Posted by AlCheez on 12/23/2014 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I still think you're ultimately asking if Seattle can win titles while actually paying full price for quality quarterback play. We can question where exactly he falls in the ranking of QBs, but I think it's clear that he's good enough that 20 million dollars a year for him isn't going to be the kind of overpay that's an absolute anchor on the team. But it will come at a position where they were previously getting the same player at like a 90% discount. To sustain the talent level around him at a similar level, they are going to have to find their bargains at other positions. And let's face it, they've been benefiting from young and cheap all over the roster, so QB isn't the only place that they have some decisions to make about paying the piper.
With where the team stands now, would you actually advocate starting over at QB?
That's not quite what I was asking. If you pay $20 million to a quarterback who can consistently take over and win a game (in-their-primes Brady, Manning, etc.), you can obviously afford to weaken yourself at other positions. This past Sunday's performance notwithstanding (and, in fairness, it came against a gambling defense that has been torched to the tune of 500+ yards on multiple occasions this season - but he played an amazing game), I'm asking if you can afford to weaken yourself elsewhere in order to pay that money to a quarterback who can't (or hasn't shown the ability to) consistently do that.
I don't know that I would advocate it - that's why I'm asking the question. I know NFL GMs sign him without a thought. You don't get fired for giving Joe Flacco that contract and watching your team subsequently struggle to make the playoffs - you get fired if you let Flacco go and his replacement costs you the playoffs.