I don't know why we are having this superbowl conversation when the phins are thinking about signing Tannehill to a long term deal. That's officially declaring us superbowl ineligible for however long that contract ends up being.
If the Packers were paying Rodgers $5million a year, it would be because he isn't very good. You can't get away with paying great players next to nothing. Ravens should have ditched Flacco? Really? Who should they have replaced him with? This line of thinking means that you pretty much are always drafting a QB high, so that you can have a cheap guy on his rookie contract playing. We all know how hard it is to keep landing good QBs through the draft. At some point, you have to pay them.
Yep. We have to pay Tannehill because there is NOTHING better on the horizon we could get. What's the alternative? Unless you want to mortgage the future and trade for Drew Brees or Philip Rivers (assuming one of them will be available, which could happen) then we are stuck with Tannehill for at least another 3-4 years. And we WOULD be mortgaging the future if one of those guys became available, because they would NOT come cheap, either in terms of salary or draft picks. We'd have to be pretty damn confident that we were just a QB away from a SB or we'd be setting ourselves back for years to come.
While I am not going to say we will make the SB anytime soon , but to say we are ineligible because we sign him long term is just moronic. I can't wait to see how you back petal when we make the playoffs this year and Ryan shows up big time. Oh and I can say that because I am using your standard of pure speculation, with no real or factual basis.
Yes, paying a future HOF DT $20M puts the team at a disadvantage against teams paying future HOF DTs $5M. The bright side for Miami is that if Suh plays at a level that surpasses every other DT in the league, then Miami very likely is the team with the advantage.
No, it would be because he was on his rookie contract. Teams regularly pay players much less than they are worth. It happened on the last two SB champions. I'm never said that. I said they are at a disadvantage by paying Flacco what they're paying him. That doesn't mean getting rid of him creates an advantage. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Either way, there very well could be nothing that a team like the Ravens can do to counter the advantage that other teams with cheaper QBs have over them. They will always be at a big disadvantage under the current circumstances.
I have a factual basis. See the last 3 years. Crumbles during games with serious playoff implications during the last 1 or 2 games of the season. I have history on my side.... you don't. He has never stepped up during the last two games of the season with playoffs on the line.
Then it seems that you want to say one thing, but have it not mean anything. If you say that paying your QB what he's worth creates a disadvantage, then the advantage would be to not pay him what he's worth. Except then you won't be able to keep him. Then you have to find a new QB. Which means you might get a worse QB, or at least will have to deal with growing pains for a couple seasons. So, in the end, it's really not a disadvantage to pay players what they're worth. Seattle, for instance, is going to look very different, I would think, once Wilson is off his rookie contract. They won't have nearly as much money to keep pumping into that league leading defense that they've had for 3 years straight.
Ah yes, expecting the 2nd and 3rd year developing QB to step up and completely carry the team, when every other player on the team has quit. Sounds reasonable. Yes, he could have played better. No, he was not the reason we lost those games.
Last season, for the last two games, Tannehill had a 118.8 rating, and then an 87.4 rating. He threw 4 tds in the Minnesota game, but only one against the Jets. However, the defense allowed the Jets to score 37. THIRTY SEVEN!!!! Are you kidding me? Yet you want to cry about Tannehill? You act like the team had them in a position to win, and Tannehill threw a couple pick sixes to give the game away...or even picks in general.
Paying him in itself does not create the disadvantage. Other teams getting high-level of performance from their QBs for much less money is a big part of it. I've never suggested that teams not keep these guys. Here are the possible scenarios, in order of best to worst: 1. Elite QB that is underpaid 2. Elite QB that is overpaid 3. Bad QB You're essentially saying that teams should be happy with #2, which is not an optimal strategy. I am saying that teams should strive for the most optimal strategy. That doesn't mean you give up on #2.
It's really hard to go from #2 to #1, but easy to go from #1 to #2. In fact, the only case I know of where a team went from #2 to #1 is the Colts drafting Luck when they had Manning. So in practice, it's really difficult to criticize paying a top QB that's underpaid big money, because the alternatives are usually not good.
And how many teams with elite QBs which were underpaid didn't make the playoffs? Elite QBs are going to win, even if they are highly-paid.
Again, I've neither said they shouldn't pay, nor criticized them for paying. I'm simply saying they should strive for the most optimal strategy. Teams like the Ravens should be actively trying to replace Joe Flacco with someone that is cheaper, because the outcome if they do that is a windfall.
How about an option of Elite Qb that is paid what he's worth? Or how about Good QB that is overpaid? OR, Good QB that is paid what he's worth? I'm saying that a team with a QB that is good/very good shouldn't be afraid to pay him what he's worth. Elite QBs don't grow on trees, and they are not easy to find. You hope to get a good/very good QB, and build a team around them.
As I said, tough to do in practice. You can keep drafting QB's low and hope to see something in preseason/practice that says maybe it's worth switching, but it's really hard to pull that trigger because the elite QB may get his act together after a bad run and show why he's elite. Best example there in recent memory is Brady from last year.. struggled early, but led the team to a SB win despite fans calling for Garoppolo to start.
This is such a silly argument. How many "elite" QBs are actually underpaid? Luck? Maybe Wilson? Problem is, they're both going to get massive paydays, BECAUSE they are good/elite. Once a player is recognized as good/very good/elite, his value goes way up.
And Brady struggled due to an offensive line in constant flux. They were shuffling the line for the first three games or so, as I recall. Once the line solidified, Brady returned to form. There's a lesson in there, I think...
All of these are possible, but less ideal than having an elite QB that is underpaid. Or you continually try to find elite QBs.
The Patriots are a perfect example. They already have an underpaid elite QB, but they continue to try to find for more. They have actively gone after QBs, despite already having an elite one.
Yeah, they're a perfect example of a coach understanding your theory, and also a perfect example of showing why that theory is so hard to implement in practice. Brady's gonna start (to our chagrin) for many more years it seems. And it's also telling that Belichick doesn't mind benching anyone for underperforming except Brady. I'm not arguing with your theory.. just saying in practice you really can't implement it unless the stars align like it did for the Colts and Luck.
Yeah, I get that. You're arguing for a Utopian situation. Someone who is elite, but allows you to screw them, by not paying them fair market value. That is unrealistic, and shouldn't be what a front office is trying to accomplish. Bear in mind, I'm NOT saying that you shouldn't draft a QB who you think is elite, if he falls to you, I'm just saying I don't think you approach the QB position with the idea that you're going to only use QBs who are on their rookie contract. Also, I'm not saying that you overpay for good/very good QBs. I think you offer them fair deals, if they decline, then you walk away.
Not completely carry. Just not puke all over his uniform eliminating any chance they have of winning. If he even managed to play an average game we might have had a playoff game. But he can't even do that when the pressure is on.
Well, you specifically cited the final two games from last year, where he had a 118 rating, and an 87 rating. Not exactly puking all over his uniform. Marino1385 - 1 Resnor - 0 I lose, you trolled long enough to get me to actually respond to you.
To add he also had a 5:1TD to INT ratio and threw for well over 600 yds the last 2 game while being sacked 8 times 7 in one game. The kid has stepped up big time this past year while the Defense and special teams has severely let him and the rest of the team down. Dude you have to accept Henne is gone and we have a far superior QB at the helm now. Most fans see it fans from other teams definitely see it and even the nation media is giving Ryan props .
It is neither utopian, nor unrealistic. We have teams that actually are in the situation, and very successful because of it.
Specifically? Which teams are underpaying their elite QB? There's a reason why QBs like Dalton get big contracts.
Patriots and you could argue the Chargers. I don't have Luck as elite, but some people think so. I also don't have Wilson as elite, but some people think he is. They can be argued to be elite, at least.
Neither the Pats nor Chargers have a "CURRENTLY" elite QB, IMHO...there's only 4 in the league atm...and the only AFC one is in Indy.
I totally disagree. As of right now today, both Tom Brady and Rivers are better quarterbacks than Luck.
What are you even talking about? The game we needed last year was the Ravens game. He had a 70% completion with 1 TD and 0 picks. If you're referring to his Pats performance the following week, that was far from puking all over his uniform. 62% comp, 346 yards, 1 TD, 2 picks. He also held his own against Peyton Manning. Are you saying it's Tannehill's fault our run defense sucked? Because that's the only reason we missed the playoffs last season.
The only reason Brady Is cheaper is because he now values championships more than paydays, cause he had more money than he needs already. But he's probably the only one, and he volunteered for less than market value. Luck is going to get a massive contract, he's just on his rookie deal.
Additionally, he had at least two perfect passes for touchdowns flat out dropped in that second Pats game.
He's lucky he even had the one td. Wallace saved his butt. Just face it. When it's December, season on the line. Tannehill can't even muster and average game.
Tannehill vs the Bills with playoffs on the line: 10 of 27 passing 82 yards 0 td/ 0 int Tannehill vs the jets with playoffs on the line: 20 of 40 passing 204 yards 1 td/ 3 int Man he put the team on his shoulders those game. In Tannehill I trust