NFL 2017 thread

Help Support Talkbeer:

Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,319
I mean, how many QBs have even taken up that much space? QBs being paid $TEXAS is a relatively new phenomenon, and while you'd obviously prefer your good QB to be cheap, I'm not sure "this hasn't happened but would have had Atlanta not completely shit the bed" is a really good argument here. Winning the super bowl is as much about luck as anything else. You want to put together the right pieces for a team, and a good QB is very much one of those pieces. If you can draft a good one, then great! But you might not get Wentz or Luck, you might just end up with Bortles. It's not clear to me that the Niners are worse off for this.
I think that the overall $ amounts are meaningless, because all the numbers are basically going up every year. But % of cap space is an interesting argument. I'll be interested to see how the Jimmy GQ deal is structured, the Niners have so much cap space this year that it might not be as big of a hit as it might otherwise appear.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
19,864
I mean, how many QBs have even taken up that much space? QBs being paid $TEXAS is a relatively new phenomenon, and while you'd obviously prefer your good QB to be cheap, I'm not sure "this hasn't happened but would have had Atlanta not completely shit the bed" is a really good argument here. Winning the super bowl is as much about luck as anything else. You want to put together the right pieces for a team, and a good QB is very much one of those pieces. If you can draft a good one, then great! But you might not get Wentz or Luck, you might just end up with Bortles. It's not clear to me that the Niners are worse off for this.
I’m still not convinced he has the heart to be a winner.

We shall see.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
9,824
Location
Toledo, Ohio
I think that the overall $ amounts are meaningless, because all the numbers are basically going up every year. But % of cap space is an interesting argument. I'll be interested to see how the Jimmy GQ deal is structured, the Niners have so much cap space this year that it might not be as big of a hit as it might otherwise appear.

That was my first thought. Front load the deal when you have 110+ mil and move on. Only problem with that strategy is nfl players can hold out. Which can be bad if you are arguing with the QB about money.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
6,265
Location
Georgia
Gronk is going to be the next Rock.


There is no way there won’t be some hilarity level awfulness along the way.


Good for him.

Gronk enjoys the camera and media/Hollywood more than most things it seems. I don’t see him playing all that long and missing his chance to star in a movie.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
10,070
Location
Oakland, CA
I think that the overall $ amounts are meaningless, because all the numbers are basically going up every year. But % of cap space is an interesting argument. I'll be interested to see how the Jimmy GQ deal is structured, the Niners have so much cap space this year that it might not be as big of a hit as it might otherwise appear.
Yeah, the absolute amounts don't matter all, just percentages. But I'm still not convinced that it's all that big of a deal to spend greater than N% on a QB. Obviously the less you pay a given guy the better (which is part of the reason the Seahawks looked like a dynasty... until they started to have to pay people), but if the question is "pay this guy or let him walk and see what else we can get" I think "pay the guy" is generally the better answer. Especially for a team like the Niners right now.
Gronk is going to be the next Rock.


There is no way there won’t be some hilarity level awfulness along the way.


Good for him.
The Rock's previous career trained him to be an actor. From what I've heard Gronk is legitimately terrible at it. We'll see.
 
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
1,587
Location
Bloomfield, NJ
Gronk is going to be the next Rock.


There is no way there won’t be some hilarity level awfulness along the way.


Good for him.
Gronk enjoys the camera and media/Hollywood more than most things it seems. I don’t see him playing all that long and missing his chance to star in a movie.
Yeah, the absolute amounts don't matter all, just percentages. But I'm still not convinced that it's all that big of a deal to spend greater than N% on a QB. Obviously the less you pay a given guy the better (which is part of the reason the Seahawks looked like a dynasty... until they started to have to pay people), but if the question is "pay this guy or let him walk and see what else we can get" I think "pay the guy" is generally the better answer. Especially for a team like the Niners right now.

The Rock's previous career trained him to be an actor. From what I've heard Gronk is legitimately terrible at it. We'll see.
Any bets on how long before Gronk just says to hell with it, cuts to the chase, and does some porn?
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
5,042
Location
Atlanta
I mean, how many QBs have even taken up that much space? QBs being paid $TEXAS is a relatively new phenomenon, and while you'd obviously prefer your good QB to be cheap, I'm not sure "this hasn't happened but would have had Atlanta not completely shit the bed" is a really good argument here. Winning the super bowl is as much about luck as anything else. You want to put together the right pieces for a team, and a good QB is very much one of those pieces. If you can draft a good one, then great! But you might not get Wentz or Luck, you might just end up with Bortles. It's not clear to me that the Niners are worse off for this.
Actually, rookie quarterbacks regularly got 10%+ of the cap before their rookie contracts were restructured (due to the market being out of whack). Sam Bradford in 2010 (the last year before rookie contracts were restructured) signed a 6 year $78 million contract with $50 million guaranteed. I don't have the cap hit breakdown but it's around $13 million per year and the salary cap between 2009 and 2011 (2010 was the uncapped year) was around $120 million, so that's over 10% right there for a guy who had never played a down in the NFL.

It's not clear to me that the Niners are worse off for this.
SF is absolutely a better team with Garappolo than without him. They went 1-10 without him and 5-0 with him. But can they (or anyone) win a Super Bowl giving a QB that much of the cap? It hasn't happened yet. But I'm not really arguing that SF overpaid compared to where the market is. Had SF let him hit free agency, he would have gotten that much or more. My argument is more that the market that is out of whack for QBs.

I guess my argument is something like this:
1) The position of quarterback beyond a rookie contract takes up a disproportionate percentage of the salary cap.
2) The NFL rookie wage scale is position agnostic (it is based only on pick and the amount is basically non-negotiable).
3) Therefore, filling the position of QB with a guy on a rookie contract frees up a disproportionate percentage of the salary cap to spend on other players.

EDIT: One other thing I thought about. If a team has a TON of cap space, needs a QB, but isn't quite ready to compete, it makes a ton of sense to pay market value if you can massively front-load a contract. You basically guarantee that you'll suck for a year but then you have a window to compete since you'll have an affordable QB.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
6,575
Honestly, the Kelce speech makes me not want to root for the this team. He fed in to every negative stereotype of this city. Really shitty thing to do IMO.
I disagree.

He’s statement of “no one likes us we don’t care” was really fitting towards this team

Yea some of the stuff he said wasn’t necessary but it was all true.

No one gave this team a chance and they proved they wanted it more. Beat the best team And prolly best head coach/qb combo of all time.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
10,070
Location
Oakland, CA
Actually, rookie quarterbacks regularly got 10%+ of the cap before their rookie contracts were restructured (due to the market being out of whack). Sam Bradford in 2010 (the last year before rookie contracts were restructured) signed a 6 year $78 million contract with $50 million guaranteed. I don't have the cap hit breakdown but it's around $13 million per year and the salary cap between 2009 and 2011 (2010 was the uncapped year) was around $120 million, so that's over 10% right there for a guy who had never played a down in the NFL.
But that's also a relatively recent phenomenon, it wasn't happening in the early 2000's (for instance Michael Vick's "largest ever rookie contract" had a cap hit of <10%, if I'm reading the abovethecap numbers right). QB's making huge percentages of the salary cap is new because a good QB (or a mediocre QB going on an insane run at the right time) is an absolute requirement to win and it didn't used to be.
SF is absolutely a better team with Garappolo than without him. They went 1-10 without him and 5-0 with him. But can they (or anyone) win a Super Bowl giving a QB that much of the cap? It hasn't happened yet. But I'm not really arguing that SF overpaid compared to where the market is. Had SF let him hit free agency, he would have gotten that much or more. My argument is more that the market that is out of whack for QBs.

I guess my argument is something like this:
1) The position of quarterback beyond a rookie contract takes up a disproportionate percentage of the salary cap.
2) The NFL rookie wage scale is position agnostic (it is based only on pick and the amount is basically non-negotiable).
3) Therefore, filling the position of QB with a guy on a rookie contract frees up a disproportionate percentage of the salary cap to spend on other players.

EDIT: One other thing I thought about. If a team has a TON of cap space, needs a QB, but isn't quite ready to compete, it makes a ton of sense to pay market value if you can massively front-load a contract. You basically guarantee that you'll suck for a year but then you have a window to compete since you'll have an affordable QB.
I mean, yeah, that argument isn't particularly controversial. The problem with it is the whole "having a QB on a rookie contract" thing, which by definition means:

1) You sucked hard enough to get a high draft pick one year OR blew your draft capital for several years OR got super duper lucky with a late-round pick.
2) Your guy turned out good (by no means guaranteed, even with high picks).
3) You have 4 years to fill out the rest of the roster, and good luck to you if gave up a ton of picks or were so shitty that you were drafting at the top.

Sure, this can work, but look at the recent participants, only 3 teams (with 4 appearances) fit that bill: the Eagles, Seahawks, and Ravens. Every other team had a QB that wasn't on a rookie contract, though "not a rookie contract" doesn't necessarily mean "absurdly expensive". Building a team around a rookie can work, sure, but only under unusual circumstances. The most common method of winning the super bowl in the past 10 years has actually been "have a nasty defense and get lucky with them all staying healthy".
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
10,070
Location
Oakland, CA
Also a good offensive line.
Did the Broncos have a good OL in 2015? Or the Seahawks ever?

I'm not actually sure anyone can accurately rate OL play. Every fan thinks their team's OL sucks and what few stats we do have to rate them (things like rushing yards and hurries/pressures/sacks) can be dramatically influenced by the backs/QB.
 
2
Group Builder
Top