How to win in the salary cap era

[malk]

I've brought this over from the Hoyer thread as I'm interested in what you folks think...

Pace banging on about building through the draft is so frustrating. If anything it's correlation rather than causation. What helps you win in the salary cap era is having players that play above the level of their contract and little dead wood.

The Patriots aren't great because of Belichick apart from his cheating. They win a lot because they've got a hall of fame QB that is more bothered about rings than a bigger contract.

So let's look back at Super Bowls since the millennium:

2000. Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer
No. 1 defence, average QB.

2001. Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady
Rookie contract.

2002. Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson
No. 1 defence, average QB

2003. Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady
2nd contract, good money.

2004. Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady
Less money than 2003.

2005. Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger
Rookie contract.

2006. Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning
Manning on a boatload.

2007. Super Bowl 42.
Rookie contract Eli.

2008. Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger
1 year of big 2nd contract (didn't win another).

2009 Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees
2nd contract, big ish salary.

2010 Super Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers
2nd contract but not massive.

2011 Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning
Loads of cash but weirdest win ever. The exception to prove all rules!

2012 Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco
Rookie scale. Signed big contract year after, only one winning season since.

2013 Super Bowl 48: Russell Wilson
Rookie scale. Got to Super Bowl in 2/3 years on rookie scale, lost in divisional round since getting big extension.

2014 Super Bowl 49: Tom Brady
Below market rate HoF Brady.

2015. Super Bowl 50: Peyton Manning
No. 4 defence, future mortgaged for Manning (evidently worth it!).

2016. Super Bowl 51: Tom Brady
Below market rate HoF Brady.

So Longneck the Red may be getting a salary that's less than the average for a starting QB but it will do nothing to help us win a championship unless we become the 2011 Giants. I'm not putting any money on that happening again.

To win a championship you seem to either need to have a great, great defence or a QB that plays above their contract level. Admittedly before the rookie scale it was a bit different but that only applies to Eli Manning here.

Then look at what happens after even really good QBs sign their massive contracts. Wins go down and Super Bowls go pretty much out of the window unless that QB is a likely HoF player and you engineer the cap in a way that probably mortgages the future.

Going back to 2000 the QBs who won the Super Bowl have either been HoF players (Brady, Manning), journeymen on little money with great defences (Dilfer, Johnson), players on their rookie contracts (Brady, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Flacco, Wilson)* or great players on their second contract prior to getting a massive one (Brees, Rodgers who are also arguably HoF players). Oh and the 2011 Giants, I have absolutely no explanation for them.

It's also worth reiterating that most of the wins here come for Brady who not only is HoF but also plays for significantly less than he could get... specifically to help his team get better so he, um, wins more. Shocking that.

The only category that Longneck the Red can fit into is the second contract which isn't massive category. He isn't Brees or Rodgers and in any case, that's only a 12% option based on this sample.

35% of these wins came from players on their rookie contracts. Let that sink in for a while.

Now obviously the salary you pay a QB has no direct effect on wins. What is does have an effect on is how much cap space there is to go around. I called that Flacco would never win another ring with that contract and said the same for Wilson (also that Luck wouldn't ever win one whilst paid that much).

What we're doing with Glennon is ensuring that we don't have the resources to build the team up so that when we get a competent rookie we have a shot. All he does is give us a shot of being the 2011 Giants and I really don't like those odds.

Now in order to win you absolutely have to draft well but that doesn't preclude improving in free agency. You absolutely can't sign killer contracts that tie up over 10% of your cap for multiple years but you can bring in players that improve the team that way. The most important thing is to have a good defence, preferably great, without succumbing to silly contracts like Suh's, Olivier, von Miller.

Then you keep trying to find a QB.

When you do, hopefully you win a ring whilst they're on their rookie contract but either way. If they're good enough to keep the one thing I'd absolutely stick my neck out for as a GM is to not sign them to a market rate deal. If you do you kill your chances of winning the whole damn thing again.

This is of course a dilemma. A good QB is the most important piece of the puzzle and outside of Brady they want to get paid. So what you do is sacrifice a year. The vast majority of their guaranteed money would come in a single year where you give up trying to win, shed any non essential expensive contracts, do whatever you can to give $40-50m to that QB, in cap space as well as salary, to that QB.

You can also do a less extreme version of this to try to keep great non QBs earlier in the cycle. We could have done that now by signing someone like Bouye, giving them $25-30m in year one and keeping the cap cost down in future. You could do this once a year for a few years if necessary.

There would be other wrinkles. The vast majority of my team outside core players would be on rookie contracts or veterans qualifying for minimum benefits (they get their vet min but only cost the same as a 2nd year player minimum). Also ring chasers playing for less than they're worth and guys willing to take prove it deals.

Our signing of Longneck the Red for below the market rate for QBs is the antithesis of this. We save enough to pay for half of Sims' contract (!) and hope that he has sufficient upside to be worth $20m+ rather than $15m.

This is a massive setback.

*I'm including Roethlisberger's first year on his extension contract as his rookie one. Admittedly a fudge but my reasoning is the main problems in tying up cap space don't hit immediately.

[Moriarty]

Good discussion topic and information.

What we're doing with Glennon is ensuring that we don't have the resources to build the team up so that when we get a competent rookie we have a shot

I'm not really on board with this statement, though.
Odds are Glennon won't be the answer and he'll be gone in 2-3 years, at which point, hopefully the QB you draft in 2017 and/or 2018 are ready to "outperform their rookie contract" on a team that's ready.
Glennon's contract isn't holding you back from anything. The Bears didn't spend anywhere close to the max last year and aren't spending anywhere close to the max this year, with or without him.

Yeah, you can argue that if you're just waiting, you might as well just keep Hoyer until a younger guy is ready.
But there is a small chance Glennon could click and the team could contend in 2018 or 19 with him outpacing his contract. Or that he could get extended at another modest price after 2018, then the team gets good around 2019-20 with him locked in long term at a moderate starter salary.

[malk]

The idea would be to spend Glennon's money on a free agent, preferably front loaded. For Glennon, I'd be happier if we gave him $20m guaranteed, all in year 1. Hell, $25m in year 1 and $10m in years 2 and 3 would be better.

The one thing I haven't checked through yet it the cap roll over but the point still stands about concentrating a contract's value in one year or two.

[HurricaneBear]

The idea would be to spend Glennon's money on a free agent, preferably front loaded. For Glennon, I'd be happier if we gave him $20m guaranteed, all in year 1. Hell, $25m in year 1 and $10m in years 2 and 3 would be better.

The one thing I haven't checked through yet it the cap roll over but the point still stands about concentrating a contract's value in one year or two.

Am I wrong here? isn't Glennons contract 16 mil guaranteed year 1, 2.5mil guaranteed year 2, and thats it for guaranteed money?

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post ... d-contract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[southdakbearfan]

The idea would be to spend Glennon's money on a free agent, preferably front loaded. For Glennon, I'd be happier if we gave him $20m guaranteed, all in year 1. Hell, $25m in year 1 and $10m in years 2 and 3 would be better.

The one thing I haven't checked through yet it the cap roll over but the point still stands about concentrating a contract's value in one year or two.

They can cut him with a minimal hit in after 1 year. It's a team friendly deal, 1 year and prove it. Obviously they didn't like the options available at #3 in the draft. As far as QB contracts go, it's below average for a "starter" which he is obviously going to be in their mind, at least for 1 season.

I think this is the thought process, if he clicks, it's a cheap qb contract, if not you are drafting high again and unload/cut him.

[malk]

That's not the point I'm making. Yes, not being trapped in a bad contract is a good thing but this contract will never be sufficiently cheap unless Glennon becomes a top 5 QB and even then, that's likely not enough. It can be good value and still reduce your chance of winning.

The rookie scale QBs were to 10,12, 15 or more million below the average starting QB contract. That's enough to make a difference in overall roster strength to win more and go further.

[southdakbearfan]

Right now he is 22nd and everyone below him is either a rookie or a long time career backup with no starting potential. To say that what they are paying him is outrageous unless he became a top 5 or has to become a top 5 guy in a league just isn't realistic. Face it QB salaries are going nowhere but up. 3-5 seasons from now i will bet the 20th qb on the list is well over 20 million dollars. That's just what they are going to cost.

Who can they not sign this offseason with the money they have in him that is available???? Nobody. This is the guy they decided on, it's a team friendly deal that doesn't hinder other signings in any way, longevity or dollar amount wise.

Whats the point of having a rookie QB if you don't think he can do anything or develop into anything. To go 1-15, but you can say hey, our QB was cheap? They obviously thought the options stunk at #3, and I am inclined to agree at least with the top 3-4 guys.

[wab]

I'm not a fan of the signing but this is in no way a bad contract, not does it impede the Bears free agency plans in any way.

[UOK]

I'm not a fan of the signing but this is in no way a bad contract, not does it impede the Bears free agency plans in any way.

Wrong thread?

[malk]

Right now he is 22nd and everyone below him is either a rookie or a long time career backup with no starting potential. To say that what they are paying him is outrageous unless he became a top 5 or has to become a top 5 guy in a league just isn't realistic. Face it QB salaries are going nowhere but up. 3-5 seasons from now i will bet the 20th qb on the list is well over 20 million dollars. That's just what they are going to cost.

Who can they not sign this offseason with the money they have in him that is available???? Nobody. This is the guy they decided on, it's a team friendly deal that doesn't hinder other signings in any way, longevity or dollar amount wise.

Whats the point of having a rookie QB if you don't think he can do anything or develop into anything. To go 1-15, but you can say hey, our QB was cheap? They obviously thought the options stunk at #3, and I am inclined to agree at least with the top 3-4 guys.

I'm not saying that what they're paying him is outrageous. I am saying that it puts us further away from a championship that not signing him. I'll go back to the list of Super Bowl winning QBs since 2000:

Going back to 2000 the QBs who won the Super Bowl have either been HoF players (Brady, Manning), journeymen on little money with great defences (Dilfer, Johnson), players on their rookie contracts (Brady, Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Flacco, Wilson)* or great players on their second contract prior to getting a massive one (Brees, Rodgers who are also arguably HoF players). Oh and the 2011 Giants, I have absolutely no explanation for them.

He's not a HoF player. The contract is higher (as a percentage of cap) than Dilfer or Johnson and clearly isn't a rookie scale one. So we either need to be the anomalous 2011 Giants or he needs to become a Brees/Rodgers level player, which I'm pretty confident he won't.

You say the contract is ok because he's 22nd on the list. I say that outside of QBs there are only 10 players making a higher average per year. QB contracts are insane. You say that those contracts are likely to go up, that's probably true but it will just make my argument stronger. It'll get to a point where you need either a sure fire top 5, maybe top 3 QB or a competent rookie scale player.

I'm saying Luck will never get a ring. Wilson will never get another, neither will Brees, Roethlisberger or Flacco. None of Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Tannehill nor Stafford will get there. Garropolo won't with the Patriots if they keep him on a normal (big) contract. Unfortunately Rodgers might but my money would be on Prescott, Carr or Mariota, or bloody Brady again.

As to who we could have signed, loads of players would have improved our team. One or two of the more pricey ones, say Bouye and Wagner plus a few of the cheaper ones, and the key bit, all front loaded. When then run in 2017 with either the rookie or Shaw (Barkley on a multi year, team friendly deal would have been perfect), it doesn't matter as we're not winning the Super Bowl next year anyway.

Of course the NFL is inherently conservative, precarious contracts all around will do that, so I'm not expecting this to happen. Most teams luck into their QB situation and then sign the good ones to massive deals with year on year cap hits close to the average of the contract, thus ruining their future chances. I also think that you can get to the playoffs fairly regularly with someone like Glennon on this deal.

But the Superb Owl? Nah, not happening.

[Hematite]

"You can also do a less extreme version of this to try to keep great non QBs earlier in the cycle. We could have done that now by signing someone like Bouye, giving them $25-30m in year one and keeping the cap cost down in future. You could do this once a year for a few years if necessary."

Pay me 25 million this year and 2 mil for each of the following years and I promise you, my effort will not change. No risk, I promise!

[RichH55]

Belatedly

Very good post Malk....Something to chew on for sure

[malk]

I'm saying Luck will never get a ring. Wilson will never get another, neither will Brees, Roethlisberger or Flacco. None of Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Tannehill nor Stafford will get there. Garropolo won't with the Patriots if they keep him on a normal (big) contract. Unfortunately Rodgers might but my money would be on Prescott, Carr or Mariota, or bloody Brady again.

Thought I might necro-bump this for the division championship games and for a bit of self promotion . Oh and also as it bodes well for our immediate future!

For the next Owl winning QB we're looking at Brady, Bortles, Foles (via Wentz) or Keenum (and the ghost of Bradford). Going back to my quoted section I'm a little disappointed that I didn't include Wentz on that list but he certainly meets the criteria and Foles is a classic journeyman with a good defence. Bortles explains my theory perfectly, Brady I called ($14m cap hit this year) and the Vikings are a little unusual. I could cram them into my theory as analogous to the 2008 Steelers with it being the first year of a big QB deal.

Perhaps what I should be taking from it is that it is giving out close to 15% of your cap over a 4 or five year period is what kills your chances at the whole damn thing.

Anyway. We've got Trubisky tied up for another 4 years on his rookie deal and will have around $50m in cap space even after bringing back Fuller, Amukamara, Meredith, Inman, Wright/Bellamy, Houston, O'Donnell, Jenkins and Acho/Jones at market rate deals (and cutting some highly paid dross). Hopefully Fuller is frontloaded and that would reduce cap space but still enough to make two or three splashes if Pace finds the right players.

What makes 2018 even more delicious is seeing Brady's cap hit jump to $22m. That's the first time the Patriots have had a player take up 10% or more of the cap since 2014. At 13.5% it's higher than any year since spotrac has records for lazy researchers.

We'll see what free agency brings but I can see it being another open year.

[The Marshall Plan]

I'm enjoying the potential of either Foles, Keenum, or Bortles getting a ring while Marino has zero. Out of all of those I would think Bortles would be more offensive to the football intelligensia so I'm hoping for that.

I will also be happy to see the GOAT get another just to silence any and all doubters once and for all.

I've said this on these boards already that I can't mentally handle the media gibberish about the Vikings in the Super Bowl, but if it gets Keenum a ring while Marino doesn't have one then it isn't all bad.

[Mikefive]

All I'm going to say is that if Jacksonville can get their hands on Alex Smith in the offseason, they need to do it.

[southdakbearfan]

Just for prospective let's look at each team's left 4 highest paid players.

Vikings:
Bradford - 18 million - 11.87 %
Rhodes - 10.8 million - 6.87%
Griffen - 8.6 million - 5.67%
Reiff - 8.5 million - 5.6 %

Eagles:
Jeffery - 10.75 million - 6.23%
Johnson - 9.8 million - 5.70%
Cox - 9.4 million - 5.45%
Curry - 9.0 million - 5.22%

Jaguars:
Jackson 15.5 million - 9.05%
Linder 11 million - 6.46%
Campbell 10.5 million- 6.13%
Church 8.0 million - 4.67%

Patriots:
Tom Brady 14.0 million - 8.55%
Nate Solder 11 million - 6.82%
Devin McCourty 10.9 million - 6.68%
Stephon Gilmore 8.5 million - 5.23%

[Richie]

For a proper representation... you should probably include both teams who played in the SB from each year. That will give you a larger sample-size.

Also, Rodgers and Brees contracts were big at that time. I get the feeling you are likely comparing them to today's generation of QB contracts. Every few years, for quite a while. They've inflated.

[malk]

For a proper representation... you should probably include both teams who played in the SB from each year. That will give you a larger sample-size.

Also, Rodgers and Brees contracts were big at that time. I get the feeling you are likely comparing them to today's generation of QB contracts. Every few years, for quite a while. They've inflated.

In truth is was my just being lazy. I'll see if I can carve out some time on the company dollar to put everything in a table including the losing Super Bowl team and cap percentages for that year.

Just quickly though, Rodgers' contract when he got his ring was 6 yr(s) / $63,520,000 so the average per year was around 8.5% of their cap but they front-loaded a little with 2008 and 2009 being $14m and $10.5m so from 2010-2012 his cap hits averaged $7.5m.

Brees in 2009 had a cap hit of $10,660,400, 8.7% of the Saints cap. That was coming off the back of three years with 5.9%, 6.4% and 7.8%.

So whilst I agree it would be useful to put those numbers in the context of other QBs in that era, they still aren't cap destroyers. It could be that that era was categorised by picking the right QB or some other factor but it don't believe it undermines my central assertion that, right now, giving a QB a huge slice of the cap is a bad thing for your team.

[Hematite]

Qb's are a different breed and I totally understand your philosphy of front loading their contracts. As for most of the rest, I wouldn't trust them that they would continue with 100% effort after the 1-2 year with a large front loaded contract.

You've definitely got an interesting thought process here!

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

All I'm going to say is that if Jacksonville can get their hands on Alex Smith in the offseason, they need to do it.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that Alex Smith's performance over the last few years has been a product of scheme and coaching more than anything else.

[mmmc_35]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

[malk]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional and. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

I'm confident this will be forced onto the league and can't wait for it. It isn't that I want to see that style of football but if it can be shown to be effective it'll bring down the cost of more traditional QBs who will then come back into vogue.

[Richie]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

Brady
Brady
Ben
Peyton
Eli
Ben
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Flacco
Russell
Brady
Peyton
Brady
*2017 Brady favored to win again*

Those are the last 15 SB champion QB's.

All long-term franchise guys. I don't see any change forthcoming.

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

Brady
Brady
Ben
Peyton
Eli
Ben
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Flacco
Russell
Brady
Peyton
Brady
*2017 Brady favored to win again*

Those are the last 15 SB champion QB's.

All long-term franchise guys. I don't see any change forthcoming.

Thanks for the post Richie.

I will say it AGAIN for the eleventeenth time. If you want to win in the NFL, win championships, you need stability with these three positions in your organization; GM - HC - QB. If you have that for an extended period of time. You are going to win a lot more games than you lose. The ONLY exception I can think of is Cincinnati.

[mmmc_35]

Yes devaluing the QB position likely won't happen. Even of someone tried they would probably get canned before they built up the team.

[The Marshall Plan]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

Brady
Brady
Ben
Peyton
Eli
Ben
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Flacco
Russell
Brady
Peyton
Brady
*2017 Brady favored to win again*

Those are the last 15 SB champion QB's.

All long-term franchise guys. I don't see any change forthcoming.

Yep. Not a chance of marginalizing the QB position with the obvious importance and making teammates better through ball placement and leadership. The expanding salary cap and rarity of true franchise QBs means the salaries won't go down either.

If you could have the best player in the league on your team for any one position; you choose QB.

[malk]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

Brady
Brady
Ben
Peyton
Eli
Ben
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Flacco
Russell
Brady
Peyton
Brady
*2017 Brady favored to win again*

Those are the last 15 SB champion QB's.

All long-term franchise guys. I don't see any change forthcoming.

Thanks for the post Richie.

I will say it AGAIN for the eleventeenth time. If you want to win in the NFL, win championships, you need stability with these three positions in your organization; GM - HC - QB. If you have that for an extended period of time. You are going to win a lot more games than you lose. The ONLY exception I can think of is Cincinnati.

This is outlined in the first post in this thread but to recap.

1. Just winning isn't good enough, I want championships.
2. At the point those QBs won they weren't all long term franchise guys.
3. Most long term franchise guys haven't got a ring.

Year	QB	Type	Cap number	% Cap
2003	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$3,318,750	4.4
2004	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$5,058,750	6.3
2005	Ben	Rookie	$4,220,250	4.5
2006	Peyton	HOF/GOAT	$10,566,668	10.4
2007	Eli	Rookie	$10,046,666	9.2
2008	Ben	1st year of big contract	$7,970,000	6.9
2009	Brees	HOF	$10,660,400	8.7
2010	Rodgers	HOF/GOAT	$6,500,000	5.4
2011	Eli	OMG	$14,100,000	11.8
2012	Flacco	Rookie	$8,000,000	6.6
2013	Russell	Rookie	$681,085	0.6
2014	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$14,800,000	11.1
2015	Peyton	HOF/GOAT	$17,500,000	12.2
2016	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$13,764,706	8.9
			$9,084,805	7.6

Looking at that snapshot of data. Teams should determine whether their QB is going to be hall of fame worthy during their rookie contract and, if not, bin them off and try again.

Let's have a look at some of the QBs that won't be winning anyhting this year:

Stafford, Carr, Luck, Brees, Cousins, Flacco, Rodgers, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Manning, Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Tannehill, Smith, Dalton, Taylor, Glennon. They all make $15m per year or more.

From that list the only one I think has a shot of winning a championship in the next few years is Rodgers. As likely are Wentz, Goff, Mariota etc.

Do I think NFL teams will start making better choices soon? Nope, the league is conservative to a fault. Do I think they should? Of course!

Does this mean I'd advocate cutting Trubisky if he plays like Derek Carr and wants an equivalent contract? Why I think it does.

[Richie]

I have always been interested in a concept of devaluing the QB position. If every couple of years you draft a QB who can run college style offenses. 2 reads and run style. Instead of trying to find or mold traditional QB. Have an offense that can immediately suppliment the QB and have a all star group around him.

Brady
Brady
Ben
Peyton
Eli
Ben
Brees
Rodgers
Eli
Flacco
Russell
Brady
Peyton
Brady
*2017 Brady favored to win again*

Those are the last 15 SB champion QB's.

All long-term franchise guys. I don't see any change forthcoming.

Thanks for the post Richie.

I will say it AGAIN for the eleventeenth time. If you want to win in the NFL, win championships, you need stability with these three positions in your organization; GM - HC - QB. If you have that for an extended period of time. You are going to win a lot more games than you lose. The ONLY exception I can think of is Cincinnati.

This is outlined in the first post in this thread but to recap.

1. Just winning isn't good enough, I want championships.
2. At the point those QBs won they weren't all long term franchise guys.
3. Most long term franchise guys haven't got a ring.

Year	QB	Type	Cap number	% Cap
2003	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$3,318,750	4.4
2004	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$5,058,750	6.3
2005	Ben	Rookie	$4,220,250	4.5
2006	Peyton	HOF/GOAT	$10,566,668	10.4
2007	Eli	Rookie	$10,046,666	9.2
2008	Ben	1st year of big contract	$7,970,000	6.9
2009	Brees	HOF	$10,660,400	8.7
2010	Rodgers	HOF/GOAT	$6,500,000	5.4
2011	Eli	OMG	$14,100,000	11.8
2012	Flacco	Rookie	$8,000,000	6.6
2013	Russell	Rookie	$681,085	0.6
2014	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$14,800,000	11.1
2015	Peyton	HOF/GOAT	$17,500,000	12.2
2016	Brady	HOF/GOAT	$13,764,706	8.9
			$9,084,805	7.6

Looking at that snapshot of data. Teams should determine whether their QB is going to be hall of fame worthy during their rookie contract and, if not, bin them off and try again.

Let's have a look at some of the QBs that won't be winning anyhting this year:

Stafford, Carr, Luck, Brees, Cousins, Flacco, Rodgers, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Palmer, Manning, Rivers, Newton, Ryan, Tannehill, Smith, Dalton, Taylor, Glennon. They all make $15m per year or more.

From that list the only one I think has a shot of winning a championship in the next few years is Rodgers. As likely are Wentz, Goff, Mariota etc.

Do I think NFL teams will start making better choices soon? Nope, the league is conservative to a fault. Do I think they should? Of course!

Does this mean I'd advocate cutting Trubisky if he plays like Derek Carr and wants an equivalent contract? Why I think it does.

The bottom-line is that those are all franchise, long-term guys. The only way to hold onto those kind of QB's is to pay them.

No one is saying all of those guys win titles, but we're saying that in this era. Those are typically the only guys that do.

I don't really understand what your ideal approach to the QB position would be. Draft a QB, he wins you a title, you don't pay him and then restart from square #1? Repeat process?

You are also acting like you will always have a clear indicator of what/who a QB is by the end of his rookie deal. Many look like potential HOF guys after 3-4 years. The problem is, you don't know who is going to take that next step and who is going to plateau.

[malk]

You're being a bit disingenuous with the way you're portraying this. A good chunk of those were big contracts in the at the time of the SB win. You have to look at it in relative and contextually accurate terms.

Those are all also franchise, long-term guys. The only way to hold onto those kind of QB's is to pay them.

I don't really understand what your ideal approach to the QB position would be. Draft a QB, he wins you a title, you don't pay him and then restart from square #1? Repeat process?

1. Disingenuous? I've listed the % of cap each contract took up in the year of the super bowl win. It's literally the opposite of disingenuous.

2. At what point does someone become a franchise QB? Of the 8 players on that list, only Brees, Rodgers and Manning didn't win a ring on their rookie contract. For the remainder:

Brady is Brady.
Roethlisberger didn't throw for 20+ touchdowns until his 4th season and he already had ridden that Steelers defence to a ring by then.
Eli Manning had thrown 64 interceptions in 55 regular season games at the point of his first SB win.
Flacco was only a little better than a journeyman QB, riding a good defence.
Wilson was a 2nd year pro playing with the best defence in football at the time.

Which of those would you say was a franchise QB at the time they won their first ring? How well have they done after getting paid?

3. I think your language actually highlights the issue with QBs. "Draft a QB, he wins you a title". Which of Roethlisberger, Manning, Flacco and Wilson won the SB for their team? How about win a title with a QB you drafted?

What I'm saying is that the QB market is broken. Rodgers, on his second contract, didn't go over 7.8% of the team's cap from 2009 to 2012. From 2014 to now he hasn't gone below 12.2%. Drew Brees first contract with the Saints saw him between 5.9% to 8.7% from 2006 to 2009. From 2011 to now he's had one season below 11.1% and averaged 14.8% over 2013-2015.

Look at nearly all non rookie starting QBs now. They're up over 11% with many way above that. We call them "franchise" but they're just not good enough to compensate for the lack of talent that results from them taking up so much cap.

So what's my ideal approach? Don't pay average to good QBs "starter" QB money on a standard contract. There are 32 players in the league who average more than $15m per year and 16 of those are QBs. The top paid 13 players in the league are QBs.

Oh, and those numbers don't include Brees, Garoppolo, Keenum or Bradford.

The new CBA means that rolling over cap is much easier so that'll have an impact on the league overall but at some point a smart team is going to give a QB all of his guaranteed money in year 1. If Trubisky looks very good come 2020 we should pay him $60m in 2021 and write off a year if we have to. If he looks anything less than very good and wants $20 per year. Buh bye.

[Middleguard]

I like what you're saying, and I think that's because I get it. But what does a team do about their fans? I know nothing about Ravens fans, but what do you think would have happened if the Ravens hadn't re-signed Flacco (just as an example)?