High Paid QBs 'losing the offseason'... | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

High Paid QBs 'losing the offseason'...

TrogdorTheBurninator

TrogdorTheBurninator

Club Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,203
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Right here, Right now
www.yahoo.com

How $40M QBs like Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers and Dak Prescott are losing the offseason

The quarterbacks aren't to blame for the attrition on their rosters, but for different reasons their teams have been left with hard choices to make.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

QB position is obviously the most valued position in football. But it seems like paying the best QBs these extra extravagant contracts may be detrimental to the teams. So I'm wondering people's opinion on this.

If you have a Mahomes or Rodgers, it seems you pretty much have pay them extravagantly or someone else will and then your team will flounder back to mediocrity or worse. But in the same breath, if you canā€™t afford to surround the QB with important pieces, you could be turning yourself into just a playoff contender instead of a constant Superbowl contender. Seems like teams are at their best when they have a top 5 QB whose still under their rookie contract.
 
To many players, QB's included, the idea of being shown their "due respect" and "appreciated" as the highest paid player in the league at their position is the primary goal. Team considerations be darned.

Wonder when its all said and done if its worth it. Not just for the non-tangible things, like did the contract prevent their team from building a full team that could have brought them a lot of priceless benefits? But also, sometimes these guys are so fixated on their short term earnings they they don't realize the benefit to their future earnings in being on a team that will allow them to continually maintain numbers that give them future value as a player - and also offer less chance of them being discarded partway through that awesome contract because if they do slip, their contract will vastly exceed their value, and they could end up on the market being paid according to production that wasn't of the level they are capable of.
 
this is one of the reasons you see us kinda of going all in this year. you got 2 more years of cheap Tua.

AS far as the high paid QB's losing the offseason. You pay them that because supposedly they are players that make their teammates better. I'ma pay Rodgers this 40+ mil because i dont think he NEEDS Adams to win. Its a drop off, but i think we can bring in Devante Parker at a 1/3rd of the cost and Rodgers will elevate him. We dont need to bring in Armstead because Rodgers doesnt NEED 3.5 seconds to throw or a clean pocket, we can save a little and sign Billy Turner for 1/3rd of the cost.

If I was a GM, i dont know that i could get behind that thought philosophy too strongly.

I dont know exactly how win shares work in football. but if your QB's win share is over half of what your projected wins are, then you are looking at potential disaster.

Regardless every position is getting almost too inflated now and as long as the egos have the guys saying i want to be top paid at the position every year its only going to get worse.
 
Chiefs and Packers both draft well. I expect both teams to be just fine. I hope Miami has a highly paid QB someday. When that time comes, whoever the GM is has to nail every 1st and 2nd round pick. Or trade them. šŸ˜
 
TrogdorTheBurninator said:
www.yahoo.com

How $40M QBs like Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers and Dak Prescott are losing the offseason

The quarterbacks aren't to blame for the attrition on their rosters, but for different reasons their teams have been left with hard choices to make.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

QB position is obviously the most valued position in football. But it seems like paying the best QBs these extra extravagant contracts may be detrimental to the teams. So I'm wondering people's opinion on this.

If you have a Mahomes or Rodgers, it seems you pretty much have pay them extravagantly or someone else will and then your team will flounder back to mediocrity or worse. But in the same breath, if you canā€™t afford to surround the QB with important pieces, you could be turning yourself into just a playoff contender instead of a constant Superbowl contender. Seems like teams are at their best when they have a top 5 QB whose still under their rookie contract.
Click to expand...

Here is some blasphemy. Assume GB trades away Rodgers, picks up 2 1sts and a 3rd, AND gets a solid QB for $30mm. They'd get 3 more draft picks, 2 of them 1sts, and gain $20mm for a couple of top players. Would they be out of playoff contention? Out of SB contention? Would the extra players make up for the lack of an 'elite' QB?
I'm not arguing elite QBs don't deserve their money (they ARE paid partly for filling seats), but at some point, their salaries begin to limit the acquisition of additional talent. Where that limit is, is the debate.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
Here is some blasphemy. Assume GB trades away Rodgers, picks up 2 1sts and a 3rd, AND gets a solid QB for $30mm. They'd get 3 more draft picks, 2 of them 1sts, and gain $20mm for a couple of top players. Would they be out of playoff contention? Out of SB contention? Would the extra players make up for the lack of an 'elite' QB?
I'm not arguing elite QBs don't deserve their money (they ARE paid partly for filling seats), but at some point, their salaries begin to limit the acquisition of additional talent. Where that limit is, is the debate.
Click to expand...
The thing is, paying the star QB is a business decision. It can take a lot if butts out of seats if the team let's their star QB go. Also, while with a star QB there's reasonable assurance of a competitive season, it's more of a wild card to go a different direction. Paying a top qb is the easiest one to sell to fans and also offers the most predictable outcome.

I understand why teams pay Qbs, I just wish QBs didn't hold teams hostage.
 
Sirspud said:
The thing is, paying the star QB is a business decision. It can take a lot if butts out of seats if the team let's their star QB go. Also, while with a star QB there's reasonable assurance of a competitive season, it's more of a wild card to go a different direction. Paying a top qb is the easiest one to sell to fans and also offers the most predictable outcome.

I understand why teams pay Qbs, I just wish QBs didn't hold teams hostage.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness we won't have that problem for several years.
 
Sirspud said:
The thing is, paying the star QB is a business decision. It can take a lot if butts out of seats if the team let's their star QB go. Also, while with a star QB there's reasonable assurance of a competitive season, it's more of a wild card to go a different direction. Paying a top qb is the easiest one to sell to fans and also offers the most predictable outcome.

I understand why teams pay Qbs, I just wish QBs didn't hold teams hostage.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. All I'm saying is, at some point, the QB salary becomes a negative. To make an outlandish example, giving a QB $100mm/yr leaves little room for the other 52. Now, it's fair to argue whether that number is $30mm or $60mm, but that limit exists.
 
If you pay your QB too much, you are usually going to have holes elsewhere.
 
Crump said:
this is one of the reasons you see us kinda of going all in this year. you got 2 more years of cheap Tua.

AS far as the high paid QB's losing the offseason. You pay them that because supposedly they are players that make their teammates better. I'ma pay Rodgers this 40+ mil because i dont think he NEEDS Adams to win. Its a drop off, but i think we can bring in Devante Parker at a 1/3rd of the cost and Rodgers will elevate him. We dont need to bring in Armstead because Rodgers doesnt NEED 3.5 seconds to throw or a clean pocket, we can save a little and sign Billy Turner for 1/3rd of the cost.

If I was a GM, i dont know that i could get behind that thought philosophy too strongly.

I dont know exactly how win shares work in football. but if your QB's win share is over half of what your projected wins are, then you are looking at potential disaster.

Regardless every position is getting almost too inflated now and as long as the egos have the guys saying i want to be top paid at the position every year its only going to get worse.
Click to expand...

This is it, right here.

Thereā€™s a reason Seattle got very good, very fast. They had a solid team BEFORE they got Russell Wilsonā€¦and then they got lucky and snagged a franchise QB in the 3rd round. Itā€™s similar with what SF didā€¦and what KC did, and what CIN did.

Miami TRIED to do it with their lines, and FUBARed the coaching.

The upside is that Miami has 1-1/2 to 2 years left to do it with Tua. And at his current pace, Tua is unlikely to be in a position to demand a crippling contract against the salary cap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom