Parsons
| Besides mahomes, every team in the final 4 Qb is on a rookie deal and surrounded by talent! Mhmm interesting take! |
Pugh
[quote] đź‘€ tying QBs salary to the cap is the answer. They can earn more every year as salary cap goes up! Everyone wins. There just needs to be a market correct on that position to get to that point. [quote]
QB Contracts - (
New Window )
There are another 10 or so players that are interchangeable, and can win with good teams around them.
This way you won't have a QB making 50M, while several teammates are making 1M. 1M is nothing to sneeze at for most people, but a lot of the guys who are making that (roughly league min) are the ones who might only be in the league a few years.
If you're going to have a cap and you're going to have revenue sharing to spread the wealth to all the teams, why not have an individual cap to spread more of the wealth to more of the players?
This way you won't have a QB making 50M, while several teammates are making 1M. 1M is nothing to sneeze at for most people, but a lot of the guys who are making that (roughly league min) are the ones who might only be in the league a few years.
If you're going to have a cap and you're going to have revenue sharing to spread the wealth to all the teams, why not have an individual cap to spread more of the wealth to more of the players?
Problem with having a % cap is that the salary cap does not go up the same exact % every year and you would have to negotiate a contract in a way where the qb may get less money than negotiated. Also some teams may have to pay more for the same qb due to tax implications
should mvp's not get paid well? should you trade an MVP candidate on their 2nd contract just because they aren't an MVP candidate still on the rookie pay scale?
Correct. And frankly it’s one of the few things keeping the NFL interesting. If college was pumping out MVP caliber QBs every year this wouldn’t be a bad idea but until that happens it needs to be left alone.
1 guy gets 20% of the cap, 52 others, plus 16 PS players get the remaining 80%. Sounds fair...throw in a few IR players, so really 75 guys split up the remainder.
You realize it is a fixed number the cap, right. Everyone's salary comes from one pool of money. The more you pay the QB, and other premium positions, the less money there is for the rest of the team to split up.
I don't agree entirely. This is a massive advantage to the teams with the best QBs. Anyone who pays someone who is not elite (like the Giants), is absolutely screwed by the market rate for QBs.
Also, this is funny coming from Parsons. He won't get QB money but his next contract is going to be record setting for an edge rusher. I don't think he will be complaining then about his cap number being detrimental to the team.
Quote:
The higher the salaries the better for every other player. Also throwing his own QB under the bus is really smart.
You realize it is a fixed number the cap, right. Everyone's salary comes from one pool of money. The more you pay the QB, and other premium positions, the less money there is for the rest of the team to split up.
Absolutely but if you keep pushing up QB numbers all pro players at other positions move up incrementally look at WR, Edge, and DT salaries increase they have risen at the same rate.
QB has always been 15-25% of the cap don't get lost in the per year salary, we can get into if they deserve that % and I would say absolutely there is not one position that decides wins and loses like a QB and the gap in talent from great to average is immense
It’s a pie. If one player earns more, others earn less.
Precisely.
This is an inevitable outcome, QB money has got ridiculous to the point successful GMs understand and are saying the probability of building a consistently SB caliber team is diminished significantly on a 2nd QB contract, essentially admitting they are paying QBs over value league wide. The solution isn’t a QB salary cap, but GMs rethinking their capital allocation.
This isn’t a Jones take, but I think the next wave of successful team will see paying QBs at or below value. It may be the most important position, but not to the extent existing contracts imply.
There is more than one way to construct a successful roster. Chasing the QB market isn’t a good idea.
Owners wanted more scoring
I would argue that if you believe in a QB, what the Chiefs did was smart. Have a long term contract where you are not good cap wise in the first few years, but are golden in the last few years.
Let me put it this way, I think Burrowes will command money in excess of Mahomes and the contract Mahomes signed will not look bad in comparison.
There is no way I see the NFLPA limiting the earning power of QB's without facing a back internal backlash.
It is what it is I guess.
Parsons isn’t eligible for a new deal until after next year.
Quote:
In comment 16014266 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
The higher the salaries the better for every other player. Also throwing his own QB under the bus is really smart.
You realize it is a fixed number the cap, right. Everyone's salary comes from one pool of money. The more you pay the QB, and other premium positions, the less money there is for the rest of the team to split up.
Absolutely but if you keep pushing up QB numbers all pro players at other positions move up incrementally look at WR, Edge, and DT salaries increase they have risen at the same rate.
QB has always been 15-25% of the cap don't get lost in the per year salary, we can get into if they deserve that % and I would say absolutely there is not one position that decides wins and loses like a QB and the gap in talent from great to average is immense
You make my point without understanding it. If 5 or 6 players take 60% of the cap money, that leaves 47 players plus PS, plus IR players to get paid from the 40% remaining money. There is a reason the NFL exempts part of vet minimum salary from the cap. They figured out the vets were being cut because their vet minimum salaries, being higher than rookies, were being cut even though they were better players. It is a have/have nots system. There are very few mid level salaries on teams because so few players take up a majority of the cap.
Hence, it does not raise the pay for the rest of the team - it lowers it. Yes a small handful make big $$. The rest get minimums. If the system, as it exists today, is so helpful to the players, why are we sitting here clamoring over QBs on rookie salaries getting to the playoffs/super bowl? Because QBs suck up an inordinate amount of the cap and it is hard to maintain a successful team when cannot pay WRs, DE/ERs/OT/CBs.
I have started to believe that owners/GM will be looking to pick up college QBs, later in the draft, that are mobile with decent arms and build a team around them. You can get a lot of very good players for the $35 mill to $40 mill saved by not having an upper tier QB. Just look a Purdy. There are others like him out there. When these guys perform well and are near the end of their rookie contracts, draft another similar style QB and let someone else pay big $$.
He's a solid Qb. At the time of his last contract he was laid like a top guy. Kyler Murray. Talk about over paid. Dak. Same. If you want to buy a really nice Lexus you don't walk in and lay what a Ferrari costs you walk away.
I’d be very impressed for instance if Schoen franchised Jones and traded him to Carolina for the 9th pick. With the 9th and 25th pick he would be in striking distance of a top QB.
And the your back to a high talent QB on a 4/30M contract.
Limiting the QB’s pay against the cap seems like a good idea, but to do it universally, you would have to establish the percentage at whatever the current top pay level is. Also, someone is going to decide to sue the league over it which is going to open up anti-trust issues and restraint of trade.
I think they are separate points though. 1, the NFL needs parity to remain interesting IMO. 2, QBs having a capped salary means you’ll then be able to overpay for another position (LT/DE/WR) and the problems will still be the same.
And if the above happens and the QB cap is set at say 15% of the cap, how long until every QB is playing at that number regardless of skill? And then what if someone wants to pay a player at another position more than the QB cap?
Seems like a mess and will lead to more complaining and less parity on top of it.
That too. Just feels strange that the most lucrative sport in the country would need to put a rule in to safeguard dumb GM decisions.
Separately, look at the NBA. The contract caps don’t work and you end up having top 50 guys making top 10-20 money because…well why not? I’m fairly certain if a QB cap was put in place it wouldn’t take very long for most teams to have a QB making their slotted ceiling. You’d have Daniel Jones being paid the same as Mahomes.
They should be paid more but I do agree it can get out of hand.
You never know when its going to be your last season, I dont blame guys for trying to get as much as they can. As much as it is a team game its also a harsh business. One day your on top and the next you get an injury and have to sign a low end contract to reprove yourself.
The NFL loves the parity of the league. One thing generally remains constant, the teams with good QBs usually make the playoffs no matter how much the QB is making. This year it happens to be rookie deal QBs but that is a little misleading since the 49ers are still paying their QBs collectively top 10 money and Burrow was the #1 overall pick. Besides Brady, no other QB in the league has won more than 1 Super Bowl. Parity at its best.
Aside from QB, the Elite players in the league usually get paid well for their position whether they stay with their team or move on. The guys in the Good Range get get deals above the minimum and the rest get the vet minimum, good players but replaceable. Life isnt fair. Putting caps on individual positions would create a worse situation where most QBs will be making the same money. Most will push to get to the top number and then you will see another position % get out of hand. The current system will self correct,
Every GM has to gamble on big contracts. The ones that get it right have a better change at success. Get it wrong and you’ll be at a disadvantage for a few years.
This way you won't have a QB making 50M, while several teammates are making 1M. 1M is nothing to sneeze at for most people, but a lot of the guys who are making that (roughly league min) are the ones who might only be in the league a few years.
If you're going to have a cap and you're going to have revenue sharing to spread the wealth to all the teams, why not have an individual cap to spread more of the wealth to more of the players?
If you put a cap on how much Mahomes (or soon, Burrow) can make, that doesn't result in a cap on how well he can play. You'll just be paying him less to still be the best QB in football, and now you don't have to sacrifice as much elsewhere on your roster.
Putting a secondary cap on QB salaries just means that the very best QBs become enormous bargains, the second cut of QBs (who reach the "max contract" level) become significant liabilities (or just become radioactive), and the concept of building your team in any alternative fashion other than having the absolute best QB possible will go away entirely. You want to go the route of the 2000 Ravens and build with defense and the ground game? You better do it with a rookie QB or a cheap journeyman, because you won't be able to finance the dominant defense (and make up enough of a difference) if you're paying the same for your mid-tier QB that your opponents are paying for their elite QB.
If you tell me that the QB can only make, say, 18% of the cap (using your suggestion), that works out to $40.5M on a $225M cap. A lot of QBs are already in that range. DJ may be in that range soon. The very best QBs are already above that level. So do you adjust their contracts down to the new secondary cap? And the resulting cap space created becomes a gift to those teams? Right now, Mahomes is scheduled to count $46.7M against KC's 2023 cap. The 2023 cap is estimated to be over $220M, but I'm using $225M (as noted above), for simplicity. Are you giving the Chiefs a bonus of $6.2M in new cap space that results from Mahomes' contract being forced to conform to the QB cap?
What would end up happening with this sort of scenario is that the very best QBs (and top earners, consequently) are impacted most significantly, and as a result, become bargains (not quite on the level of the rookie contract, but close). Right now, the trade off in having a QB on DJ's level vs. Mahomes' level is that theoretically, the Giants should have more to spend on the rest of their roster because DJ should be cheaper than Mahomes. What happens when Mahomes is capped individually to the point where the middle tier catches up to him financially? Now you have DJ vs. Mahomes at the exact same price and the rest of their respective rosters at the exact same aggregate remaining cap. How do teams with middle-tier QBs even compete at all in that scenario?
If the NFL ever instituted a QB cap on top of the overall salary cap, there would be no reason to carry on with a QB on DJ's level even after the progress he's made. You'd just keep cycling through rookie contracts every few years until sheer luck and volume result in eventually nailing down a truly elite QB. Why would you do it any other way if you know that an elite QB won't cause the rest of your roster to be dismantled?
The only thing that keeps things in balance is that elite players at any position become the most expensive players at those positions, and then cause teams to find bargains and efficiencies elsewhere. Removing the single-most important and expensive player from that calculus means that the teams with the best QBs (already a big advantage) are also given even more opportunity to load (or retain) the rest of their roster.
This is a silly kneejerk reaction. How about teams grow a fucking pair and tell their middling QBs to hit the bricks instead of paying them out of fear of the mouthbreathing sports talk show caller who might get his BVDs in a twist over a short-term setback?
Quote:
To not cap QB salaries. more parity is good for the league.
I don't agree entirely. This is a massive advantage to the teams with the best QBs. Anyone who pays someone who is not elite (like the Giants), is absolutely screwed by the market rate for QBs.
You think it's a massive advantage now to have one of the best QBs? Wait until they're capped and make the same as the 2nd tier QBs.
A QB cap creates a QB bargain at the very top of the pay scale, nowhere else. Who does that benefit? The teams with QBs at the top of the pay scale. And where is the biggest advantage? Having a QB who is worth the most more than the artificial secondary QB cap.
Anything that partitions the cap into individual player designations creates large advantages for the players who are worth more than the cap partition. Do it on the most important (and most expensive) player on the field, and the advantage becomes largest for the teams who have the best QBs. That's logically undeniable.
Limiting the QB’s pay against the cap seems like a good idea, but to do it universally, you would have to establish the percentage at whatever the current top pay level is. Also, someone is going to decide to sue the league over it which is going to open up anti-trust issues and restraint of trade.
In fairness, it's typically pretty difficult to sue (and win) on terms that are collectively bargained.
Quote:
In comment 16014266 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
The higher the salaries the better for every other player. Also throwing his own QB under the bus is really smart.
You realize it is a fixed number the cap, right. Everyone's salary comes from one pool of money. The more you pay the QB, and other premium positions, the less money there is for the rest of the team to split up.
Absolutely but if you keep pushing up QB numbers all pro players at other positions move up incrementally look at WR, Edge, and DT salaries increase they have risen at the same rate.
QB has always been 15-25% of the cap don't get lost in the per year salary, we can get into if they deserve that % and I would say absolutely there is not one position that decides wins and loses like a QB and the gap in talent from great to average is immense
I'm pretty certain that you're absolutely wrong about this (bolded above), but I'd be open to seeing some sort of evidence of this if you have it.
They already have that. It's called "the other 52 guys."
That is the problem Dunk, this is purely theoretical. Mahomes signed a 10 year, 450M deal. I am not going to look into actual per year cap hits, but for simplicity let's just call it $45M per year.
Yet the expectation by many BBIers is that Jones is getting $40M a year. The fact that this does not seem utterly ridiculous to everyone blows my mind. This was a career year for Jones. Mahomes had more than double the total touchdowns.
You are right, GMs do need to grow some balls.
The QB position is unique in many ways, but it's also hard to develop backups with actual game reps. You can keep 5 backup OL and 4 or 5 WRS to develop as backups etc.
I'd pay a worthy QB and churn drafted and udfas at the other positions as necessary. If you have unique talents at other positions finagle the cap to pay them. If you have too many unique talents it's a good problem to have and will require tough choices. Make good ones.