AsylumGuido

Yup. Middle of the road. I don't care whether we move on or not, but the chances of finding someone better are not good considering the vast number of QB's coming out of college never even prove to become starters at all and only a few that do even reach the rank of bottom half starters. That's what we need to prepare for with our expectations for the near future.

BakoSaint

But like, at the same time, Mahomes, Hurts, Allen, Burrow, and Jackson, who are clearly the top 5 QBs now, were all acquired via the draft, with 4 of 5 going in the first round. Of the next tier so were Daniels and Love, and honestly to me Goff is an aging system QB. Like Jordan or Gretzky or whoever said, you miss all the shots you dont take, and the top teams in the league have taken shots on QBs in the draft in early rounds. Carr is getting us half way to nowhere fast. So at some point we have to roll the dice on a Manning or Leaf, a Trubisky or Mahomes. The higher a QB is drafted, the better the odds are, by a little bit, although not necessarily a lot. Yet blockbuster trades where a team gives up 3 first round picks to move up for a QB have a bad history of setting up QBs to fail with high expectations and low resources. So moving on from Carr and accepting one year with a less certain option sets us up to take our shot in the first round if needed without having to make a blockbuster Ricky Williams 2.0 QB trade that is doomed to fail.

I will concede that the NFL is a league of trends and copycats, and the model of bringing in a veteran QB and winning it all had its day in the past. Currently, all the top QBs were drafted by their teams, but in the past there were success stories with Brees, Manning, Brady, and Stafford, while recent attempts with Rodgers, Wilson, Cousins, Watson, and Carr (a much lesser name) have failed. At the same time, these trends can be cyclic, and veteran QBs did not fair that well prior to Brees either, with failed or at least non-championship second acts from the likes of Bledsoe, Montana, Moon, Harbaugh, Everett, Archie Manning, and others, with the main successes being QBs who never really got a chance with their first teams like Favre and Young. I think the best thing is to not go too far with either model. Drafting a QB works best when you are trying to rebuild and get younger, and you have a high pick already where you can select a QB with your pick in the top 10-12 usually or take a shot on an overlooked QB in later rounds and dont need to mortgage the future to make a Rickey Williams 2.0 trade. A veteran QB can work if they are still very young and never had a chance to reach their peak, or if they are a veteran known commodity where you have the roster and salary cap to build around them and win without needing them to have a career year in their mid 30's. Bringing in a veteran QB has been successful too historically but may go out of fashion again because of recent misses. If that creates an opportunity in the future, fine, but only when we have the right roster and cap situation in place, and that QB is a bit more young or elite than Carr.

I really hope we don't keep Carr this year. But if we do, I hope it was a back room agreement between Moore, Loomis, and Gayle that amounted to 'ok Mickey, we disagree but we'll try it your way and give it a year, if it doesn't work we start trying things my way next year, ok Gayle?' In that case Carr would be gone in 2026 and take Loomis with him, or Loomis would become a figurehead with Moore or his confidants making the decisions. The challenge with this could be that rebuilding in year 2 would require giving Moore a long leash and might shake any coaches confidence.

AsylumGuido

I guess on way to look at it is, if we are rebuilding and going to have to absorb Carr's cap hit anyway, why not retain him? If you (not you personally, Bako) think Carr sucks so badly why not let him contribute to our crappy season for a better pick in 2026? Or are y'all afraid that he'll contribute to too many wins?

BakoSaint

I would agree if it was free to keep Carr, but its a falsehood being promoted by dishonest or uninformed members of the media that it is somehow free or actually saves money to keep Carr. The 2025 minimum payments of keeping or cutting Carr are essentially the same (if Carr doesn't sign elsewhere for $10m+), but the total balance owed against future salary caps increases by $30-40 million if we keep Carr. Most likely we would save $40 million long term by cutting Carr because he would sign with another team that would pay him over $10 million, likely $20-25 million I think, and his $10 million guaranteed roster bonus is subject to offset.

The basic thing to understand is that whenever you write a player a new check, you have more money charged against your salary cap, but there are ways to delay some of that money for up to 5 years, but its going to be charged eventually once you write the check. If we keep Carr this year, we have to write him $40 million in new checks.

Here is an approximate breakdown, assuming Carr would sign for over $10 million elsewhere if cut and trigger the offset.

Keep Carr: $51 million cap charge for 2025, $29 million in prorated money against the cap in 2026 and beyond, which is due even if Carr is cut in 2026. Plus another $50 million against the cap 2026 and beyond if he is retained to 'play out his contract.'

Restructure Carr: $20 million cap charge for 2025, $61 million in protated money against the cap in 2026 and beyond, which it due even if Carr is cut in 2026. Plus another $50 million against the cap 2026 and beyond if he is retained to 'play out his contract.'

Cut Carr as an ordinary pre-June-1 cut. $40 million cap charge for 2025. Zero obligations against the cap for Carr in 2026 and beyond.

Cut Carr with a post-June-1 cut tag. $11 million cap charge for 2025 and $29 million cap charge for 2026.

As you can see, when you consider the cap beyond 2025 year, it saves the Saints $30 million salary that nobody pays and $10 million roster bonus that another team offsets if they cut Carr now. If they wait until 2026 they pay that money and that $40 million has to hit against future caps. If they keep him in 2026 they owe another $50 million which can be restructured and spread out but will hit the cap eventually.

If the the Saints restructured everything in 2025 and 2026 and just let Carr play out his contract, they would face $81 million in dead cap in 2027. They currently owe Carr $17 million dead money in 2027 with the contract as is. Restructuring his $40 million in 2025 would spread it out to $8 million a year over 5 years, so $24 million more for dead money in 2027 since $16 million would be paid in the first 2 years, and then another $40 million dead money from a 2026 restructure, where $50 million is spread out to $10m/yr for 5 years, putting money out to 2030. But all that 2027-2030 money hits at once in 2027 if his contract voids, so $81 million dead cap in 2027. As you can see, the problem doesnt get better if we wait, it gets worse. $40 million dead cap now is chump change.