Panthers acquire Baker Mayfield for a Frosty and Wendy's Single

[Guest]

@Vikergirl said:
Ok now I am thinking about Wendy's, glad for Baker though.

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:
Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

[Guest]

@minny65 said:

@MaroonBells said:
Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

[Guest]

Cousins is good enough to win a Super Bowl. We would have been a playoff team the last two years with even just an average defense. 

I think we’re trending back towards average on defense and I’m excited to try something new on offense. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@minny65 said:

@MaroonBells said:
Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

Yea, I know we disagree overall on Cousins and QB approach, but I would like us to take more first round swings at QB then 3 times in 24 years.  Ponder was a have to pick a QB no matter what move out of desperation which is hardly ever a good idea unless picking Top 3 maybe.  Culpepper and Teddy (move back to tail end of 1st) were good moves and we should have done more often IMO.  

For all the Brady/Cousins moves you reference there are a lot more Bradfords, McNabbs, Cassels, Freemans around the league plus right now I put Cousins in the Bradford category not Brady.  

[Guest]

@minny65 said:

@MaroonBells said:

@minny65 said:

@MaroonBells said:
Don't think Baker's the guy either. 

I know the NFL has had some recent success with draft picks (Allen, Herbert, Burrow), but I really think the best route to a good QB is the one taken by the Vikings, Bucs, Rams and Broncos.

Don't futz around with draft picks whose hit rate is around 15%, and veterans like Darnold and Baker who may or may not be able to play in this league. Open the vault for a proven veteran. And if you don't have to trade for him (Brady, Cousins), it's like stealing. 

But the vast majority of QB's who play in the SB were drafted by that team.  Unless you want to wait 19 years for your next opportunity for Tom Brady who I don't think would have decided to come to Minnesota.  Or you can wait and hope that after 13 years Peyton would have chosen to be in Minnesota.  Those two were proven SB commodities and could dictate where they would go.

Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven) situation where the Rams assumed the last two years of his Detroit contract for a CAP hit last year of 20 million and this year 13.5.  Total CAP hit of 33.5 million for two years with a SB trophy in year 1.  Kirk's CAP hit was about 31 million last year and is 31 million this year according to Spotrac.  That is an extra 29 million (2 years) in CAP Space for the Rams to surround the QB with proven commodities and extend players like Ramsey, Donald etc.

The Broncos move to get a proven SB QB in Russel Wilson most resembles what the Rams were able to do with Stafford (IMO) but not with as much CAP savings.  Wilson's Cap hit this year will be 24 million and then 27 million.  Not crippling at all and you get a proven SB winning QB.  

The Cousins situation has also been unique because he is not a Brady/Peyton, of course, nor is he a Stafford situation contract (CAP saver) wise either.   We have paid top dollar for mediocre results.  We are paying Kirk the 3rd highest CAP hit this year at 31 million (Tannehill and Mahomes).

I know we are playing around with the 15% hit rate on a rookie QB but when you look at all the situations above on what are proven veteran starters it maybe even less likely then 15% that a Brady/Peyton/Wilson would have even come here, or that the stars align, and we aren't locked in on 30+ million QB already when they hit the market.  Once Spelly put all his chips in on Kirk we didn't seriously look at the top QB's in any of the last few drafts.  I hope that doesn't keep repeating itself because I think we have been in a circle jerk of always being a player away and that player isn't at QB because Kirk might be good enough.  Of course, you know that I don't think Kirk is good enough unless on a fully loaded team like the Ravens/Bears etc were at the times.  I am not convinced that Kirk would have won with the SB with Rams team last year.  

The big lottery win is in drafting a franchise QB on a rookie contract and build from that CAP savings.  Then when said rookie QB flops you can try your approach on the proven vet.  The last 8 years we have not chosen to go that route.  We have been in the supposed proven vet game way too long for my liking, since Teddy.  But I advocate drafting the franchise QB first (if our evaluation warrants of course) otherwise you are assuming your organization can't find a franchise QB in the draft but maybe the next Brady/Peyton/Wilson or an on the cheap Stafford falls into your lap.  

I think that's exactly what we did. Draft Ponder-miss. Draft Teddy-career threatening injury. Bradford was the right move to correct those misses, but alas injury struck again. Finally got it right with Cousins. Actually, I think the injuries to Teddy and Sam are part of the reason we went with a QB known for his durability. 

Yea, I know we disagree overall on Cousins and QB approach, but I would like us to take more first round swings at QB then 3 times in 24 years.  Ponder was a have to pick a QB no matter what move out of desperation which is hardly ever a good idea unless picking Top 3 maybe.  Culpepper and Teddy (move back to tail end of 1st) were good moves and we should have done more often IMO.  

For all the Brady/Cousins moves you reference there are a lot more Bradfords, McNabbs, Cassels, Freemans around the league plus right now I put Cousins in the Bradford category not Brady.  

I'd put all three are in the same category: QBs you can win with. 

[Guest]

I knew Mayfield would get picked up once the money was right. Now we shall see if he was the accurate passer of two years ago that showed some potential to improve or the terrible QB of last year, playing with an injury. I tend to believe he is a journeyman long term.

With regard to the free agent QB vs. drafting a QB. It requires some context. Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre were excellent acquisitions. Favre elevated an average offense and Cunningham had Moss, Carter, and Reed.
But the vast majority of free agent Vikings QB's have been busts or mediocre at best.
 
Drafting of QB's in the Spielman era isn't difficult to evaluate. He couldn't find a great QB if he tripped over one. Even Teddy, who is a great guy, doesn't appear to be a top tier QB.

I agree with Minny. The formula for success is drafting a franchise QB and building the team around him while he develops during the inexpensive contract years. It can be done with free agent QB's like Stafford, but the odds are low with either approach.

My hope is it works with Cousins. But if not, perhaps the new regime will be able to evaluate and acquire a great QB in the draft. Lord knows Spielman couldn't and rarely tried!
 

[Guest]

I think there’s going to be a viable strategy going forward,
where superstar QBs make a huge stink and choose to go to whichever team gives
them the best chance to win a SB.  The
new team has a solid roster, isn’t in cap hell, and can add new talent while backloading
contracts to make a run.  Then when the
cap starts to be a problem again the QB just moves to a new team.  Kind of like the NBA super teams.


I think guys like Brady, Wilson, and Rodgers (if he wasn’t
given that massive contract) kind of fit that mold.


You can kind of try that strategy with a mid level QB like
Stafford or Cousins, but I think it is what it is, which is much less likely to
pay off with a SB.  I still think your
best bet to win a SB is with an elite QB, and you should be prepared to draft enough
to get them.

[Guest]

@jargomcfargo said:
I knew Mayfield would get picked up once the money was right. Now we shall see if he was the accurate passer of two years ago that showed some potential to improve or the terrible QB of last year, playing with an injury. I tend to believe he is a journeyman long term.

With regard to the free agent QB vs. drafting a QB. It requires some context. Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre were excellent acquisitions. Favre elevated an average offense and Cunningham had Moss, Carter, and Reed.
But the vast majority of free agent Vikings QB's have been busts or mediocre at best.
 
Drafting of QB's in the Spielman era isn't difficult to evaluate. He couldn't find a great QB if he tripped over one. Even Teddy, who is a great guy, doesn't appear to be a top tier QB.

I agree with Minny. The formula for success is drafting a franchise QB and building the team around him while he develops during the inexpensive contract years. It can be done with free agent QB's like Stafford, but the odds are low with either approach.

My hope is it works with Cousins. But if not, perhaps the new regime will be able to evaluate and acquire a great QB in the draft. Lord knows Spielman couldn't and rarely tried!
 

The odds are low with either approach.  If you take out the Goat.  Wilson and Mahomes are the only 2 active QBs to make it to 2 super bowls. No active QB has won more then 1 (minus the Goat). 

Both Wilson and Mahomes went back to back during their rookie contracts for what its worth.

[Guest]

not sure if this got mentioned or not,  but week one the panthers host the browns.... and the browns will be paying almost 600K of Bakers salary that game... that is just funny right there.