Starting qb's fall like autumn leaves. Yet teams put so much $$$$ into them.
So, would it make sense to hedge the bet and spread the huge qb 1 and mundane qb2 $$$ more evenly between two players: solid, experienced, dependable qb's, clearly not top 15-18 guys, but good enough to be starters or strong qb2's, rather than on the illusive 'franchise QB,' who, once hurt, like Jones, Burrow, Cousins, Rodgers, etc. usually leaves the team scrambling for someone to fill the position [Vikes seem to have hit the jackpot signing Hobbs, but that's not typical]. It also avoids the angst of selling the farm to draft a qb at the top of the draft, which is just another gamble, and can put you one injury again from misery. Thoughts?
Name the last Super Bowl champion with a "good enough" starter. Maybe the Eagles with Foles a couple years ago, he kind of disappeared after that. I am not sure you can win these days with a dominating defense and just an OK offense. There are too many advantages the offense has.
This has been a bad season for QB injuries. I don't think that changes the math.
Although those four names would make a good row for a Connections game.
I wonder if it's time to start having the conversation around QB's and longevity similar to how we've been discussing RBs/injuries/longevity? With defenses being so much bigger and faster I guess it was inevitable that more QBs would be getting hurt similar to RBs. How does that change the dynamics of $$$$ allocation, etc.? I mean, the 2 highest paid QBs in the league just went down for the season....talk about a financial hell situation.
Quote from: President Rick on November 17, 2023, 05:34:47 PMStarting qb's fall like autumn leaves. Yet teams put so much $$$$ into them.
So, would it make sense to hedge the bet and spread the huge qb 1 and mundane qb2 $$$ more evenly between two players: solid, experienced, dependable qb's, clearly not top 15-18 guys, but good enough to be starters or strong qb2's, rather than on the illusive 'franchise QB,' who, once hurt, like Jones, Burrow, Cousins, Rodgers, etc. usually leaves the team scrambling for someone to fill the position [Vikes seem to have hit the jackpot signing Hobbs, but that's not typical]. It also avoids the angst of selling the farm to draft a qb at the top of the draft, which is just another gamble, and can put you one injury again from misery. Thoughts?
No, because winning a Super Bowl with a middling QB is close to impossible, and it's even harder if you're paying two middling QBs instead of one.