sperry Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Just now, Maithanet said: It is very strange that they is virtually no difference in pay between average (below average?) guys like Bradford and Flacco, and the best qbs in the league. It's because when you say a guy is average, that's not exactly accurate. Average among starting QBs, sure, but not average among QBs in the NFL as a whole. Flacco and Bradford are a lot closer to the top guys in the league than they are to the average QB (who would be the 15th best backup QB in the league). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, sperry said: It's because when you say a guy is average, that's not exactly accurate. Average among starting QBs, sure, but not average among QBs in the NFL as a whole. Flacco and Bradford are a lot closer to the top guys in the league than they are to the average QB (who would be the 15th best backup QB in the league). Why is the "average" qb the 15th best backup qb in the league? I'm obviously talking about starting qbs, not all qbs, just like I don't need to specify that I mean NFL qbs and not guys in the CFL. If I were ranking the starting qbs going into 2016, I am sure that both Flacco and Bradford would be somewhere between 12th and 20th in the league. And considering some of the guys below them are either first or second year guys that we just don't know yet, that isn't very impressive company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 This will not end well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 16 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: This gives me hope that Osweiler will not be re signed by the Broncos. He's not worth that kind of scratch, and that's what he's gonna demand. No way Osweiler gets 18 mill per. Maybe 10-12. /That being said, I don't think Bradford should be getting that sort of coin either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 15 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Why is the "average" qb the 15th best backup qb in the league? I'm obviously talking about starting qbs, not all qbs, just like I don't need to specify that I mean NFL qbs and not guys in the CFL. If I were ranking the starting qbs going into 2016, I am sure that both Flacco and Bradford would be somewhere between 12th and 20th in the league. And considering some of the guys below them are either first or second year guys that we just don't know yet, that isn't very impressive company. Because the 15th best backup is your alternative. Top ten quarterbacks don't come on the market. Even top 20 quarterbacks don't really come on the market. Your option is to pay a Flacco or a Bradford and have a chance at success if you can build a roster around them, or try to bottom out and get a guy at the top of the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Can anyone explain why otherwise sane people think Conner Cook is the real deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Just now, James Arryn said: Can anyone explain why otherwise sane people think Conner Cook is the real deal? Do they? He seems like a consensus second round pick, which seems about right. He will join a long list of competent backup QBs from Michigan St. that someone might get desperate enough to try to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 1 minute ago, sperry said: Do they? He seems like a consensus second round pick, which seems about right. He will join a long list of competent backup QBs from Michigan St. that someone might get desperate enough to try to start. People are saying he's risen as Lynch has dropped and is back in first round territory. He's like a 55% college completion guy despite pretty much always having a talent advantage...is there any history for guys with that much burn getting a lot more accurate after the jump? And it's not like he's off the charts, tools-wise. Good arm, good size, meh everything else. Really, this is me worried the Niners want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, James Arryn said: People are saying he's risen as Lynch has dropped and is back in first round territory. He's like a 55% college completion guy despite pretty much always having a talent advantage...is there any history for guys with that much burn getting a lot more accurate after the jump? And it's not like he's off the charts, tools-wise. Good arm, good size, meh everything else. Really, this is me worried the Niners want him. As the GMs like to say, it only takes one asshole. I can't imagine Chip Kelly would be too high on him though. Kelly puts a premium on accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 25 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Can anyone explain why otherwise sane people think Conner Cook is the real deal? He's a tall, good looking white guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickster Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Signing Bradford to a two year deal is like kissing your sister...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 So who do you guys think is going to get the FA contract that will just make you shake your head in wonderment (besides Bradford)? I'm going with Malik Jackson, he could conceivably end up with near Watt-like money if a team is desperate enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Joe Pesci said: So who do you guys think is going to get the FA contract that will just make you shake your head in wonderment (besides Bradford)? I'm going with Malik Jackson, he could conceivably end up with near Watt-like money if a team is desperate enough. Two or three future Raiders, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: No way Osweiler gets 18 mill per. Maybe 10-12. /That being said, I don't think Bradford should be getting that sort of coin either. I could accept him with the Broncos on that kind of dime. I'm still holding out hope that RGIII will roll up in Denver for a reasonable 7-10 million dollar contract and they (in my opinion) have a shot to repeat next year. I don't think the Brockstar is good enough to get them there. To the playoffs, sure. Past the Steelers or Patriots? Nah. 1 hour ago, trickster said: Signing Bradford to a two year deal is like kissing your sister...... You could kind of see yourself doing it if Mike Vick was asking? But, like, obviously... just a kiss. Nothing else, I mean it's not like he's in-his-prime Bo Jackson or anything. Right? 22 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Two or three future Raiders, I bet. Don't they need to hit the cap floor this year? I'm pretty sure they and the Jags are gonna be in violation of the CBA if they don't spend some of their money in the next 2 years. (I am not a lawyer, I could be completely misunderstanding that rule) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 14 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said: Don't they need to hit the cap floor this year? I'm pretty sure they and the Jags are gonna be in violation of the CBA if they don't spend some of their money in the next 2 years. (I am not a lawyer, I could be completely misunderstanding that rule) The short answer is yes, they need to spend a lot to reach the floor, but the accounting on the cap floor is not as simple as just looking at the payroll or even cap hits for the year. I found an article on Bucs Nation that discusses it a bit: Quote So, let me clarify these rules again, because I end up doing so every year. To make it simple: NFL teams don't have to spend 89% of their salary cap. The salary cap floor does not apply to any single season, only to the entire 2013-2016 period. That means that not being in compliance in any single year is not going to be a problem for any team. Only if a team has so chronically underspent that they managed to still be below 89% over the entire four-year period, will they be held accountable. Even so, there's no additional punishment beyond "spend the extra money." If the team hasn't spent 89% of the salary cap over that period, they'll have to fork over the difference to the NFLPA after 2016. That's not ideal, of course, but it's not exactly a huge incentive to just overspend, either. However it's calculated, it seems pretty certain that the Raiders and Jags will have to spend a lot if they want to clear the floor. This article says the Raiders will have to spend an additional $42 million in 2016 to reach the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 18 hours ago, Maithanet said: It is very strange that they is virtually no difference in pay between average (below average?) guys like Bradford and Flacco, and the best qbs in the league. So Flacco signs a three year extension to basically drop his $28.5 million cap hit, and received a $40 million signing bonus. The average continue to get richer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbunting Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Isn't the new salary cap around $155 million? So, Sam Bradford accounts for almost 9% of the teams entire cap. For a below average starting QB who has never proven to be a competent NFL starting QB? I can see why Manning may want to stick around, heck he has 2 SB rings and every record there is, imagine a one year deal for him if Bradford is worth 18 million! Hell imagine if Tom Brady was a free agent this year! BTW, this is great news for me since I am a Cowboys fan, anything that I feel messes up the eagles is good news to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 16 hours ago, trickster said: Signing Bradford to a two year deal is like kissing your sister...... So as expected Cousins is making $19m on the non-exclusive Franchise tag which is a lot for a potential one year wonder but equally notable is Bradford will make $18m/year on a 2 year contract with the Eagles. His numbers weren't even good last year (19/14 TD/INT, 7 y/a, 86.4 passer rating) in an offense that was considered easy mode for QBs up until last year. That's exactly a Brock Osweiler level of performance. Granted he's a bit more pedigreed but he's also a big injury risk. And yet I get it. If they don't re-sign Bradford they're left either drafting a guy at #12, which, who even knows who'll be available there or wading into the terrifying FA QB morass which is Brock Oswiler/Ryan Fitzpatrick and....ugh. Fitzmagic isn't leaving I don't think and I'd rather have Bradford than Osweiler. And when Sanchez played last year, it really showed Bradford's relative competence. But just another lesson of how much it sucks to not have a franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, Jaime L said: His numbers weren't even good last year (19/14 TD/INT, 7 y/a, 86.4 passer rating) in an offense that was considered easy mode for QBs up until last year. That's exactly a Brock Osweiler level of performance. Granted he's a bit more pedigreed but he's also a big injury risk. And yet I get it. If they don't re-sign Bradford they're left either drafting a guy at #12, which, who even knows who'll be available there or wading into the terrifying FA QB morass which is Brock Oswiler/Ryan Fitzpatrick and....ugh. Fitzmagic isn't leaving I don't think and I'd rather have Bradford than Osweiler. If I were the Eagles GM, I would much rather go into the season with Osweiler than Bradford. Osweiler has been in the league for 4 years, but he has only been a starter for what, six games? You really don't know how good Os will be. Could be that without a great defense he turns into a pumpkin, but it could also be that with a full offseason and 16 more starts that you actually have your quarterback for the next decade. Compare that to Bradford, what is the best case scenario here? He stays healthy and improves a bit on last year's performance, and the Eagles go 9-7? He's not going to suddenly turn into Aaron Rodgers, and he's WAY too injury prone for him to be a caretaker guy like Alex Smith. The Eagles are not a particularly talented team, there is no reason to be thinking "win now", even in a weak NFC East. Why pay $18 million for a guy who at best is slightly above average and injury prone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 59 minutes ago, Maithanet said: If I were the Eagles GM, I would much rather go into the season with Osweiler than Bradford. Osweiler has been in the league for 4 years, but he has only been a starter for what, six games? You really don't know how good Os will be. Could be that without a great defense he turns into a pumpkin, but it could also be that with a full offseason and 16 more starts that you actually have your quarterback for the next decade. Compare that to Bradford, what is the best case scenario here? He stays healthy and improves a bit on last year's performance, and the Eagles go 9-7? He's not going to suddenly turn into Aaron Rodgers, and he's WAY too injury prone for him to be a caretaker guy like Alex Smith. The Eagles are not a particularly talented team, there is no reason to be thinking "win now", even in a weak NFC East. Why pay $18 million for a guy who at best is slightly above average and injury prone? I just fundamentally don't believe in the Brockstar. Elway was willing to trade him for a 6th round pick before this season. This was the guy who believed in BO enough to take him way earlier than any other team would and the year before he'd actually have value, he was willing to get rid of him. I think his being a pleasant surprise last year (in that he didn't poop himself) isn't enough to change the fundamental evaluation that this is who you start building your franchise around. And for a 25 year old who went 5-2, I don't get the sense Broncos nation would be all that broken up to lose him. I think the general belief is his upside is as an average starter. Meanwhile Bradford hasn't done much in his career, and yet organizational decision makers keep believing in him. The Rams kept him over RGIII (or whomever), Chip Kelly brought him to the Eagles and Howie Roseman who loathes Chip Kelly and would obviously like to destroy all remnants of the Chip Kelly era, still ponied up a big contract for him. These guys might all be fools (and Les Snead now saying with a straight face that he plans to roll with Case Keenum as the starter going forward implies he definitely is) but I do think this behind-the-scenes stuff matters. Generally there's a reason for belief or lack of belief. It doesn't mean Bradford finally puts it together and Osweiler ends up being a journeyman, but I do think there's a differing upside here and you can see it still in the actions of NFL personnel guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.