QBs as GMs

The NFL created a system to keep the value of dynasty teams (without sending the same Dynasty teams to the SB every year) and at the same time vault new talent to the front of the line.

By shifting the advantages in the game steadily toward the QB, it created a system that almost assured you could not win SBs without a great QB. At the same time, this increased the value of the QB to the point where the best QBs took such a large % of the salary cap that it left teams with gaping holes.
(It could be overcome, but for the most part teams with a 2nd or 3rd year QB on a rookie deal could load up on FAs and have a huge advantage.)

With QBs highly valued, you needed to be almost terrible to draft a top QB or get lucky in a QB rich draft (see Josh Allen as 3rd QB picked). So fans of terrible teams stayed engaged as they might be 1 draft pick away from being a top tier team.

But the QBs realized this too. They saw teams like the Bucs that were good without the QB, could be great with a great QB, and could be dominant with just a few extra pieces - FAs that the QBs themselves could lure over.

Like the NBA superstars built superteams, the NFL QBs are realizing they can control their own fates. No longer is the outcome determined by how great the coach is (the Bucs didn't have a great coach) but by the quality of the QB and roster. And the QB can pick their own roster and fill it with FAs they lure over.

Veteran QBs have realized they can force their way off teams that have no chance onto teams that do. And they are doing this. Brady and Watson opened the floodgates, Wilson literally admitted he demands GM level decisioning, and Rodgers is essentially forcing his way off his team.

It is going to be interesting to see how the league deals with this because it was a perfect system that pushed marketable QBs to the forefront and assured the great QBs had regular rotations in the playoffs - but now the QBs have gotten that much importance (and realize their importance)...they are demanding the power and control that comes with that importance.

I see a lot of talk about Wilson, Rodgers, and Watson pushing back on their teams and even pushing trade proposals on their own teams but not a lot of discussion on the root causes on all this (much less what the NFL will do about it).

Are veteran QBs going to force their way into GM-level decisioning (or even onto other rosters) or will the NFL try to clamp down on it? If so, how?

TwistedHusky":jjjdap7a said:

Are veteran QBs going to force their way into GM-level decisioning (or even onto other rosters) or will the NFL try to clamp down on it? If so, how?

Click to expand...

This might be a perfect thing to do. Teams could let QBs do that and when the players they take suck or their play starts to suffer they can expect a rollback.

Is this pushback from QBs or a failure of GMs and management? Where is the accountability to the GM other than W-L ? These superstar QBs carry mediocre rosters to consistent winning seasons making the GMs look good even though they are doing a bad job. Green Bay - where is the aggressiveness to get a playmaker for Rodgers? he carries that offense Seattle - after the Super Bowl years, Wilson has been carrying your team. Years of mediocre offensive line play, missed draft picks, and below average defense. With a QB like him you should be making deep playoff runs but can't get past the first round. Houston is a train wreck.

This is sort of like the "movie star" vs. "showrunner" quandary.

Movie stars, by definition, just have to look out for themselves. Whereas the showrunner is in charge of dozens or perhaps hundreds of people. Craft services (food) didn't come? Blame the showrunner. Someone got Covid on set? Everyone's going to be looking at the showrunner.

Now if you're running a show like The Handmaids Tale or Law and Order SVU? It's all about your leads then and their star power if you've run it to give consumers the idea that there's no alternative. If Elizabeth Moss or Margiska Hargistay isn't on, then people are going to turn it off.

That's not going to work in sports as teams are designed to go into perpetuity (or for decades anyway) as the teams they are. And one of the ways they stay relevant is by getting younger talent, including QBs.

I don’t disagree with the premise;however, I think elite QBs demanding more control because of the success of Brady in Tampa is the highpoint of hubris. It feels like more of a power play than a logical strategy for winning titles.

Tampa was an aberration in a weird year. They got two hall of fame caliber players in their near primes along with Brady, and only because of Brady. They didn’t play in front of crowds. They were not the best team by any metric. They just navigated a difficult situation and peaked at the right time.

What’s the sample size for that happening? One. If they really cared about winning, they’d do what Brady did in NE and start taking less pay. That’s the only proven way to offset the balance of drafting late every year.

Disagree.

If you are a great or even very good GM, you can stack a team in many ways. Or maybe you get lucky, but you cannot solve the QB challenge because you are never terrible enough to get an early enough pick.

There are usually at least 3 teams with very good rosters but missing a great QB. (Again, they don't need a great coach anymore which is the sea change here).

Those teams will bob between .500 - .700 just on strength of roster. So a great QB puts them over, almost immediately.

Bucs are not an aberration at all, if anything they are a construct.

The Bucs traded for Gronk based on Tom. They signed AB because Tom required it. They had holes but they recruited impact FAs with their QB and won in the playoffs.

But Denver did it with Peyton Manning earlier (almost), they might do it again with Rodgers. Chicago looks like it has a lot of pieces but missing a QB. There are probably 3-4 teams that would go to the SB with a star QB on their roster but are missing that.

Which lines up with the point that QBs are demanding (and getting) the power/decisioning of GMs because of their importance now.

If Watson had forced his way off, the precedent would be set they don't need to take less pay. They could sign the extension, then force their way off a team to favorable terms to their new team.

QBs don't want less pay, they want more power & control. I assume they will get what they want because the NFL had made sure you cannot win without them.

TwistedHusky":3vqgrr6c said:

Disagree.

If you are a great or even very good GM, you can stack a team in many ways. Or maybe you get lucky, but you cannot solve the QB challenge because you are never terrible enough to get an early enough pick.

There are usually at least 3 teams with very good rosters but missing a great QB. (Again, they don't need a great coach anymore which is the sea change here).

Those teams will bob between .500 - .700 just on strength of roster. So a great QB puts them over, almost immediately.

Bucs are not an aberration at all, if anything they are a construct.

The Bucs traded for Gronk based on Tom. They signed AB because Tom required it. They had holes but they recruited impact FAs with their QB and won in the playoffs.

But Denver did it with Peyton Manning earlier (almost), they might do it again with Rodgers. Chicago looks like it has a lot of pieces but missing a QB. There are probably 3-4 teams that would go to the SB with a star QB on their roster but are missing that.

Which lines up with the point that QBs are demanding (and getting) the power/decisioning of GMs because of their importance now.

If Watson had forced his way off, the precedent would be set they don't need to take less pay. They could sign the extension, then force their way off a team to favorable terms to their new team.

QBs don't want less pay, they want more power & control. I assume they will get what they want because the NFL had made sure you cannot win without them.

Click to expand...

KC had the third-best winning percentage over the last decade before drafting Patrick Mahomes. Of the top 15 QBs in the league, over half were drafted in non-cost-prohibitive ranges of the draft: Allen, Rodges, Watson, Mahomes, Brady, Wilson, Cousins, Jackson, Tannehill, Carr, Roethlisberger, Prescott, Brees, etc. This year could provide more examples with Fields and Jones.

The Bucs were an aberration. They had a stacked roster before Brady. Brady is arguably the greatest QB of all time, and Gronk said he would only unretire to play with Brady. On top of that, AB is an elite WR who was attained on the cheap because of off-the-field issues. Nothing prevented either one of those players from being acquired by Seattle last offseason; we had the cap room; we had the desire; they choose to play with Brady. Had they decided to play with Seattle, imagine what our season could have looked like.

Nothing about Brady's situation would indicate that other QBs could replicate his success.

I do not doubt that great QBs like Manning or Rodgers have and or could lead other franchises to deep playoff runs or SBs. However, the Colts were barely a year removed from a 14-2 season and a SB loss before Manning was unceremoniously dumped for Luck. Rodgers, meanwhile, is coming off two straight 13-3 seasons culminating in NFC Championship game losses. On top of that, Brady left the Pats after a 12-4 season and, in the preceding 8 years, had 5 SB appearances, 3 SB wins, and played in 8 title games.

Does an elite QB leaving their current team result in a higher chance of winning a SB? I would argue it does not. Instead, I would say that an elite QB tends to maintain a level of consistency wherever they go. In a sense, the forces that dictate winning or losing are irrelevant to the QB's franchise. Furthermore, I would argue that the cost to acquire the QB is cost-prohibitive to the point that it diminishes their odds of winning with a new team, except in the aberrational circumstances where the elite QB is a free agent (ala Brady, Brees).

Again, I don't disagree with the premise. I think it's a flawed view of the situation. (I'm also at work and in a deeply analytical state of mind, so I apologize if this comes off harsh as I thoroughly enjoy these types of discussions.)

Counter is remover the no trade clause in QB contracts.

Then if you have a problem child you can always say on we will trade you to umm lets see the Texans, the Jaguars, or whatever a lower tier team is that will have a higher draft pick.

Sure you may have some hold outs, but it is a huge loss for a QB, Rodgers will lose 44 million if he refuses to come to camp and report.

Think many will throw away 44 million or so to make a stand of me or the GM and or coach?

The perspective of the QB is all that matters here. Not the truth.

I know people that have worked with star QBs. Ask anyone that knows them and most will tell you they are more worried about their legacy than either their pocketbook or a SB win. Obviously SB wins impact legacy, so it isn't an either or circumstance.

What I find very interesting is how this defines the path to the SB.

For years, you needed a good to great coach to get to the SB (or get lucky with favorable matchups).

If QBs are the path now, you might not need a great coach. Again, the Bucs did not have one.

Where it matters is whether QBs start to force change, and if there really is any force that can counter that.

IF a team has 100M + and maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the cap tied to him, can they afford for the QB to sit out a year? Or would they have to trade the QB, even with years left on contract for unfavorable terms? Watson was the test case there until the whole massage issue popped up...

If the importance of the HC is downgraded and if the GM now has to learn to work with the QB, instead of unilaterally making decisions, then how does this change the game?

What happens to teams that suffer through losing seasons, only to win the draft lottery and get a great QB, start to have him come into his own and then he forces a trade? (Texans' fans should answer this)

If this becomes a thing, will players start forcing trades to larger media markets (like in the NBA)? It already has happened but how often and what scale is this going to accelerate?

And how big a deal will it be when the HC is not the primary factor or even a key factor, in whether a team makes the SB or not?

This has a lot of potential to disrupt the NFL and yet each time the same thing keeps happening (relatively close to another on the timeline) people are still shocked. If anything it not only should continue but accelerate.

Whether the Bucs are an outlier or not does not matter. What matters is what the QBs think about this and how they react. So far, they are reacting by demanding/forcing the right for key votes in decisions. And they likely will get that.

TwistedHusky":inzt5fse said:

The perspective of the QB is all that matters here. Not the truth.

I know people that have worked with star QBs. Ask anyone that knows them and most will tell you they are more worried about their legacy than either their pocketbook or a SB win. Obviously SB wins impact legacy, so it isn't an either or circumstance.

What I find very interesting is how this defines the path to the SB.

For years, you needed a good to great coach to get to the SB (or get lucky with favorable matchups).

If QBs are the path now, you might not need a great coach. Again, the Bucs did not have one.

Where it matters is whether QBs start to force change, and if there really is any force that can counter that.

IF a team has 100M + and maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the cap tied to him, can they afford for the QB to sit out a year? Or would they have to trade the QB, even with years left on contract for unfavorable terms? Watson was the test case there until the whole massage issue popped up...

If the importance of the HC is downgraded and if the GM now has to learn to work with the QB, instead of unilaterally making decisions, then how does this change the game?

What happens to teams that suffer through losing seasons, only to win the draft lottery and get a great QB, start to have him come into his own and then he forces a trade? (Texans' fans should answer this)

If this becomes a thing, will players start forcing trades to larger media markets (like in the NBA)? It already has happened but how often and what scale is this going to accelerate?

And how big a deal will it be when the HC is not the primary factor or even a key factor, in whether a team makes the SB or not?

This has a lot of potential to disrupt the NFL and yet each time the same thing keeps happening (relatively close to another on the timeline) people are still shocked. If anything it not only should continue but accelerate.

Whether the Bucs are an outlier or not does not matter. What matters is what the QBs think about this and how they react. So far, they are reacting by demanding/forcing the right for key votes in decisions. And they likely will get that.

Click to expand...

The other counter is for teams to go the route of getting back up signal caller that is a legit threat, and start turning over the position before that Star power QB starts to get to that point, everyone knows Rodgers has been a pouty baby for years, we were surprised by Wilsons remarks, Brady had a few ups and downs in NE but he also had Bill there and knew his limit, he also was getting Super Bowls and his legacy was being cast in cement, last season was the topper.

I don't think many can pull that off. I don't think many are as good as they think they are, it takes a special guy and may QB's are part of their systems success.

Oh and the league will not let players dictate competition, rule changes and contract changes will happen if the alarm goes off.

94Smith":b4y71jot said:

Is this pushback from QBs or a failure of GMs and management? Where is the accountability to the GM other than W-L ? These superstar QBs carry mediocre rosters to consistent winning seasons making the GMs look good even though they are doing a bad job. Green Bay - where is the aggressiveness to get a playmaker for Rodgers? he carries that offense Seattle - after the Super Bowl years, Wilson has been carrying your team. Years of mediocre offensive line play, missed draft picks, and below average defense. With a QB like him you should be making deep playoff runs but can't get past the first round. Houston is a train wreck.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that about Wilson considering how many chuckle heads in the cesspool known as the Webzone consider him 'lucky' and 'overrated'.

When I hear a QB complain, it always comes from a QB perspective. Can anyone recall an instance where a QB said, "We need more talent on defense"? Yet I can think of several instances of teams with elite QBs that never went anywhere because they were only strong in the offensive phase of the game.

There has to be a certain narcissistic attitude to play quarterback. You get the ball every offensive play and get to decide ultimately what happens on the field. To want that, to want to be that guy, you have to have to believe you are the best chance your team has to win.

That mindset is counter productive to constructing a winning franchise.

So when I see QBs demanding more say in operations or personnel decisions, I cringe. The NFL is not like the NBA where three superstars can put you in the championship every year. If it was, Watson, Watt, and Hopkins would have a fist full of rings by now. QB is the most important position on the field, but we've seen plenty of solid teams make it to the Superbowl with journeyman QBs too because the rest of the team was solid.

If a QB wants to fight his organization for control, they do so at their own peril. It causes a rift in the locker room, which affects their ability to win. It lowers their market value, since they've demonstrated they will only play on their terms. And if the team can't or won't move them, everybody loses.

It's a copycat league so I get why all these stories are coming out now. I just don't think there are any shortcuts to a championship and it's going to take a few of these divas finding out the grass isn't greener before it ends.

West,

The whole point is that QB quality is more a barometer of team success than coaching quality.

Sure, an exceptional QB can still be on a team that struggles (see Watson).

But for the most part, you cannot be a great team without a great QB.

The entire pursuit of team success depends on the QB, it becomes the keystone for the whole thing. And as the QBs know this, they know their value to the team. They are worth the bloated salaries because you cannot succeed without them.

Not only that, but if you lose them you might take decades to replace them.

If the primary driver for team success is shifting away from the quality and caliber of the coach to the quality and caliber of the QB to the point where it is preferable to have an average coach with an exceptional QB vs the reverse?

Then the QBs know that kind of importance demands the comparable in power.

And there have been some middling to less impressive GMs that have gotten good to great QBs but never surrounded them with the roster that best extracts the QB's potential value. Makes complete sense that a student of the game, like a QB, would realize that anyway. What has changed has been the ability of the QB to push back, both on the coach and the GM.

The dynamic is shifting where a star QB has the same or almost the same power as the coach and GM. Certainly in terms of putting pressure on their coach and GM to produce, like their coach and GM had the power to do earlier. A QB used to never be able to publicly call out their GM or coach, but some have now. Now, the QB is able to effect the hiring/firing of a coach or GM, as well as force player/contract moves.

All of this is an unanticipated symptom of the NFL shifting the rules to give the benefit of the doubt to the QB and to create a framework that favors the QB in most instances. But it isn't something the NFL could pull back, because they lose the benefits/reasons they made that move in the first place. That decision makes the NFL hundreds of millions - it isn't going away.

So with the QB now so pivotal to team success, teams have to kowtow to the QB when they have on of the rare top tier or even above average QBs. It is the cost of keeping them.

I thought it was funny that Kyler Murray said he wanted some say in personnel decisions. What does he know about scouting or player evaluation? What access does he have to medical records, etc? He's barely been in the league. Maybe he should learn and master their offense first.

Brady on the other hand at least has some clout. He's earned his stripes. If a star QB can recruit star players who will clearly make the team better, then by all means. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Like Russell Wilson lobbying for Greg Olsen at the Pro Bowl.

Rodgers demanding that their GM be fired? Now that's off the rails completely.

hoxrox":102hwhar said:

I thought it was funny that Kyler Murray said he wanted some say in personnel decisions. What does he know about scouting or player evaluation? What access does he have to medical records, etc? He's barely been in the league. Maybe he should learn and master their offense first.

Brady on the other hand at least has some clout. He's earned his stripes. If a star QB can recruit star players who will clearly make the team better, then by all means. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Like Russell Wilson lobbying for Greg Olsen at the Pro Bowl.

Rodgers demanding that their GM be fired? Now that's off the rails completely.

Click to expand...

Well it worked to replace McCarthy didn't it.........

chris98251":47hrab8v said:

hoxrox":47hrab8v said:

I thought it was funny that Kyler Murray said he wanted some say in personnel decisions. What does he know about scouting or player evaluation? What access does he have to medical records, etc? He's barely been in the league. Maybe he should learn and master their offense first.

Brady on the other hand at least has some clout. He's earned his stripes. If a star QB can recruit star players who will clearly make the team better, then by all means. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Like Russell Wilson lobbying for Greg Olsen at the Pro Bowl.

Rodgers demanding that their GM be fired? Now that's off the rails completely.

Click to expand...

Well it worked to replace McCarthy didn't it.........

Click to expand...

Good point. That's correct.

Other than trying to influence decision-making, I don't know why a QB would want to leave GB. It is one of those organizations that is actually committed to winning football. There have been legitimate opportunities consistently since 2010. Most other locations offer less of a guarantee.