Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ 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.
You are painting with a BROAD stroke here hah. I know “QB wins aren’t a stat” but since you brought it up here are those threes’ records:
Brady 243-75
KC 61-62-2
Sam 34-48-1
So while you can win with all 3, apparently you can win a helluva lot more with one of them.
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ 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.
You are painting with a BROAD stroke here hah. I know “QB wins aren’t a stat” but since you brought it up here are those threes’ records:
Brady 243-75
KC 61-62-2
Sam 34-48-1
So while you can win with all 3, apparently you can win a helluva lot more with one of them.
Right, but we're talking roster construction here. And I personally find it ridiculous that so many insist on creating "tiers" of QBs. Oh he's "elite" and he's "great" and he's "good" and....he's top 8 and he's top 12. It's nonsense if you ask me. It's always changing based on the vagaries of system and supporting cast.
In terms of what you're going to do at the QB position, there should only be 3 categories: QBs you can win with, QBs you need to replace and QBs where it's too soon to tell. That's it.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ 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.
You are painting with a BROAD stroke here hah. I know “QB wins aren’t a stat” but since you brought it up here are those threes’ records:
Brady 243-75
KC 61-62-2
Sam 34-48-1
So while you can win with all 3, apparently you can win a helluva lot more with one of them.
Right, but we're talking roster construction here. And I personally find it ridiculous that so many insist on creating "tiers" of QBs. Oh he's "elite" and he's "great" and he's "good" and....he's top 8 and he's top 12. It's nonsense if you ask me. It's always changing based on the vagaries of system and supporting cast.
In terms of what you're going to do at the QB position, there should only be 3 categories: QBs you can win with, QBs you need to replace and QBs where it's too soon to tell. That's it.
How about Qbs you can win with as long as they are getting compensated at a level that allows the supporting talent to make up for their deficiencies? These rookie contract QBs that are making the playoffs arent all top tier talent, but the team around them has an aggregate level of talent and that is capable of winning it all when you are paying 25 to 35 million per year less than a team with "a guy we can win with" that is on his second or third deal that is paying him 35-45 million for roughly the same level of performance. you can catch lightning in a bottle with guys like Cousins and even worse, but the odds have to favor the QB that is playing for team friendly deals or those on rookie contracts. Even Brady recognizes this which is why he has taken less to have more around him which is why he is called the GOAT, imagine if guys like Rogers and a few others had taken the same approach their entire careers how much different that conversation might look?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ 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.
You are painting with a BROAD stroke here hah. I know “QB wins aren’t a stat” but since you brought it up here are those threes’ records:
Brady 243-75
KC 61-62-2
Sam 34-48-1
So while you can win with all 3, apparently you can win a helluva lot more with one of them.
Right, but we're talking roster construction here. And I personally find it ridiculous that so many insist on creating "tiers" of QBs. Oh he's "elite" and he's "great" and he's "good" and....he's top 8 and he's top 12. It's nonsense if you ask me. It's always changing based on the vagaries of system and supporting cast.
In terms of what you're going to do at the QB position, there should only be 3 categories: QBs you can win with, QBs you need to replace and QBs where it's too soon to tell. That's it.
How about Qbs you can win with as long as they are getting compensated at a level that allows the supporting talent to make up for their deficiencies? These rookie contract QBs that are making the playoffs arent all top tier talent, but the team around them has an aggregate level of talent and that is capable of winning it all when you are paying 25 to 35 million per year less than a team with "a guy we can win with" that is on his second or third deal that is paying him 35-45 million for roughly the same level of performance. you can catch lightning in a bottle with guys like Cousins and even worse, but the odds have to favor the QB that is playing for team friendly deals or those on rookie contracts. Even Brady recognizes this which is why he has taken less to have more around him which is why he is called the GOAT, imagine if guys like Rogers and a few others had taken the same approach their entire careers how much different that conversation might look?
Or QB's that carry your team when needed (playoffs) maybe another category because we haven't had one of those since.....?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ 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.
You are painting with a BROAD stroke here hah. I know “QB wins aren’t a stat” but since you brought it up here are those threes’ records:
Brady 243-75
KC 61-62-2
Sam 34-48-1
So while you can win with all 3, apparently you can win a helluva lot more with one of them.
Right, but we're talking roster construction here. And I personally find it ridiculous that so many insist on creating "tiers" of QBs. Oh he's "elite" and he's "great" and he's "good" and....he's top 8 and he's top 12. It's nonsense if you ask me. It's always changing based on the vagaries of system and supporting cast.
In terms of what you're going to do at the QB position, there should only be 3 categories: QBs you can win with, QBs you need to replace and QBs where it's too soon to tell. That's it.
How about Qbs you can win with as long as they are getting compensated at a level that allows the supporting talent to make up for their deficiencies? These rookie contract QBs that are making the playoffs arent all top tier talent, but the team around them has an aggregate level of talent and that is capable of winning it all when you are paying 25 to 35 million per year less than a team with "a guy we can win with" that is on his second or third deal that is paying him 35-45 million for roughly the same level of performance. you can catch lightning in a bottle with guys like Cousins and even worse, but the odds have to favor the QB that is playing for team friendly deals or those on rookie contracts. Even Brady recognizes this which is why he has taken less to have more around him which is why he is called the GOAT, imagine if guys like Rogers and a few others had taken the same approach their entire careers how much different that conversation might look?
I agree that it would be awesome sauce to find a QB willing to take less than market value. But I doubt we'll see that again until we draft a QB whose wife is worth a half billion dollars.
He married Gisselle in 2009 after negotiating 4 contracts and appearing in 4 SB's and going 3-1 for the team that drafted him.
Brady was on his rookie deal - 2001, year 2 - when he helped win the SB for the team that drafted him. Then they redid his rookie deal in 2002 to another pretty reasonable deal and he won his 2nd and third SB appearances in 2003 and 2004 for the team that drafted him.
Tom Brady 2002
Deal: 5 years, $30.52M
Signing Bonus: $10M
"In the last week of August of 2002, Brady got a new deal that would take him through 2006. As part of that deal, Brady would receive $250K for every AFC Championship win and $250K for every Super Bowl win. He’d realize $1M from those incentives thanks to the 2003 and 2004 seasons. He kept his initial 2002 salary of $375K, but the salaries jumped to $3.1M, $5.5M, $5.5M and $6M from 2003 through 2006. The Patriots tinkered with the deal in 2003 and 2004 to grab more cap space and dumped money forward so his cap charges in ‘05 and ’06 were slated to be $10M and $14M.
Lucrative though that may have seemed for a player that had started just 14 regular-season games, Drew Bledsoe’s deal with the Patriots signed just 18 months prior was for 10 years and $103M. So Brady was a bargain. "
Also, as I stated in my above response:
Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven at the time) 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 (non SB proven) 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).
When you compare KC to the 3 other QB's above - the Vikings signed a non-proven SB QB for top dollar and keep kicking that can.
The Rams were able to get Stafford on the cheap and surround him with top talent with all the savings something the Vikings have been unable to do with KC.
Wilson is a pretty darn good bargain because he is a proven SB clutch QB and his CAP hits are reasonable over 2 years to build for a proven clutch QB - again KC is paid more and has won one playoff game.
Brady - see above - won first SB on rookie contract and then went 2-1 in SB's for his drafted team before he married Gisselle.
I go back to wanting to take more swings - in the first round of the draft then we have in the recent past. Three times in 24 years is not enough swings for the fence - IMO. For every, bust first round QB, you can find 2 or 3 bust veterans who never get you close but give you "we can win with him tease" if we surround him. This mentality/approach of thinking you have a proven veteran who is good enough even though he has not been proven to be a winner over 9 years (pretty good sample size) also prohibits the team to not look as hard at the Top first round QB's.
Of course, we enter this season with another year of KC and the majority of us knowing this is the year most will get their answer on KC (I already have mine .
But just like many hung on way to long supporting Zimmer until not....I am hoping that if KC led team produces another 8 or 9 win season but KC puts up good stats that we don't continue to rinse and repeat this same old "good enough" conversation/thought process.
Quote: @minny65 said:
He married Gisselle in 2009 after negotiating 4 contracts and appearing in 4 SB's and going 3-1 for the team that drafted him.
Brady was on his rookie deal - 2001, year 2 - when he helped win the SB for the team that drafted him. Then they redid his rookie deal in 2002 to another pretty reasonable deal and he won his 2nd and third SB appearances in 2003 and 2004 for the team that drafted him.
Tom Brady 2002
Deal: 5 years, $30.52M
Signing Bonus: $10M
"In the last week of August of 2002, Brady got a new deal that would take him through 2006. As part of that deal, Brady would receive $250K for every AFC Championship win and $250K for every Super Bowl win. He’d realize $1M from those incentives thanks to the 2003 and 2004 seasons. He kept his initial 2002 salary of $375K, but the salaries jumped to $3.1M, $5.5M, $5.5M and $6M from 2003 through 2006. The Patriots tinkered with the deal in 2003 and 2004 to grab more cap space and dumped money forward so his cap charges in ‘05 and ’06 were slated to be $10M and $14M.
Lucrative though that may have seemed for a player that had started just 14 regular-season games, Drew Bledsoe’s deal with the Patriots signed just 18 months prior was for 10 years and $103M. So Brady was a bargain. "
Also, as I stated in my above response:
Then there is the unique Stafford (non SB proven at the time) 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 (non SB proven) 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).
When you compare KC to the 3 other QB's above - the Vikings signed a non-proven SB QB for top dollar and keep kicking that can.
The Rams were able to get Stafford on the cheap and surround him with top talent with all the savings something the Vikings have been unable to do with KC.
Wilson is a pretty darn good bargain because he is a proven SB clutch QB and his CAP hits are reasonable over 2 years to build for a proven clutch QB - again KC is paid more and has won one playoff game.
Brady - see above - won first SB on rookie contract and then went 2-1 in SB's for his drafted team before he married Gisselle.
I go back to wanting to take more swings - in the first round of the draft then we have in the recent past. Three times in 24 years is not enough swings for the fence - IMO. For every, bust first round QB, you can find 2 or 3 bust veterans who never get you close but give you "we can win with him tease" if we surround him. This mentality/approach of thinking you have a proven veteran who is good enough even though he has not been proven to be a winner over 9 years (pretty good sample size) also prohibits the team to not look as hard at the Top first round QB's.
Of course, we enter this season with another year of KC and the majority of us knowing this is the year most will get their answer on KC (I already have mine.
But just like many hung on way to long supporting Zimmer until not....I am hoping that if KC led team produces another 8 or 9 win season but KC puts up good stats that we don't continue to rinse and repeat this same old "good enough" conversation/thought process.
Wow, you're leaving a lot out there, Minny. You can't compare contracts without also comparing their terms, total value, guaranteed money, etc.
In terms of avg. per year, Cousins ranks 9th. In terms of total contract value, his contract ranks 18th. Cap hit is a nearly meaningless factor because its constantly changing (and changeable) based on where you are in the term.
Vikings could cut Cousins' cap hit in half tomorrow simply by extending him. But I think we would all agree that's not in our best interest right now.
some of you with money to piss away can confirm this, this morning KFAN was referencing this espn article about nfl coaches, executives, and players ranking the top 10 QBs for 2022. Rodgers was #1, then they listed the rest of the top 10, gave a few honorable mentions... and then "also receiving votes" was Kirk Cousins, its one thing for us fans to say he is/isnt that good, but when the people that make a living by the game are saying he isnt that great, does that carry any more merit?
https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider...st-passers
|
