Building a Super Bowl Team

[Dolfanalyst]

Continuation of another thread that ventured off-topic.

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24578.msg342125#msg342125

I'm not necessarily speaking of signing big-name free agents.  The purpose here is really just to maintain a salary cap ledger that's consistent with a winning formula in the league.

Again I think teams should churn at the QB position, never paying one big money until he's become one of the league's best, while keeping salary cap room free to build the roster elsewhere.  And that consists not only of free agent signings (possibly, and hopefully the rare good ones you mentioned), but also of keeping your own players when the time comes.

Consider that a team can go one of two directions:  1) it can pay an average QB big money, thus keeping itself from having as much cap room to compile (and keep) the necessary talent elsewhere on the roster, or 2) it can continually churn at the QB position until it finds a great one, while building perhaps the best surrounding roster in the league with the cap money that's continually available via not having paid a QB big money.

The first of those two teams is very unlikely to be competitive in today's NFL.  The second one could very well become something akin to the early 2000s Baltimore Ravens, for example (i.e., winning a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer and one of the best defenses of all time).

And of course the second one is unlikely to become such a rare team in the league, but at least the overarching plan is consistent with heading that direction in theory, rather than with likely being nothing better than average in theory.  In other words, the second of those teams at least has a chance.

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=24578.msg342138#msg342138

To be clear on what you are suggesting:

In order to follow this plan to fruition, a team must determine that a QB is great while he is still on his rookie contract (specifically, by the end of year 3).  At the end of year 3, a promising young QB will cost a team escalating amounts of money to re-sign the longer they wait; one example would be Joe Flacco, who signed the biggest contract in the league at the time (even though he is FAR from the best QB).

In other words, this plan essentially boils down to giving every rookie QB 3 years to win the Super Bowl.  If he can't do it in that time frame, discard and start over.  This seems like an exceptionally poor plan for fielding a consistently competitive team, and is more akin to "Trust The Process" used by the Sam Hinkie-era Philadelphia 76ers.

On the contrary it boils down to giving every rookie QB three years to become one of the best in the league, regardless of whether he's won a Super Bowl.

If he's become one of the best in the league during that period, you pay him accordingly, and you realize that to do so you'll have to become weaker elsewhere on the roster, due to the diminished salary cap space.

However, at that point you now have one of the league's best QBs, and so you no longer need as much talent elsewhere on the roster to be highly competitive.  You can then comfortably part with that talent, knowing your exceptional QB's performance will compensate.

Until then, though, you churn at the QB position and build up that talent elsewhere on the roster with the available salary cap space, because that's the only way you stand to be highly competitive in today's NFL, without one of the league's best QBs.

As soon as you pay an average QB big money, you've forestalled that process, and your outcome is likely to be no better than average as a team.  You'll have neither 1) an exceptional QB, nor 2) exceptional surrounding talent.  How can you possibly be highly competitive in that scenario?

This is where the Dolphins will be in 2017, with Ryan Tannehill's salary cap hit's vaulting to $20M, which is in the 81st percentile in the league and comprises 10% of the Dolphins' cap space.

At that point the Dolphins won't have a salary cap ledger that's consistent with any known winning formula in the current-day NFL.

[Baba Booey]

This is where the Dolphins will be in 2017, with Ryan Tannehill's salary cap hit's vaulting to $20M, which is in the 81st percentile in the league and comprises 10% of the Dolphins' cap space.

At that point the Dolphins won't have a salary cap ledger that's consistent with any known winning formula in the current-day NFL.

WTF are you talking about? Many QB's have bigger contracts than Tannehill and they still field a winning team. Tannehill's contract is middle of the road for a starting QB. You use this 81% to make the number seem huge, throw that number out the window. Where does his contract rank among other QB's....again, middle of the pack.  If Miami just drafts well on defense they will be fine.

And most of Miami's problems on defense are injury related. Get back Reshad Jones, IAQ, and Byron Maxwell to go with Howard and Lippett and Miami's secondary is pretty dman good where they don't need to address it too much actually. Do they need a couple linebackers and a young pass rusher to be ready to take over for Wake...sure. But for christ sakes just draft smart, sign a decent mid-level free agent or two and done!

Also, there is money coming off the books like Mario Williams and such too when they cut him.  If you actually LOOKED at Miami's cap situation they have more than enough money to re-sign Stills, extend Landry....and guess what, STILL BE PLAYERS IN FREE AGENCY!!!!

You are in over your head here and don't know what your talking about when it comes to Miami's cap situation.

[Dolfanalyst]

WTF are you talking about? Many QB's have bigger contracts than Tannehill and they still field a winning team. Tannehill's contract is middle of the road for a starting QB. You use this 81% to make the number seem huge, throw that number out the window. Where does his contract rank among other QB's....again, middle of the pack.

For the sake of information alone, the 81st percentile in the league means that his cap hit is bigger than that of 81% of the league's quarterbacks, and smaller than that of 19% of the league's quarterbacks.

That isn't "middle of the pack."

Numbers have meaning.  You don't just "throw them out the window," thinking a string of words is somehow inherently more valuable.

[Baba Booey]

The whole notion is laughable because if Miami cut Tannehill (like you want) the line of teams that would be knocking each other over to sign him and pay him more than he is currently making would go from here to timbuktu! From the Jets, Bills, Browns, Bears, 49ers, Arizona, Houston, hell throw in Denver..and so on!  They would fight to sign him and pay...him....MORE!!

The "reality" of the situation is Miami has a good (not great) QB like Tannehill at a bargain. He is a QB you can win with for sure as we saw that this year until he got injured. You just don't understand NFL football and the reality of the situation. Plus you got some sick twisted obsession hate with Tannehill that none of us will ever understand. Like the one guy on this site who bashes Landry every week, check that he only shows up when Miami loses and never when they win....only to bash Landry. They named a movie after you two, started Jim Carrey and Jeff....ah nevermind!

[Dolfanalyst]

The whole notion is laughable because if Miami cut Tannehill (like you want) the line of teams that would be knocking each other over to sign him and pay him more than he is currently making would go from here to timbuktu! From the Jets, Bills, Browns, Bears, 49ers, Arizona, Houston, hell throw in Denver..and so on!  They would fight to sign him and pay...him....MORE!!

Wonderful.  Let some other team -- and even better if it's a division rival -- enter into a process that isn't consistent with any known winning formula in the league.  That'll make the rest of the league slightly weaker in comparison to the Dolphins.

The "reality" of the situation is Miami has a good (not great) QB like Tannehill at a bargain. He is a QB you can win with for sure as we saw that this year until he got injured.

You indeed can win with the level of play Tannehill exhibited this year; I'm not disputing that.  But only if you have one of the league's best defenses.  And again, you need as much money as possible if that's your goal.

[Baba Booey]

You indeed can win with the level of play Tannehill exhibited this year; I'm not disputing that.  But only if you have one of the league's best defenses.  And again, you need as much money as possible if that's your goal.

Again..you don't. It's called the draft. Get some good draft picks on defense and you don't need to spend as much as possible on defense.

[Pappy13]

However, at that point you now have one of the league's best QBs, and so you no longer need as much talent elsewhere on the roster to be highly competitive.  You can then comfortably part with that talent, knowing your exceptional QB's performance will compensate.

You can? How do you know this? You're basing this on pure speculation that all you need is a championship level QB and not much else. This has NOT been proven and there's not even any evidence of this. Please name the SB winning team with a QB and not much else? The only thing that you have even found to be generally true is that teams with a championship level QB have a better chance of winning the SB then those without. That's it. I don't think that's really something that most of us would argue with you about. And it's been proven time and again that teams can win SB's without a championship level QB. Denver did it just last year.

[Dolfanalyst]

You can? How do you know this? You're basing this on pure speculation that all you need is a championship level QB and not much else. This has NOT been proven and there's not even any evidence of this. Please name the SB winning team with a QB and not much else? The only thing that you have even found to be generally true is that teams with a championship level QB have a better chance of winning the SB then those without. That's it. I don't think that's really something that most of us would argue with you about. And it's been proven time and again that teams can win SB's without a championship level QB. Denver did it just last year.

Denver had the best overall defense in the league last year.

Again the point in the original post here is that there are two known formulas for winning big in the present-day NFL:  1) having one of the best QBs in the league and an adequate (but not necessarily exceptional) defense, or 2) having less than one of the league's best QBs, with an exceptional defense.

The league revolves around passer rating differential at the present time.  There are only two ways to have the passer rating differential needed to win big in the league:  1) have one of the league's best passers, or 2) have one of the league's best defenses, and thereby diminish other teams' passer ratings.

An average QB and an average defense gets you an average passer rating differential, and an average team.  An average QB and a very good (but not the best) defense makes you the 2016 Kansas City Chiefs, who will get beaten soundly in the AFC Championship game this year by New England, a team with a tremendous QB and only an adequate defense.

In the part of the post you quoted, the point was that if a team has one of the league's best QBs, it needs less talent elsewhere on the roster to be highly competitive, and so paying that QB what he's worth is tolerable from an overall team talent standpoint.

[Dolfanalyst]

Again..you don't. It's called the draft. Get some good draft picks on defense and you don't need to spend as much as possible on defense.

50% of first-round picks become regular starters on NFL teams.  That figure decreases consistently from there, such that it's a mere 12% in the fourth round.  88% of fourth-round draft picks will never become regular starters in the NFL.

The draft is a crapshoot.  When you do hit on players in the draft, what you most definitely need is the cap room to keep them.

The Dolphins have players of that ilk right now.  Ju'Wuan James, Laremy Tunsil, Jarvis Landry, Tony Lippett, Xavien Howard, Jelani Jenkins, Jay Ajayi, Kenny Stills.  These players -- combined -- will account for a huge portion of the salary cap, if indeed the team keeps them.

[Baba Booey]

The Dolphins have players of that ilk right now.  Ju'Wuan James, Laremy Tunsil, Jarvis Landry, Tony Lippett, Xavien Howard, Jelani Jenkins, Jay Ajayi, Kenny Stills.  These players -- combined -- will account for a huge portion of the salary cap, if indeed the team keeps them.

Xavien Howard and Tunsil are a ROOKIES...they have to prepare now for 4 or 5 years down the line when they will have to pay them more? YOU ARE LOST MAN!!!

Ajayi is a 2nd year guy, his deal isn't up for a while either.

It's amazing how wrong you are on just about everything!

[fyo]

For the sake of information alone, the 81st percentile in the league means that his cap hit is bigger than that of 81% of the league's quarterbacks, and smaller than that of 19% of the league's quarterbacks.

That isn't "middle of the pack."

As we've been through before, that number is only relevant for next year. After that, he's making what looks like it will be the median salary for a non-rookie starting quarterback.

And, as we've also been through before, there has to be something to actually spend the money on (all $5M you'd save by going with a cheaper QB over Tannehill) and Miami is in a VERY good position in terms of salary cap when you look at how few players are on the last year of their contract.

Does Miami have the money to go out at pay a high-quality free agent 10-15 million a year? Sure, wouldn't be a problem. Can they grab 5 of them? No, of course not.

$5 million a year is about what an average starting right tackle or very good right guard costs (at least in terms of current contracts, the majority of which are at least a few years old). Do you really want to risk the single most important position in the game for whatever upgrade a very good right guard gets you over Bushrod? Really?

[Dolfanalyst]

Xavien Howard and Tunsil are a ROOKIES...they have to prepare now for 4 or 5 years down the line when they will have to pay them more?

Sure.  Anytime you have a player you've identified as wanting to keep on the team long-term, you should start preparing your future salary cap space to accommodate that player.

Surely you don't think these teams are paying their player personnel people and salary cap gurus big money to sit around and do nothing, and and be caught off-guard when a player's contract comes up?

These people work at least 40 hours a week.  The least they can do is take a long-term view in this area and ensure that the team is competitive from a salary cap standpoint.

Presumably you're planning your retirement, financially speaking?  How many years off is that?

[Dolfanalyst]

As we've been through before, that number is only relevant for next year. After that, he's making what looks like it will be the median salary for a non-rookie starting quarterback.

And, as we've also been through before, there has to be something to actually spend the money on (all $5M you'd save by going with a cheaper QB over Tannehill) and Miami is in a VERY good position in terms of salary cap when you look at how few players are on the last year of their contract.

Does Miami have the money to go out at pay a high-quality free agent 10-15 million a year? Sure, wouldn't be a problem. Can they grab 5 of them? No, of course not.

$5 million a year is about what an average starting right tackle or very good right guard costs (at least in terms of current contracts, the majority of which are at least a few years old). Do you really want to risk the single most important position in the game for whatever upgrade a very good right guard gets you over Bushrod? Really?

Well those are good points.  I can certainly be convinced to keep Tannehill if it's true that the team is in such good shape cap-wise in the near future that it can afford Tannehill and one of the league's best defenses, financially.

However, make no mistake -- if Tannehill continues playing at this level, they will need one of the league's best defenses, and they're nowhere near that place right now, thus the concern about whether the team is in a place where it can indeed finance that transition.

[Baba Booey]

Sure.  Anytime you have a player you've identified as wanting to keep on the team long-term, you should start preparing your future salary cap space to accommodate that player.

Surely you don't think these teams are paying their player personnel people and salary cap gurus big money to sit around and do nothing, and and be caught off-guard when a player's contract comes up?

These people work at least 40 hours a week.  The least they can do is take a long-term view in this area and ensure that the team is competitive from a salary cap standpoint.

No shit. And you just destroyed and killed your own argument with what you wrote above. Those people who work 40 hours a week and have a long term view of this believe they can keep Tannehill at his cap # in his deal and not have to get rid of him to be able to sign free agents, build a good defense, and will still be able to re-sign current players on the roster who's contracts are coming up in subsequent years.

Thank you. You just contradicted your own argument you have been fighting for months here on Tannehills contract.

[Dolfanalyst]

No shit. And you just destroyed and killed your own argument with what you wrote above. Those people who work 40 hours a week and have a long term view of this believe they can keep Tannehill at his cap # in his deal and not have to get rid of him to be able to sign free agents, build a good defense, and will still be able to re-sign current players on the roster who's contracts are coming up in subsequent years.

And how do you know what they believe?