid). Pat Mahomes is arguably the best QB in football right now. I think the Chiefs are going to pay him and then learn the lesson off of that situation. It's not clear who is going to have the breakthrough moment on this issue. They're going to have to say no to their QB, get a younger cheaper replacement and then win it all. I think the Packers are the most likely team obviously but it could be the Pats or the Steelers or even the 49ers at this point. Garoppolo's cap number is very high although not top out and it's unclear the 49ers can win a Super Bowl with him at 12%+ of the cap. I left the Cowboys out of the argument because i don't think they can win a Super Bowl with or without Dak Prescott at the moment. The team is all stars and people who will want to be paid like the stars and that's a broken locker room.
Even if they could trade Mahomes, they'd be foolish to do so. He is probably the best QB in the game right and could easily wind up a HOFer. The Chiefs can let Kelce and Hill go and draft young WRs. They can let defensive players who want big contract go and they can still win with Mahomes.
This QB talk, I know the Falcons didn't win but it wasn't Matt Ryan's fault they lost that game and he's a 150M dollar QB. The team hasn't been the same since, a lot of injuries.
