Well, let's look at how teams have fared after giving a QB a big contract following success with one on a rookie contract.VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:24 amComparing QBs to RBs in this scenario is like comparing apples to oranges. Great QBs can remain great for 15 or more years. They are very hard to find. Only way this not paying the QBs the big bucks idea will work is if all the owners collude to not bid on the QBs that the other teams are letting go to go with a Jalen Hurts. Won't work. WRs are up to 20 million a year for the very best. Teams could just start saying they won't pay them and go with rookies. how about O Line. You could take this strategy with every position, but so far it's the RBs that tend to be the risky ones that teams should not invest big bucks in.psjordan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:52 amSomeone (pro writer, not us schloobs) wrote an article back before Goff signed his extension, basically saying after looking over all the numbers, stats, wins and losses, that it was silly to sign these QB's to major $ extensions. Saying the Rams would be better off letting him walk and starting over, but always drafting a young "does he have it?" type QB to have in the fold. The article implied, but did not state outright, that the QB position should go the way of the RB position. Don't pay up, don't extend, just keep drafting players who can play on their rookie deal. If they turn into a 30 million dollar per year stud, let them walk.
I mentioned that article to several friends at the time, who all guffawed and said "that is absolute lunacy". I'm seriously starting to wonder.
Brady did the Patriots so many solids over the years that I swore he made a secret deal with Kraft to own some small percentage of the team when he retires. Other than Brady, just about every "top 10-15" QB has grabbed the money with gusto when the time came, and teams caved. I think including ours. I have done zero statistically-valid digging to see how that impacted playoff wins and losses.
Considering EVERYTHING, would we really be that worse off with say Hurts playing as a rookie, and one or two [fill in your favorite position of need] stud rookies at other critical, not-so-highly-paid positions? And being able to dole more reasonable dollars to vets who have proved themselves at non-glam positions?
I for one would be just fine with the team taking that gamble. It's how the Seahawks thrived during Russell's rookie deal.
It's a huge gamble of a strategy, but so is paying your veteran QB out of this world numbers. And I don't think the team is selling more Cousins jerseys after the extension.
The last 4 big ones:
Rams - In the SB to not in the playoffs following the Goff extension
Eagles - Won the SB, to barely making the playoffs in a terrible division
Oakland - 13 win season to being a bottom dweller
Vikings - 13 win season and in the NFCC, to 7 wins
Wait, I must be missing someone because there must be a success story of paying a non-elite QB a large contract. Otherwise, why would teams keep doing it?