Prescott

I’m on board with that meme. 
He cost them like $18M a year the last two years.  They did this to themselves.  They’ll probably be forced to extend him.

I still believe that in terms of managing an NFL roster, there are only three kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with (keep), those you can't (replace) and those for whom it's too early to say (wait and see).  I'd put Dak in the 1st category...and so you pay him market value because you have to, just like you have to with Cousins, Goff, Mr. Dimes, Carr, etc. There's talk that Danny Dimes could get $40M/per. Should he? Probably. Because if the Giants don't pay it, someone else probably will. QB salaries keep going up, but so does revenue and the cap. It's a game everybody has to play. 

IS the real danny dimes the one that played the Vikings or Eagles post-season?

I think the answer is yes to both. 

Purgatory...

@"purplefaithful" said: IS the real danny dimes the one that played the Vikings or Eagles post-season?

I think the answer is yes to both. 

Purgatory...

Even those in purgatory have a chance at heaven.  B)

I say yes,  just like any other team that is going to pay an average or even above average ( but not top tier ) QB,  top tier money.  even a few % points of the cap amount to a pretty good talent swing when you look at what the could have bought you in upgrades to other positions.  the longer a team keeps over paying any player vs the return they get and the lower quality players they then have to surround that high money QB,  the further down the drain they will go.

and danny boy is going to one of the most over paid of the bunch,  and it will serve the giants right if they are stupid enough to do it.  he looked only OK with a pretty good supporting cast,  how will he look when those good supporting players have to be allowed to walk because their marginal QB is getting paid in the mahomes money range?

@"purplefaithful" said: IS the real danny dimes the one that played the Vikings or Eagles post-season?

I think the answer is yes to both. 

Purgatory...

So throwing to free runners across the middle against an _onatell "scheme" or against a real NFL defense?

@"MaroonBells" said: I still believe that in terms of managing an NFL roster, there are only three kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with (keep), those you can't (replace) and those for whom it's too early to say (wait and see).  I'd put Dak in the 1st category...and so you pay him market value because you have to, just like you have to with Cousins, Goff, Mr. Dimes, Carr, etc. There's talk that Danny Dimes could get $40M/per. Should he? Probably. Because if the Giants don't pay it, someone else probably will. QB salaries keep going up, but so does revenue and the cap. It's a game everybody has to play. 

I think differently.  I think you should always be drafting QBs and keeping 3 on the staff, your starter and two guys who are developing and then trading the guy who's not making the cut while he still has some value.  I think its too important of a position to not have options.  The 49ers had a lot of success because they had multiple guys that were good enough to get the job done.  It’s unfortunate that they didn’t have 4 guys that were good enough, but if you’re down to your 4th QB, you just call that fate.

I think there’s room for a strategy where teams draft mobile
QBs that can hit the ground running early and then get rid of them after their
rookie contract and just never pay massive money for their QB and don’t really
try to change their nature and convert them into a pocket passer because you’re
worried that they’ll get injured.

@"medaille" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: I still believe that in terms of managing an NFL roster, there are only three kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with (keep), those you can't (replace) and those for whom it's too early to say (wait and see).  I'd put Dak in the 1st category...and so you pay him market value because you have to, just like you have to with Cousins, Goff, Mr. Dimes, Carr, etc. There's talk that Danny Dimes could get $40M/per. Should he? Probably. Because if the Giants don't pay it, someone else probably will. QB salaries keep going up, but so does revenue and the cap. It's a game everybody has to play. 

I think differently.  I think you should always be drafting QBs and
keeping 3 on the staff, your starter and two guys who are developing and then trading the guy who's not making the cut while he still has some value.  I think its too important of a position to
not have options.  The 49ers had a lot of
success because they had multiple guys that were good enough to get the job
done.  It’s unfortunate that they didn’t
have 4 guys that were good enough, but if you’re down to your 4th
QB, you just call that fate.

I think there’s room for a strategy where teams draft mobile
QBs that can hit the ground running early and then get rid of them after their
rookie contract and just never pay massive money for their QB and don’t really
try to change their nature and convert them into a pocket passer because you’re
worried that they’ll get injured.

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"medaille" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: I still believe that in terms of managing an NFL roster, there are only three kinds of QBs in the NFL. Those you can win with (keep), those you can't (replace) and those for whom it's too early to say (wait and see).  I'd put Dak in the 1st category...and so you pay him market value because you have to, just like you have to with Cousins, Goff, Mr. Dimes, Carr, etc. There's talk that Danny Dimes could get $40M/per. Should he? Probably. Because if the Giants don't pay it, someone else probably will. QB salaries keep going up, but so does revenue and the cap. It's a game everybody has to play. 

I think differently.  I think you should always be drafting QBs and
keeping 3 on the staff, your starter and two guys who are developing and then trading the guy who's not making the cut while he still has some value.  I think its too important of a position to
not have options.  The 49ers had a lot of
success because they had multiple guys that were good enough to get the job
done.  It’s unfortunate that they didn’t
have 4 guys that were good enough, but if you’re down to your 4th
QB, you just call that fate.

I think there’s room for a strategy where teams draft mobile
QBs that can hit the ground running early and then get rid of them after their
rookie contract and just never pay massive money for their QB and don’t really
try to change their nature and convert them into a pocket passer because you’re
worried that they’ll get injured.

I don't think you do think differently. Because I agree you should always be drafting QBs. I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a QB in some round every year. Doesn't change the fact that you have to have a competent QB to compete. Doesn't change the fact that, if you do, you have to pay him market value. You can bet that if Mond worked out, we'd probably stop playing the Cousins game in 24 and join the Mond game. And then you pay HIM market value. I just don't understand that constant hand wringing over $30M and $40M cap hits. 

Sure, you can hope to draft a star that takes you to the promise land on his rookie deal. It's just such a long shot, especially when you consider that 7 out of the last 8 Super Bowls were won by highly paid veteran QBs whose teams found a way to build a competent roster of low-cost talent like Aaron Donald, Jalen Ramsey and Cooper Kupp. B) But when even draft HITS like Joe Burrow, Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Justin Herbert, Kyler Murray and Trevor Lawrence have as many combined Super Bowl victories as Kirk Cousins, it makes ya think. 

Stands to reason that teams whose QB's cap % is in the single digits are winning Super Bowls left and right with all the powerhouse rosters they're able to put together. But I suspect that's not the case. 

If you want Cousins cap % to go down, you just have to extend him. 

@"MaroonBells" said: Stands to reason that teams whose QB's cap % is in the single digits are winning Super Bowls left and right with all the powerhouse rosters they're able to put together. But I suspect that's not the case. 

If you want Cousins cap % to go down, you just have to extend him. 

They did that and he was still well over the mark.  Like I said,  his demands and this trend don't work.  Qbs with rings understand that,  we know where Kirk's priorities lie so let's start looking for a trophy instead of what they have been doing.  If he will play for about 5 to 6% less on average then let's talk extension,  if not then trade his ass to the niners and move on.