Yikes

[StickierBuns]

Interesting. I looked for the numbers on this but couldn't find it. So I stand corrected. It looks like QB salaries are actually outpacing cap increases. Not that it matters much to owners, who make money regardless.  

But I think all of this ties to how important the QB position has become in the last 10 years. The % of cap number is the real eye opener. Back when Cousins signed his deal with Minnesota, a number in the mid teens was considered very high. Now it's the mid 20s.

Where it matters is as a percentage of the overall cap. That's the impact. Of course the owners make money regardless, but how lean can you go in other areas of the team and still win consistently? Where's the tipping point in causal effect to wins? Although the QB is obviously the most important part of the team, but he doesn't operate in a vacuum for success. You need a Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid to overcome a top-heavy cap and that won't happen with Trevor Lawrence, Jordan Love or anyone else leading your team. Kansas City is an anomaly on top of an anomaly.

[purplefaithful]

So QB is almost 25% of the cap now huh?

I hope Love breaks the bank @ GB and hobbles them for years.

25% of cap crossed a line imo. Who is going to be the first $70mm man?

JJM?

[JimmyinSD]

Only if he has earned it, if they pay him out of fear, and that's what's drives this stupidity is fear that they next guy may be worse, them those GMs should be fired. If they aren't the best then they shouldn't get paid that way, only the best should be resetting the markets. It's not the agents faults that the GMs are shitty and have created a system that rewards mediocrity by bucking to the demands.

I would rather they lose him to free agency than to see them get handcuffed like so many other teams have been.

I realize that, but you cant let one stupid GM dictate that you make a worse move. I would rather start over on the QB hunt than get saddled with a QB that is make 10+ million per year more than he should, I dont care about the "starter" or "QB1" label, they need look at them in how much better they are then the backups around the league, and in terms of how much of a supporting cast they need to be considered a QB1, if they need above average OL play, and above average weapons, and never really return more than average results... they shouldnt be paid like they are above average... GMs just need to always be looking to move on instead of getting saddled with a bad contract IMO.

[JimmyinSD]

Where it matters is as a percentage of the overall cap. That's the impact. Of course the owners make money regardless, but how lean can you go in other areas of the team and still win consistently? Where's the tipping point in causal effect to wins? Although the QB is obviously the most important part of the team, but he doesn't operate in a vacuum for success. You need a Patrick Mahomes and Andy Reid to overcome a top-heavy cap and that won't happen with Trevor Lawrence, Jordan Love or anyone else leading your team. Kansas City is an anomaly on top of an anomaly.

I've been trying to make this argument for years, the players contract has to be commensurate with what he brings to the game, overpaying average or below average players because of the position they play is not a way to build a championship caliber roster.

[StickierBuns]

I've been trying to make this argument for years,  the players contract has to be commensurate with what he brings to the game,  overpaying average or below average players because of the position they play is not a way to build a championship caliber roster.

QBs are going to be 'overpaid' just because of the importance of the position, but now its getting very skewed compared to its growth and the growth of the cap. Its not aligned.

[MaroonBells]

 GMs just need to always be looking to move on instead of getting saddled with a bad contract IMO.

But what's a bad contract? Would you rather have Joe Burrow or Justin Herbert and the money it requires to keep them ($55M and $52M) or be in a position where you're still looking for a guy like that?

[StickierBuns]

But what's a bad contract? Would you rather have Joe Burrow or Justin Herbert and the money it requires to keep them ($55M and $52M) or be in a position where you're still looking for a guy like that?

Yeah, a 'bad' contract can be in the eye of the beholder or only in retrospect it becomes bad.....but that's part of the risk of signing anyone since these have become guaranteed. Its part of the game now and like I've mentioned before, you are betting 'on the come' in some cases because the alternative is worse or more risky.

[MaroonBells]

Yeah, a 'bad' contract can be in the eye of the beholder or only in retrospect it becomes bad.....but that's part of the risk of signing anyone since these have become guaranteed. Its part of the game now and like I've mentioned before, you are betting 'on the come' in some cases because the alternative is worse or more risky.

I think the salaries not only reflect the increasing importance of the position, but also how incredibly hard it is to find one. Teams are willing to give up several 1st round picks just to move up a few spots to get "their guy," knowing full well it's just a guess. Teams like the Bears, Browns and Lions go multiple decades without finding one. 

So when you get a guy like Lawrence, Burrow, Herbert, who may not be perfect, but who clearly aren't busts or even misses, you pay them and you thank God for making the decision so easy. Because if you don't, it could be 20 years before you find another one.

[medaille]

Prices are also high because no one develops QBs. Teams bring in rookie QBs, sit them behind a shitty starter for 4 games until the fans are pissed off, and then start their rookie. They’ve barely had enough time to figure out how to be a professional, their mechanics are a third of the way fixed and they’re thrown into the mix and basically told to sink or swim, and then in 2-3 years when they still haven't fixed their bad mechanics or processing or whatever, they get tossed. Beyond the high value prospects, most of the NFL isn’t allocating a roster spot to a developing QB. Most teams only keep their starter and their Mullens-esque backup. Beyond that, you try to keep a QB on the practice squad, who can be poached at any time, how much are you really going to invest in making them improve when they will disappear as soon as they become good enough. Like look at Hall. He was here for a year developing, now he’s going to be pushed either to the practice squad or poached by another team. It’s probably pretty unlikely that he’ll make it back to active roster as he’ll likely be poached before that happens and then his journeyman career of hopping teams can begin.

I strongly believe that the NFL should mandate or ensure access such that each team keeps 4 QBs on their active roster without it affecting the rest of the roster, for example they could add 2 more roster spots to get the roster size to 55, and 4 of those can only be QBs. That keeps the number of non-QBs for 2 QB teams the same. I would also get rid of the weird rules where a small percentage of a team has to be inactive on gameday. I think if the norm became teams drafting a QB and keeping them on the same roster for 4 years, the quality of QB play through those middle tiers of QBs would rise quite a bit and compensation for those mid-tier QBs would approach their actual value. I think it would be good for the league because anything they can do to solve the shortage of quality QBs would make the games much more watchable.

[MaroonBells]

Prices are also high because no one develops QBs.  Teams bring in rookie QBs, sit them behind a shitty starter for 4 games until the fans are pissed off, and then start their rookie.  They’ve barely had enough time to figure out how to be a professional, their mechanics are a third of the way fixed and they’re thrown into the mix and basically told to sink or swim, and then in 2-3 years when they still haven't fixed their bad mechanics or processing or whatever, they get tossed.  Beyond the high value prospects, most of the NFL isn’t allocating a roster spot to a developing QB.  Most teams only keep their starter and their Mullens-esque backup.  Beyond that, you try to keep a QB on the practice squad, who can be poached at any time, how much are you really going to invest in making them improve when they will disappear as soon as they become good enough.  Like look at Hall.  He was here for a year developing, now he’s going to be pushed either to the practice squad or poached by another team.  It’s probably pretty unlikely that he’ll make it back to active roster as he’ll likely be poached before that happens and then his journeyman career of hopping teams can begin.

I strongly believe that the NFL should mandate or ensure access such that each team keeps 4 QBs on their active roster without it affecting the rest of the roster, for example they could add 2 more roster spots to get the roster size to 55, and 4 of those can only be QBs.  That keeps the number of non-QBs for 2 QB teams the same.  I would also get rid of the weird rules where a small percentage of a team has to be inactive on gameday.  I think if the norm became teams drafting a QB and keeping them on the same roster for 4 years, the quality of QB play through those middle tiers of QBs would rise quite a bit and compensation for those mid-tier QBs would approach their actual value.  I think it would be good for the league because anything they can do to solve the shortage of quality QBs would make the games much more watchable.

I think this is a pretty good idea. It would improve the quality of the game and the NFL should support that. 

I know one thing: if Darnold has a good year it's going to change the way NFL teams approach drafting and developing young QBs.