If the Niners had a "franchise" QB, would the overall roster be............

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
This is the crux of all the hand wringing, debate and overall dysfunction of the Niners offseason. The Niners as they are constructed right now are one of the top five rosters overall in the NFL without a "franchise" QB. They have the NFL's top defense, a bunch of offensive weapons and decent special teams. If the Niners had or went out to get that "franchise" QB, would they be better, worse or the same? They haven't signed a big time free agent or drafted their guy (unless Lance works out) so far. I'm of the opinion that this team would be worse overall if they had $ 40 million plus tied up in a "franchise" QB. What do you think?

It depends on how elite the QB is. Are we talking Pat Mahomes/Josh Allen or Dak Prescott/Daniel Jones?

Overall talent is always going to be lessened when you pay big money to a QB. Need the QB to mitigate the talent losses with their play.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
This is the crux of all the hand wringing, debate and overall dysfunction of the Niners offseason. The Niners as they are constructed right now are one of the top five rosters overall in the NFL without a "franchise" QB. They have the NFL's top defense, a bunch of offensive weapons and decent special teams. If the Niners had or went out to get that "franchise" QB, would they be better, worse or the same? They haven't signed a big time free agent or drafted their guy (unless Lance works out) so far. I'm of the opinion that this team would be worse overall if they had $ 40 million plus tied up in a "franchise" QB. What do you think?

It depends on how elite the QB is. Are we talking Pat Mahomes/Josh Allen or Dak Prescott/Daniel Jones?

Overall talent is always going to be lessened when you pay big money to a QB. Need the QB to mitigate the talent losses with their play.

I notice you are big on mitigation

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
This is the crux of all the hand wringing, debate and overall dysfunction of the Niners offseason. The Niners as they are constructed right now are one of the top five rosters overall in the NFL without a "franchise" QB. They have the NFL's top defense, a bunch of offensive weapons and decent special teams. If the Niners had or went out to get that "franchise" QB, would they be better, worse or the same? They haven't signed a big time free agent or drafted their guy (unless Lance works out) so far. I'm of the opinion that this team would be worse overall if they had $ 40 million plus tied up in a "franchise" QB. What do you think?

It depends on how elite the QB is. Are we talking Pat Mahomes/Josh Allen or Dak Prescott/Daniel Jones?

Overall talent is always going to be lessened when you pay big money to a QB. Need the QB to mitigate the talent losses with their play.

Mahomes is the only one so far who has done that.

This is a question I was asking also, cuz ppl were saying you want the QB on the rook deal, to team build. However, what is the end game?

there has to be some end game, you can't just be drafting and recycling rook QB contracts, eventually you will run into some total dud QBs.

I think the idea you want a QB on a rook contract, is overrated. It's easy to get a QB on a rook deal. KC could choose to do this tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they felt it was in their best interest, they could liquidate old Mahomes there, and roll with the rook QB contract, to address other areas of need. I'm guessing ppl would find that laughably stupid. That is telling me that you want the elite FQB on the big deal he deserves.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
This is a question I was asking also, cuz ppl were saying you want the QB on the rook deal, to team build. However, what is the end game?

there has to be some end game, you can't just be drafting and recycling rook QB contracts, eventually you will run into some total dud QBs.

I think the idea you want a QB on a rook contract, is overrated. It's easy to get a QB on a rook deal. KC could choose to do this tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they felt it was in their best interest, they could liquidate old Mahomes there, and roll with the rook QB contract, to address other areas of need. I'm guessing ppl would find that laughably stupid. That is telling me that you want the elite FQB on the big deal he deserves.

It would be in the Cowboys best interest to not pay Dak what they are. Same with the Giants.

Its not in the Bengals or Chargers best interest not to pay their guys.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
This is a question I was asking also, cuz ppl were saying you want the QB on the rook deal, to team build. However, what is the end game?

there has to be some end game, you can't just be drafting and recycling rook QB contracts, eventually you will run into some total dud QBs.

I think the idea you want a QB on a rook contract, is overrated. It's easy to get a QB on a rook deal. KC could choose to do this tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they felt it was in their best interest, they could liquidate old Mahomes there, and roll with the rook QB contract, to address other areas of need. I'm guessing ppl would find that laughably stupid. That is telling me that you want the elite FQB on the big deal he deserves.

It would be in the Cowboys best interest to not pay Dak what they are. Same with the Giants.

Its not in the Bengals or Chargers best interest not to pay their guys.

I guess DAL and NYG would disagree. I don't think a lot of these big QB contacts are that much of a problem, i broke down the Jones deal in another thread, its basically a rip cord after 2 seasons, and 1 of those is like a $21m cap hit, which is near half the above mentioned $40m by OP..

Much of our dark ages, were not having a QB1, having to name JTO opening day starter, Shaun Hill opening day guy 2x I believe, Gabbert an opening day starter, Hoyer, etc. Those were the dark ages, not the JG era, which has been really good. So not having a QB is worse than having one, even if you have to deal with the contract.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
This is a question I was asking also, cuz ppl were saying you want the QB on the rook deal, to team build. However, what is the end game?

there has to be some end game, you can't just be drafting and recycling rook QB contracts, eventually you will run into some total dud QBs.

I think the idea you want a QB on a rook contract, is overrated. It's easy to get a QB on a rook deal. KC could choose to do this tomorrow, if they wanted to. If they felt it was in their best interest, they could liquidate old Mahomes there, and roll with the rook QB contract, to address other areas of need. I'm guessing ppl would find that laughably stupid. That is telling me that you want the elite FQB on the big deal he deserves.

It would be in the Cowboys best interest to not pay Dak what they are. Same with the Giants.

Its not in the Bengals or Chargers best interest not to pay their guys.

Agreed with all of this except the Chargers. Herbert does not look like a QB who's going to carry his team the way Mahomes does. Burrow might be able to. It's Mahomes and everyone else at this point.

It would be better.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I guess DAL and NYG would disagree. I don't think a lot of these big QB contacts are that much of a problem, i broke down the Jones deal in another thread, its basically a rip cord after 2 seasons, and 1 of those is like a $21m cap hit, which is near half the above mentioned $40m by OP..

Much of our dark ages, were not having a QB1, having to name JTO opening day starter, Shaun Hill opening day guy 2x I believe, Gabbert an opening day starter, Hoyer, etc. Those were the dark ages, not the JG era, which has been really good. So not having a QB is worse than having one, even if you have to deal with the contract.

21 mil keeps you from signing multiple quality players.

So not having 1st round draft picks kills chances to win but having 20 mil in dead money that can't be used to upgrade the team isn't a big deal? At least with FA you have a much better idea of what you are getting then any draft pick.

If we give Nick Bosa the biggest defensive FA contract ever and precedes to average 8 sacks a year and disappears in playoffs is that acceptable as long as the team makes up for it?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I guess DAL and NYG would disagree. I don't think a lot of these big QB contacts are that much of a problem, i broke down the Jones deal in another thread, its basically a rip cord after 2 seasons, and 1 of those is like a $21m cap hit, which is near half the above mentioned $40m by OP..

Much of our dark ages, were not having a QB1, having to name JTO opening day starter, Shaun Hill opening day guy 2x I believe, Gabbert an opening day starter, Hoyer, etc. Those were the dark ages, not the JG era, which has been really good. So not having a QB is worse than having one, even if you have to deal with the contract.

21 mil keeps you from signing multiple quality players.

So not having 1st round draft picks kills chances to win but having 20 mil in dead money that can't be used to upgrade the team isn't a big deal? At least with FA you have a much better idea of what you are getting then any draft pick.

If we give Nick Bosa the biggest defensive FA contract ever and precedes to average 8 sacks a year and disappears in playoffs is that acceptable as long as the team makes up for it?

It's not dead money, they are spending it on their QB1. I mean we are spending like $14m on QB2/3 in comparison. So they are spending a marginal amount more on their starter, than we are for supposed backups.

Let's understand that every team in the NFL has to allocate real dollars to the QB position. It's not realistic to say, you can spend $0 or $1m on the QB spot, BP not withstanding. BP isn't normal, and even with BP, he can get injured, and you need other guys, you can win with.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It's not dead money, they are spending it on their QB1. I mean we are spending like $14m on QB2/3 in comparison. So they are spending a marginal amount more on their starter, than we are for supposed backups.

Let's understand that every team in the NFL has to allocate real dollars to the QB position. It's not realistic to say, you can spend $0 or $1m on the QB spot, BP not withstanding. BP isn't normal, and even with BP, he can get injured, and you need other guys, you can win with.

You said rip cord. That indicates dead money

But ok looking at the deal Jones has a dead money cap hit of 18 mil in 25 if he fails. And that's assuming they allow his 45 mil cap hit to stay same in 24 and don't tweak it to add cap space. Can't get a few quality players for 18 million? You just eat that as the price of doing business? That's crazy.

Id take my chances with a stacked team and a guy on a rook deal all day long over a lesser team with above average qb being wildly overpaid.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
This is the crux of all the hand wringing, debate and overall dysfunction of the Niners offseason. The Niners as they are constructed right now are one of the top five rosters overall in the NFL without a "franchise" QB. They have the NFL's top defense, a bunch of offensive weapons and decent special teams. If the Niners had or went out to get that "franchise" QB, would they be better, worse or the same? They haven't signed a big time free agent or drafted their guy (unless Lance works out) so far. I'm of the opinion that this team would be worse overall if they had $ 40 million plus tied up in a "franchise" QB. What do you think?

It depends on how elite the QB is. Are we talking Pat Mahomes/Josh Allen or Dak Prescott/Daniel Jones?

Overall talent is always going to be lessened when you pay big money to a QB. Need the QB to mitigate the talent losses with their play.

Mahomes is the only one so far who has done that.

Other teams could've done much better if they would've built their team better overall, especially on defense.

Patriots weren't that successful just bc Brady took less money, he was still getting paid and last two super bowls he was their highest paid player.

They did a good job of building an all around good roster.

As far as the Chiefs, they might not have the same good defenses as the Pats did, but it's been above average at the least and they have players that show up in big games.

They way we've drafted + good bargain FAs, I don't think that if we have to pay a QB we wouldn't continue to not have a solid roster. Especially with how both Lynch and Kyle understand the importance of defense.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:
This is the crux of all the hand wringing, debate and overall dysfunction of the Niners offseason. The Niners as they are constructed right now are one of the top five rosters overall in the NFL without a "franchise" QB. They have the NFL's top defense, a bunch of offensive weapons and decent special teams. If the Niners had or went out to get that "franchise" QB, would they be better, worse or the same? They haven't signed a big time free agent or drafted their guy (unless Lance works out) so far. I'm of the opinion that this team would be worse overall if they had $ 40 million plus tied up in a "franchise" QB. What do you think?

It depends on how elite the QB is. Are we talking Pat Mahomes/Josh Allen or Dak Prescott/Daniel Jones?

Overall talent is always going to be lessened when you pay big money to a QB. Need the QB to mitigate the talent losses with their play.

This. Soon the team will have to dedicate a large % of the cap to the QB position, but it isn't today. QBs demand such a large part of the cap, we better not dedicate that slice of the pie to a dude that can't win without the pieces. If Purdy, for instance, wins the Super Bowl, does the team pretend it was all on him and go all Joe Flacco? Hope not. Until or unless Purdy proves he can win it without the best LT, RB, WR and defense in the league, I'd be happy drafting his replacement when the time comes, and keep the strongest roster. Even Pat can't win s**t if the chefs have zero money for help.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
Other teams could've done much better if they would've built their team better overall, especially on defense.

Patriots weren't that successful just bc Brady took less money, he was still getting paid and last two super bowls he was their highest paid player.

They did a good job of building an all around good roster.

As far as the Chiefs, they might not have the same good defenses as the Pats did, but it's been above average at the least and they have players that show up in big games.

They way we've drafted + good bargain FAs, I don't think that if we have to pay a QB we wouldn't continue to not have a solid roster. Especially with how both Lynch and Kyle understand the importance of defense.

Well i mean we proved thst already once. I just think it's extremely difficult to always have elite talent at every position so eventually you want the QB to make up for some deficiencies. If he doesn't and you don't have money to fill those defincies because you are paying him its very problematic. Certainly moreso than not having a lottery draft pick. FAs are much safer bets than draft picks to produce.