Will lower QB's salaries be the next result of the NFL rule changes?

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

Back in 2007 and 2008, the NFL made changes that heavily favored the offense.  One of the things that was most impacted, as I believe we're starting to see, is the increased number of draft prospects.  Since the 2016 draft (the last 5), there have been 22 QB's that were drafted who started games - on purpose - for their teams.  Now, some may argue that guys like Mason Rudolph, Gardner Minshew, and Jacoby Brissett shouldn't really count, but I don't see why not.  They were all given the chance to start to see if they can keep the job.  Think about this, 17 of the NFL teams started the 2020 season with a QB who was drafted since 2016.  If you go back to just 7 years ago (2014), you will see that 27 of the teams in the league start QB's drafted from that time frame.

Could Dak be the first victim?  Again, going back just 5 years, there have been 18 QB's drafted in the first round... so an average of over 3.5 per year.  Note, every draft had at least 3.  There are prospect rankings out now for the 2021 draft that shows as many as 5 QB's could be drafted this year... Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance, and Trask.  Why do I bring up Dak?  Because he's the highest profile free agent QB this year.  With potentially 5 new QB's coming into the season and guys like Dalton, Newton, Trubisky, Stafford, Rodgers, and Watson being on the market, where does that leave Dak?  How many teams need a QB and why should they pay someone $35M a year for 5 years?

So, 11 QB's... 12 counting Dak.  What teams need a QB?

• Washington
• Dallas
• Chicago
• Detroit
• New Orleans
• New England
• Houston
• Jacksonville
• Indy

Anyone else?  I see 9.  Do you throw Denver or SF in there?  If you do, then you're adding Garoppolo and Lock into the market.  Any team you add... Rams(?), Falcons(?), you're just adding more QB's to the market.  Are teams like Washington, Detroit, New England, Houston, and Jacksonville going to target an expensive guy, or just look to the draft?  Outside of Dallas, Chicago, New Orleans and Indy, I don't see anyone targeting an established guy.  Rodgers to Indy makes the most sense for trade partners.  Stafford to New Orleans.  Watson to Dallas?  Chicago?  Dak to the other one?  If Dak stays in Dallas, they can just tag him and give it one more year.  After that, it's a rebuild for them the way I see it.  Simply, I just don't see enough of a reason why anyone needs to pay Prescott more than $30M AAV for a multi-year deal... let along $35M or $40M.

Anyway, if the trend continues at 3.5 first rounders and 4.5 viable starting options every year, you're talking about a full leagues' worth of QB's every 8 to 10 years.  Seems to me that the way to go would be to draft your guy, after 2 years, and give him 3 year extension getting him out to a max 8 years where you can spread out the bigger back end while avoiding the bloated numbers that get into the $40M+ range.  Now, Dak might not be the first victim and we still may be a couple years away, but I think the time is approaching where teams are going to stop waiting for QB's to get through their rookie deals and then give them monster deals to re-sign.  I think guys like Allen, Jackson, and Mayfield might be the last group "to get paid".  Maybe Murray, but I don't think there'll be that big day in Burrow or Tua's future.  I think by then, teams will alter the way they do QB contracts.

[cmh6476 748]

no.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

Football is like anything else, supply and demand.  If the supply is high and the demand is low, the cost goes down.  The supply is trending up... then demand is trending down.

 

It's funny, I remember asking this question about RB's back when the rule changes started.  I remember a lot people telling me I was nuts.  

[cmh6476 748]

Quarterbacks are the face of the franchise.  If your QB sucks, your team sucks.  If your QB is high caliber, more often than not you make the playoffs.  Dallas gets it after the dak injury.  I don't think this is lost on ownership and front offices.  They will get paid.  And there is talk the salary cap will have a different bar got qbs than all other players in future years.  Which only more refutes this argument.

[t.j 35]

The problem with the QB contracts is you had some guys that were great and got paid, and then you had a lot of guys that were pretty good and got paid about 80-90% as much, when in reality their salary cap value compared to the greats should be probably half or less. Teams aren't good at admitting that the QB marketed as the face of their franchise isn't a top 10 (let alone top 5) difference-making type guy, and shouldn't be paid as such. That's why Dak is more likely to get $35M from the Cowboys than he is to go out on the market and get more than the $30Mish you (correctly, in my opinion) think his worth maxes out at.

[cmh6476 748]

1 hour ago, t.j said:

The problem with the QB contracts is you had some guys that were great and got paid, and then you had a lot of guys that were pretty good and got paid about 80-90% as much, when in reality their salary cap value compared to the greats should be probably half or less. Teams aren't good at admitting that the QB marketed as the face of their franchise isn't a top 10 (let alone top 5) difference-making type guy, and shouldn't be paid as such. That's why Dak is more likely to get $35M from the Cowboys than he is to go out on the market and get more than the $30Mish you (correctly, in my opinion) think his worth maxes out at.

He still touches the ball more than any other player on the team, and his performance dictates the outcome of a game more than any other position on the field

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

10 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

He still touches the ball more than any other player on the team, and his performance dictates the outcome of a game more than any other position on the field

That's right, but when you overpay that guy, you won't get the same production because it's going to come at the detriment of the rest of your team and the results will be reduced.  You will be hard pressed to find just one example where a QB got overpaid and his team was able to consistently be a contender.

Case in point... Matt Ryan.  The Falcons made the playoffs 4 times in his first 5 years (rookie contract).  They over paid him.  Since then, over the last 8 seasons, they've made the playoffs only twice.

[cmh6476 748]

33 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right, but when you overpay that guy, you won't get the same production because it's going to come at the detriment of the rest of your team and the results will be reduced.  You will be hard pressed to find just one example where a QB got overpaid and his team was able to consistently be a contender.

Case in point... Matt Ryan.  The Falcons made the playoffs 4 times in his first 5 years (rookie contract).  They over paid him.  Since then, over the last 8 seasons, they've made the playoffs only twice.

I hear what you're saying.  I'll take Mahomes and scrubs though over scrub at QB with talent everywhere else anyday.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

1 hour ago, cmh6476 said:

I hear what you're saying.  I'll take Mahomes and scrubs though over scrub at QB with talent everywhere else anyday.

Certainly, but there's only 2 or 3 of those guys in the league at one time.  Mahomes isn't the kind of player I'm talking about.

[AxeElf 787]

3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right, but when you overpay that guy, you won't get the same production because it's going to come at the detriment of the rest of your team and the results will be reduced.  You will be hard pressed to find just one example where a QB got overpaid and his team was able to consistently be a contender.

Case in point... Matt Ryan.  The Falcons made the playoffs 4 times in his first 5 years (rookie contract).  They over paid him.  Since then, over the last 8 seasons, they've made the playoffs only twice.

 

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Certainly, but there's only 2 or 3 of those guys in the league at one time.  Mahomes isn't the kind of player I'm talking about.

You're really getting to be a weepaws on this topic.  You have made what, ten posts now delineating exactly how the salary cap works--if you pay one guy more, there is less money to pay the rest of the team.  No kidding, duh, and we got it.

But what's more is that you present this fact as a rule--that if you overpay the QB, the rest of the team will suffer and your results will be reduced, period.  But then when someone talks about the counterexamples, like Mahomes, you just say, "Well, I'm not talking about the times when it doesn't work that way, I'm only talking about the times when it does," and then go on acting like it ALWAYS does.

Parenthetically, the only time the Falcons made the SuperBowl in the 21st century was after the 2016 season--four years after they had "overpaid" Matt Ryan.

[JagFan 97]

Dallas needs a QB.  I think Dak would be a good fit in that offense.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

13 minutes ago, JagFan said:

Dallas needs a QB.  I think Dak would be a good fit in that offense.

The issue isn't whether he's good or not, it's where the two are on the contract.  It appears that Dak wants more than what the Cowboys are willing to pay.  If that's the case, then both are going to look elsewhere.  If they do agree, then one of them caved to the others demands.  If Dallas caves, the Cowboys will be continue to be pretenders.  If Dak caves, then the Cowboys have a shot to be contenders.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

24 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

 

You're really getting to be a weepaws on this topic.  You have made what, ten posts now delineating exactly how the salary cap works--if you pay one guy more, there is less money to pay the rest of the team.  No kidding, duh, and we got it.

But what's more is that you present this fact as a rule--that if you overpay the QB, the rest of the team will suffer and your results will be reduced, period.  But then when someone talks about the counterexamples, like Mahomes, you just say, "Well, I'm not talking about the times when it doesn't work that way, I'm only talking about the times when it does," and then go on acting like it ALWAYS does.

Parenthetically, the only time the Falcons made the SuperBowl in the 21st century was after the 2016 season--four years after they had "overpaid" Matt Ryan.

Mahomes is NOT a counter example.  Is the problem that you have... that you don't understand delineations of talent?  I'm talking about the guys who are good and get paid as if their great.  You point out Matt Ryan as if he contradicts my point.  He actually makes it.  It took 4 years of the salary cap going up for his cap hit to not hurt the team.  So, good idea.  Let's overpay our "good" QB, like he's elite, and then 4 years later, we might get to a Super Bowl.  That's a great plan... because 4 years later, they had one season where they made the playoffs and 3 losing seasons.  Most recently, a 4-win season.  Atlanta's record since Ryan's new deal, is 57-70.  You call that a successful approach?

[AxeElf 787]

9 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Mahomes is NOT a counter example.

Well, he would be, if you didn't discount him as someone you're not talking about.

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You point out Matt Ryan as if he contradicts my point.

YOU pointed out Matt Ryan.  I just pointed out that he doesn't make your point.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

16 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

Well, he would be, if you didn't discount him as someone you're not talking about.

YOU pointed out Matt Ryan.  I just pointed out that he doesn't make your point.

English is your second language, isn't it?

[cmh6476 748]

Dallas wins more games paying Dak around $40M, than they do paying Stafford around $20M, IMO.

[cmh6476 748]

https://brobible.com/sports/article/nfl-salary-cap-quarterback-contracts-report/

[AxeElf 787]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

English is your second language, isn't it?

Impressed that I can educate you in a language not my first?

[weepaws 2,450]

3 hours ago, JagFan said:

Dallas needs a QB.  I think Dak would be a good fit in that offense.

Would they be a Super Bowl Contender like the Bucs? 

[polecatt 399]

I could certainly see some teams going this route.  I don't think it will be a very common theme though.

If you try and save money on the QB contract, that means you look to spend big elsewhere.

How much money are you really gonna save, and how big is what you're gonna get in return gonna be?

Say you save $20 million or so on your QB.

Where can that be reinvested to where it's more valuable?

I would say at best, it's gonna get you a top notch player at 3 other positions. Likely positions that aren't as important.

Say you get a top notch Center, Tight End, and Safety in return for the bus driver QB.

Is that worth it?

[JagFan 97]

5 hours ago, weepaws said:

Would they be a Super Bowl Contender like the Bucs? 

The Bucs aren’t a Super Bowl contender.  The NFC just didn’t have a true Super Bowl contender to offer this year.  That’ll be clear next Sunday night when everyone is turning the game off at halftime.

[Smileseers 54]

There are 15 humans on the planet worth paying over $25 million a year presently and they are worth what the market dictates.

You get what you pay for.

 

[Ray_T 587]

On 1/29/2021 at 7:06 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right, but when you overpay that guy, you won't get the same production because it's going to come at the detriment of the rest of your team and the results will be reduced.  You will be hard pressed to find just one example where a QB got overpaid and his team was able to consistently be a contender.

Case in point... Matt Ryan.  The Falcons made the playoffs 4 times in his first 5 years (rookie contract).  They over paid him.  Since then, over the last 8 seasons, they've made the playoffs only twice.

 

On 1/29/2021 at 10:20 AM, AxeElf said:

 

You're really getting to be a weepaws on this topic.  You have made what, ten posts now delineating exactly how the salary cap works--if you pay one guy more, there is less money to pay the rest of the team.  No kidding, duh, and we got it.

But what's more is that you present this fact as a rule--that if you overpay the QB, the rest of the team will suffer and your results will be reduced, period.  But then when someone talks about the counterexamples, like Mahomes, you just say, "Well, I'm not talking about the times when it doesn't work that way, I'm only talking about the times when it does," and then go on acting like it ALWAYS does.

Parenthetically, the only time the Falcons made the SuperBowl in the 21st century was after the 2016 season--four years after they had "overpaid" Matt Ryan.

Look, TBay has made a valid point.

for the most part, he is right.   if that QB isnt good enough to carry that team to the playoffs on his own, you shouldnt be paying him top dollar.

Thats more or less a fact.   because paying a QB 40 mil usually means you have to cut corners elsewhere to pay him.   Mahomes IS one of those players who can carry an offense on his own.   Take away his top receiving threat and he still puts up numbers other QB's could only wish to get.

hes the exception and he should be.

someone like Dak is not.  hes the type of QB who (in my opinion) needs all the pieces in his offense to be productive.  his stats are good, but he also may have had the easiest (or one of the easiest) schedules of any QB over his last 20 starts.

and he responded with a great year, but the team was still mediocre at best.   paying him 40 mil would only guarantee that this is as good as its likely to get in Dallas for a long time.

the proper market value for him likely tops out at 30 mil if the Cowboys truly want to win a superbowl and that may even be a bit of a stretch.

[AxeElf 787]

3 hours ago, Ray_T said:

someone like Dak is not.  hes the type of QB who (in my opinion) needs all the pieces in his offense to be productive.

I don't care to split hairs over whether he's worth 30, 35, 40 M, whatever, but you put a perfectly adequate QB in the same offense (someone like, say, Andy Dalton), and they don't look like a competitive unit.

Dak may not be Mahomes, but he makes their offense (way) better.

[weepaws 2,450]

22 hours ago, JagFan said:

The Bucs aren’t a Super Bowl contender.  The NFC just didn’t have a true Super Bowl contender to offer this year.  That’ll be clear next Sunday night when everyone is turning the game off at halftime.

Congrats, you just gave a great axeelf response, denial and then the classless  redirect. 

Good job  

As for next Sunday , the Bucs have has good a shot at winning the Super has any team does, know why? 

Super Bowl Contender 

[Ray_T 587]

3 hours ago, AxeElf said:

I don't care to split hairs over whether he's worth 30, 35, 40 M, whatever, but you put a perfectly adequate QB in the same offense (someone like, say, Andy Dalton), and they don't look like a competitive unit.

Dak may not be Mahomes, but he makes their offense (way) better.

well, Daks running ability covers up some of the flaws in the O line.   

when healthy that line is good, but most of this year it was not and it showed.  

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

20 hours ago, AxeElf said:

I don't care to split hairs over whether he's worth 30, 35, 40 M, whatever, but you put a perfectly adequate QB in the same offense (someone like, say, Andy Dalton), and they don't look like a competitive unit.

Dak may not be Mahomes, but he makes their offense (way) better.

This past season, Dak was 2-3, a .400 win%.  Dalton was 4-5, a .444 win%, with no training camp or 1st team reps at all, during the offseason with a new playbook.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

On 1/30/2021 at 3:18 PM, Ray_T said:

 

Look, TBay has made a valid point.

for the most part, he is right.   if that QB isnt good enough to carry that team to the playoffs on his own, you shouldnt be paying him top dollar.

Thats more or less a fact.   because paying a QB 40 mil usually means you have to cut corners elsewhere to pay him.   Mahomes IS one of those players who can carry an offense on his own.   Take away his top receiving threat and he still puts up numbers other QB's could only wish to get.

hes the exception and he should be.

someone like Dak is not.  hes the type of QB who (in my opinion) needs all the pieces in his offense to be productive.  his stats are good, but he also may have had the easiest (or one of the easiest) schedules of any QB over his last 20 starts.

and he responded with a great year, but the team was still mediocre at best.   paying him 40 mil would only guarantee that this is as good as its likely to get in Dallas for a long time.

the proper market value for him likely tops out at 30 mil if the Cowboys truly want to win a superbowl and that may even be a bit of a stretch.

It's nice to know that someone here "get's it".

[polecatt 399]

20 hours ago, Ray_T said:

well, Daks running ability covers up some of the flaws in the O line.   

when healthy that line is good, but most of this year it was not and it showed.  

 

A lot of rookies got thrown to the wolves on the OL.

They had their growing pains for sure but they started to gel a bit towards the end.

[weepaws 2,450]

There are a lot of qbs that have to adjust based on poor oline play.  

I think Dak is a good Qb, and I would keep him. And Lamb and the other talent they have surrounded him with, they need to upgrade their horrible def.  

[AxeElf 787]

12 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This past season, Dak was 2-3, a .400 win%.  Dalton was 4-5, a .444 win%, with no training camp or 1st team reps at all, during the offseason with a new playbook.

If you're saying that the Cowboys should keep Dalton and send Dak packing, because in contrast to my point, you believe that DALTON in fact makes the Cowboys' offense better, then I think our conversation is over.

If you're NOT contradicting me, then good; we agree.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

5 hours ago, AxeElf said:

If you're saying that the Cowboys should keep Dalton and send Dak packing, because in contrast to my point, you believe that DALTON in fact makes the Cowboys' offense better, then I think our conversation is over.

If you're NOT contradicting me, then good; we agree.

Yes, our conversation is over.  Dak isn't that special and Dalton is better than what he gets credit for.  I do think Dak is better, but I don't think the gap is substantial.  Dak made $31M last year and Dalton made $3M.  Their abilities aren't $28M apart.  I'd say the ideal contract for both would be $22M for Dak and $15M for Dalton.  If the Cowboys overpay either it would be stupid, that said, it's also not splitting hairs if the Cowboys pay Dak $40M and essentially overpaying him by almost double.

[Ray_T 587]

11 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes, our conversation is over.  Dak isn't that special and Dalton is better than what he gets credit for.  I do think Dak is better, but I don't think the gap is substantial.  Dak made $31M last year and Dalton made $3M.  Their abilities aren't $28M apart.  I'd say the ideal contract for both would be $22M for Dak and $15M for Dalton.  If the Cowboys overpay either it would be stupid, that said, it's also not splitting hairs if the Cowboys pay Dak $40M and essentially overpaying him by almost double.

I agree Dak is better.  but to justify  the salary he wants, he should have led the cowboys to the playoffs and made them a contender last season.

I dont blame Dak for this season as he wasnt there for most of it.

I think Dalton can put up good numbers, but at this point in his career it may be system and talent dependant. (meaning if the system is right and if he has the talent in the offense, he can produce)

I also think that salary caps are likely headed downward next year.   this means that  teams are likely looking to shed salary.  I'm willing to bet  most teams wont be able to pay dak 30 M even if they wanted to sign him.

so if the Cowboys want to negotiate against themselves, they are being their own worst enemy.   The market likely is not there.

I also dont feel Dak is a true franchise QB.   hes good, but if you pay him 40  M and the team cant afford to resign the top WR in this offense(or perhaps the top  OT) I have questions  whether Dak can get it done

I have no such  questions with Mahomes, but then again, he is a TRUE franchise QB. 

[AxeElf 787]

29 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

hes good, but if you pay him 40  M and the team cant afford to resign the top WR in this offense...

Nonsense; he'll only be in the second season of his rookie contract.

[TBayXXXVII 2,104]

12 hours ago, Ray_T said:

I agree Dak is better.  but to justify  the salary he wants, he should have led the cowboys to the playoffs and made them a contender last season.

I dont blame Dak for this season as he wasnt there for most of it.

I think Dalton can put up good numbers, but at this point in his career it may be system and talent dependant. (meaning if the system is right and if he has the talent in the offense, he can produce)

I also think that salary caps are likely headed downward next year.   this means that  teams are likely looking to shed salary.  I'm willing to bet  most teams wont be able to pay dak 30 M even if they wanted to sign him.

so if the Cowboys want to negotiate against themselves, they are being their own worst enemy.   The market likely is not there.

I also dont feel Dak is a true franchise QB.   hes good, but if you pay him 40  M and the team cant afford to resign the top WR in this offense(or perhaps the top  OT) I have questions  whether Dak can get it done

I have no such  questions with Mahomes, but then again, he is a TRUE franchise QB. 

I agree with a lot of that.  The one thing that I will add is that it's not so much the WR's, but the whole team.  They have a very expensive RB and OLine.  What if those two positions get downgraded because Dak is too expensive?  Let's say they trade Elliott and get a pick or two and have to release an expensive player on the OLine and replace him with a cheaper player.  Will that offense and Dak be as good?  I'm thinking the odds are no, because I don't think Dak is a special QB.  I think he's good at using the players around him, but if the players around him aren't that good, then there is a level to which they can't get past.

I'm not sure if I said this before, but I think that if the Cowboys pay Dak the $40M he asked for, then they'll become the Detroit Lions of the 1990's.  They'll always be in the hunt, but you can all but guarantee they'll be one and done in the playoffs.  "Pretenders", not "Contenders".

[Ray_T 587]

On 2/2/2021 at 7:30 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

I agree with a lot of that.  The one thing that I will add is that it's not so much the WR's, but the whole team.  They have a very expensive RB and OLine.  What if those two positions get downgraded because Dak is too expensive?  Let's say they trade Elliott and get a pick or two and have to release an expensive player on the OLine and replace him with a cheaper player.  Will that offense and Dak be as good?  I'm thinking the odds are no, because I don't think Dak is a special QB.  I think he's good at using the players around him, but if the players around him aren't that good, then there is a level to which they can't get past.

I'm not sure if I said this before, but I think that if the Cowboys pay Dak the $40M he asked for, then they'll become the Detroit Lions of the 1990's.  They'll always be in the hunt, but you can all but guarantee they'll be one and done in the playoffs.  "Pretenders", not "Contenders".

There is no question in my mind, Dak is productive because of the  team around him.

he had  what may have been one of  the 2 or  3  best O lines  in the game (until this year when it fell apart due to injuries)

He had  what may have been one of the 3 most talented RB's  in the  game.   and  he had some very good Receivers.

Because Zeke is a  threat to crush you every  first or second down and  because the line is good,  teams need  to  stack  the  box to some degree on first  and second downs  to respect what he  can do  to  them.

Without  Zeke  the defenses have a lot  more flexibility in  how they play the cowboys.  The loss of Zeke  would  make defenses  more unpredictable than  what Dak Has seen  thus far in his  career.   the weaker line  also plays to  this.

I fully acknowledge some of Daks  running ability will cover up some  of  the flaws in the line.   But he  wont  be  the same player with the Loss of Zeke.  If they had to lose another playmaker on the offense to pay Dak  his  40m  I  dont know that the offense would  be able to  get it done.

when  you  consider the  defense is already crappy, this  move (signing Dak for  35M  +) probably guarantees  Dallas  wont  be super competitive  in the near future.

If the cap  goes  up substantially between now and the end of  his contract  it may not matter much.  but it is covid times.   I could see the cap going down for a year or two before  that situation rights itself.

signing Dak to that kind of  contract is risky beyond  belief and I dont know  that hes the  kind of  talent you take that kind of risk for.

[lod001 1,235]

If the QB wants to win SBs  (Brady) he will take less than market value so that he can surround himself with better players. If the QB is greedy (like most of them) then the team will have a tough time winning the SB.

[AxeElf 787]

42 minutes ago, lod001 said:

If the QB wants to win SBs  (Brady) he will take less than market value so that he can surround himself with better players. If the QB is greedy (like most of them) then the team will have a tough time winning the SB.

It's a little easier to generously restructure a team-friendly contract when you're already worth $200 million than it is when you made a grand total of $3 million in your first three years in the league and you're looking to get paid.

[Ray_T 587]

True.  But brady was drafted later than Dak  was.   at the beginning  he wasnt making much either.

31 minutes ago, AxeElf said:

It's a little easier to generously restructure a team-friendly contract when you're already worth $200 million than it is when you made a grand total of $3 million in your first three years in the league and you're looking to get paid.

 

[AxeElf 787]

33 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

True.  But brady was drafted later than Dak  was.   at the beginning  he wasnt making much either.

At the beginning, he wasn't generously restructuring a team-friendly contract.