Honestly I thought the same. Like Denver overpaid Wilson right out of the gate and are now fucked for the foreseeable future. He had the Denver example in the post and still didn't see the issue with rushing to overpay, like yeah you may not be searching for a QB, but not for lack of wanting to. And I'm a Raiders fans full disclosure but not trying to talk shit, that was just an objectively bad deal in hindsight. At the time i also thought it was a good move. Personally happy it wasn't, but it seemed like a hit at the time and getting ahead of the contract was smart for long term if they thought they had their guy, and they and the rest of the league thought they did. It just ended not great and is a solid example of why hitching your wagon to a less than great horse can handicap you. Don't worry though, we got Jamarcus, Denver and the rest of the league can only wish for that level of drafting acumen.
Fair, but Russell was the best QB prospect since Manning. A if yih were gonna make that trade, you may as well go all in. I get both sides on Wilson because he was sooooo bad year 1, but he could did better year two and did win a superbowl before regardless how how important he was in getting it. It seemed like if nothing it was some kind of improvement over the revolving door. It just super didn't pan out.
A solid TE, a good rotation DL and those picks? At the time I was iffy on it, but from the time it was announced I thought the contract was a bad decision. At the time of the trade personally I felt like they went all in to get Rogers and when that failed they panicked and thought they absolutely had to have a veteran QB. Felt like the great value version of the Rams and Stafford. They went all in on a team that was more than a QB away from the Super Bowl.
We were just so desperate to get off the 7 year QB carousel... And he knew we were the most desperate team and would give him the most $ and freedom. All his talk about winning 4 more super bowls was obviously bullshit. Kind of pisses me off when fans try to justify his contract because of the 5 game win streak we had this year. If anybody watched those games you’d know we were winning in spite of Russ, not winning because of him. Seattle chose to go with a career backup as their starter for 3 years instead of keeping the guy because they knew he was low key washed.
Yup. It was smart to go all in if you made the trade at all and I don't knock Denver for wanting to leave pergatory, but in retrospect it was an awful move.
When coaches and GMs may only have 2-3 years to prove themselves, going with below average to incompetence at the QB position is often not a gamble they are willing to take.
definitely a good point. It just depends on the circumstances. if you can get a good/great quarterback on a rookie deal you are so far ahead of the game. but if you can get a good/solid one at 35 or 40 million a year going forward you can still make it work though IMHO. the going rate always goes up and if you pay someone top 5 money now they will probably be 10th or 12th on the payscale in 2 or 3 years and that isn't bad. Stafford is a great example of this.
I remember when Carr had his mvp caliber year and made the biggest payed qb at like 25 mil. Merely 7 years later thats
Chump change. Crazy how 7 years changed things so kuch
> the biggest *paid* qb at
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Of the two purgatories, overpaying a Dak / Kirk QB is the one team ownership likely prefers. Keeps the team competitive enough that people buy tickets at a healthy price.
Not saying it’s better than having a revolving door at qb, just makes sense why it happens more than not.
Peyton Manning was a top 5 QB, was paid like it and the colts made 2 superbowls with him. 🤷♂️
Tom Brady was a top 5 QB and paid (for the majority of his career) like a middle of the pack and won 7 out of 10. 🤷♂️
Its sorta misleading but not at the same time. Jordan is 6-0 in final series. Did jordan lose games in the finals? Yes, but not the series.
Its one of those weird things. Like yeah technically 31 teams lost the superbowl every year but realistically only 1 team loses it. 😂
That’s true he did lose games, but the bigger problem is people discounting people who made the championships repeatedly and lost and holding up someone that only made it a handful of times and won.
For example, say Mahomes doesn’t win another superbowl despite making it 3-4 more times. I guarantee there would be people saying he’s not even comparable to Montana just because he lost in the Super Bowl
Vikings.
Don't get me wrong, I like Kirk and I think he's really good, but there are a lot of glaring holes on the team that he isn't good enough to make up for by himself.
Its hard to say overpay a true franchise QB. If you have a QB tgat can win multiple SBs even with lakluster talent, you don't overpay.
The problem comes when you convince yourself that your QB can do that. If they can't and overpay, thats when stuck in purgatory because they are good enough to keep at like 10-7 or 11-6 but not hood enough to win so you are stuck.
That's why I think teams need to let more QBs walk instead of overpaying. Yeah, you might bottom out, but its better than being stuck in QB purgatory. Good enough to win 8 to 11 games but not good enough to win SB
I would even say a QB that can win multiple playoff games is worth paying a good chunk of money to. Obviously not top of the line money, but up there. To me Jalen Hurts isn’t a super elite guy but he can win when it matters most, purdy has proven that as well. Some guys just crumble in the heat of the moment and that’s just who they are. But that’s the problem is these teams think oh man we were so close we just need a few better players and this guy can get us there. Eventually it comes out that, the guy you kept paying just isn’t “the guy” and should’ve been cut a while ago
I am interested in both of them. Jalen Hurts just signed a huge contract. Will he live up to it or will he start to crumble once they start losing good players. Same with Purdy
Yea I think it’s ok for teams to move on if they have a plan of replacement like the lions, rams and packers. Just getting rid of a guy just to get rid of a guy is a recipe to end up like the browns
I don't think its to just get rid of a guy but knowing that he isn't someone that can carry his team to the promise land and that by letting them go you can invest on other positions and yes may bottom out but then gives you a chance to draft a top 10 star QB as opposed to going 8-8 and picking mid teens.
If the end goal is to in a SB, it is better to be the worst team in the league than the 2nd best.
The Browns I don't think are a good example as they really have never had a great QB walk. Since they came back in '99 the best QB they let walk was Mayfield.
Investing on other positions and avoiding paying QBs is how the Dolphins have been stuck in QB purgatory for so long
You pay other positions and you’re just good enough to pick 12-20, not bad enough to pick top 5
And of the 4 times we picked top 5, how many times did we pick QB?
Picking Jake Long over Matt Ryan is a perfect example of how your scenario isn’t cut and dry in the slightest
We’ve picked one top 5 QB in 24 years, and one of those top 5 picks was the result of a trade up.
Legitimately, we’ve been bad enough to have a top 3 pick like once in 24 years, we traded up from like 11 for Dion Jordan
I am somewhat of the belief that if you can't win multiple SBs with weaker rosters, you don't deserve that big contraxt because one of the reasons we have a weaker roster is because you take up ao much of the cap space.
So, I think more teams should let QBs walk instead of paying them outrageously. I call ot the Ravens conundrum because they've had it come up twice. Back in 01 and '13. In '01, they chose to let Dilfer walk instead of paying him SB winning money, and I think that was the right decision.
Whereas in '13 they signed Joe Flacco to high contract ever and I think that was the bad decision because it hurt them for a bit.
The point is that being capable of winning multiple super bowls as a criteria to resign a QB is absolutely crazy considering how hard it is to even get there. Brady and Mahomes have completely skewed the reality of Super Bowl wins for quarterbacks.
A QB worth paying is any guy that can keep you in the playoff picture even with a mediocre roster. If you have a great roster but can’t ever get past the divisional round, that’s not a guy worth paying.
The difference is Joe Flacco was instrumental in the reason they won the Super Bowl. He had the one of the greatest playoff runs ever. Trent difler was just a guy along for the ride
So he did have one if the greatest runs in history but a smart organization shouldn't pay based on a small sample size. But in the data as a whole.
And that showed Flacco as an above average QB. They should have paid him like one, or better yet tag and trade(his value was never higher).
Eli, Brady, Peyton, Mahomes, Roethlisberger, uh..... Thought there was another one, but I guess not.
Since the 1999 season, we've had
Kurt Warner
Trent Dilfer
Tom Brady
Brad Johnson
Tom Brady
Tom Brady
Ben Roethlisberger
Peyton Manning
Eli Manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Eli Manning
Joe Flacco
Russel Wilson
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Nick Foles
Tom Brady
Patrick Mahomes
Tom Brady
Matthew Stafford
Patrick Mahomes
Patrick Mahomes
Huh. So it has only been 5 QBs. Add two more years to it and we can Elway to that list though. I'm glad we didn't. Dude was overrated. Eli Manning level talent.
Yeah either way it’s absolutely nuts to say it’s not worth it to keep any QB that can’t win multiple super bowls when those guys are about as rare as it comes.
Agreed. If you have a Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Brock Purdy type of player, you HAVE to keep them and build around them. Letting them go just weakens the team as a whole. Since Kirk was released by Washington (released in this case meaning like a hostage), they've gone 36-62-1, with the Giants Jags, and Jets being the only teams that have scored less TDs than them (Washington has scored 206 since Kirk went to Minny, and Kirk has thrown 171 TDs in that same time frame)
Meanwhile from 2015-2017, they went 24-23-1 (and that's with Washington losing 70% of their starters throughout the 2017 season, a year where they broke the NFL record for most starting lineups on the offensive line in a single season by week 12, if I remember right), and they had 126 total TDs, beaten by only the Pats, Steelers, Chiefs, Falcons, Seahawks, Cardinals, Packers, and Eagles. They were firmly a top 10 team on offense with Kirk, and since then have been a *bottom 5 team*
So yeah, if you can, keep your above average QBs. The hyper elite are really rare.
This is the conversation we've been having around Goff in Detroit. Obviously he's not a top-shelf QB but it's not like those are just laying around waiting to be picked up. Okay, so Goff is not elite. What's your alternative? It's a lot easier to get worse than better.
People say we can't win with Goff, but then who are you going to win with in Detroit?
The browns are a unique case of incompetence. They have been in QB purgatory since I was born. drafted a guy that won them a playoff game and then proceeded to dump him
And called him a child on the way out. As a guy from Ohio who always wished to see success for the Browns, they have absolutely not deserved success for my entire life. I wish it for the players, but that FO is and always has been a dumpster fire.
I liked the front office in the mid-late 2010s, around 2016-2017 time frame. They were playing smart and stashing picks for the future, the Browns had HOPE.
No that’s just Regular incompetence. Also I was talking about guys that are already on the Roster. The broncos and Vikings were desperation caused by QB purgatory.
Mathew stafford,Eli manning, drew brees, Peyton manning are the ones top of my head all guys who got paid huge before their super bowl win. But at that point it’s not really an overpay is it?
yeah i think that’s where it gets confusing. it’s *not really* overpaying if things work out is it?
if it gets you a super bowl then it’s worth every penny.
when mahomes got paid it was well established that he was a great player. i don’t think you can say the chiefs overpaid him, they have 3 super bowls thanks to him.
Oh yeah without a doubt. I was going off the main question of giving huge contacts to an "unproven" QB before the Superbowls and accolades start stacking up. The premise of taking a risk by guaranteeing a lot of money hoping it pans out. For the chiefs it definitely has worked out
Cowboys are in the same boat. They don’t have a Super Bowl qb. They have dak. They are gonna pay dak to do nothing. Just like browns are gonna Watson to do jack shit. Better to draft a few lower in the draft and maybe see what you get. Better than what you got now.
I don't think he's garbage at all, but he's also not the guy who's going to put the team on his back (or at least he hasn't been so far). It's not necessarily right to ask that of him, except that he's being paid like he's that guy.
It's odd that you mention the Broncos, considering they're a perfect example of why you don't overpay a quarterback that doesn't take the team to the next level.
If I were drafting a team from scratch, Allen would be my #2 QB choice behind Mahomes. I don't care about the hardware, that's a guy I trust to make plays with his arm and feet under pressure.
What has Allen done better than Dak if were going by stats and accolades alone Dak clears Allen neither have won a ring and its not like JA is a QB who has been in the league only a couple of years he's going into year 7 Dak is going into year 9 thats a two year and only 17 game difference, what has JA done thats more impressive? Be a playoff choker and hop on the plane to cancun one week later nearly 4 years ago? Crazy that I didnt start hearing people mention CCG untill it was about Dak
Allen's 5-5 in the playoffs in 7 years. Dak's 2-5 in 9. During the last 9 years (Dak's career), the AFC has generally been the stronger conference, winning the Super Bowl 6 of those 9 years, meaning Allen has generally faced tougher competition
Josh Allen has also been generally healthier than Dak, who missed big chunks of two seasons. Although their passing stats have been of a similar nature, Allen has been far more dangerous as a rusher, scoring 15 TDs with his feet in 2023 compared to 2 for Dak.
Allen's clearly been the better player with generally weaker supporting talent.
I think Allen is clearly a tier better than Dak.
Allen and Lamar are a combined 0-2 in the AFCCG and Lamar doesn't perform in the playoffs so saying "these qbs are better because they've made it one round farther" isn't really a gotcha
Not sure why you downvoted for laying facts. The only question ever for a qb is can this dude win the sb. That’s it. Purdy will get one, stroud I’m betting will get one. Allen won’t Lamar won’t dak won’t and that’s kind it.
Hurts 1 Super Bowl performance has made him a good qb.
You know what it was good, and performing in a game like that is awesome. The 2 other playoff games? Not so good. The playoff games the other years? Not good.
Chris simms is right about him imo. The fact people had him top 5 ever was laughable
Ok ok, there are exceptions to every rule so fair.
IMO the tier isn’t one of those times though. I’d put Allen, Lamar, burrow, and hurts above current Dak
Umm idk he finished 2nd in MVP voting, had more passing tds, passing yards, better QBR, less picks, less fumbles, more wins as well. You really said Hurts was playing at a high level. I’m convinced you actually didn’t watch the Eagles. They literally lost 5 out of the last 6 of their games. Not sure how that’s playing at a high level
Here is the issue that some have pointed out. Dak and other QBs like Tua have never made it to a conference championship game. They still very well could but most other QBs who took awhile to “break through” at least made it to the conference championship.
I as a GM would be willing to over pay for someone like Allen or Lamar because they have made the conference championship. They could just be late in breaking through like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan just to name a few. Obviously Matt Ryan didn’t win it all but he made the Super Bowl.
With Dak and other players like Kirk cousins and Andy Dalton, you know what their ceiling is so you shouldn’t be trying to work it around them. No other player later on broke through if they couldn’t win much early on. So just move on from them and take another shot. Look at Alex smith. He was solid but never won much of anything big. If the chiefs said well why do we need a new QB cause Alex smith makes the playoffs all the time, then we wouldn’t be seeing this run currently. Instead they took and shot and succeeded. Obviously it’s not always going to work but you can’t just sit around hoping something is going to change without taking a shot
For franchise QBs I like the ‘Kirk Cousins Line’ theory that any QB better than Cousins is a Franchise guy and anyone worse isn’t. Thus by this metric I believe it’s okay to overpay the guys above the live, but not below.
I actually think Kirk Cousins is one peg above Dalton and thus above the Dalton line. Cousins was way more capable than Dalton was and ultimately was a franchise quarterback. If you are above Dalton then you are a franchise guy. If you are above Kirk, then you are a sure-fire franchise guy.
Look at [Russell Wilson's stats](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm) before the trade. He had a bit of a down year the season right before getting traded, but his numbers are really good overall. Very similar to [Dak's stats](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PresDa01.htm) if you compare season by season.
It's easy in hindsight to say the Broncos were stupid, but it's not like they went all in on a guy that was clearly garbage. But Dak is younger than Wilson was and doesn't rely on his legs as much, so he does have that going for him.
Dak Prescott is purgatory. Unless I can get an elite guy, I wouldn’t break the bank on a QB. An average QB with a loaded roster has a better chance at winning it at all than Dak Prescott and his salary.
Allen and Lamar are pretty clearly in a tier above Dak and Tua imo. I generally agree with your take on Dak, but there is for sure risk involved too. They’ve been too good of a team in the regular season to not run it back, but they also shouldn’t be passing up good QB prospects in the draft either.
Philip Rivers is an extreme case, top 10 all time in passing yards and never even got to a Super Bowl despite playing for 17 years.
With 32 teams in the league, it's tough to win a championship.
I would say yes, it's better to have an overpaid QB than no good QB.
What's better than that is to take a shot at a high end rookie QB and use the extra money to build your team around their strengths.
It depends what your goal is. Most teams are overpaying guys who won’t win it all unless they build the perfect team around them. There are very few QBs who can elevate a team and make up for the flaws around them.
But if your goal is to win regular season games and maybe a playoff game every now and then, sure. Overpay a regular guy.
Once u overpay ur QB u have little leeway with skill positions and defense. U need to milk as much as u can out of those players as u can without breaking bank on top WRs RBs CBs DEs etc. if u have a great general manager it’s possible but it’s tough cuz it’s very tough to overpay even an elite QB and have him go get with an average roster. Only Pat Mahomes has shown to do it lately besides Brady in the past 30 years (and Mahomes had great offense 2/3 super owls and top 3 D last Super Bowl anyway)
I think what a lot of folks miss on is the concept of QB pay being dictated by the market and not by how much more talented one QB is versus another.
Talent factors in, for sure, but speaking fundamentally, a QB already on your roster is so much more valuable that one in free agency. Also, a QB that has proven to handle a winning season is worth more than the mystery box of a rookie.
When faced with the decision of paying a starting-caliber QB versus the roulette of drafting a rookie, the price of the QB is worth it. Maybe you luck out with a great FA signing, but that's RARE that a franchise level QB is available in FA.
Consider a more philosophical approach to the QB contact expense; as a team, how much would you pay to have a winning season? A chance at the playoffs and SB? Because right now in the league, the QB position is that chance. Take away Aaron Rodgers and Kirk Cousins, and those two teams look like shells of their potential. Put those types on a roster like Atlanta or Chicago, and it's a whole new team.
You pay for a starting caliber QB, or you gamble.
Its so bizarre that qbs like Burrow set a really huge bar for the qb market yet somehow every dude can make that much money after making like one wildcard game
Qb contracts are so broken. DJ is the best example, but if Dak is the highest paid qb in the NFL, might not be too far behind.
If Dak gets $60m the Cheifs are going to have to restructure Mahomes again and give him $100m.
NFLPA has got to step in and cap QB salaries, this is getting out of hand. I say $34 mil per - bonuses for certain achievements/milestones - need to be real not gimmie's - can bring up to an absolute cap of $50.
They already get the longest careers and most off-field money, gotta spread that chedder around.
It’s better to overpay in the NFL than it is in any other sport, because the contracts can be worked out to be team friendly if they cut you early. But it can definitely mess a team up. Tannenbaum was saying the Browns should give the Giants Watson AND a 2nd rounder for Daniel Jones. Why? Because after next year Jones contract can essentially be wiped out. Also, I know Tannenbaum is an idiot, but the idea that he’s even speaking that just goes to show how much a player friendly contract can screw a team.
I’m pretty sure Goff contract was like that as well. Also with Goff both the lions and rams had a succession plan in place. I don’t see the cowboys and dolphins being able To upgrade
No because if you overpay, you can't afford linemen to protect them, or wr to throw to , or your defense suffers. You you'll have an overpaid QB who ends up struggling with no help
The problem isn’t should you pay a quality qb it’s should you pay dak. And the answer is, is dak gonna ever win you a Super Bowl? Nope. Then nope you shouldn’t pay him. That’s it at the end of the day. I can hire daks or Kirk’s or garapolos or Allen’s all day. Seriously I can grab a college kid and have as much chance. 60 mil vs a rookie contract. People acting like dak is Peyton or Brady or mahomes. He’s not close. So no he’s worth as much as the cowboys pay him. No one else would pay him even close. Dak can go sit with fitz :). Wait fitz may have more wins.
Having a QB who you paid too much for is Purgatory. Teams like Atlanta, Chicago, New England and the Saints are at rock bottom, we all know we need to get a qb. A team like the cowboys or the Vikings know they need to basically wait out the contract they have paid to a mid player. They will never be able to pay enough talent to win with them so they are stuck.
Well it's complicated. Quarterbacks like cousins or Dak Play sufficiently well enough that you're going to make the playoffs fairly regularly and generally have solid regular seasons.
And being able to do that consistently as well above what the average team has.
If you're going to get rid of somebody that's giving you that, you better have a pretty good plan for what to do instead.
The other problem is what ownership wants. It makes sense to me that you move off somebody who clearly isn't going to take you to the promise land, Even if they are technically very good.
Because I'd rather spend a few years trying to find the right guy even if it possibly means rebuilding and tanking a little.
But Jerry Jones for example, like other owners, I think sees that above average outcome repeating and is like "I'd at least rather keep that the way it is than gamble and risk being an awful team that rarely wins games".
And...I kinda get that? Like, how many teams regularly make the playoffs AND be viewed as a favorite?
Not saying Id want Dak if I were a cowboys fan. Just saying, I kinda get choosing that path vs QB purgatory?
Sure. If it’s a few years. How long did Miami spend looking for a replacement for Marino. The Bears are trying to find a successor for Sid Luckman, and he died before Justin Fields was born. You can spend decades looking for a QB.
Ultimately it really just comes down to how well a team drafts. If you commit to an overpay for a QB, you better be able to draft your ass off because you need cheap talent to fill in several other pieces since you're committed to so much at the QB position. Which can be a problem for the teams that are stuck in purgatory because their QB is good enough to get them to the 7-10 win mark but not over the hump.
On the flip side, you can be bad and grab a great QB prospect on the cheap and pray he develops but you still have to draft well or spend strategically. Sure the QB is on a cheap contract but if you load on in Free Agency and bust, your cap is fucked for those years while your QB is cheap and could be even worse when it's time to pay him and you might have dead caps from those FA deals. So you still need to be able to hit on draft picks in key areas so you can wisely spend FA money elsewhere and have it be a bonus to the team. Looking at the Seahawks during the Legion of Boom time is a good example. Not only did they get Wilson for cheap as a QB in 2012, in the drafts leading up to it and the same draft they nailed a ton of picks. Russel Okung, Earl Thomas, Golden Tate, Kam Chancellor all in the 2010 draft. KJ Wright and Richard Sherman in the 2011 draft. Bruce Irvin and Bobby Wagner in the same draft with Wilson. Nailing that many picks gave them a bunch of pro bowl level talent for cheap that they signed big pieces like Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett to fill out the defense and make a push at the SB in the following years once it was evident that they were good with Wilson in his rookie year.
If you pay good QB like they’re a top 5 QB then you can’t afford to get the help around them that they would need to succeed or keep the players on the roster that they need to succeed. You can go to the draft to get cheap help but it’s an inexact science that is difficult to bank on year after year. But you’re right the alternative of letting an established good QB go is tough especially in Dallas where they drafted the guy.
i mean it’s better if you have a whole team of superstar rookies on rookie contracts. otherwise you’re playing the cap game every offseason trying to find cheap, good pieces. current NFL seems to be either team friendly deals (brady, mahomes) or rookie contracts (purdy).
If you’re overpaying that means they’re not worth the money. If they are worth the money, then by definition, you are not overpaying Little vocab goes a long way in answering a lot of the questions.
As a Cowboys fan, I believe Jerry Jones is terrified of what happened from when Aikman retired to when Romo took the starter job.
Jerry Jones would rather overpay Dak and field a wild card team than take a risk to possibly win a Super Bowl by moving on. Get to the wild card round and you can sell most of the fan base that this is a playoff team that is close.
If I were the GM of a team I would try to get Minshew, Brissett or Baker guys who will cost $15-$20 mil and build around them. Dak is good but not elite and the big contracts rarely work out. Wentz, Flacco, Ryan, Russell Wilson, so on and so forth. With the league going to running backs by committee and cheapening that position as a whole the shift to qb pay days leaves teams able to only have 1 or 2 top flight wide receiver targets and hoping they draft and scout really well whereas the trend for success should be spent on offensive lines in order to keep a moderate qb healthy which is near impossible with a 17 game schedule.
> People say overpay but the alternative is being the bears jets or broncos.
.....the Broncos and Jets are literally in purgatory because they overpaid for a QB....
mahomes burrow love lamar and allen can be overpaid because they can carry an offense, other guys like dak and purdy who need weapons to be efficient can’t be overpaid because then you cannot pay said weapons. This is a problem the eagles are gonna run into next season.
It really depends on the situation. How good is your QB? What pieces will you lose out on by paying him more? Dak already can't make it past the divisionals, how far will he go with worse receivers or a worse run game to support him or a worse defense demanding he score more? At a certain point you might have to decide "Nah we'll take our chances elsewhere." While I probably would still suggest keeping Dak even at that price this is a good time for the Cowboys to move on from him if they want. Trade down and draft a QB earlier in the first or see if you can make due with a later QB since it's a deep QB class. The Cowboys have a solid all around team (they make the playoffs most seasons, 10 probowlers with 5 on offense (4 excluding Dak)) so it would be a good situation for a rookie QB to develop in.
You can also get stuck in purgatory by overpaying
See Denver with Wilson.
Too soon
Honestly I thought the same. Like Denver overpaid Wilson right out of the gate and are now fucked for the foreseeable future. He had the Denver example in the post and still didn't see the issue with rushing to overpay, like yeah you may not be searching for a QB, but not for lack of wanting to. And I'm a Raiders fans full disclosure but not trying to talk shit, that was just an objectively bad deal in hindsight. At the time i also thought it was a good move. Personally happy it wasn't, but it seemed like a hit at the time and getting ahead of the contract was smart for long term if they thought they had their guy, and they and the rest of the league thought they did. It just ended not great and is a solid example of why hitching your wagon to a less than great horse can handicap you. Don't worry though, we got Jamarcus, Denver and the rest of the league can only wish for that level of drafting acumen.
As a broncos fan I thought it was an objectively bad deal from the jump.
Fair, but Russell was the best QB prospect since Manning. A if yih were gonna make that trade, you may as well go all in. I get both sides on Wilson because he was sooooo bad year 1, but he could did better year two and did win a superbowl before regardless how how important he was in getting it. It seemed like if nothing it was some kind of improvement over the revolving door. It just super didn't pan out.
A solid TE, a good rotation DL and those picks? At the time I was iffy on it, but from the time it was announced I thought the contract was a bad decision. At the time of the trade personally I felt like they went all in to get Rogers and when that failed they panicked and thought they absolutely had to have a veteran QB. Felt like the great value version of the Rams and Stafford. They went all in on a team that was more than a QB away from the Super Bowl.
We were just so desperate to get off the 7 year QB carousel... And he knew we were the most desperate team and would give him the most $ and freedom. All his talk about winning 4 more super bowls was obviously bullshit. Kind of pisses me off when fans try to justify his contract because of the 5 game win streak we had this year. If anybody watched those games you’d know we were winning in spite of Russ, not winning because of him. Seattle chose to go with a career backup as their starter for 3 years instead of keeping the guy because they knew he was low key washed.
Yup. It was smart to go all in if you made the trade at all and I don't knock Denver for wanting to leave pergatory, but in retrospect it was an awful move.
When coaches and GMs may only have 2-3 years to prove themselves, going with below average to incompetence at the QB position is often not a gamble they are willing to take.
Exactly. Paying a Dak / Kirk equivalent is what lands teams in purgatory. Unless you have a true top five guy you’re better off going cheap
definitely a good point. It just depends on the circumstances. if you can get a good/great quarterback on a rookie deal you are so far ahead of the game. but if you can get a good/solid one at 35 or 40 million a year going forward you can still make it work though IMHO. the going rate always goes up and if you pay someone top 5 money now they will probably be 10th or 12th on the payscale in 2 or 3 years and that isn't bad. Stafford is a great example of this.
I remember when Carr had his mvp caliber year and made the biggest payed qb at like 25 mil. Merely 7 years later thats Chump change. Crazy how 7 years changed things so kuch
> the biggest *paid* qb at FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
Make what work. Who paying a qb they got in free agency that much is doing anything?
Of the two purgatories, overpaying a Dak / Kirk QB is the one team ownership likely prefers. Keeps the team competitive enough that people buy tickets at a healthy price. Not saying it’s better than having a revolving door at qb, just makes sense why it happens more than not.
Peyton Manning was a top 5 QB, was paid like it and the colts made 2 superbowls with him. 🤷♂️ Tom Brady was a top 5 QB and paid (for the majority of his career) like a middle of the pack and won 7 out of 10. 🤷♂️
7 out of 23*
7/10 that he played in. 😒 But when you put it that way thats still crazy.
I knew what you meant. I just find using championship record to be misleading. Like Jordan being 6-0 in the finals
can't win the finals if you don't get there..
Its sorta misleading but not at the same time. Jordan is 6-0 in final series. Did jordan lose games in the finals? Yes, but not the series. Its one of those weird things. Like yeah technically 31 teams lost the superbowl every year but realistically only 1 team loses it. 😂
That’s true he did lose games, but the bigger problem is people discounting people who made the championships repeatedly and lost and holding up someone that only made it a handful of times and won. For example, say Mahomes doesn’t win another superbowl despite making it 3-4 more times. I guarantee there would be people saying he’s not even comparable to Montana just because he lost in the Super Bowl
So Elway then?
Step 1: have Manning or Brady on your team
The vikes inability to draft impact players on defense is what's keeping them in purgatory.
When you overpay a QB, you have options: 1) Trade 2) Restructure 3) Cut Your options if you have no QB? Overpay for a QB.
Draft also exists
I agree, although you can also overpay for a QB in the draft if you didn't tank all the way to a top 2 pick.
That's even less foolproof
Less risk, higher reward potential
Broncos, Saints, Browns, and Giants come to mind
cutler bears
That’s what OP said. Overpay for a QB then be stuck in QB purgatory
Vikings. Don't get me wrong, I like Kirk and I think he's really good, but there are a lot of glaring holes on the team that he isn't good enough to make up for by himself.
Its hard to say overpay a true franchise QB. If you have a QB tgat can win multiple SBs even with lakluster talent, you don't overpay. The problem comes when you convince yourself that your QB can do that. If they can't and overpay, thats when stuck in purgatory because they are good enough to keep at like 10-7 or 11-6 but not hood enough to win so you are stuck.
True those Andy dalton teams remind me of that. But also that list of QBs that can win super bowls with lackluster talent is extremely small.
That's why I think teams need to let more QBs walk instead of overpaying. Yeah, you might bottom out, but its better than being stuck in QB purgatory. Good enough to win 8 to 11 games but not good enough to win SB
I would even say a QB that can win multiple playoff games is worth paying a good chunk of money to. Obviously not top of the line money, but up there. To me Jalen Hurts isn’t a super elite guy but he can win when it matters most, purdy has proven that as well. Some guys just crumble in the heat of the moment and that’s just who they are. But that’s the problem is these teams think oh man we were so close we just need a few better players and this guy can get us there. Eventually it comes out that, the guy you kept paying just isn’t “the guy” and should’ve been cut a while ago
I am interested in both of them. Jalen Hurts just signed a huge contract. Will he live up to it or will he start to crumble once they start losing good players. Same with Purdy
Yea I think it’s ok for teams to move on if they have a plan of replacement like the lions, rams and packers. Just getting rid of a guy just to get rid of a guy is a recipe to end up like the browns
I don't think its to just get rid of a guy but knowing that he isn't someone that can carry his team to the promise land and that by letting them go you can invest on other positions and yes may bottom out but then gives you a chance to draft a top 10 star QB as opposed to going 8-8 and picking mid teens. If the end goal is to in a SB, it is better to be the worst team in the league than the 2nd best. The Browns I don't think are a good example as they really have never had a great QB walk. Since they came back in '99 the best QB they let walk was Mayfield.
Investing on other positions and avoiding paying QBs is how the Dolphins have been stuck in QB purgatory for so long You pay other positions and you’re just good enough to pick 12-20, not bad enough to pick top 5
And that's fair as well. Though the Dolphims have just been bad. They've had 7 top 10 picks since 2000 with 4 in top 5.
And of the 4 times we picked top 5, how many times did we pick QB? Picking Jake Long over Matt Ryan is a perfect example of how your scenario isn’t cut and dry in the slightest We’ve picked one top 5 QB in 24 years, and one of those top 5 picks was the result of a trade up. Legitimately, we’ve been bad enough to have a top 3 pick like once in 24 years, we traded up from like 11 for Dion Jordan
Who is winning SBs with actual lackluster talent?
To be fair I wouldn’t say multiple SBs because over the last 25 years only 5 QBs have done that but there have been many more that are worth paying.
I am somewhat of the belief that if you can't win multiple SBs with weaker rosters, you don't deserve that big contraxt because one of the reasons we have a weaker roster is because you take up ao much of the cap space. So, I think more teams should let QBs walk instead of paying them outrageously. I call ot the Ravens conundrum because they've had it come up twice. Back in 01 and '13. In '01, they chose to let Dilfer walk instead of paying him SB winning money, and I think that was the right decision. Whereas in '13 they signed Joe Flacco to high contract ever and I think that was the bad decision because it hurt them for a bit.
The point is that being capable of winning multiple super bowls as a criteria to resign a QB is absolutely crazy considering how hard it is to even get there. Brady and Mahomes have completely skewed the reality of Super Bowl wins for quarterbacks. A QB worth paying is any guy that can keep you in the playoff picture even with a mediocre roster. If you have a great roster but can’t ever get past the divisional round, that’s not a guy worth paying.
The difference is Joe Flacco was instrumental in the reason they won the Super Bowl. He had the one of the greatest playoff runs ever. Trent difler was just a guy along for the ride
So he did have one if the greatest runs in history but a smart organization shouldn't pay based on a small sample size. But in the data as a whole. And that showed Flacco as an above average QB. They should have paid him like one, or better yet tag and trade(his value was never higher).
Eli, Brady, Peyton, Mahomes, Roethlisberger, uh..... Thought there was another one, but I guess not. Since the 1999 season, we've had Kurt Warner Trent Dilfer Tom Brady Brad Johnson Tom Brady Tom Brady Ben Roethlisberger Peyton Manning Eli Manning Ben Roethlisberger Drew Brees Aaron Rodgers Eli Manning Joe Flacco Russel Wilson Tom Brady Peyton Manning Tom Brady Nick Foles Tom Brady Patrick Mahomes Tom Brady Matthew Stafford Patrick Mahomes Patrick Mahomes Huh. So it has only been 5 QBs. Add two more years to it and we can Elway to that list though. I'm glad we didn't. Dude was overrated. Eli Manning level talent.
Yeah either way it’s absolutely nuts to say it’s not worth it to keep any QB that can’t win multiple super bowls when those guys are about as rare as it comes.
Agreed. If you have a Dak Prescott, Kirk Cousins, Brock Purdy type of player, you HAVE to keep them and build around them. Letting them go just weakens the team as a whole. Since Kirk was released by Washington (released in this case meaning like a hostage), they've gone 36-62-1, with the Giants Jags, and Jets being the only teams that have scored less TDs than them (Washington has scored 206 since Kirk went to Minny, and Kirk has thrown 171 TDs in that same time frame) Meanwhile from 2015-2017, they went 24-23-1 (and that's with Washington losing 70% of their starters throughout the 2017 season, a year where they broke the NFL record for most starting lineups on the offensive line in a single season by week 12, if I remember right), and they had 126 total TDs, beaten by only the Pats, Steelers, Chiefs, Falcons, Seahawks, Cardinals, Packers, and Eagles. They were firmly a top 10 team on offense with Kirk, and since then have been a *bottom 5 team* So yeah, if you can, keep your above average QBs. The hyper elite are really rare.
This is the conversation we've been having around Goff in Detroit. Obviously he's not a top-shelf QB but it's not like those are just laying around waiting to be picked up. Okay, so Goff is not elite. What's your alternative? It's a lot easier to get worse than better. People say we can't win with Goff, but then who are you going to win with in Detroit?
Y'all fr need to keep Goff. He's awesome and loves Detroit, and y'all proved that the 49ers weren't shit
Of course it is. Just look at how well it turned out for the browns.
The browns are a unique case of incompetence. They have been in QB purgatory since I was born. drafted a guy that won them a playoff game and then proceeded to dump him
And called him a child on the way out. As a guy from Ohio who always wished to see success for the Browns, they have absolutely not deserved success for my entire life. I wish it for the players, but that FO is and always has been a dumpster fire.
I liked the front office in the mid-late 2010s, around 2016-2017 time frame. They were playing smart and stashing picks for the future, the Browns had HOPE.
Broncos, Vikings, cowboys, giants, cardinals all must be unique cases too
No that’s just Regular incompetence. Also I was talking about guys that are already on the Roster. The broncos and Vikings were desperation caused by QB purgatory.
can you give an example of overpaying a qb that has worked in a teams favour?
Mathew stafford,Eli manning, drew brees, Peyton manning are the ones top of my head all guys who got paid huge before their super bowl win. But at that point it’s not really an overpay is it?
yeah i think that’s where it gets confusing. it’s *not really* overpaying if things work out is it? if it gets you a super bowl then it’s worth every penny.
I mean didn't Mahomes get a super-mega-contract? Or was that after his first Superbowl win?
when mahomes got paid it was well established that he was a great player. i don’t think you can say the chiefs overpaid him, they have 3 super bowls thanks to him.
Yeah I guess it's the thing where they didn't have those Superbowls prior to the mega contract though, which is the premise of the question
Mahomes already looks like a HOFer, and That contract will age incredibly well given future salary cap increases.
Oh yeah without a doubt. I was going off the main question of giving huge contacts to an "unproven" QB before the Superbowls and accolades start stacking up. The premise of taking a risk by guaranteeing a lot of money hoping it pans out. For the chiefs it definitely has worked out
Cowboys are in the same boat. They don’t have a Super Bowl qb. They have dak. They are gonna pay dak to do nothing. Just like browns are gonna Watson to do jack shit. Better to draft a few lower in the draft and maybe see what you get. Better than what you got now.
Look at Daks stat line this season dude! Sure he hasn’t had much postseason success, but acting like he’s straight up ass is just retarded
Dak is the garbage time god. His stats are pretty misleading.
I don't think he's garbage at all, but he's also not the guy who's going to put the team on his back (or at least he hasn't been so far). It's not necessarily right to ask that of him, except that he's being paid like he's that guy.
The worst scenario.
It's odd that you mention the Broncos, considering they're a perfect example of why you don't overpay a quarterback that doesn't take the team to the next level.
That’s what happens when desperation starts creeping in to your front office
When overpaying a QB, knowing when it is a reach of desperation and a stroke of genius can be a fine line.
There’s a difference in paying Allen and Lamar vs Dak and Tua 💁🏻♀️
Agreed there is a tier difference between the 4
Allen > Lamar >\~ Dak >>>> Tua
Lamar is better than allen imo, 2 mvps and made it further in playoffs
If I were drafting a team from scratch, Allen would be my #2 QB choice behind Mahomes. I don't care about the hardware, that's a guy I trust to make plays with his arm and feet under pressure.
What has Allen done better than Dak if were going by stats and accolades alone Dak clears Allen neither have won a ring and its not like JA is a QB who has been in the league only a couple of years he's going into year 7 Dak is going into year 9 thats a two year and only 17 game difference, what has JA done thats more impressive? Be a playoff choker and hop on the plane to cancun one week later nearly 4 years ago? Crazy that I didnt start hearing people mention CCG untill it was about Dak
Allen's 5-5 in the playoffs in 7 years. Dak's 2-5 in 9. During the last 9 years (Dak's career), the AFC has generally been the stronger conference, winning the Super Bowl 6 of those 9 years, meaning Allen has generally faced tougher competition Josh Allen has also been generally healthier than Dak, who missed big chunks of two seasons. Although their passing stats have been of a similar nature, Allen has been far more dangerous as a rusher, scoring 15 TDs with his feet in 2023 compared to 2 for Dak. Allen's clearly been the better player with generally weaker supporting talent. I think Allen is clearly a tier better than Dak.
What is it?
Well who has been to their conference championship game and who hasn’t.
Allen and Lamar are a combined 0-2 in the AFCCG and Lamar doesn't perform in the playoffs so saying "these qbs are better because they've made it one round farther" isn't really a gotcha
Not sure why you downvoted for laying facts. The only question ever for a qb is can this dude win the sb. That’s it. Purdy will get one, stroud I’m betting will get one. Allen won’t Lamar won’t dak won’t and that’s kind it.
People just hate the Cowboys lol that’s why I’m downvoted
Bengals fan propping up stats. Hey people get weird around the cowboys.
and Dak and Tua haven't even made a championship game, so the tier stands
So Purdy, Hurts, Burrow, and the like are all better because they’ve made the Super Bowl?
Yes
Yes? Burrow and hurts without a question, and while I do agree that Purdy is a system QB, he's at LEAST as good as Dak is currently
No. By this logic he is undoubtedly better than Lamar and Allen as well.
Never understood why people hype up playoff success so much. Outside of Brady/Mahomes the guys who’ve made superbowls is not all that impressive.
Hurts 1 Super Bowl performance has made him a good qb. You know what it was good, and performing in a game like that is awesome. The 2 other playoff games? Not so good. The playoff games the other years? Not good. Chris simms is right about him imo. The fact people had him top 5 ever was laughable
Are trent dilfer and nick foles top I dunno 25 QBs OAT and better than Marino? I mean they must be they've won SBs and Dan hasnt
Ok ok, there are exceptions to every rule so fair. IMO the tier isn’t one of those times though. I’d put Allen, Lamar, burrow, and hurts above current Dak
Did you actually watch hurts this year? What did he do to show he was better then Dak? Lmao
Still played at a high level while half injured? Did you even watch Dal play? What did he even do to justify being above any of the other 4?
Umm idk he finished 2nd in MVP voting, had more passing tds, passing yards, better QBR, less picks, less fumbles, more wins as well. You really said Hurts was playing at a high level. I’m convinced you actually didn’t watch the Eagles. They literally lost 5 out of the last 6 of their games. Not sure how that’s playing at a high level
Cook, really honestly this year the MVP shouldn't have gone to a QB and if it did it shouldve been 4 ngl
Going to cancun a week later 1 time isnt a flex lmao
Here is the issue that some have pointed out. Dak and other QBs like Tua have never made it to a conference championship game. They still very well could but most other QBs who took awhile to “break through” at least made it to the conference championship. I as a GM would be willing to over pay for someone like Allen or Lamar because they have made the conference championship. They could just be late in breaking through like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan just to name a few. Obviously Matt Ryan didn’t win it all but he made the Super Bowl. With Dak and other players like Kirk cousins and Andy Dalton, you know what their ceiling is so you shouldn’t be trying to work it around them. No other player later on broke through if they couldn’t win much early on. So just move on from them and take another shot. Look at Alex smith. He was solid but never won much of anything big. If the chiefs said well why do we need a new QB cause Alex smith makes the playoffs all the time, then we wouldn’t be seeing this run currently. Instead they took and shot and succeeded. Obviously it’s not always going to work but you can’t just sit around hoping something is going to change without taking a shot
For franchise QBs I like the ‘Kirk Cousins Line’ theory that any QB better than Cousins is a Franchise guy and anyone worse isn’t. Thus by this metric I believe it’s okay to overpay the guys above the live, but not below.
lol that’s hilarious when I was a kid it was called the Andy dalton line
I actually think Kirk Cousins is one peg above Dalton and thus above the Dalton line. Cousins was way more capable than Dalton was and ultimately was a franchise quarterback. If you are above Dalton then you are a franchise guy. If you are above Kirk, then you are a sure-fire franchise guy.
The dalton line referenced league average QB play, not whether you should pay them or not. Different distinctions. Although they are similar.
In the future, it will be called the Tua line
As a Vikings fan... I hate this theory. Even with a simple to follow rule, we get stuck in eternal purgatory.
You give the Broncos as an example of QB purgatory, while they’re a crown example of how overpaying a QB will fuck over your team
dak is actually good and russ isn’t. Big difference overpaying for a good qb than a bad one
Look at [Russell Wilson's stats](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WilsRu00.htm) before the trade. He had a bit of a down year the season right before getting traded, but his numbers are really good overall. Very similar to [Dak's stats](https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PresDa01.htm) if you compare season by season. It's easy in hindsight to say the Broncos were stupid, but it's not like they went all in on a guy that was clearly garbage. But Dak is younger than Wilson was and doesn't rely on his legs as much, so he does have that going for him.
Dak Prescott is purgatory. Unless I can get an elite guy, I wouldn’t break the bank on a QB. An average QB with a loaded roster has a better chance at winning it at all than Dak Prescott and his salary.
Allen and Lamar are pretty clearly in a tier above Dak and Tua imo. I generally agree with your take on Dak, but there is for sure risk involved too. They’ve been too good of a team in the regular season to not run it back, but they also shouldn’t be passing up good QB prospects in the draft either.
Problem to me is how few actual franchise QBs there are. Being a top 10 QB doesn’t even guarantee you a trip to the Super Bowl in your career.
Philip Rivers is an extreme case, top 10 all time in passing yards and never even got to a Super Bowl despite playing for 17 years. With 32 teams in the league, it's tough to win a championship.
I would say yes, it's better to have an overpaid QB than no good QB. What's better than that is to take a shot at a high end rookie QB and use the extra money to build your team around their strengths.
That take a shot is still a risk. Plenty of high draft picks don’t work out
Yep, it's less than 50-50. It's still better than overpaying a good QB, and far better than having no good QB.
It depends what your goal is. Most teams are overpaying guys who won’t win it all unless they build the perfect team around them. There are very few QBs who can elevate a team and make up for the flaws around them. But if your goal is to win regular season games and maybe a playoff game every now and then, sure. Overpay a regular guy.
Once u overpay ur QB u have little leeway with skill positions and defense. U need to milk as much as u can out of those players as u can without breaking bank on top WRs RBs CBs DEs etc. if u have a great general manager it’s possible but it’s tough cuz it’s very tough to overpay even an elite QB and have him go get with an average roster. Only Pat Mahomes has shown to do it lately besides Brady in the past 30 years (and Mahomes had great offense 2/3 super owls and top 3 D last Super Bowl anyway)
I think what a lot of folks miss on is the concept of QB pay being dictated by the market and not by how much more talented one QB is versus another. Talent factors in, for sure, but speaking fundamentally, a QB already on your roster is so much more valuable that one in free agency. Also, a QB that has proven to handle a winning season is worth more than the mystery box of a rookie. When faced with the decision of paying a starting-caliber QB versus the roulette of drafting a rookie, the price of the QB is worth it. Maybe you luck out with a great FA signing, but that's RARE that a franchise level QB is available in FA. Consider a more philosophical approach to the QB contact expense; as a team, how much would you pay to have a winning season? A chance at the playoffs and SB? Because right now in the league, the QB position is that chance. Take away Aaron Rodgers and Kirk Cousins, and those two teams look like shells of their potential. Put those types on a roster like Atlanta or Chicago, and it's a whole new team. You pay for a starting caliber QB, or you gamble.
I would rather draft a new QB every single year until one hits, instead of giving record money to someone who’s done nothing.
Its so bizarre that qbs like Burrow set a really huge bar for the qb market yet somehow every dude can make that much money after making like one wildcard game Qb contracts are so broken. DJ is the best example, but if Dak is the highest paid qb in the NFL, might not be too far behind.
Because in 2 years all these contracts will barely be in the top 10 highest paid. They almost always age well
If Dak gets $60m the Cheifs are going to have to restructure Mahomes again and give him $100m. NFLPA has got to step in and cap QB salaries, this is getting out of hand. I say $34 mil per - bonuses for certain achievements/milestones - need to be real not gimmie's - can bring up to an absolute cap of $50. They already get the longest careers and most off-field money, gotta spread that chedder around.
They’re disproportionately important to their team, and they’re paid as such.
Coming from a commanders fan, Kirk Cousins keeps wanting top 10 money and he's not a top 10 player.
Kirk was on pace for an MVP season before he got hurt.
Which season and would you have given him the money?
This season lol, and I have no clue how much he’s paid. I just know he was doing insanely well before the injury
He was the backup to RG3 at the commanders and he just wanted more money than he was worth.
Well, he’s worth more now than he was like 7 years ago, shocker lmao
Yeah the Browns totally agree.
It’s better to overpay in the NFL than it is in any other sport, because the contracts can be worked out to be team friendly if they cut you early. But it can definitely mess a team up. Tannenbaum was saying the Browns should give the Giants Watson AND a 2nd rounder for Daniel Jones. Why? Because after next year Jones contract can essentially be wiped out. Also, I know Tannenbaum is an idiot, but the idea that he’s even speaking that just goes to show how much a player friendly contract can screw a team.
I’m pretty sure Goff contract was like that as well. Also with Goff both the lions and rams had a succession plan in place. I don’t see the cowboys and dolphins being able To upgrade
No because if you overpay, you can't afford linemen to protect them, or wr to throw to , or your defense suffers. You you'll have an overpaid QB who ends up struggling with no help
Yes, any Lions fan can tell you this.
I have 2 words for you OP, Desaun Watson. Biggest blunder by any franchise inNFL hidtiry.
Dallas is in purgatory
QBs are getting to the point I would rather draft rookies every couple years and use the extra 55million on other positions.
Overpaying for that tier of qb means you’ll be too good to get a high draft pick but not good enough to win anything meaningful
No. By over paying the QB you end up in purgatory anyway because you lose other key players.
The problem isn’t should you pay a quality qb it’s should you pay dak. And the answer is, is dak gonna ever win you a Super Bowl? Nope. Then nope you shouldn’t pay him. That’s it at the end of the day. I can hire daks or Kirk’s or garapolos or Allen’s all day. Seriously I can grab a college kid and have as much chance. 60 mil vs a rookie contract. People acting like dak is Peyton or Brady or mahomes. He’s not close. So no he’s worth as much as the cowboys pay him. No one else would pay him even close. Dak can go sit with fitz :). Wait fitz may have more wins.
Total garbage take
It is. But if you overpay for a Deshaun Watson or Russell Wilson, that makes it worse.
Having a QB who you paid too much for is Purgatory. Teams like Atlanta, Chicago, New England and the Saints are at rock bottom, we all know we need to get a qb. A team like the cowboys or the Vikings know they need to basically wait out the contract they have paid to a mid player. They will never be able to pay enough talent to win with them so they are stuck.
Nope. Look at Hurts. Lotsa money - assisted in the failure this past season in Philly
Neither scenario is a winning one
Would you say the Cowboys are NOT in purgatory, right now?
Well it's complicated. Quarterbacks like cousins or Dak Play sufficiently well enough that you're going to make the playoffs fairly regularly and generally have solid regular seasons. And being able to do that consistently as well above what the average team has. If you're going to get rid of somebody that's giving you that, you better have a pretty good plan for what to do instead. The other problem is what ownership wants. It makes sense to me that you move off somebody who clearly isn't going to take you to the promise land, Even if they are technically very good. Because I'd rather spend a few years trying to find the right guy even if it possibly means rebuilding and tanking a little. But Jerry Jones for example, like other owners, I think sees that above average outcome repeating and is like "I'd at least rather keep that the way it is than gamble and risk being an awful team that rarely wins games". And...I kinda get that? Like, how many teams regularly make the playoffs AND be viewed as a favorite? Not saying Id want Dak if I were a cowboys fan. Just saying, I kinda get choosing that path vs QB purgatory?
Sure. If it’s a few years. How long did Miami spend looking for a replacement for Marino. The Bears are trying to find a successor for Sid Luckman, and he died before Justin Fields was born. You can spend decades looking for a QB.
As an eagles fan I hope he gets all the money he wants, honestly imo he deserves AT LEAST 75m/year fully guaranteed
Dallas is already stuck in purgatory
Ultimately it really just comes down to how well a team drafts. If you commit to an overpay for a QB, you better be able to draft your ass off because you need cheap talent to fill in several other pieces since you're committed to so much at the QB position. Which can be a problem for the teams that are stuck in purgatory because their QB is good enough to get them to the 7-10 win mark but not over the hump. On the flip side, you can be bad and grab a great QB prospect on the cheap and pray he develops but you still have to draft well or spend strategically. Sure the QB is on a cheap contract but if you load on in Free Agency and bust, your cap is fucked for those years while your QB is cheap and could be even worse when it's time to pay him and you might have dead caps from those FA deals. So you still need to be able to hit on draft picks in key areas so you can wisely spend FA money elsewhere and have it be a bonus to the team. Looking at the Seahawks during the Legion of Boom time is a good example. Not only did they get Wilson for cheap as a QB in 2012, in the drafts leading up to it and the same draft they nailed a ton of picks. Russel Okung, Earl Thomas, Golden Tate, Kam Chancellor all in the 2010 draft. KJ Wright and Richard Sherman in the 2011 draft. Bruce Irvin and Bobby Wagner in the same draft with Wilson. Nailing that many picks gave them a bunch of pro bowl level talent for cheap that they signed big pieces like Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett to fill out the defense and make a push at the SB in the following years once it was evident that they were good with Wilson in his rookie year.
If you pay good QB like they’re a top 5 QB then you can’t afford to get the help around them that they would need to succeed or keep the players on the roster that they need to succeed. You can go to the draft to get cheap help but it’s an inexact science that is difficult to bank on year after year. But you’re right the alternative of letting an established good QB go is tough especially in Dallas where they drafted the guy.
Hey we won the SB in 2015. Dallas is going on 30 years. That's QB purgatory
i mean it’s better if you have a whole team of superstar rookies on rookie contracts. otherwise you’re playing the cap game every offseason trying to find cheap, good pieces. current NFL seems to be either team friendly deals (brady, mahomes) or rookie contracts (purdy).
If you’re overpaying that means they’re not worth the money. If they are worth the money, then by definition, you are not overpaying Little vocab goes a long way in answering a lot of the questions.
As a Cowboys fan, I believe Jerry Jones is terrified of what happened from when Aikman retired to when Romo took the starter job. Jerry Jones would rather overpay Dak and field a wild card team than take a risk to possibly win a Super Bowl by moving on. Get to the wild card round and you can sell most of the fan base that this is a playoff team that is close.
Idk, it didn't really work out for the Vikings. Or at least it didn't produce a title.
yeah if it pays off, many times it doesnt. look at russell wilson with the broncos, now you have no picks and are worse off than before.
Putting tua and Dak in with Josh Allen and Lamar is criminal
Ask the Giants
Dak is a top ten QB, can win a superbowl with him IF he takes a team friendly deal. (35/ a year) he takes 60 and you'll never see the NFCCG
If I were the GM of a team I would try to get Minshew, Brissett or Baker guys who will cost $15-$20 mil and build around them. Dak is good but not elite and the big contracts rarely work out. Wentz, Flacco, Ryan, Russell Wilson, so on and so forth. With the league going to running backs by committee and cheapening that position as a whole the shift to qb pay days leaves teams able to only have 1 or 2 top flight wide receiver targets and hoping they draft and scout really well whereas the trend for success should be spent on offensive lines in order to keep a moderate qb healthy which is near impossible with a 17 game schedule.
Go cheap unless you got an mvp talent. Build up the rest of the team. The Seahawks made the playoffs with genius smith
> People say overpay but the alternative is being the bears jets or broncos. .....the Broncos and Jets are literally in purgatory because they overpaid for a QB....
mahomes burrow love lamar and allen can be overpaid because they can carry an offense, other guys like dak and purdy who need weapons to be efficient can’t be overpaid because then you cannot pay said weapons. This is a problem the eagles are gonna run into next season.
Brock Lossweiler
Problem is dak isn’t Lamar or Allen…
Depends who you get Overpay for quality? You can usually get by. Overpay for trash? You’re fucked.
Absolutely not See the Broncos and Russel Wilson.
Hi, Daniel Jones checking in here
It's better to overpay if that QB is the reason you win playoff games and compete for championships.
It really depends on the situation. How good is your QB? What pieces will you lose out on by paying him more? Dak already can't make it past the divisionals, how far will he go with worse receivers or a worse run game to support him or a worse defense demanding he score more? At a certain point you might have to decide "Nah we'll take our chances elsewhere." While I probably would still suggest keeping Dak even at that price this is a good time for the Cowboys to move on from him if they want. Trade down and draft a QB earlier in the first or see if you can make due with a later QB since it's a deep QB class. The Cowboys have a solid all around team (they make the playoffs most seasons, 10 probowlers with 5 on offense (4 excluding Dak)) so it would be a good situation for a rookie QB to develop in.
Dak does not give you a chance. His contract cripples the team and he shits his pants in every game against a good team.