- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 48,152
- Name
- Burger man
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...er-or-cap-hog-the-wisdom-of-heavy-qb-spending
Franchise player or cap hog? The wisdom of heavy QB spending
We keep calling the NFL a quarterback-driven league, based on the football world's perception that the quarterback ultimately determines whether a team is a viable Super Bowl contender. While there is certainly some truth to the correlation between quarterback performance and title contention, the belief that any QB1 with any semblance of talent is a franchise quarterback worthy of "elite" money has always driven me crazy as a team builder.
Sure, quarterback is the most important position on the field, but not every signal-caller is viewed as a "truck" (as in, the QB carries the team) by evaluators around the league. Some are seen as "trailers" (as in, the team carries the QB). With each new quarterback contract topping the last -- earlier this month, Matt Ryan's record-setting extension with the Falcons placed him at the head of a parade of QBs inking big-money deals this offseason, including Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins -- let's take a closer look at this issue.
The "trucks" are the elite guys capable of elevating the play of a pedestrian supporting cast through their own talents. They can win without marquee names on the perimeter, and they can mask the major flaws of the squad with their stellar play. Surveying the league, I believe you could put Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford in that special category, based on what they do for their current squads. While we can debate whether another quarterback or two should be included on the list, the point remains that only a handful of guys are in the VIP circle when it comes to playing the position like a true franchise quarterback.
So I can't understand why teams continue to overpay middling players at the position when we know those players aren't single-handedly capable of reversing the fortunes of the franchise on the strength of their arm and playmaking ability. Sure, they can win games, but to get the job done at the highest level, they need support, whether in the form of a dominant No. 1 receiver, an explosive multi-purpose running back or a solid offensive line. Granted, football is ultimately a team game, but if you're going to pay a quarterback $20 million-plus, he needs to be the best player on the team, or you're jeopardizing your chances of building the right supporting cast to help him lead the team to significant wins.
Don't believe me? It's not a coincidence that only three Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks since 2006 have had a cap number that was 10 percent or more of the league salary cap in that year, according to numbers found at Over The Cap(Peyton Manning twice, Eli Manning and Tom Brady once), with at least two of those players (Peyton and Brady) qualifying as franchise quarterbacks. And consider that every Super Bowl QB in that span who took up 14 percent or more of the salary cap lost (Peyton Manning twice, Matt Ryan once). Thus, it appears that overpaying quarterbacks is a recipe for disaster for most squads.
(Some quick notes on those numbers: The uncapped 2010 season was not included. And the percentage of league salary cap was used rather than the percentage of adjusted cap for each team.)
Based on that, I think it's crazy that 16 quarterbacks are scheduled to carry cap numbers that are at least 10 percent of the league salary cap this season. With the salary cap set at $177.2 million for 2018, you're talking about half of the starting quarterbacks in the league earning the kind of money that should be reserved for elite players. Do we really believe there are 16 elite quarterbacks in the league?
Think about it this way. San Francisco 49ers QB Jimmy Garoppolo's 2018 cap number will take up 20 percent of that $177.2 million salary cap figure after he signed a five-year, $135 million deal this offseason. Sure, he reeled off five wins in five starts with the team in 2017, but we're talking about a player with only seven career starts taking up one-fifth of the league salary cap.
If that's not enough to give you pause, here are the top five quarterbacks when it comes to percentage of the salary cap (again, according to numbers provided by Over The Cap, using the cap of $177.2 million rather than the adjusted cap figure for each team):
1) Jimmy Garoppolo, San Francisco 49ers: 20.9 percent, 7-0 career record, 99.7 passer rating.
2) Matthew Stafford, Detroit Lions: 15.0 percent, 60-65 career record, 88.3 passer rating.
3) Derek Carr, Oakland Raiders: 14.1 percent, 28-34 career record, 87.5 passer rating.
4) Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens: 14.0 percent, 92-62 career record, 84.1.
5) Andrew Luck, Indianapolis Colts: 13.8 percent, 43-27 career record, 87.3 passer rating.
Falling just outside of the top five is Kirk Cousins, whose cap percentage of 13.5 ranks sixth. He's the definition of a "trailer" as a guy who needs a strong supporting cast to play at a high level. As it happens, Cousins received a market-setting deal to join a Minnesota Vikings team that was already loaded with supporting talent.
I will let you decide if the above five would be considered five of the best players in the league. But considering the number of all-star performers at other positions who are destined for gold jackets, I don't know if you could place any of the aforementioned guys in a credible top-five list at this time.
That's why I roll my eyes every time I hear an executive or analyst justify overpaying average quarterbacks in today's game. If you have to commit so much in the way of resources to helping an average quarterback play reasonably well, why are you paying the quarterback big bucks? If your compensation is ultimately tied to your performance, these $20 million quarterbacks must be able to elevate the play of the franchise; otherwise, teams should stick to the budget and play with a value-priced option at the position while placing a stellar supporting cast around him.
I know that sounds like a radical concept, but we've seen teams go to the Super Bowl without big-money quarterbacks under center. Heck, I was part of an organization (the 2003 Carolina Panthers) that went to the Super Bowl with Jake Delhomme installed as the QB1 surrounded by a couple of playmakers on the outside (Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad) and a star-studded defense. And last year, we saw Nick Foles guide the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl title backed by an ultra-talented defense and a handful of prime-time caliber offensive players. It's clear the team-building process doesn't necessarily need to be all about the quarterback if the decision makers involved know how to evaluate and acquire other players while also setting a hard line on the money paid out to the quarterback.
Now, if the QB1 is a legitimate stud worthy of being considered elite, the team should break the bank and build around his talents. If not, the team should pay him based on his talent and use the excess money to surround him with the assets that he needs to play at a high level.
Sounds simple, but it's hard to find execs willing to use common sense when it comes to paying quarterbacks in today's game.
Franchise player or cap hog? The wisdom of heavy QB spending
We keep calling the NFL a quarterback-driven league, based on the football world's perception that the quarterback ultimately determines whether a team is a viable Super Bowl contender. While there is certainly some truth to the correlation between quarterback performance and title contention, the belief that any QB1 with any semblance of talent is a franchise quarterback worthy of "elite" money has always driven me crazy as a team builder.
Sure, quarterback is the most important position on the field, but not every signal-caller is viewed as a "truck" (as in, the QB carries the team) by evaluators around the league. Some are seen as "trailers" (as in, the team carries the QB). With each new quarterback contract topping the last -- earlier this month, Matt Ryan's record-setting extension with the Falcons placed him at the head of a parade of QBs inking big-money deals this offseason, including Jimmy Garoppolo and Kirk Cousins -- let's take a closer look at this issue.
The "trucks" are the elite guys capable of elevating the play of a pedestrian supporting cast through their own talents. They can win without marquee names on the perimeter, and they can mask the major flaws of the squad with their stellar play. Surveying the league, I believe you could put Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford in that special category, based on what they do for their current squads. While we can debate whether another quarterback or two should be included on the list, the point remains that only a handful of guys are in the VIP circle when it comes to playing the position like a true franchise quarterback.
So I can't understand why teams continue to overpay middling players at the position when we know those players aren't single-handedly capable of reversing the fortunes of the franchise on the strength of their arm and playmaking ability. Sure, they can win games, but to get the job done at the highest level, they need support, whether in the form of a dominant No. 1 receiver, an explosive multi-purpose running back or a solid offensive line. Granted, football is ultimately a team game, but if you're going to pay a quarterback $20 million-plus, he needs to be the best player on the team, or you're jeopardizing your chances of building the right supporting cast to help him lead the team to significant wins.
Don't believe me? It's not a coincidence that only three Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks since 2006 have had a cap number that was 10 percent or more of the league salary cap in that year, according to numbers found at Over The Cap(Peyton Manning twice, Eli Manning and Tom Brady once), with at least two of those players (Peyton and Brady) qualifying as franchise quarterbacks. And consider that every Super Bowl QB in that span who took up 14 percent or more of the salary cap lost (Peyton Manning twice, Matt Ryan once). Thus, it appears that overpaying quarterbacks is a recipe for disaster for most squads.
(Some quick notes on those numbers: The uncapped 2010 season was not included. And the percentage of league salary cap was used rather than the percentage of adjusted cap for each team.)
Based on that, I think it's crazy that 16 quarterbacks are scheduled to carry cap numbers that are at least 10 percent of the league salary cap this season. With the salary cap set at $177.2 million for 2018, you're talking about half of the starting quarterbacks in the league earning the kind of money that should be reserved for elite players. Do we really believe there are 16 elite quarterbacks in the league?
Think about it this way. San Francisco 49ers QB Jimmy Garoppolo's 2018 cap number will take up 20 percent of that $177.2 million salary cap figure after he signed a five-year, $135 million deal this offseason. Sure, he reeled off five wins in five starts with the team in 2017, but we're talking about a player with only seven career starts taking up one-fifth of the league salary cap.
If that's not enough to give you pause, here are the top five quarterbacks when it comes to percentage of the salary cap (again, according to numbers provided by Over The Cap, using the cap of $177.2 million rather than the adjusted cap figure for each team):
1) Jimmy Garoppolo, San Francisco 49ers: 20.9 percent, 7-0 career record, 99.7 passer rating.
2) Matthew Stafford, Detroit Lions: 15.0 percent, 60-65 career record, 88.3 passer rating.
3) Derek Carr, Oakland Raiders: 14.1 percent, 28-34 career record, 87.5 passer rating.
4) Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens: 14.0 percent, 92-62 career record, 84.1.
5) Andrew Luck, Indianapolis Colts: 13.8 percent, 43-27 career record, 87.3 passer rating.
Falling just outside of the top five is Kirk Cousins, whose cap percentage of 13.5 ranks sixth. He's the definition of a "trailer" as a guy who needs a strong supporting cast to play at a high level. As it happens, Cousins received a market-setting deal to join a Minnesota Vikings team that was already loaded with supporting talent.
I will let you decide if the above five would be considered five of the best players in the league. But considering the number of all-star performers at other positions who are destined for gold jackets, I don't know if you could place any of the aforementioned guys in a credible top-five list at this time.
That's why I roll my eyes every time I hear an executive or analyst justify overpaying average quarterbacks in today's game. If you have to commit so much in the way of resources to helping an average quarterback play reasonably well, why are you paying the quarterback big bucks? If your compensation is ultimately tied to your performance, these $20 million quarterbacks must be able to elevate the play of the franchise; otherwise, teams should stick to the budget and play with a value-priced option at the position while placing a stellar supporting cast around him.
I know that sounds like a radical concept, but we've seen teams go to the Super Bowl without big-money quarterbacks under center. Heck, I was part of an organization (the 2003 Carolina Panthers) that went to the Super Bowl with Jake Delhomme installed as the QB1 surrounded by a couple of playmakers on the outside (Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad) and a star-studded defense. And last year, we saw Nick Foles guide the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl title backed by an ultra-talented defense and a handful of prime-time caliber offensive players. It's clear the team-building process doesn't necessarily need to be all about the quarterback if the decision makers involved know how to evaluate and acquire other players while also setting a hard line on the money paid out to the quarterback.
Now, if the QB1 is a legitimate stud worthy of being considered elite, the team should break the bank and build around his talents. If not, the team should pay him based on his talent and use the excess money to surround him with the assets that he needs to play at a high level.
Sounds simple, but it's hard to find execs willing to use common sense when it comes to paying quarterbacks in today's game.
