[Source](https://twitter.com/nate_tice/status/1646350751617400832?s=46&t=IX8yKIxZkEL6TendVkcZZQ)
The biggest points:
> It’s an overblown phenomenon. It’s only an advantage if the guy is good, and having to pay a good QB is not a problem. But missing on a QB is franchise crippling, rookie contract or not
> Saying a league average QB on a rookie deal is an advantage is all fine and good. And then what happens when the deal runs up? Paying him? Drafting a new QB? Sure. But then you’re threading the needle again. And that’s only if the new QB is playable.
> Constantly thinking you can draft an average QB at one of the hardest positions to scout in sports (remember we all love saying the draft is a crapshoot) is completely ignoring the downside of potentially nuking your franchise and potentially your job if said rookie QB sucks.
> It’s about getting the right QB for your situation. Whether it’s rookie contract or ’19 Jimmy G if you have a great defense/skill players/play caller. Or you can have the Stafford and Mahomes situations of the past two seasons. There’s more than one way to build a team!
> It’s not the end all, be all to pay a QB. You just have to start prioritizing different aspects of team building. “We paid our QB, let’s see how we can accumulate draft picks for cheap talent at other positions (Chiefs) or make moves to go all-in and wedge our window open (Rams)”
Sounds a lot like what Holmes has been saying about it being harder to get better than worse at QB. That being said, the Lions are in an interesting spot where missing on a QB isn’t necessarily “crippling”, but it would definitely limit the short and long term ceiling that a blue chip defender would provide.
As for Goff’s contract situation, it just depends on what he’s asking for. With the ever-expanding cap, if Goff can maintain his play, I think something in the range of $40 million makes a lot of sense. It might be hopeful, but Goff has talked about his financial security and how much he values fit in interviews before. I don’t think it’s a guarantee he tries to set the market or anything lol.
17 comments
I kind of want a QB because of exactly what you said, we are in a very unique situation where if we miss on a QB we are fine. Of course we would be better with a defensive player over a miss on a QB, but that defensive player could miss too. It’s very rare for a team to have this much draft capital while being an already solid roster with a solid QB the rookie can sit behind for a few years. If we are ever going to take a QB, this year just makes the most sense.
That being said, if the FO doesn’t like anyone, we certainly don’t have to force a QB. We can always franchise tag Goff and that buys us 3 years. We are in a very exciting spot for the draft where nothing would surprise me or upset me.
If Tice doesn’t believe having a QB for 5 years, on a rookie deal is not a huge advantage, he may not be very good at math. Of course you eventually will want to pay the player more, but for 5 years you have an excellent opportunity to pay talent in other positions, thus improving the overall team talent. Captain Obvious did manage to point out that you will need the QB to be good for that to work.
> Saying a league average QB on a rookie deal is an advantage is all fine and good. And then what happens when the deal runs up? Paying him?
Is this an argument to not draft a rookie QB or to not pay Goff?
I’ve sort of laid this out in the past, but basically… it’s complicated.
On one hand: potentially cheaper for up to five years.
On the other hand: potentially wasting draft resources, time spent developing by pushing them to play early, and if you succeed they push for a contract extension before the rookie deal is up anyways.
The theory is that you’re getting five full years of control, but that’s not really how it always plays out. Some of those years could simply be bad because they’re so inexperienced.
The other part is that draft resources aren’t worth the same in every situation. This draft, for example, has a few areas that are fairly deep, but the top end talent is quite poor. If you were going to gamble on a first round pick, this would actually be a great year to do so (or trade down if someone offers).
Because they arent good until the 2nd contract
The most likely outcome *by far* if we use the 6th pick to select the 3rd or 4th best QB in the class is they do not end up being the franchise QB we’re looking for.
Yet people on this sub act like in a worst case scenario whoever we draft will be at least as good as Goff.
We watched this team win 8 out of their last 10 games and we will have a vastly improved roster going into next year.
Passing on a blue chip defensive prospect and taking a long shot gamble on the 3rd or 4th best QB available would most likely blow up in our faces.
If we’re going that route I would much prefer we trade up for Stroud or Young.
It’s a myth your have to have a rookie contract QB to win.
Actually it’s a narrative that the owners started to try and entice QB to take a bit less money. So just another form of passive control.
Think you can count on your hands how many times there’s been a Superbowl winning rookie QB contact ever.
Side note, what ever happened with the news that the Lions sent an offer to Teddy Bridgewater? Is he going to be a Lion or what?
It’s not an issue to pay elite QB’s, elite QB money. You can go lite in other areas that elite QB play can cover up.
It’s also not an issue to pay good QB’s, good QB money. You can invest in positions to elevate QB play.
The issue is when you pay good QB’s, elite QB money. Then you don’t have the resources to cover areas of weakness and your QB gets exposed.
So here’s the problem….
All QB’s want elite QB money. So a team that doesn’t have an elite QB is on this endless treadmill. You either overpay your good QB and accept being a mediocre team. Or you draft a rookie and hope for the best.
What we are starting to see is good QB’s accepting good QB money. Which was always going to be the solution and hopefully this trend will continue.
The idea that QBs are hard to scout is kind of misleading imo. I honestly think it comes down to situation bc their performance/success is so much more dependent on things out of their control than almost every other position and I just think that fact isn’t acknowledged to the extent it is true yet. I like the chances of draft QB XYZ succeeding here over Vegas or Indy or whatever, for example
He makes a good argument. For the same reasons I hope we have discussions with Goff before this season about renegotiating after the season. Seeing him as a long term fit. I feel Goff would give Detroit a fair deal. I think he understands what he is. He’s great in Detroit. He could be literal legend
I think we can get to the Super Bowl with Goff if the team is right. I’m not messing that up
> It’s an overblown phenomenon. It’s only an advantage if the guy is good, and having to pay a good QB is not a problem. But missing on a QB is franchise crippling, rookie contract or not
I actually think this is super overblown and doesn’t really apply to us.
Taking a first rounder and missing is not franchise crippling in the new salary cap era. Look at the Jets for example, they missed on the #2 pick in a loaded class and their basically still just a QB away, theyre not anywhere close to crippled by the choice.
Look at Denver now, they paid top tier money on Wilson and traded assets for him, theyre in a hole where only Wilson playing better is getting them out of it (if he does).
The 6th pick is a hyper inflated asset for us right now, it (by reports) was a throw in to move Goffs contract… yes it cost us Stafford but I think people realize (and were seeing) he was a depreciating asset because of his injuries.
In no way shape or form, based on the assets Holmes has acquired within this draft (4 more top 100 picks) AND the foundation built would missing a QB at 6 cripple us.
I’m not saying we have to or don’t have to, but the concerns of missing on a QB in modern rookie scale football are just unfounded in my opinion
I feel like the inevitable end of this conversation is do you ever draft a QB, and if so when (since higher QB picks work out more often than mid rounders), or do you just sign average veterans for 40+ million and hope you can build around them and they can maintain their play while you hope to not end up in purgatory where your QB play is bad but the rest of the team is good enough to keep you out of a top 10 spot.
At least for a rookie QB if they play well for 4 years you have high confidence they are going to maintain that level of play and are confident paying them. For example, I doubt Joe Burrow, Jalen Hurts or Justin Herbert are going to drop off a cliff once you pay them 45-50mill a year.
With Goff, he had a pretty good year last year no doubt and maybe he replicates that which would be cool. But there is a reason he was traded and was not good his last couple years with the Rams.
If he performs poorly the rest of the team is good enough that we probably will be between pick 10-15 and we will know we need a QB 100% rather than currently being 50/50. Only difference is we would either need to trade a bunch of picks to move up for Caleb Williams, Drake Maye (which are likely going to QB needy teams as well) or we need to look at the next tier of picks late 1st/2nd round. Regardless you are still hoping those picks aren’t going to be a mistake anyways.
I trust Brad and our scouts enough that if they think Goff will be good enough and deserves to be paid or we pick someone at 6 this year or mid 1st round next year.
>where missing on a QB isn’t necessarily crippling
I disagree here. Look at the Packers taking Love. In that draft alone they could’ve taken Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman who were picked just a few picks later and instantly given their current QB more weapons to work with.
Drafting QB does hamstring us in the fact that it doesn’t immediately make us better. If we’re drafting for development, goff is signed for 2 more years, then we should grab a later round QB like Duggan and see if we can develop them.
If you promise your GM job security, I’d love to see a team actually try out the “never pay a non-elite QB” strategy. Unless you grab Mahomes, keep starting over when the rookie deal is up. Find a backup to pay $5-10M that could start in case your new QB is buns, but if you just keep taking the “pro-ready” QB over the project guys, you could have cheap QB play for years.
The 49ers are in the best position to try this. Dorian Thompson-Robinson could win at least 10 games next season with the talent in SF. When his deal is up, they keep the stacked roster and find a new DTR. Rinse and repeat. It’s not foolproof, but it has to have better odds of winning than shelling out >$40M on a Cousins, Prescott, or Tannehill.
You could say the Colts and Washingtons strategy was worse than trying to draft a QB over the past few years
It’s great to draft a rookie QB who is a top 8 guy by year 2-3. It VERY rarely happens. Let’s say you draft him in the top 3 picks, he hits, he’s a top 8 franchise guy by year 3. You’re getting a guy for around $8.5-$9M cap hit with a value of around $45M. You have created $36M in ‘value’… it’s not true to say you freed up 36M in cap, but certainly you can sign a TON of talent for 36M vs the other 6-7 teams with bona fide franchise level talent at QBs who are paying their guys 45M. That’s the dream scenario, but it’s exceedingly rare. And what is the actual real-world takeaway here: that it’s very very good to draft a true franchise QB. No fucking shit. Strategy doesn’t change.
​
The more interesting question that Nate Tice is addressing is: Does this strategy still work well enough due to the cheap rookie contract that it’s worth doing even if you ‘only’ get an average starting QB (still pretty hard to do, actually) vs the risk of drafting a terrible QB (surprisingly easy to find among the top 3 picks). Jimmy G on his new deal has a $16M cap hit this year. He’s pretty average: you can win a lot of games with him at QB on the right team, but he isn’t great. If you knew a draft pick wouldn’t ever develop into an above avg starter, would you rather have this meh rookie making $7M or Jimmy G making $16M? Is a decent starting CB making $9M really worth the gap in their skill at the most important position in football? You probably win a ton more games with Jimmy G than a well below avg starter making 9M less.
​
Tice is right, and the “QB on a rookie deal” path to winning is often cited with examples of QBs who were franchise QBs on a rookie deal. Obviously that is fantastic, but the ‘QB on a rookie deal’ strategy doesn’t work nearly as well if you don’t have that rare caliber of player, which is extremely low %. It’s not a reliable, repeatable strategy.