"n 1966, San Francisco 49ers star quarterback John Brodie received a contract pitch from the Houston Oilers: “We can set things up so that if you want to, all you’ll ever have to do is play golf and drink beer and gamble,” Oilers general manager Don Klosterman told him, according to the book America’s Game. A better offer has not been made to a quarterback in the five decades since, though teams have tried. In the era of the booming salary cap, quarterbacks are being paid a disproportionately high percentage of their team’s available dollars. They account for the 14 largest salary cap hits in 2018—in 2011, there were six QBs in the top 14. Denver quarterback Case Keenum has the same cap hit in 2018 as Houston defensive end J.J. Watt. San Francisco quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo’s guaranteed salary this season is higher than the entire salary cap for a team in 1996. Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers is making $66.9 million this year as part of his new deal, which is $4 million more than a team’s entire salary cap in 2000."
Link - (
New Window )
Under his current contract, Rodgers has a base salary of $19.8 million for this season and $20 million for 2019. Adam Schefter of ESPN.com reports Rodgers will get $67 million before the end of 2018, and he will have around $103 million guaranteed. Ryan's deal has $100 million in guaranteed money.
Rapoport adds that there is a $57.5 million signing bonus on the deal.
Link - ( New Window )
And this says it all. The people in the "keep Eli, but how dare you ask him to take a pay cut" camp really need to open their eyes on this.
You can argue he should be back, that he's not the problem, etc. But it's clear he simply makes too much money relative to his performance.
Quote:
66.9?
Under his current contract, Rodgers has a base salary of $19.8 million for this season and $20 million for 2019. Adam Schefter of ESPN.com reports Rodgers will get $67 million before the end of 2018, and he will have around $103 million guaranteed. Ryan's deal has $100 million in guaranteed money.
Rapoport adds that there is a $57.5 million signing bonus on the deal. Link - ( New Window )
Wow and thanks!
But for someone like Rodgers at least you can say you're getting an elite player. Where it gets ridiculous is when you're talking about Garoppolo, Stafford, Cousins, etc...these guys aren't elite players. Garoppolo may become one, but pinning your franchise to a guy on spec seems crazy. And the Stafford/Cousins type guys have proven over many years not to be elite players worth that type of commitment.
Keeping your QB position in a rookie contract is a huge advantage over these other teams from a perspective of roster building.
Phillip Rivers. 22M cap hit. 12 win season. The Chargers are also an excellent football team.
Andrew Luck. 24M cap hit. 10 wins.
Roethlisberger was taking up over 10% of the cap on his own last year. PIT won 13 games.
The contract matters when the production doesn't match. Which is what you saw with Kirk Cousins this year.
It's not an albatross if the player produces. Even with Rodgers - the Packers had been a perennial playoff/winning team up until this year where the wheels started falling off and the coach got fired.
In theory, yes, you have a major advantage when you're getting top flight QB play for pennies on the dollar. That's why we saw Seattle dominate before Wilson got paid and are seeing KC break the scoreboard every week now. The problem is that it's not a repeatable strategy or easy to do. Every team wants this scenario, but the odds of hitting it are very small.
For example, Eli Manning has earned $213M, just from his football contracts. If he plays next year he'll have earned $230M.
Ben Roethlisberger $186M, if he plays next year he'll be over $200M.
Philip Rivers: $201M, if he plays next year he'll be around $218M career earnings.
and those are just the 2004 QB class top 10.
Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, etc, all over $200M.
Matt Ryan has the potential to outearn all of them (so far) with a potential $321M earnings (just based on current contracts signed).
How is that materially different than:
We can set things up so that if you want to, all you’ll ever have to do is play golf and drink beer and gamble,”
Minnesota's fortunes are completely tied to that dipshit. Arizona has options.
If you hit on a Brees or Luck, yeah you pay him. But how often do you get that chance?
But the Giants were right to pay Eli... the Steelers were right to pay Ben. Ditto LAC with Rivers, NO with Brees, IND with Luck... and when KC needs to open up the checkbook for Patrick Mahomes, they'll be nuts not to do the same.
I would never have a problem paying to keep a QB if I thought he was worth the money.
I would not pay guys on the open market from other teams like Cousins, Keenum.. Foles (coming up), etc.
The unbalance gets caused with every new contract having to out do the previous. It's OK for Matt Ryan to make less money than Rodgers, even if his contract comes up after.
QB is still the most lucrative position, but 8/20 of the highest guaranteed contracts right now aren't QBs. So it's not just QBs benefiting.
Now, if we move into an era where 4-5 good young QB's come into the league every year and are ready to play at a high level by year 2 or earlier than ok but in that scenario the price of veteran QB's will decline and come more in line with other positions.
The interesting cases right now are Wentz, Goff, and Prescott. IMO none of them is worth paying. But I'm guessing that two or all three of them will get big contracts from their teams.
When you find a QB you can win with, you pay him.
The Tom Brady anomaly is like saying why draft linebackers at all anymore, James Harrison was a UDFA.
And when you look at Brady, his first three SB's he was on a rookie, small dollar deal, but since then he's been a highly paid QB. So 5 Super Bowl appearances while he was among the highest paid QB's in the league.
Russell Wilson's last SB he was a highly paid QB.
Newton, Ryan, Peyton, Eli, Ben, Rodgers the evidence is overwhelming.
if your plan is to go cheap on a QB you have a very slim chance of winning the Super Bowl.
Nearly all of Reese's OL investments failed - and the attempt to rebuild that unit came far too late. Eli has also been plagued by some terrible defenses and until Barkley got here, we generally were completely anemic trying to run the ball too.
It's way too easy to sit here today and say NYG shouldn't have paid Eli. It was a no-brainer to do it at the time. Just because it didn't result in any additional championships doesn't mean it was the wrong decision and there's no guarantee that not paying him would have had us in any better shape.
Eli wasn't cooked when we paid him.
Nearly all of Reese's OL investments failed - and the attempt to rebuild that unit came far too late. Eli has also been plagued by some terrible defenses and until Barkley got here, we generally were completely anemic trying to run the ball too.
It's way too easy to sit here today and say NYG shouldn't have paid Eli. It was a no-brainer to do it at the time. Just because it didn't result in any additional championships doesn't mean it was the wrong decision and there's no guarantee that not paying him would have had us in any better shape.
Eli wasn't cooked when we paid him.
This is correct. The salary cap didn't force us to make horrible draft picks and free agent signings for years.
Sustainable excellence is hard to achieve, no matter who is making the big money. If the Giants had a new young starting QB and could pay Barkley, Collins and Beckham (all of whom contributed to this bad season) what they deserve, there still wouldn't be enough money to pay any new free agents. It is still salary cap hell.
And we would all be yelling to get rid of Collins and Beckham based on 2018 performance.
The 6 highest paid QB's didn't make the playoffs this year.
Whether or not the point is valid is moot - the idea that team building with a cheap QB has to be done will be theorized over and over again.
[quote]
Quote:
And it’s very bad for team-building if your highly paid quarterback doesn’t play like a superstar.
And this says it all. The people in the "keep Eli, but how dare you ask him to take a pay cut" camp really need to open their eyes on this.
You can argue he should be back, that he's not the problem, etc. But it's clear he simply makes too much money relative to his performance. [/quot
Who says those of us who think he may be the best option don’t think they should try to restructure?
Makes a lot of sense. But then you may have to extend him for a year and give him a quarantee. But let’s be honest The insanity of paying guys like Cousins And Keenum Over 20 million per year is screwiing the scale
There is anyone who is a Giant fan who wouldn’t love to lower his cap number. Or at leat a fan who isn’t an idiot. But the lost of insanely over paid QBs is nuts.
The NFL and NFLPA should put provisions into the CBA to max out what a single player can count against the cap, but I don't see the PA going for it.
Nearly all of Reese's OL investments failed - and the attempt to rebuild that unit came far too late. Eli has also been plagued by some terrible defenses and until Barkley got here, we generally were completely anemic trying to run the ball too.
It's way too easy to sit here today and say NYG shouldn't have paid Eli. It was a no-brainer to do it at the time. Just because it didn't result in any additional championships doesn't mean it was the wrong decision and there's no guarantee that not paying him would have had us in any better shape.
Eli wasn't cooked when we paid him.
[quote]
Quote:
And it’s very bad for team-building if your highly paid quarterback doesn’t play like a superstar.
And this says it all. The people in the "keep Eli, but how dare you ask him to take a pay cut" camp really need to open their eyes on this.
You can argue he should be back, that he's not the problem, etc. But it's clear he simply makes too much money relative to his performance. [/quot
Who says those of us who think he may be the best option don’t think they should try to restructure?
Makes a lot of sense. But then you may have to extend him for a year and give him a quarantee. But let’s be honest The insanity of paying guys like Cousins And Keenum Over 20 million per year is screwiing the scale
There is anyone who is a Giant fan who wouldn’t love to lower his cap number. Or at leat a fan who isn’t an idiot. But the lost of insanely over paid QBs is nuts.
The NFL and NFLPA should put provisions into the CBA to max out what a single player can count against the cap, but I don't see the PA going for it.
No, you resign Mahomes (assuming he keeps it up). You don't churn QBs as the foundation of a roster building strategy, it is still optimal to pay a QB that plays up to that deal over assuming unnecessary volatility. However, the point the article is that it is actually riskier allocating significant cap resources to a known subpar player than assuming that volatility.
Basically a team like Dallas should let Dak walk despite the precedent set over the last decade being that you HAVE to extend him because he's a starting QB. They're better off resigning their defensive studs and starting over at the position. It's less risky than giving Dak a ton of money and banking on surrounding him with a bevvy of cheap studs on their first deals.
Quote:
of top tier QB's, and teams with good, cheap young QB's do have a huge competitive advantage, but do you do when that young QB comes up for renewal? Should KC walk away from Mahomes after his rookie deal?
The NFL and NFLPA should put provisions into the CBA to max out what a single player can count against the cap, but I don't see the PA going for it.
No, you resign Mahomes (assuming he keeps it up). You don't churn QBs as the foundation of a roster building strategy, it is still optimal to pay a QB that plays up to that deal over assuming unnecessary volatility. However, the point the article is that it is actually riskier allocating significant cap resources to a known subpar player than assuming that volatility.
Basically a team like Dallas should let Dak walk despite the precedent set over the last decade being that you HAVE to extend him because he's a starting QB. They're better off resigning their defensive studs and starting over at the position. It's less risky than giving Dak a ton of money and banking on surrounding him with a bevvy of cheap studs on their first deals.
This is exactly it.
Paying a QB isn't the problem - paying a journeyman big cap dollars who is no longer wanted by their original team or extending an existing, undeserving player (i.e... Dak Prescott) is.
If Patrick Mahomes is still performing near this level when he's due for a new deal, the Chiefs won't even think twice about paying up - which is the right move.
Quote:
In comment 14244089 Giantophile said:
[quote]
Quote:
And it’s very bad for team-building if your highly paid quarterback doesn’t play like a superstar.
And this says it all. The people in the "keep Eli, but how dare you ask him to take a pay cut" camp really need to open their eyes on this.
You can argue he should be back, that he's not the problem, etc. But it's clear he simply makes too much money relative to his performance. [/quot
Who says those of us who think he may be the best option don’t think they should try to restructure?
Makes a lot of sense. But then you may have to extend him for a year and give him a quarantee. But let’s be honest The insanity of paying guys like Cousins And Keenum Over 20 million per year is screwiing the scale
There is anyone who is a Giant fan who wouldn’t love to lower his cap number. Or at leat a fan who isn’t an idiot. But the lost of insanely over paid QBs is nuts.
I'd love to see Eli's cap hit lowered, but it is not possible without extending his contract, which is a point lost on most posters. So, while I'd love to lower the hit, I don't think I want to commit to him beyond this year.
this is absolutely untrue. Not sure where this is coming from. A player can agree to a straight pay cut with no additional years. Cruz did it.
What you can do is convert salary to incentive-based $$$. That's what Cruz did.
What you can do is convert salary to incentive-based $$$. That's what Cruz did.
Is that true? I was always under the impression that if both sides agree a player can take a straight cut.
Because teams can essentially cut a player without having to pay salary (only guaranteed money), this is the counter-balance to it
I'd say that's a huge difference to a straight pay cut.
Don't forget the shady business deal between the Patriots and Tom Brady owned TB12 company.