I'm starting to think that teams really overvalue having a franchise QB. I think there might be opportunities to exploit by, for example, signing solid veterans every few years, even if they have limited ceilings. The main concern is the idea that you might "need" elite QB play to win a Superbowl, but there are some countervailing consideration such as possible salary savings and knowing what you're going to get/avoiding growing pains/

 

 

You're only saying that because you know you don't have a franchise QB :wee

You know, the Jets didn't give up to much to trade up. But the idea of giving that much money to an unproven 21/22 year old especially when he could leave you in the dust a few years later as a free agent, seems to not be the optimal way to do things.

 

Does it make that big of a difference to a fanbase to have 1 face-of-the-franchise QB for 12 years, rather than 3 guys for 4 years each, as long as the results on the field are similar?

I would say this: Offenses are becoming so efficient in the current NFL, that it's very hard to pin your hopes solely on an elite defense. And the reason offenses are so efficient is because the passing game has become more important than ever.

 

So in order to keep up, you still have to be able to get efficient offensive production, and that pretty much has to come from a QB, unless you have a top-5 rushing game.

And teams can give a QB a ton of money, or give up a ton to trade for him, and obviously the QB may not be the franchise guy you had hoped. And in that case, your team is in a whole lot of trouble for a long time.

 

That's a whole lot of risk, especially when you consider that the reward can be stunted by the same QB bolting in free agency the first chance he gets (or at least commanding market rate where you gain little to no excess value by resigning him, which is an important consideration when there's a salary cap).

What are the odds of that happening?

I would say this: Offenses are becoming so efficient in the current NFL, that it's very hard to pin your hopes solely on an elite defense. And the reason offenses are so efficient is because the passing game has become more important than ever.

 

So in order to keep up, you still have to be able to get efficient offensive production, and that pretty much has to come from a QB, unless you have a top-5 rushing game.

 

But doesn't it seem like there are a good number of QBs that can put up sufficient production? Do you think fewer QBs in 2012 are "good enough to win" than in 1992? Or does that number still probably hover around, say, 15?

 

I'm not saying to sign Rex Grossman; if my thesis has merit, it would probably advocating something more like signing a Matt Moore or Jason Campbell as a free agent, getting solid production for 3-4 years, and using the rest of the money to sign better talent.

 

The alternative is going for a franchise QB, which is a very high-risk/high-reward situation.

 

And I think teams may undervalue the former option and overvalue the latter. Just a thought; I don't know if the numbers would survive scrutiny, since maybe those middling guys are also expensive or something.

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Of a QB busting? Obviously that varies. But teams give up a whole lot for risky 22-year-old propositions, and I'm not sure that's optimal. It might be, but I'm not totally convinced.

But doesn't it seem like there are a good number of QBs that can put up sufficient production? Do you think fewer QBs in 2012 are "good enough to win" than in 1992? Or does that number still probably hover around, say, 15?

 

 

I would say the number of viable quarterback options is usually historically the same, what changes is the accepted baseline for what an "elite" quarterback is. Matt Ryan is considered "elite", however this year was the first year he's ever finished in the top 10 in quarterback rating.

 

We still view "3500 yards, 20 TDs" as a very good QB year. But 15 quarterbacks passes for 3,500 yards last year and 13 passed for 20 touchdowns.

 

It's up to us, as people who consume football as a product and, as a result, guide the perceptions of the value of players, to recognize that the standards have changed.

 

It may seem as if there are more elite quarterbacks right now. However that's because it is easier to pass today. For example: John Elway won MVP in 1987 by passing for 3,200 yards and 19 touchdowns. He would have finished 14th in the NFL in TDs and 19th in yards. Elway made six pro bowls in the first 12 years of his career despite passing for 3,500 yards and 20 touchdowns twice.

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Of a QB busting? Obviously that varies. But teams give up a whole lot for risky 22-year-old propositions, and I'm not sure that's optimal. It might be, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

No, sorry I should have clarified. What are the chances you will be able to sign 3 QBs every four seasons who will have the same production as a franchise caliber QB?

 

I disagree with your opinion that signing a Campbell/Moore caliber QB who will give you solid production is better than taking the risk of drafting a QB who will could possibly be a franchise caliber QB. This league is so QB driven, you have to take that risk.

But doesn't it seem like there are a good number of QBs that can put up sufficient production? Do you think fewer QBs in 2012 are "good enough to win" than in 1992? Or does that number still probably hover around, say, 15?

 

 

I would say the number of viable quarterback options is usually historically the same, what changes is the accepted baseline for what an "elite" quarterback is. Matt Ryan is considered "elite", however this year was the first year he's ever finished in the top 10 in quarterback rating.

 

We still view "3500 yards, 20 TDs" as a very good QB year. But 15 quarterbacks passes for 3,500 yards last year and 13 passed for 20 touchdowns.

 

It's up to us, as people who consume football as a product and, as a result, guide the perceptions of the value of players, to recognize that the standards have changed.

 

It may seem as if there are more elite quarterbacks right now. However that's because it is easier to pass today. For example: John Elway won MVP in 1987 by passing for 3,200 yards and 19 touchdowns. He would have finished 14th in the NFL in TDs and 19th in yards. Elway made six pro bowls in the first 12 years of his career despite passing for 3,500 yards and 20 touchdowns twice.

Doesn't this support my idea that you can get a middling guy and it's sill considered a "very good QB year"?

 

I'm more concerned with the reality on the field than the fan's perception, although the former is not irrelevant.

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Of a QB busting? Obviously that varies. But teams give up a whole lot for risky 22-year-old propositions, and I'm not sure that's optimal. It might be, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

No, sorry I should have clarified. What are the chances you will be able to sign 3 QBs every four seasons who will have the same production as a franchise caliber QB?

 

I disagree with your opinion that signing a Campbell/Moore caliber QB who will give you solid production is better than taking the risk of drafting a QB who will could possibly be a franchise caliber QB. This league is so QB driven, you have to take that risk.

I'm not sure. But it seems like there are usually some reliable veterans available, if not as free agents then for a reasonable price in a trade.

 

Can you refute the other points, though, such as: you will spend less salary cap room on an elite/franchise QB, so you can have better surrounding players; there is a very high cost to get a potential franchise QB; the reward of drafting one is limited by that QB's impending free agency after 4 years, etc.?

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Of a QB busting? Obviously that varies. But teams give up a whole lot for risky 22-year-old propositions, and I'm not sure that's optimal. It might be, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

No, sorry I should have clarified. What are the chances you will be able to sign 3 QBs every four seasons who will have the same production as a franchise caliber QB?

 

I disagree with your opinion that signing a Campbell/Moore caliber QB who will give you solid production is better than taking the risk of drafting a QB who will could possibly be a franchise caliber QB. This league is so QB driven, you have to take that risk.

I'm not sure. But it seems like there are usually some reliable veterans available, if not as free agents then for a reasonable price in a trade.

 

Can you refute the other points, though, such as: you will spend less salary cap room on an elite/franchise QB, so you can have better surrounding players; there is a very high cost to get a potential franchise QB; the reward of drafting one is limited by that QB's impending free agency after 4 years, etc.?

 

1. Regarding spending less money on elite/franchise QB, I will not do that. Number one priority in this league is to have that QB. A franchise QB covers up so many holes on a team.

 

2. If a QB you traded up for pans out and reaches that franchise status, he won't hit Free Agency. It's not going to happen. It happened once, and that was because the Chargers already had a top 5 pick to replace Brees.

What are the odds of that happening?

 

Of a QB busting? Obviously that varies. But teams give up a whole lot for risky 22-year-old propositions, and I'm not sure that's optimal. It might be, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

No, sorry I should have clarified. What are the chances you will be able to sign 3 QBs every four seasons who will have the same production as a franchise caliber QB?

 

I disagree with your opinion that signing a Campbell/Moore caliber QB who will give you solid production is better than taking the risk of drafting a QB who will could possibly be a franchise caliber QB. This league is so QB driven, you have to take that risk.

I'm not sure. But it seems like there are usually some reliable veterans available, if not as free agents then for a reasonable price in a trade.

 

Can you refute the other points, though, such as: you will spend less salary cap room on an elite/franchise QB, so you can have better surrounding players; there is a very high cost to get a potential franchise QB; the reward of drafting one is limited by that QB's impending free agency after 4 years, etc.?

 

1. Regarding spending less money on elite/franchise QB, I will not do that. Number one priority in this league is to have that QB. A franchise QB covers up so many holes on a team.

 

2. If a QB you traded up for pans out and reaches that franchise status, he won't hit Free Agency. It's not going to happen. It happened once, and that was because the Chargers already had a top 5 pick to replace Brees.

 

1. I'm not quite clear on what your first sentence means. And QB is definitely the most important position on the field. But there's at least an argument to be made that you're better off spending a little less on the QB position and filling those gaps in the first place.

 

Again, what I'm basically saying is that teams seem to assign improper/too much value to the QB. Are they REALLY FRIEKING IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE. Definitely. But that doesn't mean they can't be overvalued. The way teams are drafting not-so-talented guys at the top of the first round, for example, seems unwarranted. Isn't there an argument that Jacksonville would have been better off signing a veteran QB and drafting a superstar at some other position rather than Blaine Gabbert, who wasn't even really an elite prospect?

 

2. But you're getting a big discount there. If he's worth $80 million, you're probably paying him $80 million. If you pay everyone what they're worth, you're (at least in theory) an average team.

 

The same probably goes for baseball, too. There's an obsession with having a player who's a 10-12 year answer, and I think it leads to stopgaps being undervalued.

Doesn't this support my idea that you can get a middling guy and it's sill considered a "very good QB year"?

 

 

It may be considered a good year as far as perception goes, but in terms of value for your team, no. If the average QB is able to do more today that 10 years, it doesn't mean the average QB provides more value. It means the elite QBs have to do that much more to remain elite.

Doesn't this support my idea that you can get a middling guy and it's sill considered a "very good QB year"?

 

 

It may be considered a good year as far as perception goes, but in terms of value for your team, no. If the average QB is able to do more today that 10 years, it doesn't mean the average QB provides more value. It means the elite QBs have to do that much more to remain elite.

Well, yeah, that's why I had the second paragraph of the post you quoted. I don't think it cuts against my theory, though, unless for some reason the difference in value between the top X QBs and the top Y QBs (where Y > X) has increased over time.

@mystikol:

 

1. I don't think it's a wise move to spend a less on a QB to fix holes around the other team. Not if that QB is one of the elite QBs. If it's a second tier QB, I agree.

 

I agree that rookie QBs are being over valued. That is how Christian Ponder goes from being a second round pick to being a 12th overall pick, how Blaine Gabbert is selected in the top 10 along with Jake Locker. However, you have to remember the teams selecting these players believe these guys are that talented, and deserve to be drafted top 10 or what have you.

 

2.Sorry, I'm not following you here.

Doesn't this support my idea that you can get a middling guy and it's sill considered a "very good QB year"?

 

 

It may be considered a good year as far as perception goes, but in terms of value for your team, no. If the average QB is able to do more today that 10 years, it doesn't mean the average QB provides more value. It means the elite QBs have to do that much more to remain elite.

Well, yeah, that's why I had the second paragraph of the post you quoted. I don't think it cuts against my theory, though, unless for some reason the difference in value between the top X QBs and the top Y QBs (where Y > X) has increased over time.

 

But it's not a difference in perception among fans. It's about the fact that the value of middling quarterbacks is still not as great as the elite ones, and it hasn't changed, despite the fact that the average quarterbacks appears to accomplish more than he used to.

 

You are suggesting that we overvalue the elite quarterbacks and that teams should spend their resources elsewhere.

 

But the elite quarterback is the single most valuable piece in football. Football isn't like basketball in almost any way, except that an elite quarterback has the impact on a football team that an elite basketball player does to his.

 

Elite quarterbacks cover up for a lot of other deficiencies on a team; Eli and Brady and proof of that last year.

 

If you intentionally target middle of the road quarterbacks, you essentially have to do everything else well in order to create an elite team. It's why elite quarterbacks are always the most prized possession in football, and I would say that trend is getting more extreme, not less, though I can't back that up right now.

We are so screwed, Flynn doesn't even wanna come here.

We are so screwed, Flynn doesn't even wanna come here.

 

 

Actually we have no idea what exactly happened considering Philbin had been his OC since he came into the league. It's more likely that Philbin wasn't sold on him than Flynn not wanting to come here.

We are so screwed, Flynn doesn't even wanna come here.

 

 

So screwed. A backup QB with boom/bust potential didn't want to come to Miami.

No one wants to come to Miami.

 

Fire Ireland

Doesn't this support my idea that you can get a middling guy and it's sill considered a "very good QB year"?

 

 

It may be considered a good year as far as perception goes, but in terms of value for your team, no. If the average QB is able to do more today that 10 years, it doesn't mean the average QB provides more value. It means the elite QBs have to do that much more to remain elite.

Well, yeah, that's why I had the second paragraph of the post you quoted. I don't think it cuts against my theory, though, unless for some reason the difference in value between the top X QBs and the top Y QBs (where Y > X) has increased over time.

 

But it's not a difference in perception among fans. It's about the fact that the value of middling quarterbacks is still not as great as the elite ones, and it hasn't changed, despite the fact that the average quarterbacks appears to accomplish more than he used to.

 

You are suggesting that we overvalue the elite quarterbacks and that teams should spend their resources elsewhere.

 

But the elite quarterback is the single most valuable piece in football. Football isn't like basketball in almost any way, except that an elite quarterback has the impact on a football team that an elite basketball player does to his.

 

Elite quarterbacks cover up for a lot of other deficiencies on a team; Eli and Brady and proof of that last year.

 

If you intentionally target middle of the road quarterbacks, you essentially have to do everything else well in order to create an elite team. It's why elite quarterbacks are always the most prized possession in football, and I would say that trend is getting more extreme, not less, though I can't back that up right now.

Basically, I'm questioning whether elite QBs might be an inefficiency. Every team knows that they are incredibly valuable, and they are willing to give up a ton of assets for the opportunity to get one. Perhaps they are willing to give up too much. And if that's true, then the cost of a non-elite QB should be inefficiently low.

No one wants to come to Miami.

 

Fire Ireland

 

That kind of rhymes.

Whatevs, at least Mark Sanchez isn't our QB.

I don't think Matt Moore is great, but he finished 12th in QB rating. I think they should keep him before spending on Alex Smith.

I don't think Matt Moore is great, but he finished 12th in QB rating. I think they should keep him before spending on Alex Smith.

 

 

I don't think he's great, either. But I do think that people fail to see that he put together an excellent run at the end of the season and most definitely defines 'stopgap' like no other. This team did nothing to build a winner, so as far as I'm concerned the only guy who could take a sh*t team and make it a Superbowl team goes by the name of Peyton Manning (and his absence in Indy made that evidently clear).

 

Otherwise, you stick a Tannehill, Moore, Weeden, Smith, whoever... it's going to be a stopgap team looking for the future. Matt Moore was good last year. Above average in his run. I don't see the issue with holding onto him, especially because he is still young and has some potential. You never know, with a guy like Moore you just might plug him in as a stopgap QB and end up with a gem in the process.

 

I'm for sticking to Moore. I'm not objecting to any more additions, as that's just merely competition. They're just not necessary additions.