Albert Breer article on paying qbs.
 

DJ, myself a few others had a conversation about this the other day, now Breer talking about it. He must read CP. Anyway, discuss


Albert Breer.

It isn't far-fetched to think Jay Cutler's departure from last Sunday's game against Detroit could lead to a larger-scale exodus from Chicago for the mercurial quarterback.


As it stands, he's had eight starts for new coach Marc Trestman, and a high ankle sprain has landed him in a walking boot. The coach said that Cutler is still the Bears' quarterback. For how much longer is the question.

Chicago isn't alone here.

The salary cap has stayed relatively flat the past three years, and while the middle class has been squeezed and the league has gotten younger across the board, the price tag on quarterbacks has continued to rise. That has turned up the pressure on teams to get it right at the game's most important position.

The decision of whether or not to double down on a passer, which has always been a high-stakes game, is now marked by the economic reality of one player eating up an average of $20 million per year while the cap hovers just above $120 million.

"Any player you sign, no matter how much it's for, you wanna be right. But for that much money, you really have to be," an AFC general manager said. "Say you run a 3-4. Well, now, that's harder, because you need more blue-chippers -- a lockdown corner, pass-rushers. A lot of 3-4s are complicated, so you might need veterans, and that costs more. That's where it starts to hurt, where you want to pay all those vets. And then on the flip side, you pay the quarterback all that money, it's not smart to not have weapons."

Three teams have major calls to make this offseason about their quarterbacks:

Chicago Bears
The player: Cutler
The situation: The contract extension he signed after being traded to Chicago expires in February.
The landscape: GM Phil Emery has been largely mum, but this is clearly a franchise-altering situation. Cutler turns 31 in April, and his potential has outweighed his production as a Bear. Going with a quarterback of his age and experience would signal that Chicago is approaching team-building one way. Starting over with a younger player, on the other hand, could guide larger-scale changes with the other older players on the roster. The franchise tag could be an option.

Cincinnati Bengals
The player: Andy Dalton
The situation: The Bengals have a handful of young players to pay. Dalton is eligible to be extended for the first time this offseason, with 2014 being a contract year.
The landscape: Early in the season, there was internal doubt about Dalton being the long-term answer. That dissipated in October when Dalton showed improvement, but he's struggled since. "At the end of the day, the issue is consistency," a Bengals source said. Not insignificant: Getting Dalton done early would help Cincinnati manage its financials, with a handful of young players due to get deals soon.

San Francisco 49ers
The player: Colin Kaepernick
The situation: Like Dalton, Kaepernick was a second-round draft pick in 2011, meaning he's a) eligible for a new deal this offseason and b) will be going into a contract year.
The landscape: There was no surer sign of the Niners' commitment to Kaepernick than their decision to trade away Alex Smith in the offseason, a move that came after the precocious quarterback's epic playoff run. Since then, Kaepernick has struggled to evolve away from an option-heavy offense. The Niners' plan remains to negotiate with him this offseason, but his play has affected his market value to some degree, and that could make .

Forthcoming decisions on these quarterbacks will help shape what's next for each team. The Bears, sans Cutler, could be in for retooling. The Bengals, if Dalton is allowed to go into his contract year, could take a flier on another QB in the draft.

Of course, if those teams go the other way and lock up their quarterbacks, budgetary considerations will need to be made.

The Indianapolis Colts of Peyton Manning's prime are a good example. Part of the benefit of hiring Tony Dungy and playing the relatively simple Tampa 2 defense (Manning's first mega-contract came after Dungy's second year) was making it easier organizationally to find defensive players who could play right away. Indianapolis poured draft picks and money into Manning's offensive weaponry while constructing a defense built to play with leads around smaller, quicker and mostly cheaper players. The Colts wound up capturing a championship and posting at least 12 wins in seven straight seasons.

Because Manning ate up a large chunk of the cap, Indianapolis could only afford to pay a smaller core of players at the top of the market, so drafting and developing around that core was a point of emphasis.

"The first part of it is that you can't win in this league without a franchise quarterback that the team completely believes in," one NFC GM said. "The second part (of paying him) is you have to have a staff that's willing to play with younger players, and develop young players, and commit to being good teams. When you have that quarterback, the days of signing the vets to come in because they know what they're doing, unless they take less, don't exist anymore."

Baltimore got younger in key spots this offseason, as did Atlanta, while Green Bay has always been draft-centric, so the difference isn't as stark there. In all three locales, big paydays for franchise quarterbacks coincided with the departures of veterans, and likely will force tough decisions down the road, as well.

Pulling the trigger on such a deal in the first place isn't easy. In so many ways, the entire building hitches itself to that player as a result. Taking into account the fallout in other areas of the roster, figuring out where to draw the line can often come down to how confident management is that the quarterback is capable of both winning and carrying the team.

"I just think, with a guy you're around every day, at practice, in the meeting rooms, in the offseason, you know," the AFC GM said. "You know if that has a chance, even if he hasn't made it there yet. So it comes down to your own evaluation. And then it becomes, 'As opposed to what?' If he's not there, you can always draft a guy, but that's easier said than done."

So on one hand, you sell out for the player. On the other, you risk winding up with a guy who makes you the equivalent of a perennial 50-win team in the NBA: just good enough to make you believe you're close while perhaps preventing you from making some of the more seismic changes needed to reach the ultimate goal.

"The way I see it, the guy's gotta be able to bring people along with him, carry guys and make them better," the NFC GM said. "He's gonna be the guy who's playing with that rookie receiver or the undrafted tight end. He knows that, making that money, he can't bitch about not having players. And you look for him to have strong, strong leadership skills."

Soon enough, we'll find out if the Bears, Bengals and Niners feel like their teams have that intangible quality. And as they know, it's one decision they have to get right.

Obama's economy has now finally hit the NFL;)

And btw Jay definitely ain't worth the $$. He is a loser all the way around. But hey he has a rifle arm:rolleyes:

well written article. not a big fan of breer, but he makes glaringly good points -- especially the one about Dungy's team building approach.

but there is a problem with NFLQB bitchfest 2013 -- there will be only one peyton manning and the odds of getting a good NFL style QB are dwindling as college teaches far less football than it did when manning etc were coming up the ranks.

The nfl is moving more towards a style that fits said qbs anyway, hence why it can be a mistake of overpaying for one who's carried by the team around him, not vice versa.

if you're saying the NFL is becoming a dumbed down version of itself, I agree.

So we did the right thing getting small money smith? So cutler to the chuefs? Jk guys a douche.

The comments about the 3-4 being more expensive makes me wonder if that's why Dallas switched to a 4-3 this offseason. Big contract to Romo and looming cap issues. I personally just believe 3-4 is, in general, a superior scheme.

I'd say a more simplistic version of itself, due to various factors.

The Alternative Route
Posted on November 16, 2013 by Joe Bussell
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
- Robert Frost, 1920

“The Road Not Taken” may be something NFL general managers may want to investigate further.

The clear plan of nearly every team in the NFL is to find a “franchise” quarterback and then build around him. Without a franchise quarterback, most teams aren’t considered Super Bowl contenders. Even now, the Chiefs, who are sitting at 9-0, are largely considered frauds because they lack a superstar at the most important position in the sport.

Analyzing the Chiefs’ approach, as well as reading through Albert Breer’s notebook this week, makes me wonder: What if the Chiefs are smarter than everyone else? What if their approach is years ahead of every other team’s approach and we just don’t realize it yet? When thinking about team building in terms of allocation of resources, the Chiefs might be onto something. I know, building a team without a stud quarterback seems far-fetched, but hear me out…

The Money

Over the last few years, the salary cap has stayed fairly level while the prices for quarterbacks have continued to skyrocket. In 2011-2013, the NFL salary cap has been $120.375M, $120.6M, and $123M, respectively. Meanwhile, the quarterback salary range has jumped from about $14 million to an average of $20 million for the top tier guys. The quarterback prices are outpacing the salary cap increases over the last 3 years. Not to mention spending more $20M on a single guy is dedicating more 16 percent of a team’s salary cap to 1/53rd of the roster.

The allocation of that amount of cap is detrimental to the rest of the team. The Saints just paid Drew Brees and now have to find room to re-sign superstar tight end Jimmy Graham to a contract that will average in the neighborhood of $10 million a year. Nearly 25 percent of the Saints’ salary cap over the next 5 years will be dedicated to 2 players. That doesn’t leave a lot of money to pay for the rest of the 51 men on the roster.

If the numbers for quarterbacks continue to increase faster than the salary cap, it will eventually make the investment outweigh the return. Forget the, “you can’t put a price on a franchise quarterback” chatter. You can, and teams will if the current trend continues. Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady aren’t the same quarterbacks without decent offensive lines or weapons to throw to. Even Drew Brees couldn’t lift the Saints to a .500 record when his defense was giving up historic amounts of yardage in 2012.

Quarterbacks are important but at some point general managers and owners will get squeezed so much by rising salaries that the return on the investment isn’t worth it. They’re already robbing Peter to pay Paul by pushing out the middle class of the NFL. The league is becoming younger not because teams don’t want veterans, but because teams can’t pay big time players on big time contracts without re-allocating the money from some other place. This means teams are paying a lot of minimum salaries and veterans are unwillingly being weeded out because they simply cost too much, even at veteran minimums.

General managers will continue to push the brink of the salary cap by figuring out what works best for the team. Some will even begin to question, “Is spending 20-25% of my salary cap worth it? Is there an alternative – another road perhaps?”

The Availability of Franchise Quarterbacks

Franchise quarterbacks are the most sought after commodity in the NFL, and the rarity at which they are available makes them uber expensive. It’s simple supply and demand. Demand is high, supply is low, and therefore the price for a franchise quarterback is obscene. Teams are currently paying the going rate but there’s no real prediction for how long they will continue to do so.

Franchise quarterbacks don’t grow on trees. In fact, it’s more like hitting on a lottery ticket when a team finds one. By my count, there are 10-12 franchise quarterbacks in the NFL – and that’s including a handful that have some serious question marks about their recent play or near future. Teams are more likely NOT to have a franchise quarterback, yet they’re all still playing the lottery in hopes they’ll hit on one.

Eventually, a team is not going to be able to pay a quarterback on his 2nd or 3rd contract. The first general manager to let a franchise quarterback go due to money will be vilified by the fan base and media. He’ll give the standard line, “We have to do what is best for the team,” and he’ll truly believe that he is doing just that. The decision will likely be agonized over for months before it is actually made. He’ll be crucified for a decision that truly is best for the team. The results will eventually land him a big new contract or a place in line at the unemployment office.

The Road Less Traveled Might Be Better

A general manager decides not to pay his franchise quarterback and let him walk, or a new general manager takes over a new team without a franchise quarterback, now what? If a new GM is taking over a new team, it’s highly likely his franchise quarterback isn’t there. If he were, the previous general manager would likely still have his job. Without having to pay big money to a quarterback, a GM has a solid amount of cap space and resources because he’s not paying a significant portion of his cap to one player.

Kansas City took the route of shoring up their defense and trading for a “game managing” quarterback who is costing the Chiefs less than half of the top paid quarterbacks. According to the NFLPA league cap report, the Chiefs are currently 17th in cap space. They have about $18 million in dead money that’s taking up cap space this year. Because of cap logistics, that’s essentially $18 million in cap space that they’ll have available next season, in addition to anything that they roll over from this season.

Because the Chiefs won’t be spending that money on a franchise quarterback they’ll be able to add offensive weapons, offensive linemen, or even more defensive players this offseason. If they do it correctly, the Chiefs could surround Alex Smith with an impressive team.

When all factors are taken into consideration, this is the more viable way to build a team. Teams are more likely to be able to find good players at other positions and build efficiently than to get lucky and land a stud quarterback.

Taking the road less traveled also insulates the team from fluctuation due to a quarterback’s performance, or worse, injury. The Colts are the prime example. When Peyton Manning went down with an injury in 2011, the Colts went from a division winner and playoff team in 2010, to selecting 1st overall in the 2012 draft. If Andrew Luck were to go down with an injury, the Colts would struggle to win 2 or 3 games the rest of the season. The Packers are going through this now, but they’re better built than the Colts are to handle Aaron Rodgers missing a month.

It’s the same concept as diversifying a stock portfolio. Invest in many different areas so if one fails, the rest can support the collapse and it’s largely inconsequential. If a person is highly invested in one stock or one industry, and that industry or stock fails, his life savings is gone. In the same way, a general manager doesn’t want to invest solely in a quarterback, who if he fails, the whole team fails.

Nothing is infallible. Both roads have their potholes and turns to navigate. But considering both roads is necessary. It’s possible that building the team first then finding (or lucking into) the quarterback is the better road (Broncos, and possibly Jaguars next season). It’s also possible that landing the franchise quarterback first happens and a general manager has to build around him (Colts and Luck).

The examples of both roads are endless. The Panthers may just have their franchise quarterback in Cam Newton, but the lack of weapons around him makes it tough to really discern if he can make them into a contender. The Buccaneers appear to have the roster but have struggled at the quarterback position (and coaching) and it’s led a very talented team to a 1-8 record. The 49ers have an offensive line and a defense for Colin Kaepernick but haven’t provided him with the necessary receivers to really help him develop, and all this week he’s been crushed by the media for a lack of passing refinement. Seattle built the team and then lucked into their franchise quarterback and now they’re the favorite to win the NFC.

The overzealous approach of teams to find a “franchise” quarterback is the pain point. It’s possible to have success with the “right” quarterback, not the best one. Instead of spending so much time and resources chasing the uncatchable, set the team up for success and then get the franchise guy when he just happens to come along, like the Packers did with Rodgers, or the Seahawks did with Wilson.

There are many roads to success. Maybe more teams should follow Robert Frost’s footsteps and take the one less traveled.


Here is another article on it, from nflphilosophy. Really interesting topic.

Negro, please.:facepalm:

I think Flacco's deal and his performance will have someone with a QB at his level letting them go.

Outside of the top 3-5 guys these QB's with $100M contracts are team killers.

I tend to think that reality will push QB's higher up draft boards because they come so cheap there...

Yeah, just build a great defense, draft O line every year, and throw John Q. Dingleberry behind Center!

CHAMPIONSHIP.

:facepalm:

Worked for the Giants and Ravens. Eli, Flacco, and Dilfer were decent to good. Not great.

Look at the Patriots. Once they their defense has turned to mediocre, no more super bowl wins despite what numbers Brady puts up.

It's an interesting take.

Seems alot of these QB's got big contracts after a SB win, then SB wins become sparse.

Don't know if that has anything to do with the QB's or how you prove or disprove it, but it's interesting to talk about.

You have to draft a franchise QB to consistently win and you have to draft another if the first guy fails.

ALL those QB's had GREAT moments along the way. They all played GREAT for a few games and once THE game was over, they were never the same. It happened to Eli twice. You need more than just a great defense today. The rules are against you.

hay
give the men his monies


go chuefs

Even the top 3-5 guys, though...

What has Aaron Rodgers done since getting his crazy huge contract?

They had to cut their best receiver, and their defense and offense line is horrendous.

Greg Jennings has done a spectacular job of raising the level of QB play in Minnesota.

Eli was drafted first overall and played at an extremely high level to win those 2 rings. Stating otherwise is reeruned.

Joe Flacco was a first round pick and played at an elite level throughout the playoffs to win the MVP award and get his jewlery.

To try to lump either of those guys in with Trent Dilfer is disingenuous at best.

While true, flacco at least is being paid like a guy who can carry a team.

I'm not sure he can and I think we are seeing Eli can't either.

Maybe they can at times, but if being paid and taking up that much cap space, you need more than can at times, IMO.

Either way, it's a good conversation about team building.

Eli Mannings td:int ratio in his 2 superbowl playoff runs...
15td 1int

Joe Flaccos td:int ratio in his superbowl playoff run...
11tds:0ints


Joe Flacco the last 3 years in the playoffs...
18tds 2 ints

Eli Mannings last 4 playoff runs...
17tds 5ints

Anyone that would suggest that either of these teams should move on from these guys and just let them walk versus paying them market value might have a good conversation until you let your quarterback walk and replace him with someone not as good and needing development.

But you aren't paying them for what they've done, it's what they will do int he future. If they aren't good enough to carry a potential lesser team because of their contract, are they worth it?

Or could you take a slightly lesser qb, Alana young draft pick etc, build your team around him while not breaking the bank on him and try and win that way?

With the new passing rules, it's making it easier and easier for lesser qbs to be adequate.

So if that's the case, why pay big money for guys who rely on the talent around them when you can get the same thig for cheaper?

Those stats are against all playoff defenses, too.

Alex Smiths stats in 9 starts against almost exclusively non playoff teams?

9tds 4ints

If I have the choice between paying either Eli or Flacco 20 or Alex Smith 11-12, I'd GLADLY take Flacco or Manning and posters here that say they wouldn't probably don't even watch playoff games.

The question is, pay big money for a guy elevated by those around him not the other way around, which in turn handicaps what you put around him?

Its a tough decision and one I'm glad I don't have to make.

O, it's not like Eli and Flacco did it with elite talent all around them...of course they got paid for what they can do in the future. What makes you think they can't repeat those performances WHEN THEIR TEAM NEEDS IT THE MOST?

Paying them that means you probably lose Houston and or Poe etc.

I don't think those two are good enough for that to happen.

When they haven't had great situations around them, they haven't been a whole lot more than a mistake prone qb.

All around them on offense? Maybe not.

But look at he defenses etc. it's not just about offensive weapons.

And if they can't cart the team to a position where they can make those repeat performances, what's the point?

I think much of what Flacco accomplished in his. SB run was due in large part to Anquan Boldin.

At the same time, I think there's only a handful of QBs that could give those opportunities to Boldin.

I am of the opinion that Flacco is overpaid.

He's not a guy that raises the level of play.
He's a guy that needs weapons, who plays to their level.

So if by some chance the Chiefs win the Superbowl and the choice boiled down to giving Smith a big contract or he walks, what do you do. If you keep Smith you have to let some of the guys on defense go.

So far, everyone has paid their boarder line franchise guy after he wins a SB.

As a GM your job is to build a team capable of winning multiple SBs. Can you do it by rotating guys at the QB position and investing long term in the other parts of the team? The other factor is that QBs can stay at their prime level far longer than players at other positions.

I agree.

I think he's a guy that when he gets hot can be really good, but I think he's too much of a product of what's around him for me to pay him that much.

No way.

It means you let your aging players walk and replace THEM with draft picks.

What you guys are suggesting is that you sell your horse (or let someone less have it for free) so that you can upgrade your cart because you can pull it with a donkey.

5 years a go, I might agree.

If you pay said borderline qb that much you essentially have to hit draft pick after pick with potential eliteish level players.


That's a lot to ask.

Anquan Boldin is a "b" receiver, as was every other skill position player from that offense.

While I wouldn't ever argue that Flacco is at the same level as the elite guys, he proved he could be a superbowl MVP with "b talent" around him on offense.

Right now, Alex Smuth is surrounded by "b level talent" and isn't doing anything confidence inspiring and is getting 11+ million this year.

This has nothing to do with Alex smith. We aren't talking about him.

And Boldin is a b wr now, but didn't play like it int he playoffs.

Flacco got hot at the right time. Is that potential worth making him the 2 highest paid qb in the league? Time will tell.

Shit. Give me Boldin and Torrey Smith any day. B level my eye.

They sure as **** aren't AJ Green or CJ quality players, thus they are in the next tier.

I think Bowe is just as good or better than either of them...if given a similar QB situation.

It's just an interesting talking point about team building.

Like someone else brought up, if Alex smith had a flacco type run this year and we win a sb, would you give him 20mil$?

I sure wouldn't.

What Boldin showed is that if you put the ball in his area code, he can make plays.

Flacco used that to his advantage, and without Boldin, he would likely be getting paid a shit ton less.

Personally, there's no way in hell I'd have given him that money, and I think he's well on his way to proving it was a bad investment.

I think Bowe is better, but Torrey is pretty well fit for that offense.

Flacco is a scattershot in terms of accuracy, but can hit more deep balls. So get a big speed wr to go get it, Torrey smith.

Actually, that's exactly what this article is discussing. The merits of winning with "overpaid b level guys" or going to battle with guys like Alex Smith that won't offer you as much, but are cheaper.

I agree.

But, as I see it, we are looking at levels.

Rodgers, Brady and Manning are here.


Eli is here




Flacco is here






And Smith is here.

That level just above Smith is not worth the price paid, and Smith isn't worth 11 mil.

Good point, my fault.

Bit that brings in a good point. If you put enough premier talent around a guy like smith, which guys like his salary allow you to do, will he gap between those guys and the flaccos be that great?

I dunno, but it's interesting.

I don't know that I put Eli that high right now though. But I agree on everything else.

The thing about Eli is that he has shown that he can put a team on his shoulders, and has come up big in the clutch more consistently than any other QB.

I can't put him on the same level as the elite guys, but I also won't dismiss his history and drop him to a level equal to Flacco.

We are just entering a 7 game stretch where we will face a lot of playoff caliber teams that Alex will need to put points up on to win.

It should be interesting to see how well he plays down the stretch in comparison to the alternatives that were out there this past offseason.

And my point is that until a team lets a SB winning QB walk rather than overpay them, every team is still effectively locked into the franchise QB model of building a franchise. And you would need one of those very top QBs (Brady, P. Manning, Brees, Rogers) to have a good chance of winning more than one title in that mode.

In the franchise mode team building works like this:

Stage 1. Pre-franchise mode You spread your $ around and have good talent at many positions. Team gets better fast. The prefranchise mode lasts until a huge contract is given to the starting QB, which could be the result of the QB being really good, winning the SB, or overpaying a B-level QB (e.g., Romo).

Stage 2. Post-franchise mode A huge fraction of your cap is tied up in your QB and you have to let a lot of the good supporting talent walk. The QB has to be a huge difference maker to stay on top. Most QB's aren't that good and the huge contract to the starting QB marks the decline of that team.

Would a team ever have enough guts to reload with a young cheap QB or a journeyman at the end of stage 1? I will believe it when I see it.

If the Chiefs win a SB, Alex Smith will be come an overpaid b level guy, or he will walk.

One thing that seems apparent as it relates to this article.

Andy Dalton is playing his way out of Cinncinatti.

With the cap scheduled to go up significantly over the next decade, the trend of paying quarterbacks top dollar will not only continue, it will likely escalate.

He has, but he's also just so inconsistent that it's tough.

And that's till doesn't make it necessarily right.

Great post.

Yeah it's definitely interesting to see what happens.

no no no,in what world is Bowe as good as those guys lol. Hasn't shown he can go up and grab anything in the vicinity consistently,and his hands aren't as strong. Hes Terrell Owens after Terrell Owens was considered washed up playing in Cincinatti. Good player still but b level talent I cant even consider him that,ive seen him miss too many big plays he could've made. Hes the Alex Smith of WR's lol

And if not for two muffed punts Alex Smith is possibly a superbowl winning qb,so you have to at least acknowledge theres living proof this formula absolutely can work. And the fact the 49ers could plug Kaepernick in and still win after Alex went down proves the original point of this topic even more doesn't it lol.


Eli shouldn't have got that big contract because the defense did a lot of heavy lifting to get him that superbowl.

And if Alex Smith somehow managed to get a superbowl this year,no way you pay him 20mil. Its not hard to see whether the qb carried the team on his back through the season and if he can lead a shit offense to the promise land. I absolutely don't think ALex can do that and hopefully the rest of the league would be smart enough to know that and not offer 20 mil lol. Only Brees,Manning,Rodgers and Brady I would say deserve the 20 mil tag.Because I believe they can pick up the slack of a lesser offensive unit. Your at least in the hunt as long as the d isn't absolute shit.

and btw,no Alex Smith of this year outside of the record its hard to say hes lived up to the 11 mil contract. But the record is the record lol. The alex Smith that should've played in the superbowl in san fran though? that guy is definitely worth 11 mil. Only reason im patient is because im not as high on his offensive line,play calling and weapons as some of you are apparently,who believe Bowe is Anquan Bolden level.

Good lord, where did this dipshit come from?

"B's" really?

TE Dennis Pitta = 7 TD's, 700 yds
WR Torry Smith = 9 TD's, 864 yscm
RB Ray Rice = 10 TD's, 1621 yscm
WR Boldin = 4 TD's, 921 yds


<script type="text/javascript" src="http://widgets.sports-reference.com/wg.fcgi?css=1&site=pfr&url=%2Fteams%2Frav%2F2012.htm&div=div_rushing_and_receiving"></script>


Boldin was low in the tank, but I don't thnk any of those players are "B" talent. those are good stats.

Smith does not have that kind of talent in skills positions and he certainly doesn't have an OL like Flacco's. There are guys -- like Avery, who is playing well, but he's no Torry Smith or Boldin. Jamaal is no contest against Rice, but Rice had an OL blocking for him and Jamaal rarely has.

Couldn't agree more. People forget Flacco's name and performance 2/3rds of the way through the season last year was 'MUDD' UNTIL Flacco got Cam fired and then it turned around making Flacco and Harbaugh look like genius's. But Flacco has finally showed his limitations for sure now.

You think Torrey Smith and Anquan Boldin is in the same group as Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald and AJ Green?

Hahahahahahaha

Dennis Pitta in the same group as Jimmy Graham?

I mean, Ray Rice is in the conversation of being in the a group of backs, but that's debatable because he doesn't offer the same upside as Adrian Peterson.

Like I said...

He's not. He's injured and it's a hip injury.

And he's not recovering.

And he's feeling stingers and extreme pain.

He's done...

Just look at the New England Patriots. Before there luckily hit on Tom Brady the Patriots were a pretty bad to mediocre franchise. We'll see how there perform when Tom Brady retires. A great quarterback makes a mediocre team good and a bad team mediocre.

They did pretty good with Bledsoe...

Bears will have a decision with cutler and mccown