Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

RiversPhi04.jpg

» 2014 KUBIAK vs. ADP: The Underrated

Going too low in your fantasy draft: veteran quarterbacks, running backs who do more with their hands than their feet, and Houston's (only) two good receivers.

08 Jul 2013

Transaction Analysis: Quarterbacks

by Rivers McCown

Joe Flacco signs six-year, $120.6 million deal to stay with Baltimore

Joe Flacco was technically a free agent this year. That distinction gets less descriptive every year between the amount of players that won't ever hit the open market and the number of practically retired players (like "free agent Terrell Owens") that draw publicity for being themselves. Flacco almost certainly would have drawn the franchise tag had he and the Ravens been unable to come to an agreement -- probably the elite franchise tag, which gives clutchness incentives. During the regular season, Flacco's -1.6% DVOA ranked him 17th among all qualified quarterbacks. That encompasses his historical background rather nicely: his highest DVOA rank in a single season was 15th place in 2010. Flacco's trump card in negotiations, beyond those last four playoff games, was that he was stuck with Cam Cameron's arcane offensive philosophies and a passing attack without a true No. 1 receiver. This does not make him worthy of the enormous contract he got, of course, but it does mean that FO statistics probably undervalue his total worth.

The deal looks worse than it actually is. Flacco's contract needs to be looked at as a natural outgrowth of the CBA changes born from the last lockout. Less money is being paid to rookies, but there's still plenty of emphasis on youth and veteran players are still getting squeezed on the open market. That money has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is the most important position on the field. (Ditto Tony Romo's new deal.)

Kevin Kolb signs two-year, $6.1 million deal with Buffalo, Ryan Fitzpatrick signs two-year, $6.5 million deal with Tennessee, Matt Hasselbeck signs two-year, $8 million deal with Indianapolis, Drew Stanton signs three-year, $8.2 million deal with Arizona

Backup quarterback musical chairs rarely fit as neatly as they did this offseason, when Arizona, Indianapolis, Tenneseee, and Buffalo each put an underwhelming quarterback into the white elephant office party. Arizona came out with the best of the lot, signing Drew Stanton to a three-year deal. Stanton has not thrown a pass in an NFL game since 2010, when he had a 12.2% DVOA in 113 passes for the Lions. Stanton was a second-round pick, but has since seen his roles usurped by Matthew Stafford, Shaun Hill, Tim Tebow, Andrew Luck, and now Carson Palmer. Well, at least the quarterbacks that take his job are getting older.

Ryan Fitzpatrick and Matt Hasselbeck are better fits for their new situations than their old ones. Tennessee needed a quarterback without the necessary history to push Jake Locker over for the starting job, but with enough experience to not be awful when Locker gets hurt. The Colts, with their young star quarterback, preferred the crusty veteran type. Hasselbeck can fill that role better, since he's getting a bit too old to be good when he's pressed into service.

The Bills paid Kevin Kolb two years and $6.1 million, and are the clear losers of the exchange based mainly on the fact that they actually consider Kolb the clubhouse leader to open the year under center. Kolb's seasonal DVOA's under pressure since 2010: -90.2%, -130.1%, -130.7%. The Bills might have a better line than Arizona has, but they lost Andy Levitre to the Titans in free agency, and the rest of the line wasn't exactly the early-2000's Chiefs to begin with.

Jason Campbell signs two-year, $2.75 million deal with Cleveland

Jason Campbell was brought into Chicago based on the idea that the Bears would have made the playoffs in 2011 had Caleb Hanie not been, well, Caleb Hanie. In 58 total attempts, he posted a -50.3% DVOA; not quite as bad as Hanie had done in 2011, but still appreciably bad. Of course, this was a small sample size theater. You may remember the two games that Campbell saw the majority of his attempts in were against Houston on Sunday Night Football and San Francisco for Monday Night Football. The Bears basically had nobody not named Brandon Marshall to throw to, and the Chicago offensive line spent said MNF game allowing six sacks and generally looking hapless, so it's probably fair to disregard a lot of his actual performance. What is Campbell's true value to a team though? He can't ride those six good games with Oakland in 2011 forever, and outside of that he's never shown himself to be appreciably good. The Browns picked him up to backup Brandon Weeden, probably because they didn't want to sign anyone younger than Weeden. The mentoring jokes would've written themselves.

Matt Moore re-signs with Miami for two years and $8 million

Outside of his trainwreck in Carolina during the 2010 season -- one which looked much better with the retrospect of seeing how brutal Jimmy Clausen performed after taking over -- Matt Moore has put up some very solid numbers with some limited teams despite a lack of standout arm strength. He garnered a -5.7% DVOA over 12 starts with the Dolphins in 2011, and a 17.1% DVOA in five Panthers starts in 2009. This year he only found 21 pass attempts, as Ryan Tannehill was able to stay upright most of the season, but he garnered a 15.4% DVOA playing with legendary targets such as Davone Bess, Brian Hartline ... and others. The Dolphins could have done a lot worse with their money than $8 million over two years for Moore ... and they probably did at some point this offseason.

Bills re-sign Tarvaris Jackson, then release Tarvaris Jackson, then Seattle signs him to a one-year deal

After making us all wistful for the days of Najeh Davenport by "being [pooped] on by the Vikings for four years," Tarvaris Jackson was sent packing by the Seahawks to Buffalo, where he fudged around the bench watching Fitzpatrick stink up the joint. Jackson isn't the first quarterback to be dumped the second someone better was around, nor is he the first one to be farting around in this column. Upper management does tend to clench their teeth when they're on the throne, forced with a decision to sh*t or get off the pot on a quarterback who has only finished with a positive DVOA once. Jackson is the type of quarterback that can wipe the floor with a low-round pick pushing for that No. 2 job, but he makes some throws that will leave you gassed with laughter. Like Campbell and Moore, Jackson belongs in the punch bowl, but he'll never be KSOFM (NSFW).

Buffalo gave him $500,000 to kick the can around for most of this offseason, then flushed his non-guaranteed contract off their cap when Kolb was brought in. Back in Seattle, he'll make a big splash if he can thrust Brady Quinn back to the third-string role he deserves.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 08 Jul 2013

42 comments, Last at 13 Jul 2013, 6:52pm by LionInAZ

Comments

1
by shah8 (not verified) :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 12:12pm

Matt Cassel

2
by umralph :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 12:24pm

Is KUBIAK coming out today? If so, at what time? I have a draft at 7 pm tonight and I'd love to have it.

3
by justanothersteve :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 12:33pm

I think Rodgers contract extension ($130.75 M from 2015-19, though the $35 M bonus was already paid) should be included here. While not a free agent, his extension is probably the ceiling for new contracts as he's the only QB in the top tier (P Manning, Brees, and Brady being the others) who is still young enough to merit this long an extension at that salary.

4
by BroncFan07 :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 1:19pm

Wonder how much Flacco's numbers would have changed if Tony Carter didn't stop running and Rahim Moore didn't fall down.

5
by Jim C. (not verified) :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 2:05pm

Or how much more the contract would have been if Lee Evans could have held onto the ball, or Billy Cundiff could have hit a chipshot.

Or whether Elway would be in the HOF if Earnest Byner could have held onto the ball.

A person can drive oneself crazy with these things.

35
by Sk1 (not verified) :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 9:09am

Elway was inducted into the hall of fame in 2004.

40
by JimZipCode :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 5:26pm

If Lee Evans could have held onto that ball in Foxboro in the 2011 AFCC, or if Boldin could have held onto that ball in the end zone that hit him in the stomach, in Pittsburgh in the 2010 divisional round.
(Or Lardarius Webb doesn't let Antonio Brown run right past him on 3rd & 19.)

6
by theslothook :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 2:30pm

I'm glad someone has finally brought this up. This is cba should go down as on the great stories of unintended consequences. Consider what the players union wanted - a way to stop the rookie's from earning huge salaries without having a played a snap. OK. But then now what does it mean? It means that rookies have become so cheap relative to veterans that it makes sense for teams to eschew veterans for rookies and undrafteds. That's the big reason why freeney and the rest of the free agents were left unsigned or signed to one and 2 year deals. Instead, the big cap savings has all gone to the elite players and qbs - the type of positions you can't so easily fill with rookies. Essentially, this has become a system of extreme inequality - where the massive gains in salaries are felt at the very near top. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer.

8
by Dean :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 4:31pm

I think the owners are content with this. They're paying exactly the same amount, but now instead of it going to people who have never played a snap of professional football, it goes to players who are actually generating revenue for them. The rank and file didn't get hosed. They're basically getting what they got before. It's the guys who actually move tickets, move merchandise, and draw TV ratings that are getting more. And they're the ones who, from a business standpoint, are earning it. What you see as inequality is actually more fair than what existed before.

9
by theslothook :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 5:11pm

The players union isn't just a group of nfl all stars. The union itself is supposed to fight for all veterans across the league, not just its few elite. The original idea was to have the money saved from signing expensive rookies to be used instead on veterans as a whole, not just the stars. On that front, they got hosed big time. And btw, this effect isn't just about elites vs non elites. The money has biased certain positions against others. Qb salaries have exploded at the expense of Rb salaries.

As for the nfl owners, the real issue was for the teams with high draft picks. One untold story about the draft is - the best players come from the top of the draft, but there is also a higher degree of variability at the top. Meaning, many teams that missed got stuck paying huge salaries to horrible players. That needed to be changed. Now, its better for the owners, but overall worse for the veterans.

10
by Lebo :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 5:25pm

I think there's a chance that veteran quarterback salaries will decrease if we continue to see high performances from first-contract players (Luck, RG3, Wilson, Newton, Kaepernick). And I wonder if that's why Tampa Bay haven't offered Freeman an extension yet.

15
by theslothook :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 10:25pm

You're being biased by this year. Its amazing how perceptions of qbs can change in a few years. Consider - Stafford looked horrible as a rookie while Sanchez looked like a clutch performer. Cam Newton was a rookie sensation and Andy dalton was a hidden gem. And then there's freeman too. Now consider the perception. Locker, Gabbert and Ponder all look like big mistakes, Freeman is super inconsistent, Sanchez is a disaster, and Stafford feels(not my opinion) like an overrated stat padder. Only newton still has the shiny star status on him and he still has his fair share of critics. I don't think last years qb crop s going to change the fundamentals of qb pay anytime soon.

11
by Karl Cuba :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 5:26pm

I don't understand what this has to do with the new CBA, there is nothing in it that pushes money away from veterans. The process of centralizing money in the hands of the star players is driven by agents always trying to top the previous contracts, that process was in place under the last CBA.

13
by theslothook :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 10:18pm

Actually. For one - the veteran minimum is sometimes 4x as high as the rookie minimum. Consider Andrew Luck's contract is 4 yrs 22 million, meaning roughly an annual salary of 5 million a year. Now look at his backup, who signed a 2 yr 8 million dollar contract. And in this situation, the longer years benefit the team because thats 2 additional years of cap savings. Lets not even get into the type of savings the 49ers and seahawks are reaping. The ultimate point is, this cba has biased veterans against rookies because of the clause in the veteran contracts about veteran minimums. I also think there are other issues to account for, including increased pension payments which are also scaled based on years in the league as well as medical benefits.

18
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 7:19am

But the veteran minimums were disproportionately high under the old CBA and pension and medical benefits are not included in the cap. If you 'longer years' is referring to longer rookie contracts then I don't think you're right, the average first round rookie used to sign a five or six year deal which is now capped at four years with an option year so the length of rookie contracts is either the same or shorter, they just get paid less. I don't understand how rookies getting paid less is hurting the veterans, I just don't see the causative link.

As for Kaepernick and Wilson, they would be just as cheap under the old CBA. The only difference is that they cannot renegotiate until they have completed three years. However, they wouldn't have been resigned this offseason anyway and Kaepernick will get redone after this year. Basically, the net influence of the CBA on these two is that Russell Wilson will be chronically underpaid for one more year than the under the old CBA.

There is a lot of talk about veterans getting screwed and quite a lot of it is driven by players like Dwight Freeney taking less than they'd like. Implicit in this is the assumption that he's getting hurt by a new CBA and 'cheap rookies' whereas it's more likely that teams think he will not be the player he used to be. Aging veterans have always been cheap when compared to players in their prime. Some rather mediocre guys in their mid twenties have signed some big money contracts: Chris Houston and Ricky Jean Francois got five million dollars per year which seems generous at least.

Even if you can demonstrate that the middle class is getting squeezed, which the extent of which is often overstated in my opinion, then I still don't see how that is being driven by the new bargaining agreement.

Maybe you believe that the union should have pushed for more pay equality among veterans but that's a different argument all together.

26
by Intropy :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:50pm

I think a key maybe the concept of "above replacement" as used here at FO. A player has some player value over what a replacement level player would provide. Call this PVOA. Now let's assume that a replacement level player is always available as a late round draft pick or UDFA. That replacement is going to be making just about league minimum. So salary efficiency is something like PVOA / (salary - league minimum).

Star players have very high PVOA and commensurately high salaries. The existence of a minimum salary replacement doesn't affect them much because the league minimum term doesn't do much to their salary efficiency.

For some just-a-guy veteran type playing for veteran minimum, however, that league minimum term is a significant factor. He's probably not all that much more talented than a replacement player, but he cost three times as much. That makes hiring him less efficient, and he's being priced out of the market.

Now, the fact that there is a salary cap and a salary minimum and roster cap and position specialization means and limited player availability that straight up salary efficiency isn't the end all be all of constructing a team. (for math types the difference strikes me as similar to the difference between the continuous and the 0-1 knapsack problems). But if were to construct a greedy algorithm to build a roster, I'd start with something like this efficiency concept. I'd expect a market to act this way to some degree if only implicitly.

37
by Jimmy :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 9:20am

Guys on veteran minimum count for $550k against the cap even if their actual minimum is say $900k. I think there can even be a small signing bonus and they count for the reduced amount (so it isn't really a minimum salary). So the new CBA does protect veteran players to some degree. No they aren't as cheap as rookies but they do know what they are doing. If teams are getting younger it is more likely to be because GMs want younger players than any dramatic impact of the new CBA.

27
by Intropy :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:55pm

I think a key maybe the concept of "above replacement" as used here at FO. A player has some player value over what a replacement level player would provide. Call this PVOA. Now let's assume that a replacement level player is always available as a late round draft pick or UDFA. That replacement is going to be making just about league minimum. So salary efficiency is something like PVOA / (salary - league minimum).

Star players have very high PVOA and commensurately high salaries. The existence of a minimum salary replacement doesn't affect them much because the league minimum term doesn't do much to their salary efficiency.

For some just-a-guy veteran type playing for veteran minimum, however, that league minimum term is a significant factor. He's probably not all that much more talented than a replacement player, but he cost three times as much. That makes hiring him less efficient, and he's being priced out of the market.

Now, the fact that there is a salary cap and a salary minimum and roster cap and position specialization means and limited player availability that straight up salary efficiency isn't the end all be all of constructing a team. (for math types the difference strikes me as similar to the difference between the continuous and the 0-1 knapsack problems). But if were to construct a greedy algorithm to build a roster, I'd start with something like this efficiency concept. I'd expect a market to act this way to some degree if only implicitly.

31
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 7:13pm

There's some interesting stuff there. I'd love to see the algorithm, though if it's good you should send it to Parage Maraathe instead, he might just offer you a job with the 49ers.

32
by theslothook :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 7:57pm

I was considering writing such an algorithm, but its on the backburner of other stat projects I've been dealing with. And ironically, I know paraage back when I was in highschool. I imagine if I tried to do this, he'd probably tousle my hair and say I've come a long way from making pizzas, but still have a lot to learn.

28
by theslothook :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 5:49pm

Ok, I'll try to do this piece by piece:

Looking into the new rookie wage scale, teams are given an allotment to spend on rookies. That allotment essentialy drives down the prices of individual draft picks across the draft, thus making each one of them cheaper than the veterans in ways that wasn't true 4 years ago. While the true rookie minimum might not have changed relative to the veteran minimum, its the sheer volume of picks all making less that has made them cheaper relative to the veterans. Also the new rookie wage scale has significantly curtailed performance based incentives - meaning they are even cheaper than before. The bonus numbers have been changed, which means the cost of cutting them is smaller and on top of that, the 5th year option is pegged based on draft status. Thus, a 2nd rounder is playing at an elite level(say Kaep), his 5th year contract is based on his draft status, not market value. That is a significant benefit.

Now, you're a gm and you want to maximize talent and minimize the cost. In that case, every player is valued based on his play versus his cost and his replaceability. Because rookies have no become so cheap relative to veterans, their play must be much higher to compensate in that ratio. And I suspect the play quality is not enough to cover the difference in both pay, sunk costs, and benefits of that 5th year option.

30
by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 7:11pm

I don't think that the rookie wage scale has resulted in serious changes after the first round, the salaries for most of the draft seem pretty similar. It has dramatically altered the first round and especially the top picks but there is only one 1st rounder per team and that player would have made the roster under the previous CBA and for a higher share of the cap.

The 5th year option only applies to first round picks (so not Kaepernick) and there are no 6 year rookie deals anymore.

The performance related pay for rounds 3-7 has been changed but I'm not sure that it's been reduced, the threshold for earning it has been lowered to 35% participation on their side of the ball. Many more players will receive increased compensation than before though it is true that players like Russell Wilson will be worse off. However, Wilson is a rare example he'd be underpaid if he was drafted next to Luck and RGIII as they're going to have to put up with being underpaid, at least he doesn't have to contend with a fifth year option.

Also each team only has seven picks, until there is evidence of an influx of undrafted free agents above previous levels or many more lower round picks making the final roster I don't think the new CBA theory stacks up. I think GMs will continue to build their roster in similar ways to before, if they can find a player who can do the same job who is younger and cheaper then the veteran will be replaced but that has always been the case.

It won't be possible to say with any certainty until final cutdowns and we won't know for sure for a couple of years.

39
by cjfarls :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 2:23pm

This matches my perception as well. I just don't see big differences between the old CBA and this one regarding rookies beyond the 1st round... that hurts guys like Luck/RG3/Von Miller, etc., but doesn't do much to the 3rd-7th rounders, etc. that were always really cheap.

I think 2 things have contributed to a perceived shift to younger players. First, I think there is a current trend to use relatively simple schemes that maximize young players abilities... think zone read offenses, etc. This has meant that young players can come in and contribute immediately, without the steep learning curve more complex schemes had in the past.

I also think GMs are getting smarter about not overpaying "replacement level" veterans. Even Dan Snyder is being less an idiot. Too many teams were burned by dead money, and the existence of improved analytical data measuring that performance (this website as an example) means some GMs aren't quite as dumb as they once were. In many cases, the difference between a young guy with potential playing on a minimum contract and an old declining vet (that also won't likely play special teams) is minimal... so if the vet wants to play, its likely going to be at the vet minimum, and/or with limited/no guarunteed money. Thats a tough pill for the vet to swallow, but I don't think that was driven by the new CBA.

What I think is cool is that at some point, I'm guessing there will be an arbitrage opportunity where proven vet talent may become undervalued. Like Belicheck and the early 2000 Pats, some smart GM will see a bunch of proven, undervalued vet talent, link it up with a few superstars from the the draft or from FA on big contracts, and spend a season or 2 wiping the floor using more complex techniques and schemes that teams with too little experience can't figure out.

41
by Dean :: Thu, 07/11/2013 - 9:27am

I think that arbitrage exists right now, actually, in limited circumstances.

There are two ways a team can maximize its profits. The first is to acquire marketable stars who sell tickets and move merchandise.

But the second one is by putting a winning product on the field. Fans will support a boring team of no-names if that team wins. Much like the 2000 Pats did.

If you're not paying anybody in the first category, suddenly you have the ability to field a team of $2 million/year players. That team won't automatically win, but you'll be the dominant economic force in that particular sector. Combine that with good coaching and some good chemistry and maybe you get 2000 Pats Revisited.

It's also easy to switch models. As stars come along and warrant big dollar contracts, you have a few less $2 million players, a few more rookies, and a few others who are $1.5 million instead of $2 million.

14
by theslothook :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 10:22pm

And the money driven into stars hands is driven by the market. The agents are merely actors. What determines your own salary is the same thing that determines all salaries, supply and demand. In this case - salaries are as much a function of perceived value as they are about perceived fungibility and future production. AP or MJD may have the best agent in the world, but he will only get what the market determines he's worth and what he's worth depends on the factors mentioned above.

The reason I said the money is now being concentrated in the hads of the elite is because they are the hardest players to replace. Think of the marginal veteran. Hes' marginally maybe better than a 4th round rookie, but his cost will be much higher. The ratios of risk, cost, and production will always be of issue and that's why this cba has by in large hurt the average veteran.

17
by David :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 5:40am

AP or MJD may have the best agent in the world, but he will only get what the market determines he's worth

Surely this statement could only apply in a free market, and the NFL player pool is almost anything but a free market. Yes, you have free movement of players (as long as their contract is at an end, and they aren't tagged), but the presence of the draft and the salary cap (not to mention the limit of 32 teams in the market) mean it's a long way from free

36
by Sk1 (not verified) :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 9:14am

WR salaries are also out of control. It does seem that teams no longer have to commit large piles of money to rookies. The savings teams have here are being channeled into QB's and WR's. League perception is that it is a passinge league now, so this makes sense.

7
by Matt Bowyer :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 4:26pm

Early in his career, I really liked Jason Campbell. I thought he got a raw deal in Washington with Snyder's complete allergy to continuity, and he had to learn, unlearn, and then relearn so many different offenses that he never had a chance to develop as a quarterback. The last QB Washington grabbed in the first round before Campbell, if my memory serves, was Patrick Ramsey, and Ramsey had a similar problem with consistency, due to splitting time with Florida retreads constantly, so it's not like this was out of character for Washington or anything.

Since that time, though, has Campbell regressed? The few times I saw him, he didn't seem to look downfield much at all, and that was the first time I felt like he really lived up to the "Captain Checkdown"-esque reputation he had.

12
by Sifter :: Mon, 07/08/2013 - 7:17pm

Enjoyed the Najeh Davenport inspired paragraph about Tarvaris! That story never got old for me.

16
by Dan :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 4:36am

$4M/yr is way too much to pay a backup quarterback. A backup QB plays what, 2 games per year on average? How many quarterbacks in the NFL are worth $2M per game?

If there was an Aaron Rodgers clone available to play backup quarterback for the Packers then maybe you could make a case for $4M, since he'd allow the team to remain Super Bowl caliber even if their starting QB got injured. But for a Hasselbeck on the Colts, or Moore on the Dolphins? Not even close.

20
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:04pm

Those two games might well be the difference in getting into the playoffs or not. If it cost me a little more to get a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick instead of a guy like Calen Hanie or Brody Croyle, I think you do it.

25
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:14pm

Dupe

21
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:07pm

Those two games might well be the difference in getting into the playoffs or not. If it cost me a little more to get a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick instead of a guy like Calen Hanie or Brody Croyle, I think you do it.

22
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:07pm

Those two games might well be the difference in getting into the playoffs or not. If it cost me a little more to get a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick instead of a guy like Caleb Hanie or Brodie Croyle, I think you do it.

23
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:08pm

Those two games might well be the difference in getting into the playoffs or not. If it cost me a little more to get a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick instead of a guy like Caleb Hanie or Brodie Croyle, I think you do it.

24
by dryheat :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 12:12pm

Those two games might well be the difference in getting into the playoffs or not. If it cost me a little more to get a guy like Ryan Fitzpatrick instead of a guy like Caleb Hanie or Brodie Croyle, I think you do it.

29
by Noah of Arkadia :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 6:39pm

Two games on average, maybe, but it's not like that. Some teams need their backup QB for a lot more than two games. It's just like buying car insurance. You lose money to save money, or something of the sort. You get that backup QB and hope you never have to play him.

------
The man with no sig

33
by Lance :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 10:06pm

Yeah, and my health insurance has been a total rip-off, too, but I'm glad I have it even if I'm paying market prices for it.

34
by theslothook :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 11:27pm

I can guarantee those aren't really market prices.

42
by LionInAZ :: Sat, 07/13/2013 - 6:52pm

Oh, there's a market, it's just that it's not a free one.

19
by active writing com (not verified) :: Tue, 07/09/2013 - 11:12am

Well done! Keep up the good work!

38
by Jburke (not verified) :: Wed, 07/10/2013 - 11:57am

Tarvaris has nothing left to do but count his money and drop his kids off at the pool.