Week 6 NFL Thread: Cliff Stoudt edition

We are a long way off from that approach. If quarterbacks don't get paid, nobody will. At this point, you still have teams overpaying guys like Goff and overdrafting anybody with a shot at being a good pro.

 

Oh by the way

 

There's a good reason why the Packers weren't flagged for having 13 players on the field

 

Prescott probably should have taken that offer -- $30M per year -- the Cowboys offered. He is a complete product of their offensive line. He's an average QB playing behind a superior line with the best RB in football. He overvalued himself and will now suffer accordingly.

He wanted $40M per? Ridiculous.

 

This is an interesting thought experiment! My immediate reaction is that QB probably has the highest disparity between how much the absolute peak of the position can help you, and also, how bad an awful options can hurt you. Brady has the "baggage" of having an awesome coach as well, but if you want a cleaner comparison - Drew Brees' low for wins in a season he's played 15+ games is seven. Peyton Manning is six, when he was 25; otherwise it was 10. Having an elite QB, a consistent top five one, is a huge advantage that's worth the money.

Once you get to the mid-tier though, I imagine it's kind of like fantasy football. In that, I'm not sure if there is a $X million difference between Kirk Cousins, Tannehill, Mariotta, Prescott, Brisset, etc. All of them have looked OK in some situations, bad in others. The "problem" for many NFL GMs in the past has been that they're so THIRSTY they often lock up any QB with a modicum of potential, and the result is that there really isn't good or "true" free agency at the position.

 

It will be interesting to see how the success of backups (Allen, Bridgewater, Minshew et. al) means going forward. I don't know what depreciates quicker, a new car driven off a lot or a quarterback after their first game.

 

Saints are 4-0 without Brees. Bridgewater will be a starter somewhere next year, even though that defense has a lot to do with their success minus Brees.

 

By depreciates do you mean getting filthy rich and given opportunity after opportunity?

 

I meant every QB is the second coming of Joe Namath-Montana until they take a snap.

 

I'd put Bridgewater into that group from my post. The only reason he's not in there already is because of that horrific injury he suffered, otherwise, he'd probably be frustrating people just as much as the league's other average quarterbacks.

 

In an earlier post about QBs someone wrote how teams are desperate for QBs because there are not enough good QBs to go around. What if the problem wasn't the QBs, but the coaches/teams?

 

I've always thought that. People have this idea in their heads that if someone becomes an NFL owner, GM or coach that they are brilliant and possess ultimate football knowledge. I'd say arrogance has as much to do with it. Like drafting a QB for your team and have the coach try and plug him into a system that doesn't maximize his skill set - because it's the coach's offense. Or drafting a QB because he went to school with your son or he's the shiniest bauble or has the most 'buzz" on the board, whether he fits your offense or not. Or picking a coach because he has some relationship with the current QB and can make him better, or a relationship with, or just has a similar profile as a successful coach.
Seriously, I think Owners want stars, GMs want to "discover" the next Lombardi and Coaches just want someone to run their damn offense the way they envision it. You want to know why the Patriots are successful - they went three for three. Also, they play in a weak division, have a great QB they don't have to pay the market rate on because he's married to a supermodel allowing them to spend more on other positions.