Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams


If the Rams really don’t feel that he is worth what QBs are getting for 2nd contracts, they can franchise him for a year or two like Cousins was.

But it’s unlikely that he signs a 2nd contract for less than what the market for 2nd contracts is.

Yes it is true that IF they don't think he is their continuing starter they can franchise him.

But to turn that around, IF they franchise him it's because they don't think he's their continuing starter.

Since the start of the new CBA, only one qb was franchised, and that of course is Cousins--and it was seen universally as happening because of Washington's inability to commit to him.

Actually come to think of it, in the entire history of the franchise tag, has any other qb been tagged that way?

I don't think it's anyone.

As a rule if you don't want to start over at qb, you pay your starter. If on the other hand you can't pay him his market value, you move on.

....

The general rule has been what you state here but IMO that needs to change as it's not so smart. It's a case by case basis.

There are several QBs where teams probably should have went the franchise tag route for a couple of years to see what they had. Matt Stafford, Derrick Carr, Alex Smith, and Joe Flacco are all examples of QBs getting huge checks that are not good enough to lead a team to a championship IMO.

Those teams have an average QB AND a crippling contract.

Jax was smart to cut bait with Bortles. Some advocated giving him a big QB 2nd contract money but don't do it if the guy isn't worthy. And if it's borderline, go the franchise tag route for a year or two.

With the way QB contracts are rising in recent years, I see more teams either cutting bait like Jax with Bortles or tagging the borderline players for a couple of years.

Well, a couple of things. First, Bortles was an easy decision. So I don't think his example stands for much.

Second, I don't agree that qb contracts are crippling. The research has already shown that teams with top qb contracts appear in the playoffs regularly. That means those teams know how to build a team around the presumed cap issues. I think the problem is teams that DON'T know how to do that. For example the people who rejoiced at Wilson's contract? IMO they're leaping to conclusions.

I am just not one of those who counts signing your qb as a problem. I think the cap works even with those contracts and I think the Rams will prove it as time goes along.

Or let's put it this way.

If it's a disadvantage to pay your veteran qb market value...

it's ALSO a disadvantage to have a young qb whose lack of experience good playoff defenses can exploit...

and it's ALSO a disadvantage to cheap out at qb and buy one like Keenum who costs less that market value for starting caliber veteran qbs.

AND at the same time, if you have the coaches and good management, you can make any one of those scenarios work, too.

....