Don’t really disagree, but Watson wasn’t going to Cleveland without that deal.
2 Likes
Yeah, I mean, all great points which is why I am no longer sure BH follows that model but it has to be enticing as a GM to be able to draft a guy this year, sit him and let him learn not only from Goff but a damn good staff and then plug him in next year at a fraction of what you pay Goff. Not sure what the cap numbers would be but it has to be a $20-30 million a year savings.
You can add a shit ton of support around that young QB with that $20-30m.
This year is definitely the pay off year for Browns and Watson considering the year before they cut bait on Baker they won a playoff game with him at QB…Browns fans may hate Baker but he did something Staff was never able to do here. I’m not convinced he was the entire problem after seeing him assimilate and perform well in a really bad situation last year with the Rams considering they practically had no one left on the team from the super bowl the previous year due to injuries.
what if…we have a great season and offer Goff an extension that is very team friendly?
by the end of this season Goff will have already earned 160M in his NFL career. i’m not trying to tell him how to live his life but thats already a shit-ton of money for a guy who’s not even 30, even by NFL QB standards.
Goff has already been abandoned by the Rams so maybe he’s at a point in his career where he cares about winning SuperBowls more than he cares about being the highest paid QB for 1 week before the next guy signs a contract.
Maybe he sees that not raping the Lions allows them to spread the wealth and assure that he’ll always have a great OLine protecting him and weapons to throw to.
if we can keep Goff on a team friendly deal, that solves our QB problem for the next 5+ more years.
no he wasn’t…and that browns are desperate…bad ownership…bad management. We all know about that huh boys? Those days are behind us…I mean think about this…saw a recent list of elite qbs…he listed the normal 6 with okay okay we can still put Aaron at 7 and then perhaps Lamar…MAAAAAAAAYBE…you know who wasn’t listed? Waston…could he get back to where he was? yes of course…but no one wants to pay non elite qbs all that money…its a mess brother.
1 Like
I agree that the Haslems are a train wreck as owners, but I think they might have lucked into a pretty good team. I expect them to make some noise in the AFC this year. Their coach and GM are pretty good.
2 Likes
think Jim is the best possible choice for that defense…Garrett in a wide 9???
AFC North Qbs:
Yeah he could have an all-time season this year. They need a legit option across from him though, and they don’t have a pick until the 3rd. I guess they’re hoping Okoronkwo keeps showing improvement. I liked him coming out.
I don’t generally expect players to take discounts, because a) why would they and b) it’s not their job to manage the salary cap and help with roster construction, but in Goff’s case, because he was abandoned or dumped by the Rams, he might have a different perspective and really appreciate the opportunity, patience and responsibility he got in Detroit to the point where his demands are a little lower than they otherwise could be. I mean, his career was trending way down, and he might look at someone like Carson Wentz and think that that could so easily be him if it wasn’t for the faith the Lions showed in him.
It might also help if the fans stopped clamouring for drafting a QB in round 1!
If you call “19%”, often.
It actually matches perfectly with what I’ve been saying, “maybe 1 out of 5”.
This year, there are 4 being hyped.
1 Like
Just quoting the author my man
We’ll see what Brad and Dan think in a few days.
My guess, the Lions won’t be taking a QB at #6oa.
Maybe at #48?
You have a great grasp on it. Its $20-25M savings for the 6th overall pick and $25-30M savings for the 18th pick.
1 Like
The article has an agenda.
It points out that the 38 QBs drafted in the 1st round since 2011… only 1 of them won a Super Bowl.
That is crafty manipulation of the facts.
Since the 2011 draft that he referenced….
6 of the 12 Super Bowls were won by QBs drafted in the 1 st round.
4 of the remaining 6 Super Bowls were won by a unicorn named Tom Brady.
1 Super Bowl was won by a career backup… who was only able to have home field advantage with a VERY complete team aroundhim because the Eagles had a 1st round QB playing at an MVP level for the first 13 games of the season.
And the other Super Bowl was won by Russ… who was on a rookie contract and benefited from one of the best defenses of the past 20 years.
It was also VERY convenient that he picked the last 12 years…
instead of the past 18 years.
Why is that you ask???
Because 11 of the past 18 Super Bowls were won by 1st round QBs… and that doesn’t include Wentz or Brees (who was top of 2nd round).
In other words…. 13 of the past 18 Super bowls were won by teams that had a top 35 pick at QB for the majority of their season… and 4 of the other 5 were won by Brady!
4 Likes
But pick 32 overall, which today would be in the 1st 
3 Likes
You’ve misread the article.
It’s an analysis of R1 QBs playing on their rookie deal, since the rookie wage scale was implemented. It doesn’t go back further than 12 years because prior to that rookie QBs like Stafford got huge deals, the rookie wage cap was only implemented in 2012. And it doesn’t include guys that were on their second or third contract because at that point there is no rookie contract cost saving.
You’ve actually proved the author’s point, if 13 of the last 18 Super Bowls were won by 1st round QBs, but only one of them was by a QB on his rookie contract, then that is even more evidence that there is no meaningful benefit to having a QB, who was drafted in round 1, on his rookie deal.
1 Like
But most of the Super Bowls included a QB on a rookie contract. So we are back to the same issue.
I didn’t “misread” it.
I’m making the point that the data doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Tom Brady won 4 of those 12 Super Bowls.
The Rams won 1 with an extreme strategy not duplicated elsewhere.
Peyton, Eli, and Flacco won a Super Bowl in the few years after the change…. veteran passers on complete teams.
If his point is to strictly evaluate the advantage of a rookie contract… why does it matter if it is a 1st round pick?
The 5th year option is expensive on the cap… so there really is only a huge advantage to having it if the QB succeeds early… because the team likely will lock that QB up long-term (unless the QB doesn’t have an agent and fails to demand a new deal… 
).
Cam was the 1st QB taken with the new rookie wage scale.
After he was selected… 4 of the next 5 Super Bowls were represented by QBs drafted in 2011 or later… and 3 of them were close games.
The Eagles wouldn’t have won a Super Bowl without Wentz leading them to an 11-2 start.
The takeaway that I see here… is that a team needs a really complete roster… and then a rookie contract QB or a very good veteran passing QB to have the best chance.
Lamar isn’t one of those guys.
I’ve always thought it was an argument that misses the target.
There’s no direct benefit to having a QB on a rookie deal other than the team isn’t paying as much for that particular position and can ostensibly move resources somewhere else
but the QB salary is just one of several high salary positions on a team. The real argument is teams that are smart with contracts, draft well and don’t have too much dead cap have an advantage
Salary cap allocation aside I don’t think anyone is going to argue they would rather, in general, have an inexperienced or rookie player than a veteran under center in a Super Bowl
2 Likes
Isn’t Lamar one of the QB’s drafted in that time-frame that hasn’t taken his team to a Superbowl?
2 Likes