Pats QB Options

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
Given how they've attacked this offseason, and their current roster situation, it makes ALL the sense in the world for the Pats to go for it at QB this year in the draft. It's a huge need moving forward, they have a full roster of highly competent NFL players, they've gotten younger, and they have tons of draft resources available to make the move.

Doesn't mean it will happen, but if there's any year to go for it, this is it.
They haven't really gotten younger. They signed FA on the young side, but other than Judon swapping in for John Simon and Jalen Mills replacing Jason McCourty, the FAs are replacing younger or same-aged players. Like Kendrick Bourne is young, but he's likely to take N'Keal Harry's snaps, so they'll actually get older at WR. And of course all the holdover players got a year older. It's tough to get young through FA; you gotta get young through the draft.

They don't really have tons of draft resources, either; they have a good amount of day three assets but an average amount for day one / two.

Where I do agree with you is this draft looks to be unusually deep at QB.

I see what you are saying about the sunk cost, but the lingering question I have would be why would the Falcons want to select a QB at 4, who will be the 4th QB taken in the draft, who may never be as good as Matt Ryan, AND absorb a $40M cap hit next year? He will be a quality player for at least 3-4 more seasons. I'd much rather ride that train than potentially be back drafting another QB in 3 years like the Jets.
Eating $40 MM sucks, but so does paying Ryan almost $50 MM, and so does kicking the can down the road. Their options all stink. I don't think the Falcons are going anywhere, and they haven't been good in a while. Any time you are bad enough to pick top five, you oughta at least consider taking a QB.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
They haven't really gotten younger. They signed FA on the young side, but other than Judon swapping in for John Simon and Jalen Mills replacing Jason McCourty, the FAs are replacing younger or same-aged players. Like Kendrick Bourne is young, but he's likely to take N'Keal Harry's snaps, so they'll actually get older at WR. And of course all the holdover players got a year older. It's tough to get young through FA; you gotta get young through the draft.

They don't really have tons of draft resources, either; they have a good amount of day three assets but an average amount for day one / two.

Where I do agree with you is this draft looks to be unusually deep at QB.


Eating $40 MM sucks, but so does paying Ryan almost $50 MM, and so does kicking the can down the road. Their options all stink. I don't think the Falcons are going anywhere, and they haven't been good in a while. Any time you are bad enough to pick top five, you oughta at least consider taking a QB.
Their Pythag was that of a 7-9 team. I don't think they were as bad as their record (hello, Dan Quinn). Adding a couple good pieces in this draft, getting a little luckier next year, and 10-7 doesn't seem like some kind of crazy outcome (I haven't looked at their schedule). The point is that things turn around so quickly in the NFL that they can still build a contender while Ryan is still a good QB.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
3,170
Does Arthur Smith get a head coaching gig by saying "former NFL MVP Matt Ryan and All-Pro WR Julio Jones are overpaid, too old and we can't win with them, we need to blow it up."?

Or is it more likely that the Falcons made their head coaching decision betting on a talented offensive HC getting more out of their top end talent?
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,380
Washington
True, the Falcons had (good) bad luck to draft this high this year and probably won't have so high of a pick for the next year or two.

Seems unlikely that they'll go QB now unless they are really enamored of a particular guy. Could Lance be that guy if SF really does take Mac Jones?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
Their Pythag was that of a 7-9 team. I don't think they were as bad as their record (hello, Dan Quinn). Adding a couple good pieces in this draft, getting a little luckier next year, and 10-7 doesn't seem like some kind of crazy outcome (I haven't looked at their schedule). The point is that things turn around so quickly in the NFL that they can still build a contender while Ryan is still a good QB.
Yeah, their Pythag was 7-9, which is what they finished both the two years before. They haven't done anything in FA because of their cap issues, so the team on paper is worse. Ryan turns 36 next month, Julio is 32 ... I think the ship has sailed on chasing a championship, and Ryan's contract only gets worse and more difficult to build a team around.

Also, if you think this team is better than 4-12, that might be all the more reason to take a QB now, because you might not get such an opportunity again. It's not perfect timing, but to me it makes sense to get the QB when you can.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Yeah, their Pythag was 7-9, which is what they finished both the two years before. They haven't done anything in FA because of their cap issues, so the team on paper is worse. Ryan turns 36 next month, Julio is 32 ... I think the ship has sailed on chasing a championship, and Ryan's contract only gets worse and more difficult to build a team around.

Also, if you think this team is better than 4-12, that might be all the more reason to take a QB now, because you might not get such an opportunity again. It's not perfect timing, but to me it makes sense to get the QB when you can.
Under your scenario, when do they part with Ryan?

Also, getting a QB sounds great, but he is going to be the 4th QB taken. Doesn't mean he won't be good (obviously we want the Pats to trade up and draft a QB, but we don't have Matt Ryan right now), but given Ryan's contract situation AND THE FACT THAT he is still good, I think their best option is to trade down and pick up a few good pieces both this year and in 2022/2023, and if they can't trade down, then I think their second best option is still to select a player like Pitts who can be a cornerstone type of player for them for the next 6-8 years. If they end up sucking for the next two years, then in two years they get out of Ryan a lot cheaper, will still have a great selection in the draft, AND will likely have additional draft capital to use on a QB if they want to move up.

In other words, I don't think there is much opportunity cost to passing up on a QB this year - they might be in even better position to draft a QB in 2022 or 2023 (and get their choice of QB instead of QB4). Whereas with the Pats (for example), I don't think there will ever be a better time for them to find their QB of the future.

Edit: if they draft a QB and keep Ryan for a couple years, they won't have a very big window where the QB is cheap but championship contender material where you can build around him like the Chiefs did with Mahomes and the Seahawks did with Wilson. That's one of the huge appeals of drafting a star QB - they are cheap for the first few years. You throw that away if you are also paying Ryan.
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,666
I really don't see BB making that kind of megamove up to 4th, just too much risk.
Sure, but we had never seen BB (or anyone) do what they did in FA.

And, while I like Cam more than most, do we really think they did that--set themselves up for next 3 or 4 seasons--to not only give the reins to a QB on 1 year deal, but then have to do this all again next year?
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,380
Washington
Edit: if they draft a QB and keep Ryan for a couple year, they won't have a very big window where the QB is cheap but championship contender material where you can build around him like the Chiefs did with Mahomes and the Seahawks did with Wilson. That's one of the huge appeals of drafting a star QB - they are cheap for the first few years. You throw that away if you are also paying Ryan.
I agree it is unlikely, but just as we talked about with the 49ers, it makes the most sense if Lance falls in their lap and they evaluate him very highly while also thinking that he will need a lot more developmental time than someone like Mac Jones.

Which of course is why I think the 49ers will grab Lance, but who knows? The smoke around Jones is very thick.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
I agree it is unlikely, but just as we talked about with the 49ers, it makes the most sense if Lance falls in their lap and they evaluate him very highly while also thinking that he will need a lot more developmental time than someone like Mac Jones.

Which of course is why I think the 49ers will grab Lance, but who knows? The smoke around Jones is very thick.
There is a major difference though - the Niners can cut ties with JG at any time and not have a dead cap hit. They can have a good, cheap, young QB next year and load up the rest of the roster. Atlanta can't do that.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,380
Washington
There is a major difference though - the Niners can cut ties with JG at any time and not have a dead cap hit. They can have a good, cheap, young QB next year and load up the rest of the roster. Atlanta can't do that.
Right. It is not ideal but if they evaluate Lance that highly and think he could be the future, well, maybe they Aaron Rodgers him through next year while Ryan is still playing well. It is unlikely, but plausible.

If you believe in the guy, get the guy. Even if you're burning an extra year of that rookie deal, get the guy. For a new coach like Smith, maybe solving the QB transition question early has some extra benefit too. Maybe he won't have to worry about Cam Newtoning his way through two years or more of lousy QB play before he finds the right QB.

Edit: The point is, transitioning from a good, old QB is challenging. If it is hard for the GOAT, BB, well, damn, take the shot when you get it.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,949
And, while I like Cam more than most, do we really think they did that--set themselves up for next 3 or 4 seasons--to not only give the reins to a QB on 1 year deal, but then have to do this all again next year?
I think Jimmy G is still Plan A. Patriots might have miscalculated what it's going to cost.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
Under your scenario, when do they part with Ryan?
Probably after the 2021 season. Maybe after 2022.

Also, getting a QB sounds great, but he is going to be the 4th QB taken.
Yes, and to be clear, I'm not arguing they should take a QB just to take him. They should do their due diligence on these guys, and decide if any of them has the traits they like, is a scheme fit, etc. (and FWIW, they appear to be doing so - they went to Wilson's pro day, and Fields', and Lance's). If they love Lance but SF takes him at 3, they shouldn't take Fields just because they want a QB (unless they also love Fields).

The fourth pick doesn't always mean the fourth QB taken; usually there isn't a crop of QBs strong enough to go 1-2-3-4.

In other words, I don't think there is much opportunity cost to passing up on a QB this year - they might be in even better position to draft a QB in 2022 or 2023 (and get their choice of QB instead of QB4).
They might be, but it's not likely. How often does a team pick high enough to have their choice of QB? Half the time a QB goes #1, so you gotta be the worst team in football. This is probably the highest they'll pick in the near future, and it's an unusually strong QB draft.

Whereas with the Pats (for example), I don't think there will ever be a better time for them to find their QB of the future.

Edit: if they draft a QB and keep Ryan for a couple years, they won't have a very big window where the QB is cheap but championship contender material where you can build around him like the Chiefs did with Mahomes and the Seahawks did with Wilson. That's one of the huge appeals of drafting a star QB - they are cheap for the first few years. You throw that away if you are also paying Ryan.
I agree the timing is good for the Patriots, but the opportunity is bad - they're picking 15th and will have to pay a king's ransom to move up, and they don't have a surplus of extra day one or day two picks or anything.

The Falcons are the opposite - the timing isn't ideal (although I don't think it's terrible, considering Ryan is pretty old), but their opportunity is excellent: they're picking fourth in a draft with four strong QB prospects. You can't count on the right timing and the right opportunity coming along at the same time. If it happens, great, but sometimes you just have to make your move when you can. To me, the Falcons have a great opportunity, so while the timing could be better, it makes sense for them to take advantage.

Sure, but we had never seen BB (or anyone) do what they did in FA.

And, while I like Cam more than most, do we really think they did that--set themselves up for next 3 or 4 seasons--to not only give the reins to a QB on 1 year deal, but then have to do this all again next year?
Do what all again?

There is a major difference though - the Niners can cut ties with JG at any time and not have a dead cap hit. They can have a good, cheap, young QB next year and load up the rest of the roster. Atlanta can't do that.
A lot of that is psychological though. The Niners and Falcons both paid money to their QB already; the 49ers just realized it against the 2018 cap while the Falcons kept deferring it into the future. It's a sunk cost either way.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Right. It is not ideal but if they evaluate Lance that highly and think he could be the future, well, maybe they Aaron Rodgers him through next year while Ryan is still playing well. It is unlikely, but plausible.

If you believe in the guy, get the guy. Even if you're burning an extra year of that rookie deal, get the guy. For a new coach like Smith, maybe solving the QB transition question early has some extra benefit too. Maybe he won't have to worry about Cam Newtoning his way through two years or more of lousy QB play before he finds the right QB.

Edit: The point is, transitioning from a good, old QB is challenging. If it is hard for the GOAT, BB, well, damn, take the shot when you get it.
I completely understand the logic, but what are the chances the QB is better than Ryan even come 2023? And cutting Ryan in 2023 will still cost you dead cap $$. They can't get out of Ryan without penalty until 2024. It's not a great situation to be in. It is kind of lose-lose from that perspective. Personally I'd ride Ryan for a few years and see how it plays out.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
I completely understand the logic, but what are the chances the QB is better than Ryan even come 2023?
Probably not great. But can you build a better team around a rookie QB on a rookie contract than Matt Ryan making $43.6 MM (which is what his 2023 cap hit will be if they don't touch his contract again)? That I can believe.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,380
Washington
I completely understand the logic, but what are the chances the QB is better than Ryan even come 2023? And cutting Ryan in 2023 will still cost you dead cap $$. They can't get out of Ryan without penalty until 2024. It's not a great situation to be in. It is kind of lose-lose from that perspective. Personally I'd ride Ryan for a few years and see how it plays out.
No it isn't a great situation at all. With all the uncertainly, maybe having a couple extra bites at the QB apple makes sense. At least this is one QB they won't have to use extra draft capital to trade up for. If they do go QB and it doesn't work out, they'll still have the same problem and may have to pay extra draft capital for the privilege of rolling the dice again.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Probably after the 2021 season. Maybe after 2022.


Yes, and to be clear, I'm not arguing they should take a QB just to take him. They should do their due diligence on these guys, and decide if any of them has the traits they like, is a scheme fit, etc. (and FWIW, they appear to be doing so - they went to Wilson's pro day, and Fields', and Lance's). If they love Lance but SF takes him at 3, they shouldn't take Fields just because they want a QB (unless they also love Fields).

The fourth pick doesn't always mean the fourth QB taken; usually there isn't a crop of QBs strong enough to go 1-2-3-4.


They might be, but it's not likely. How often does a team pick high enough to have their choice of QB? Half the time a QB goes #1, so you gotta be the worst team in football. This is probably the highest they'll pick in the near future, and it's an unusually strong QB draft.


I agree the timing is good for the Patriots, but the opportunity is bad - they're picking 15th and will have to pay a king's ransom to move up, and they don't have a surplus of extra day one or day two picks or anything.

The Falcons are the opposite - the timing isn't ideal (although I don't think it's terrible, considering Ryan is pretty old), but their opportunity is excellent: they're picking fourth in a draft with four strong QB prospects. You can't count on the right timing and the right opportunity coming along at the same time. If it happens, great, but sometimes you just have to make your move when you can. To me, the Falcons have a great opportunity, so while the timing could be better, it makes sense for them to take advantage.


Do what all again?


A lot of that is psychological though. The Niners and Falcons both paid money to their QB already; the 49ers just realized it against the 2018 cap while the Falcons kept deferring it into the future. It's a sunk cost either way.
You say how often does a team pick high enough to have their choice of QB, but the point is they don't have their choice of QB - 3 guys are going to be taken before the 4th pick. If the Falcons are bad again in 2021 and/or 2022, they will again get a very good pick, AND they will have additional draft capital through trading down, such that they could potentially be in position to trade up and get a QB of their choice. I think at worse punting on a QB in 2021 delays their rebuild by a year or two, but it doesn't prevent them from rebuilding, and trading down would add assets.

I agree the opportunity for the Pats isn't good to move up to 4, but I think they have a great opportunity to trade to 7-8 or 10-11 if one of the QBs they love is still on the board. That would not be a huge price to pay.

Finally. I completely disagree that it is psychological. There are real salary cap implications here. The Niners are going to be in GREAT shaped in 2022-2023 with a rookie QB. The Falcons need a few more years before they are out of cap jail. That's not psychological.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
12,926
New York City
They haven't really gotten younger. They signed FA on the young side, but other than Judon swapping in for John Simon and Jalen Mills replacing Jason McCourty, the FAs are replacing younger or same-aged players. Like Kendrick Bourne is young, but he's likely to take N'Keal Harry's snaps, so they'll actually get older at WR. And of course all the holdover players got a year older. It's tough to get young through FA; you gotta get young through the draft.

They don't really have tons of draft resources, either; they have a good amount of day three assets but an average amount for day one / two.

Where I do agree with you is this draft looks to be unusually deep at QB.
I take your point and kind of agree with it--they generally got younger free agents and many are 24-26 but of course they're not 21 or 22. But to nitpick Judon (who isn't young) is 2 year younger than Simon and Mills is about 6 years younger than McCourty. Plus you're losing Cannon, Chung, maybe Jules
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Probably not great. But can you build a better team around a rookie QB on a rookie contract than Matt Ryan making $43.6 MM (which is what his 2023 cap hit will be if they don't touch his contract again)? That I can believe.
But you only get half? of the benefit of that rookie QBs contract given Ryan's contract
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,232
SI relaying that the Falcons are at least answering the phone on offers for #4. It makes sense given what we've already seen. Someone could get very desperate and make a Ricky Williams offer if Fields and Lance are sitting there.

If it weren't the Bengals, I'd say we'd see QBs go #1-5.

Edit: Schefter is the orignal source.

 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,343
I don't totally get the "Matt Ryan is a sunk cost" arguments... yes you owe him money either way, but the point is... he's still good. So if you're already paying the money for a good QB, is it the best use of resources to use a top 4 pick on a QB who probably won't be better for several years (if ever). You're paying a ton of money for the QB position (being cheap is a big part of what helps you win with good rookie deal QBs) and the rest of your roster is what it is. Where if you use 4 on an elite prospect elsewhere, or trade down and get multiple top prospects out of it, you get good QB play at a lower cost, and you have a bunch of rookie deal top performers hopefully.

Probably not great. But can you build a better team around a rookie QB on a rookie contract than Matt Ryan making $43.6 MM (which is what his 2023 cap hit will be if they don't touch his contract again)? That I can believe.
But the thing is... you're really only saving what... 22M in 2023? Not nothing, but you're losing all the production you could get elsewhere over those years, and you're still paying that rookie (including the hit from moving Ryan) essentially 20M, then you're only a year or so out of having to give him a new deal. You basically turned the normal 5 year "cheap QB roster building" advantage window into a 2 year window.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
No it isn't a great situation at all. With all the uncertainly, maybe having a couple extra bites at the QB apple makes sense. At least this is one QB they won't have to use extra draft capital to trade up for. If they do go QB and it doesn't work out, they'll still have the same problem and may have to pay extra draft capital for the privilege of rolling the dice again.
Fair point about potentially having to trade up in the future
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
I don't totally get the "Matt Ryan is a sunk cost" arguments... yes you owe him money either way, but the point is... he's still good. So if you're already paying the money for a good QB, is it the best use of resources to use a top 4 pick on a QB who probably won't be better for several years (if ever). You're paying a ton of money for the QB position (being cheap is a big part of what helps you win with good rookie deal QBs) and the rest of your roster is what it is. Where if you use 4 on an elite prospect elsewhere, or trade down and get multiple top prospects out of it, you get good QB play at a lower cost, and you have a bunch of rookie deal top performers hopefully.


But the thing is... you're really only saving what... 22M in 2023? Not nothing, but you're losing all the production you could get elsewhere over those years, and you're still paying that rookie (including the hit from moving Ryan) essentially 20M, then you're only a year or so out of having to give him a new deal. You basically turned the normal 5 year "cheap QB roster building" advantage window into a 2 year window.
Exactly, if Ryan sucked then I'd totally agree with picking a QB. But he's still good and likely to still be good for 3-4 years.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
You say how often does a team pick high enough to have their choice of QB, but the point is they don't have their choice of QB - 3 guys are going to be taken before the 4th pick. If the Falcons are bad again in 2021 and/or 2022, they will again get a very good pick, AND they will have additional draft capital through trading down, such that they could potentially be in position to trade up and get a QB of their choice.
My point in asking the question was to point out that most teams are not starting the QB taken first in his respective draft class. That's not a realistic opportunity to hold out for. Maybe the Falcons go your route and wind up fourth again in a draft that only has one good QB, or two, which is most years. The issue isn't the choice, it's the opportunity. If they love Lance(/whoever), who cares that they didn't have a shot at Trevor Lawrence or Zach Wilson?

To be clear: I don't think it would be dumb for Atlanta to pass on the QBs. I do think it would be dumb not to consider it.

I think at worse punting on a QB in 2021 delays their rebuild by a year or two, but it doesn't prevent them from rebuilding, and trading down would add assets.
I am with you that trading down is the smart move if they don't love any of the QBs.

Finally. I completely disagree that it is psychological. There are real salary cap implications here. The Niners are going to be in GREAT shaped in 2022-2023 with a rookie QB. The Falcons need a few more years before they are out of cap jail. That's not psychological.
Yes. But that's not because of how SF structured Garoppolo's deal; it's because they barely spent any money during the period when they were really crappy. The Falcons played really aggressive with the cap for years and it's biting them in the ass now.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
I take your point and kind of agree with it--they generally got younger free agents and many are 24-26 but of course they're not 21 or 22. But to nitpick Judon (who isn't young) is 2 year younger than Simon and Mills is about 6 years younger than McCourty.
Yes, that's why I said "other than those." Those are two cases where they did get younger. I may have phrased it confusingly.

Plus you're losing Cannon, Chung, maybe Jules
Two of those guys didn't play last year, and Jules only played 6 games, so none of that moves the needle in terms of team age. You've also got Hightower coming back, which makes the LB group a lot older (and better).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Agree the Falcons should consider it, I am sure they have. I just can't see it happening.

And it doesn't really matter why SF and ATL are in the positions they are in, but the differences are real and likely prevent ATL from truly contending until at least 2023 whether or not they draft a QB.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
301
I think the Lions are more likely to take a QB at 7 than people are giving them credit for.

Yes, they're financially tied to Goff for 2 years, & their new GM is a Goff apologist, but if a guy they really like falls to them at 7, they would have to strongly consider just taking that guy.

Goff was just the price of doing business to get good compensation for Stafford.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
I think the Lions are more likely to take a QB at 7 than people are giving them credit for.

Yes, they're financially tied to Goff for 2 years, & their new GM is a Goff apologist, but if a guy they really like falls to them at 7, they would have to strongly consider just taking that guy.

Goff was just the price of doing business to get good compensation for Stafford.
It's not a hugely different situation from the Falcons. Question is whether they'd be better trading out and picking up additional assets, and if they love the QB(s) that fall.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,223
Mansfield MA
I don't totally get the "Matt Ryan is a sunk cost" arguments... yes you owe him money either way, but the point is... he's still good. So if you're already paying the money for a good QB, is it the best use of resources to use a top 4 pick on a QB who probably won't be better for several years (if ever). You're paying a ton of money for the QB position (being cheap is a big part of what helps you win with good rookie deal QBs) and the rest of your roster is what it is. Where if you use 4 on an elite prospect elsewhere, or trade down and get multiple top prospects out of it, you get good QB play at a lower cost, and you have a bunch of rookie deal top performers hopefully.


But the thing is... you're really only saving what... 22M in 2023? Not nothing, but you're losing all the production you could get elsewhere over those years, and you're still paying that rookie (including the hit from moving Ryan) essentially 20M, then you're only a year or so out of having to give him a new deal. You basically turned the normal 5 year "cheap QB roster building" advantage window into a 2 year window.
If you move on from Ryan next offseason, you eat $40 MM against the 2022 cap, but then you're free and clear for 2023. So you sit your rookie QB this year, you've got next year where you're still eating leftover cap issues, and then you've got three years of cost control rookie with no Ryan money.

Ryan is good enough to still help a team. Can he still help a team while taking up more than $40 MM on the cap? That's where it breaks down I think. I also think he has some trade value on what his cap hit would be for a receiving team (2 years, ~$51 MM).
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
301
It's not a hugely different situation from the Falcons. Question is whether they'd be better trading out and picking up additional assets, and if they love the QB(s) that fall.
The difference is one guy is Jared Goff & the other guy is an actual NFL QB. Plus much more opportunity cost not trading out of 4 than there is at 7.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,985
I may be irrationally high on Pitts, but I think he's the right move for the Falcons. Having him as a slot/TE makes Ryan even better and whoever is successor is to boot.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
2,207
Worcester
I may be irrationally high on Pitts, but I think he's the right move for the Falcons. Having him as a slot/TE makes Ryan even better and whoever is successor is to boot.
I think of the match up problems that Prime Gronk caused lining up wide. Now you have someone who can also just run past the defender ?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
The difference is one guy is Jared Goff & the other guy is an actual NFL QB. Plus much more opportunity cost not trading out of 4 than there is at 7.
The difference might not be as big as you think

Ryan career: 65.4%, 7.5 YPA, 94.5 rating, 6.74 ANY/A
Goff career: 63.4%, 7.5 Y/A, 91.5 rating, 6.62 ANY/A

Ryan career year: 69.9%, 9.3 YPA, 117.1 rating, 8.25 ANY/A
Goff career year: 64.9%, 8.4 YPA, 101.1 rating, 7.69 YPA
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,985
Sending 15 plus next year's first for the 5th QB taken in this draft. If they want to do that.

Cam is Plan C, maybe with a Round 2 or 3 QB.
If plan A is Jimmy Garappolo, that covers 6-8 games per year. It's a shitty plan A. You're better off with Newton. He might be below average, but he at least gives you a full season of play as opposed to hoping to get half a season of averagish QB play with the need of finding someone like Newton to start the other 8-10 games a year. But if you're doing that anyway you might as well save the money wasted on a part time QB and go with plan C.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,690
CT
I think of the match up problems that Prime Gronk caused lining up wide. Now you have someone who can also just run past the defender ?
Look at the numbers. This guy is literally Calvin Johnson levels of big and fast and has the biggest wingspan of a condor.

You think you’re irrationally high on Pitts? I think he’s the second best player in the draft and might end up having a better career than Lawrence.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,356
I think of the match up problems that Prime Gronk caused lining up wide. Now you have someone who can also just run past the defender ?
And Prime Gronk wasn't playing with Julio Jones and Calvin Ridley. Adding Pitts to that mix would be incredible to watch. There'd be no excuses for Matty Ice, at least on offense.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,417
FWIW, Mike Tannenbaum was on Boston radio today and said he expects Bridgewater to go to Denver as there are old links between him and the Denver GM,
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
301
The difference might not be as big as you think

Ryan career: 65.4%, 7.5 YPA, 94.5 rating, 6.74 ANY/A
Goff career: 63.4%, 7.5 Y/A, 91.5 rating, 6.62 ANY/A

Ryan career year: 69.9%, 9.3 YPA, 117.1 rating, 8.25 ANY/A
Goff career year: 64.9%, 8.4 YPA, 101.1 rating, 7.69 YPA
McVay the QB whisperer decided to give up 2 1sts & a 3rd to move off Goff & to Stafford who has worse #s than both of them except in ANY/A (62.6%, 7.2 YPA, 89.9 rating, 7.1 ANY/A), when Stafford is 7 years older & has never won a playoff game in his career.

Ryan & Stafford both started their career in somewhat worse passing eras, also.

I'm not optimistic that Goff will be particularly solid in his new home under the tutelage of Mr. Bite Your Knees.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,484
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Does this stat check out?

The next time Belichick drafts a QB in the first round will his first time he has ever done so as a head coach, and the first by any team he has been been on the coaching staff of since Phil Simms in 1979. That's 42 years of Belichick and/or his teams not drafting a QB in round 1.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,508
It probably does, but to be fair, the teams that he's worked for the last 42 years have largely been all set at QB.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,484
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
It probably does, but to be fair, the teams that he's worked for the last 42 years have largely been all set at QB.
I looked back at his draft picks...his Browns picks were almost as off the beaten path as the Pats era ones. Safeties in the top 5....fullbacks in round 1. Not saying they are bad picks, just really atypical.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,508
I looked back at his draft picks...his Browns picks were almost as off the beaten path as the Pats era ones. Safeties in the top 5....fullbacks in round 1. Not saying they are bad picks, just really atypical.
That's right! Touchdown Tommy Vardell. That's a blast from the past.

EDIT: I see he was #9 overall. LOL.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
McVay the QB whisperer decided to give up 2 1sts & a 3rd to move off Goff & to Stafford who has worse #s than both of them except in ANY/A (62.6%, 7.2 YPA, 89.9 rating, 7.1 ANY/A), when Stafford is 7 years older & has never won a playoff game in his career.

Ryan & Stafford both started their career in somewhat worse passing eras, also.

I'm not optimistic that Goff will be particularly solid in his new home under the tutelage of Mr. Bite Your Knees.
Shanahan also QB whisperer led to the best seasons of Ryan’s career. I’m mostly just joking here but still.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
5,153
Canton, MA
It probably does, but to be fair, the teams that he's worked for the last 42 years have largely been all set at QB.
That bit of information (not picking 1st round QBs) would be a lot more useful if we knew how many of those 42 years the best QB on the team was bottom-5 in the NFL at their position.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,126
Richmond, VA
"They beat us in a football game a few years ago so we shouldn't do things that benefit our franchise" is a pretty wild take.
Yeah that stuff is so stupid. Like, could you imagine the leaders of an organization like the NFL ever doing anything out of spite even if it seems to potentially detract from the overall quality of the product? I'm sure Polian and Goodell would find that truly inconceivable!

Or, maybe they are not as mature and rational as we think they are...?
It's the next step from the "Team in our division will make deals just to screw us, at the expense of their own best interest" path that comes up constantly.

People need to realize.... there are no emotions in deals, GMs are pros trying to keep their jobs not fans. Anybody dumb enough to make decisions based on anything other than the best possible outcome for their long term success won't last in the league long.
"Screwing your direct competitor" is not always at the expense of your own best interest. If you can get a "pretty good deal" from a non-competitor, or a better deal from a direct competitor but that makes their team better, there is logic in "screwing the other team". Not always, but sometimes.

And there are definitely emotions, with GM's and owners. Maybe not as much as we sometimes think, but emotions are always 9or at least often) at play.

Isn't there talk that BB took a little less when he traded away JG, because he wanted JG to end up somewhere with potential? What drives the difference between "dumb emotional decision" and "intangible decision that isn't all about the short term zero-sum balance"?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
301
Yeah that stuff is so stupid. Like, could you imagine the leaders of an organization like the NFL ever doing anything out of spite even if it seems to potentially detract from the overall quality of the product? I'm sure Polian and Goodell would find that truly inconceivable!

Or, maybe they are not as mature and rational as we think they are...?

"Screwing your direct competitor" is not always at the expense of your own best interest. If you can get a "pretty good deal" from a non-competitor, or a better deal from a direct competitor but that makes their team better, there is logic in "screwing the other team". Not always, but sometimes.

And there are definitely emotions, with GM's and owners. Maybe not as much as we sometimes think, but emotions are always 9or at least often) at play.

Isn't there talk that BB took a little less when he traded away JG, because he wanted JG to end up somewhere with potential? What drives the difference between "dumb emotional decision" and "intangible decision that isn't all about the short term zero-sum balance"?
I mean, the Falcons literally made a trade with the Patriots on 10/22/19 (Sanu). They play in the opposite conference, play each other a bit more than every 4 years, & don't have any history of bad blood between the organizations that I'm aware of. If the Patriots make the best offer of picks, I couldn't imagine the Falcons saying naw, we'll go with this lesser offer. It's cool.

The Broncos beat the Falcons in SB XXXIII. Should they be off the table? There was a big brouhaha about the Elway/Elder Shanny coup of Dan Reeves & clearly the Broncos tricked Eugene Robinson into offering an undercover cop $40 for oral sex (I hope this last bit made it obvious that I'm messing around to exaggerate a point).

I do understand a bit why certain rivals make less trades - either due to mutual distrust or personality conflicts or one side's refusal to engage or what have you. The Yankees/Red Sox & Jets/Patriots are examples of franchises that rarely make deals with each other. I think as sports becomes more modernized and front offices get smarter as a whole over time, this decreases though (see e.g. the Ottavino trade).

The not trading within your division concept makes more sense to me than the "not trading with a team you blew a SB against concept" though. Although apparently Arthur Blank was angry at Kraft over putting 283 diamonds in the SB rings :eek: