A Crazy Idea, Disposable Quarterbacks

A standard starting QB on their second contract eats up an enormous amount of salary cap space. Yet you have a plethora of quarterbacks that do a few things well, and are good against certain types of defenses, and some of these quarterbacks can’t even get to the end of training camp.

Now, I’ve often seen under the new CBA where having a QB on a rookie contract often gives the team as a whole a boost due to having more cap space to play with.

Couple this with a bit of baseball strategy. Namely the Tampa Bay Rays and their opener strategy.

Instead of having one QB, the guy, the starter, the end all and be all, you churn through them. You keep one who is a jack of all trades to serve as the backup for games that go south, but you pick a guy a few weeks ahead of time to prepare for just one game. You match that particular QB strengths against the weaknesses of the chosen opponent. A new starter every week on a team that goes run heavy with a beefed up defense.

I don’t think it’s been tried before, but I certainly think it would be interesting. Like I said, crazy idea.

1 Like

I think that would really piss off a lot of guys and no one would want to sign or play on your team. Also, not playing for a few weeks would add a bunch of rust to the QBs. Remember, in practice the starter takes about 95% of the reps each week. You would also have to have a bunch of offensive systems too to cater to your new QB.

I think it would really hurt the leadership and continuity of the team.

It isn’t the same in baseball because a pitcher can only pitch so often.

If you had an offense like Baltimore, where you rely so much on the legs of Jackson, you might be able to get a bunch QBs that can run the ball and just rotate them in and out. But then again, why would you want to put Griffin in when you have Jackson?

How about time share quarterbacks? We get Rodgers for two weeks but we have to deal with two weeks of Drew Lock as well. I could work with it.

Okay, think about it like this. You can afford to put higher quality pieces on every part of the field by virtue of having slightly more money to spend on every position above league average. I’ve never heard anyone complain about getting paid more.

In essence you get 21 of your 22 starters on both sides a bump in pay. So let’s focus in on the one position that would be upset. If you have a rotation, those guys know they’re getting a chance to get on the field, they’re getting lots of focused time to prepare. They’re getting the opportunity to showcase themselves at their best for the whole world to see.

Yes, your practice percentages get changed. You go 15% for 3 weeks out, 25% for 2 weeks out, and 60% for the current week. The only thing really getting changed is tweaking your passing offense package from week to week. Your running game is your bread and butter. Your counting on your defense to be a bit more brutal with higher quality pieces.

QB’S become disposable commodities in this system. Let Seattle go ahead and sign Matt Flynn to a huge deal, you just need to replace his skillset for a few games.

The continuity could pose an issue. I will concede that point, but that’s not necessarily a given either.

Where do you think the bruised ego’s come into play? I’m really not seeing it.

1 Like

The bruised egos. No one likes to get benched. I believe most of the QBs in the NFL want to be playing every down. If you had a great game and then had to stand on the sidelines the next week, that would probably not sit well with almost any NFL QB. I would have a hard time believing any QB would be happy with that system. If you found a guy that was really good and you were winning with him, why would you switch?
Plus, try to think of it from the coach’s perspective. No coach is going to put his job on the line by doing something so far out of the ordinary. Coaches are going to go with the guy that has the most talent.
If you just had a bunch of guys that couldn’t start on other NFL teams, then that is one thing, but you are going to be in trouble in that case regardless of how many QBs you have.

Teams need to be more careful about who they give the big contracts to. If the QB can’t win you games or take you far in the playoffs, then what is the point of giving them a big contract. Paying a middle of the pack guys big money just because they are better than the bottom of the barrel doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. so from that perspective, I can see your point.

The other option is to get an average starting QB, let him play out his rookie contract and then dump him for the guy you drafted in the 2nd round the year before. That is one way to pay the other players more money.
The Lions never really had the chance to have Stafford on what people refer to as a rookie contract. He came in and the Lions had to roll out the cash for him right away. The way the rookie pay scale used to work actually punished teams picking high, especially if that player never became a star.

1 Like

I could see a team that has a stellar defense and solid run game be able to rotate a QB out every couple of years. They we need to draft a mid round QB every year. Be constantly grooming a young talent. Then every time a QB hits FA and demands a big contract you move on and bring up the next guy.

However I think it would be hard to rating WR’s, TE’s and possibly RB’s as they would likely choose to move on.

It also doesn’t work like that. For instance… we had around 25 mil of unspent money this year. Stafford’s contract didn’t stop us from signing better players, other factors meant a lot more. (Quinn’s negotiating skills, coaching connections, location draw etc.) Also, finding even serviceable QBs is difficult. So finding multiples or every 4 years is a recipe for disaster.

Not the craziest idea, I like it!

So, you’d have 3 QBs every year. 3rd string would be obviously either A) a one trick pony or B) an average jack of all trades who starts 2-3 games a year.

QB 1 and 2 would basically be equals, maybe different skill sets, maybe the same… but, they would be interchangeable during a game or from week to week. So your practice time would be 40-40-20.

I remember when UM was subbing in drew Henson for Tom Brady that one year, that didn’t work out too well, but, if the expectation was there is no full time starter and you planned for that throughout the offseason and training camp, I could see it being a possibility… innovative thought, even if it would eventually prove to be impractical (but how do we know if it’s never been tried before?)

I would like to see Blough get a couple games in this year. See how much he has developed since last year. He could be QB 2-3

1 Like

How about this for a thought.

Could you imagine a league where the 32 starting QB’s were broken down to 16 AFC, 16 NFC and they had to start 1 game for all 16 teams?

Then the playoff teams have a mini draft to see who their starting QB is for their playoff run. The number 1 seed gets the first pick.

Or how about this. A league where your starting QB can only be on your roster 2 seasons and then you must get a different QB and he hits the waiver wire. You can only resign him if all 32 teams pass. All NFL QB’s are paid the same amount. So there’s no cap advantage. And the teams can choose to either claim a QB or draft one.

1 Like

Ok whoa whoa whoa… now that is just crazy!

Kidding, but that would definitely be the definition of parity. And be like school yard ball “hey you got Tom Brady yesterday, he’s on our team today!”

But I wouldn’t be opposed.

In all honesty there is a lot to be said for the beautiful continuity of a QB and his WRs and RBs… Peyton Manning with Reggie Wayne and edgerrin james was a sight to behold when they were all clicking

Also, you can throw playbooks out the window, everyone would know everyone else’s

So basically our QB situation in 2008?

1 Like

Actually, I was thinking of carrying four QB’S in this scenario. Yes, that’s what I had in mind. I’m looking at the entire position from a different angle, more like a rotation of starting pitchers rather than a master of all trades.

1 Like