$20+ million QB or not

[Sportster 72]

Sorry, don't know how to insert a link on this forum but this is an interesting article that presents the idea that signing Cousin's or Smith might not have been the best thing to do:

Barnwell: How a team could trade its young QB starter and thrive

 

[skinsdad62]

Could be

 

[Stymietee]

I know what the market dictates, that said, QB's are vastly overpaid relative to their teammates. Some time ago I suggested this very same thing as outlined in this article (getting a younger cheaper QB and building a championship team around him) Want to know what I got in return for suggesting such a thing?

 

[SteelersPride]

isnt working for the bears, but trubs sucks

 

[ehb5]

I know what the market dictates, that said, QB's are vastly overpaid relative to their teammates. Some time ago I suggested this very same thing as outlined in this article (getting a younger cheaper QB and building a championship team around him) Want to know what I got in return for suggesting such a thing?



View attachment 187705

I don't think the good ones are overpaid.

The fact that a young cheap QB is so valuable only reinforces that.

 

[ehb5]

Good article. I think the benefits of a cheap young qb are clear. If theyre good it really is a cheat code for building a team.

 

[Sportster 72]

I presented this as a thought and not gospel. The primary winners of most of the last Super Bowls, are Brady, Big Manning, little Manning, Rogers, Big Ben, Brees.

 

[ehb5]

I presented this as a thought and not gospel. The primary winners of most of the last Super Bowls, are Brady, Big Manning, little Manning, Rogers, Big Ben, Brees.

Well sure the big takeaway is that having a really good QB is the key.

But if you can have a really good QB plus an extra 20 mil to throw at pass rushers...

 

[Stymietee]

I don't think the good ones are overpaid.

The fact that a young cheap QB is so valuable only reinforces that.

I believe that by doing this a team in effect will do the same thing to QB's that has been done to RB's. At that point I don't think that the cost of QB's is such that it hurts in building elsewhere. In fact because they become cheapened like RB's there's significant savings in not having to re-sign them to big second and third contracts. They can sit out like Bell is doing or become the subjects in trade discussions. Either way, the team either saves a ton of money to build/reload or gets some return in trade.

 

[Sportster 72]

Sty getting talent but getting enough inexpensive talent is the ticket to winning. Unless of course you are NE who has a QB who's wife makes anything he gets paid look like milk money. Much like Michael in basketball he knows he is going to get his so he plays for less than everyone else because he can.

 

[Stymietee]

Sty getting talent but getting enough inexpensive talent is the ticket to winning. Unless of course you are NE who has a QB who's wife makes anything he gets paid look like milk money. Much like Michael in basketball he knows he is going to get his so he plays for less than everyone else because he can.

"I see your meaning" to borrow a movie quote, and that is certainly one way to do it. Don't you think that the devaluing of RB's has allowed a team to spend that money elsewhere? To me it's more about balancing budgets (salary caps) than anything else. In effect, the more you spend on one position, the less there is to afford others.

We kind of saw this with Cousins, where the team kept insisting that they weren't willing to spend more than a certain amount for his services. (PLEASE LET US NOT TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER KIRK HYJACKED THREAD...PLEASE!!) Cheap young talent is great, until it isn't cheap to keep still good talents, knowing when to acquire new cheaper talent and move still good talent is a very important second key to me.

On that note, what kind of return do you think we'll be able to get in a Kerrigan trade in the upcoming off season?

 

[Stymietee]

Here's a quick list of guys who fit the "time to move on" bill.

Giovanni Bernard (Bengals) 26 y/o

Shane Ray (Broncos) 25y/o

Malik Jackson (Jaguars) 28 y/o

Laquon Treadwell (Vikings) 23y/o (could be a bust there)

Derek Carr (Raiders) 27y/o

Nick Foles (Eagles) 29y/o

Jameis Winston (Buccaneers) 24y/o

 

[Sportster 72]

"I see your meaning" to borrow a movie quote, and that is certainly one way to do it. Don't you think that the devaluing of RB's has allowed a team to spend that money elsewhere? To me it's more about balancing budgets (salary caps) than anything else. In effect, the more you spend on one position, the less there is to afford others.

We kind of saw this with Cousins, where the team kept insisting that they weren't willing to spend more than a certain amount for his services. (PLEASE LET US NOT TURN THIS INTO ANOTHER KIRK HYJACKED THREAD...PLEASE!!) Cheap young talent is great, until it isn't cheap to keep still good talents, knowing when to acquire new cheaper talent and move still good talent is a very important second key to me.

On that note, what kind of return do you think we'll be able to get in a Kerrigan trade in the upcoming off season?

I think the Bears would trade Mack and Allen Robinson for Kerrigan.

Okay, maybe not … I was just playing along.

 

[j_y19]

I presented this as a thought and not gospel. The primary winners of most of the last Super Bowls, are Brady, Big Manning, little Manning, Rogers, Big Ben, Brees.

And what do every one of these guys, with the exception of Brees, have in common?

 

[skinz2winz]

I think the Bears would trade Mack and Allen Robinson for Kerrigan.

Okay, maybe not … I was just playing along.

I would have loved to have Mack when available. He has proven to be a generational player (some don't agree here) and would have wrecked havoc on NFCE offenses. Price was very high though. Seems the BEARS are now in contention once again as Mack has lifted that entire team.