RealGM

Since no $200 million or $100 million QB has ever won a super bowl, should teams stop over paying QBs so that they can beef up their Oline and defense?

Should teams keep paying elite QBs +$150 million like Wilson, Brees, and Rogers and suffer at other positions?

the current popular method at success is to hope your drafted qb hits and then, while he's on his rookie deal, load up on talent everywhere else and try to win in a short window before you have to pay the qb

unlike running backs, qbs have a longer shelf life so teams don't mind paying for the good ones

i wonder if a team will ever zig while everyone else zags and go with a less qb-focused approach to team building. like they stack the roster with a ton of talent at every other position and just roll the dice in the draft with qbs and if they hit go with him until he becomes a free agent and let them go and bring in a new rookie. presumably it would allow more room for error on how good the rookie qbs are since the surrounding cast would be good enough to cover some of it up

hermes wrote:the current popular method at success is to hope your drafted qb hits and then, while he's on his rookie deal, load up on talent everywhere else and try to win in a short window before you have to pay the qb

unlike running backs, qbs have a longer shelf life so teams don't mind paying for the good ones

i wonder if a team will ever zig while everyone else zags and go with a less qb-focused approach to team building. like they stack the roster with a ton of talent at every other position and just roll the dice in the draft with qbs and if they hit go with him until he becomes a free agent and let them go and bring in a new rookie. presumably it would allow more room for error on how good the rookie qbs are since the surrounding cast would be good enough to cover some of it up

That’s currently what Kyle Shanahan & the 49ers are doing right now.

dr3am wrote:

hermes wrote:the current popular method at success is to hope your drafted qb hits and then, while he's on his rookie deal, load up on talent everywhere else and try to win in a short window before you have to pay the qb

unlike running backs, qbs have a longer shelf life so teams don't mind paying for the good ones

i wonder if a team will ever zig while everyone else zags and go with a less qb-focused approach to team building. like they stack the roster with a ton of talent at every other position and just roll the dice in the draft with qbs and if they hit go with him until he becomes a free agent and let them go and bring in a new rookie. presumably it would allow more room for error on how good the rookie qbs are since the surrounding cast would be good enough to cover some of it up

That’s currently what Kyle Shanahan & the 49ers are doing right now.

Jimmy G's contract is still over $100 million at $137 million. So SF's QB is still eating alot of cap. That is why SF had to trade away DeForest Buckner. Even Ryan Tannehill has a $120 million contract.

Works in theory won’t work in practice . Teams are qb hungry, so if they won’t pay someone else will. If they all don’t pay union would file collusion charge. If Dallas let’s dak walk he will get 35+ on market

Pharmcat wrote:Works in theory won’t work in practice . Teams are qb hungry, so if they won’t pay someone else will. If they all don’t pay union would file collusion charge. If Dallas let’s dak walk he will get 35+ on market

That’s the point. You let Dak walk, draft another guy. Build a dominant O/DL... focus on secondary and a true TE threat. RBs, WRs, LBs, dime a dozen every year. It’s not like Dallas for example is going anywhere with Dak & same applies to all these other absurd QB salaries. Especially with how the college game has changed so drastic.

Almond2Oak wrote:

Pharmcat wrote:Works in theory won’t work in practice . Teams are qb hungry, so if they won’t pay someone else will. If they all don’t pay union would file collusion charge. If Dallas let’s dak walk he will get 35+ on market

That’s the point. You let Dak walk, draft another guy. Build a dominant O/DL... focus on secondary and a true TE threat. RBs, WRs, LBs, dime a dozen every year. It’s not like Dallas for example is going anywhere with Dak & same applies to all these other absurd QB salaries. Especially with how the college game has changed so drastic.

Sounds good in theory, but there are only a handful of really good to great QB's. They aint cheap. And loading up on the O line can only help so much if your QB can't complete a pass.

I'd probably keep paying the elite guys, like Aaron Rodgers or Mahomes or whoever. It's the 2nd tier guys that I question, like Kirk Cousins or Matthew Stafford. The Vikings made it to the NFC Championship with Case Keenum, spent a bunch of money on QB and haven't been as good since. Not that the Vikings were necessarily super cheap at QB that year, 20 million for Bradford, just that the QB money wasn't important.