2017 Transaction Thread

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

That was never happening.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Stafford's just holding that title for Rodgers, which changes every 10 mins anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

I wonder which team will be the 1st to draw a line in the sand and say, "we're not paying top dollar for pleasantly mediocre QB play. Here's a fair deal for your level of play and if that's not enough, we'll just have to find another option."


The bubble has to burst soon.


Paying top dollar for top QB play is one thing. Paying top dollar for Matthew Stafford is committing to a competitive disadvantage and a lifetime of 8-8.


EDIT: Original post wasn't that clear. This isn't an indictment of Matthew Stafford. It's an indictment on the team building strategy of hitching your wagon to the first half way decent QB you can find then handing him blank checks until the end of time.

[ProfessaPackMan]

2017 Transaction Thread

That'll never happen because teams would rather tread water and go 8-8 every year(which in today's NFL is good enough to keep you in the playoff hunt and in some cases, get you in the playoffs, which is why I don't agree with the "committing to a competitive disadvantage" part)with a QB like that than to keep recycling thru journeyman QBs/rookie QBs every 4-5 years.

The NFL is the only major sport where you really don't need a "long term plan "to be good(I.E. the Sixers in the NBA or the Yankees in MLB)and as long as that's the case, teams will have no problem giving contract after contract after contract to guys like Stafford/Luck. And for some teams, that's good enough.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Pretty much. And we've seen it shown that finding a good-great QB ain't easy.

[Bmore Irish]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Seems like the Bills are taking a page out of the Browns book on tanking. Jets too.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

NFL salary is a zero sum game. Every dollar spent on Stafford is a dollar you can't spend on the rest of your roster.


When the Lions play the Falcons, they're both paying similar prices for QBs (or at least were) but the Falcons were getting superior play for the same price.


When the Lions play the Titans, they're getting similar play but the Titans are paying 1/4 of the price.


Matthew Stafford isn't the disadvantage, his salary is. Paying him 15-20% more than he's worth means you can't keep the 4th year nickel corner that knew the playbook inside and out and had good chemistry with your safeties. It means you can't sign the mid tier free agents that boost your depth (Michael Bennett circa 2013, Dontari Poe, Logan Ryan) etc. It narrows your margin for error.


Plus, what's truly Matthew Stafford's market? If he played out this year and hit the market, would he really get the biggest contract in NFL history? If you're the Jets or Browns, are you really committing 30m of your cap to him vs. drafting a guy that's likely to end up just as good as him with actual upside? Is Stafford at 30 really a better option than, say, Tannehill at 15 or Alex Smith at 20?

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Pretty much. And we've seen it shown that finding a good-great QB ain't easy.

Meh. I don't think Stafford is good or great (he's solid) and it's not like your options are him or Christian Hackenburg. There's room in the middle.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Spoiler

Every dollar spent on Stafford is a dollar you can't spend on the rest of your roster.

If this was the NBA we're talking about, I could definitely buy this argument.

But with how savvy(read: slick)these GMs have gotten with these big contracts, especially in regards to paying out a boat load of money up front and still able to get out of said contract earlier than expected(2-3 years), this isn't really the case anymore.

Matthew Stafford isn't the disadvantage, his salary is. Paying him 15-20% more than he's worth means you can't keep the 4th year nickel corner that knew the playbook inside and out and had good chemistry with your safeties. It means you can't sign the mid tier free agents that boost your depth (Michael Bennett circa 2013, Dontari Poe, Logan Ryan) etc. It narrows your margin for error.

Ehhh I don't agree but don't necessarily disagree with this.

If he played out this year and hit the market, would he really get the biggest contract in NFL history? If you're the Jets or Browns, are you really committing 30m of your cap to him vs. drafting a guy that's likely to end up just as good as him with actual upside? Is Stafford at 30 really a better option than, say, Tannehill at 15 or Alex Smith at 20?

Come on now, you know the answer to this lol.

You've seen time and time again where guys would stink or perform below expectations relative to their draft selection for their first 3-4 years and then look like an All Pro in that contract year. Next thing you know, they get one of the biggest contracts in history at their position(I'll limit this to QBs, CBs, D-Linemen and WRs). And if/when Kirk Cousins hits the open market next offseason, he'll be getting close to what Stafford got.

As to your question of whether Stafford at 30 is better than Tannehill at 15 oe Smith at 20: Tannehill, yes unless someone anything to show that he can be like Stafford outside of "He's still young so he still has time" argument, which doesn't hold as much weight as it used to, based on what we've seen from other young 1st rd pick QBs.

Smith is an interesting one. Personally, I wouldn't have no problem paying that extra $10 Mil for Stafford but that also depends on what type of Offense I'm running as well. Smith is good for what the Chiefs are running but if I were running them, then yeah I'd go with Stafford.

Meh. I don't think Stafford is good or great (he's solid) and it's not like your options are him or Christian Hackenburg. There's room in the middle.

You've got your Tom Savage's, Josh McCown's, Matt Moore's, Colin Kaepernick's, Brian Hoyer's and Sam Bradford's. Guys that usually roaming around "in the middle".

And then you have Matthew Stafford.

Excuse me while I go seriously contemplate signing one of those 6 guys or signing the guy who has as many TDs, Completions, Yards and Completion % than most, if not all of those guys combined.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

what are the options? Let's not forget the QBs they went through before getting to Stafford.

Shaun Hill
Drew Stanton
Dan Orvlovsky
Jon Kitna
Joey Harrington

What you're saying makes sense if all things were equal.

No one is gonna trade you a Rodgers or Brady and its not like they become FAs. So you then get rid of him to hope a draft pick pans out? Not only pans out, but doesn't get hurt before his third year when the light looks like its really coming on for him?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Per PFT, the Browns are trying to trade CB Joe Haden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KG]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Per PFT, the Browns are trying to trade CB Joe Haden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't like talking bad about someone from around the way but he's looked pretty bad since the suspension/injury following his 2 pro-bowl years. CB is one position where you can literally just fall off a cliff.

[coogrfan]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Pretty much. And we've seen it shown that finding a good-great QB ain't easy.

Truth. If you have a guy who is in the upper 1/3 of QBs, you pretty much have to pay him.

[LambertandHam]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

Steelers trade a fourth to San Fran for a 5th and Vance Mcdonald. They needed help at TE, but aside from knowing the name, know almost nothing about Vance. They should have drafted a TE instead.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Re: 2017 Transaction Thread

what are the options? Let's not forget the QBs they went through before getting to Stafford.

Shaun Hill
Drew Stanton
Dan Orvlovsky
Jon Kitna
Joey Harrington

What you're saying makes sense if all things were equal.

No one is gonna trade you a Rodgers or Brady and its not like they become FAs. So you then get rid of him to hope a draft pick pans out? Not only pans out, but doesn't get hurt before his third year when the light looks like its really coming on for him?

Ok, so where's the line when the range of outcomes (and it is a range, despite everyone always listing the worst QBs possible) behind door number B is a better alternative than the known mediocrity behind door number A? What QB is the first one a team says "nah, we can't do this." to?