Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Are we seeing a slight changing of the guard in the NFL?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 8,994
  • Reputation: 1,385
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:04 AM

Just curious what others think. With so many teams dumping so much money into "Franchise QB's", I am wondering if teams will start trying to go in a different direction.

Let's just say that instead of paying a huge amount of money to a QB that was a first rounder, trade him toward the end of his contract for high draft picks and continue to groom and get younger, while all the while spending some of those picks on QB's that can be had for cheap in the draft.

Coach them up, start them for 2-3 years, and surround them with tons of talent that you have drafted.

From looking at Seattle and San Fran, I kinda see them as following this route, however it may be a bit unintentional.

They are playing "cheap" QB's that can play the game, and surrounding them with a ton of really good talent. Let's say San Fran takes a QB or two with those 14 picks, and lets him learn and sit behind Kaep for a couple years, then San Fran trades Kaep for crazy picks and does the same thing all over again.

I don't know, maybe I am losing my mind a bit, but I will be curious to see if teams continue to follow the path of the Ravens with Flacco, Pitt with Big Ben, and Charger with Rivers....and for that matter us with Cam.

#2 SteveSmithTD89

SteveSmithTD89

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 07-January 09
  • posts: 755
  • Reputation: 405
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:29 AM

Kaep and Wilson will both get their big paydays when time comes if they continue as they have. As will Luck and RG3 if hes still in the league. You dont simply let franchise quarterbacks get away.

You could very easily end up with Blaine Gabbert, Jimmy Clausen, Pat White, Brian Brohm. Mark Sanchez, The Golden Calf of Bristol or Alex Smith instead of Rodgers, Cam, Kaep, Flacco or Luck. There are no certainties when it comes to great QBs.

You can surround an average QB with all the talent in the world but at the end of the day its not going to be good enough. The best case scenario is Alex Smith who took 8 years worth of top 15 picks and one of the best young coaches in the game to prove he wasn't a colossal bag of dog poo.

Eventually all that talent will get old and teams will be in a similar situation as the Jets. Average qb, no weapons, no talent and no hope.

#3 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 08-June 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,809
  • Reputation: 2,645
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:34 AM

I think the secret is to surround a good QB with talent-the QB is the last piece of the puzzle-if not, you have nothing to shop later--a QB is not good if his supporting cast is not good, and a good supporting cast is not good without a good QB.

#4 SmashNDash

SmashNDash

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 593
  • Reputation: 143
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:37 AM

I more think what you're seeing is the effects of two different things:

1. The "rise" of the mobile QBs. A decade ago, Vick/Cunningham were gimmicks, and not seen as a prototype. Now with the success of Cam, the increase of the spread and read option college style offenses, teams are looking for a mobile QB, and most mobile QBs are young, since most of the mobile QBs from 5+ years ago never made the league, or are out of the league by now.

2. The incredibly mediocrity of the mid 2000s drafted QBs. Right now, all superstar QBs are pretty much very young, or very old. Peyton, Brady falling into the older generation, Cam, RG3, Wilson, etc falling into the younger. The mid 2000s didn't really produce much in the way of superstar QBs, I'd say Rodgers would be the only exception. Think of the Vince Youngs/Leinart/Jamarcus, many of the mid 2000s QBs were busts, so many teams in the last few years have been looking for new QBs.

#5 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,113
  • Reputation: 5,285
Moderators

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:47 AM

to be consistantly in the mix....you need the superstar QB.

You basically need a perfect storm season to get into play without one.....and those don't happen for an entire decade.

#6 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,829
  • Reputation: 638
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:06 PM

Surround a good QB with a lot of talent and you have the Panthers from 2003-2010. A lot of teams have done that, just because superstar QBs are few and far between.

So no, I don't see it happening.

#7 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:10 PM

Just curious what others think. With so many teams dumping so much money into "Franchise QB's", I am wondering if teams will start trying to go in a different direction.

Let's just say that instead of paying a huge amount of money to a QB that was a first rounder, trade him toward the end of his contract for high draft picks and continue to groom and get younger, while all the while spending some of those picks on QB's that can be had for cheap in the draft.

Coach them up, start them for 2-3 years, and surround them with tons of talent that you have drafted.

From looking at Seattle and San Fran, I kinda see them as following this route, however it may be a bit unintentional.

They are playing "cheap" QB's that can play the game, and surrounding them with a ton of really good talent. Let's say San Fran takes a QB or two with those 14 picks, and lets him learn and sit behind Kaep for a couple years, then San Fran trades Kaep for crazy picks and does the same thing all over again.


Franchise QBs can come from anywhere in the draft and when you find one you keep it at basically any cost. It's the most correlated position with wins. The colts decided to let Peyton go but they didn't even trade him for anything.

You are assuming that you can just plug in a mediocre QB and get some talent around him and start winning playoff games. San Fran fell assbackwards into Kaeperneck but he is still a telented QB mid second round pick. Nobody expected him to outpace Alex smith though. Wilson was a first round pick but wasn't necessarily expected to win the starting job in camp.

There are so many busts at QB. If you have a top 10-15 pick you are probably getting an NFL starter. Once you go past the middle of the first round you are not guaranteeing anything. The Golden Calf of Bristol, Clausen, McCoy, Sanchez, Pat white, Brohm, Chad Henne, Jamarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kolb, Beck, Stanton, Leinert from the past few years.

And if you have a superstar who is winning games you aren't getting a top draft pick.

If the Panthers traded Cam after next year and drafted a QB I would be irate. You miss on the draft pick and you get stuck with mediocrity. Remember the Clausen years?

I think this strategy would work better with the RB position

#8 mountainpantherfan2

mountainpantherfan2

    NOT NEWB

  • Joined: 19-December 12
  • posts: 79
  • Reputation: 4
ROOKIE

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:25 PM

I more think what you're seeing is the effects of two different things:

1. The "rise" of the mobile QBs. A decade ago, Vick/Cunningham were gimmicks, and not seen as a prototype. Now with the success of Cam, the increase of the spread and read option college style offenses, teams are looking for a mobile QB, and most mobile QBs are young, since most of the mobile QBs from 5+ years ago never made the league, or are out of the league by now.

2. The incredibly mediocrity of the mid 2000s drafted QBs. Right now, all superstar QBs are pretty much very young, or very old. Peyton, Brady falling into the older generation, Cam, RG3, Wilson, etc falling into the younger. The mid 2000s didn't really produce much in the way of superstar QBs, I'd say Rodgers would be the only exception. Think of the Vince Youngs/Leinart/Jamarcus, many of the mid 2000s QBs were busts, so many teams in the last few years have been looking for new QBs.


Eli, Rivers, Ben (2004), and Ryan and Flacco (2008) might beg to differ. But 2005-2007 produced nothing but Rogers. Depends on what you consider "mid 2000's".

#9 Who Said What?

Who Said What?

    MEMBER

  • Joined: 21-September 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 864
  • Reputation: 287
  • LocationEverybody knows Carolina's my home
HUDDLER

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:29 PM

This thread is all about what is in your head. No we are not seeing a changing of the gaurd, which has to do with bad teams getting better and good teams losing their footing at the top. No one has ever traded good talented QBs away in their prime ever. This will never happen. San Fran will begin to lose more players like they did their safety Gholdson. They have a bunch of good young they
players that will want to be paid soon. They cannot pay them all. Teams better stop paying QBs all of this money if they want to field a good team consistently too.

#10 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: -28,898
  • Reputation: 7,795
Moderators

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:39 PM

i think that teams with low priced franchise QBs for now are just taking advantage of the fact that they don't have to spend a ton on their franchise guys for now... esp. seattle. the reason they threw so much at harvin and structured it the way they did (incredibly front heavy) was because they'll have all that money set aside for wilson when his contract is up...same with sherman's. those two are probably gonna get PAID in a few years, but for right now they are on the cheap and fortunately for them, their GMs did well at creating space instead of overpaying for talent like we did.

QBs are going to keep being the most expensive and most important part of the team, but the major difference is they are getting more from them earlier mostly because the terms of the rookie contracts are so short now and they can get them in the draft for a lot cheaper. less risk involved. you get to actually develop the guy on the job and see if he can handle it before you give him everything.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users