Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69

Thread: Franchise QB

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    121,866

    Franchise QB

    No NFL team has won a Super Bowl with a starting quarterback eating up more than 13.1% of the salary cap since the NFL instituted the rule in 1994. San Francisco QB Steve Young's cap hit was 13.1% of the 49ers' salary-cap space that season, which remains the record


    Is it time to start thinking outside of the box and start trading guys outside of the mahomes of the world? Meaning lets say Mahomes/Allen who outside of rodgers/brady are the 2 very best qbs in the NFL... Outside of them is it worth trading the daks/jackson/watson/wilsons and drafting new and putting money into the core of the team and system in place? How big of a hit will mahomes/Allen take once they are hindered by their own cap hits?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    121,866
    Mahomes counts for roughly $7.4 million against Kansas Cityís salary cap for the upcoming season, which has a deflated $182.5 million ceiling for 2021. He accounts for 4% of the Chiefsí salary cap according to Over the Cap.

    Including backup Chad Henneís contract, which counts more than $1.6 million against the cap, quarterbacks account for only 5.4% of the Chiefsí spending among the top 51 players contracts.

    But Mahomesí cap number nearly more than quadruples for 2022, ballooning to nearly $35.8 million.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,235
    It might be worth it for some of these guys to realize they are not truly elite QBs who give their team a chance to win rings while making 40m a year.

    Then again, its not like they care they just want to make as much as possible as quickly as possible, they dont really care about winning rings if it costs them money.

    9 out of 10 players would take an extra 5m over a ring.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    18,998
    What they're doing, in allowing certain players (most notably QBs of course) to take up such a large chunk of the cap is creating micro-economies within the league that somewhat mirrors the real world....an elite class that has more money than they can really justify while causing a good percentage of people at the other end of the spectrum to be undervalued.

    What this QB situation is doing is causing teams to overpay their QB just to keep them...then be stuck with that contract when the QB doesn't perform at the level they're being paid.

    It shouldn't be a situation where teams who 'hit' on a rookie QB can put most of their cap into the rest of the team until that rookie gets their big contract and the team has to start carving off elsewhere. It just becomes a multi-millionaire version of musical chairs and makes players less loyal to their teams.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    69,255
    A few years ago I read a really interesting story on this topic where the writer argued that though the NFL thought parity was great for casual fans because teams could rebound faster, that it would end up working against the NFL. He predicted QB contracts going up too much too fast to the point that maybe non-game-changing players would become musical chairs and on new teams with incentive laden deals yearly.

    So he had an interesting proposal:
    QB contracts guaranteed money should be handled outside the cap.

    Now he wrote this at a time when QB contracts first hit 20% of the cap, so the idea was that QB contracts on the cap would be 15% of the cap or the base salary, whichever is higher.

    The thought was that back when he wrote this he saw the breakdown as this a few years earlier:
    QB - 9% of the cap
    LT - 7% of the cap
    C - 4%
    Pass rusher - 8%
    DB - 3%

    If you look now the only position to go up was QB now sitting at 22% of the cap for the highest earner. So this helps QB pay from a cap standpoint stay in line.

    His rationale is that teams can stay together longer. Instead of 2-3 great teams, a bunch of average, and 4-5 bad teams; you can end up with 7-9 great teams at once and it makes your playoff product much better.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    18,998
    Fortunately (for the product) but unfortunately (in pushing for changes financially) there's been enough parity that people resistant to change would look at years like this one....where there were still a lot of teams not officially eliminated from playoff contention until the last week or two of the season....and now where many lower seeded teams have gone on the road and won, including BOTH 1 seeds going down the same day without a win.

    So their argument then would be 'there's plenty of parity'....and there is. However, this parity is despite those financial discrepancies, not because of them. What do the majority of playoff teams this year have in common? They've either built their team around a franchise QB or been able to build their team while paying a budding franchise QB on a rookie contract. In other words, the game and it's financial structure is skewed far too heavily on one position....that's not even true on an NBA team where only 5 are playing at one time and 12 dress for the game, let alone 11 on the field and 53 dressed in football.

    And the problem is....like baseball not having a cap at all......we may already be past the point of reigning it in.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    19,475
    The real problem is how hard is is to find even a top 15 qb so teams overpay based off their alternative.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,077
    The problem is that while teams can be very good even without a top QB, it is very hard to be consistently good without a top QB.

    If you look at all the teams that have had sustained excellence in recent years, the Patriots, the Packers, the Saints, the Steelers, the Colts with Peyton, and now the Chiefs.

    They all have one thing in common: a top tier QB.

    The only team I can think of who is perenially a 10 win or playoff team that didn't have a top QB is Baltimore, and now they have Lamar Jackson.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    45,984
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The problem is that while teams can be very good even without a top QB, it is very hard to be consistently good without a top QB.

    If you look at all the teams that have had sustained excellence in recent years, the Patriots, the Packers, the Saints, the Steelers, the Colts with Peyton, and now the Chiefs.

    They all have one thing in common: a top tier QB.

    The only team I can think of who is perenially a 10 win or playoff team that didn't have a top QB is Baltimore, and now they have Lamar Jackson.
    I donít disagree but you do have the opposite too.

    Dallas has pretty much had a top end QB from Romo to Dak and havenít maintained anything. Stafford was a top end and Detroit sucked. Atlanta. Chargers. Seattle is up and down.

    Rivers, Stafford, Wilson, Ryan, Prescott have pretty much been top 10 QBs consistently throughout their careers and their teams are both but inconsistent.

    Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Ben (maybe), and Mahomes (too early but probably) are going to go down as some of the best QBs of all time.

    Youíre basically saying you need an all time great QB to stay successful.

    Iíd rather be a Baltimore or a Tampa Bay prior to Brady where they have a great surrounding team to where if they luck out into a good QB they could go far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    69,255
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    I donít disagree but you do have the opposite too.

    Dallas has pretty much had a top end QB from Romo to Dak and havenít maintained anything. Stafford was a top end and Detroit sucked. Atlanta. Chargers. Seattle is up and down.

    Rivers, Stafford, Wilson, Ryan, Prescott have pretty much been top 10 QBs consistently throughout their careers and their teams are both but inconsistent.

    Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Ben (maybe), and Mahomes (too early but probably) are going to go down as some of the best QBs of all time.

    Youíre basically saying you need an all time great QB to stay successful.

    Iíd rather be a Baltimore or a Tampa Bay prior to Brady where they have a great surrounding team to where if they luck out into a good QB they could go far.
    I think If Pittsburgh struggles for a while like we did after Bradshaw, Ben will go down as one of the best quickly (like Bradshaw did and quickly became overrated). But if we find another QB quickly or stay at .500 heíll take a while to get his dues on that front.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    8,411
    Having a QB who doesn't care as much about being the highest paid QB as they do winning is important. I mean Jimmy G has a legit shot at a SB. You can win a SB with a half decent QB.

    Like is Mahomes at 35mil better than having Derek Carr at 15-20mil? I know what the knee jerk reaction is. But with the same coaching and other variables is it better to have an additional 20mil to spend elsewhere or have the chance that one man can overcome the additional talent that 20mil can get and make a few spectacular plays?

    Guess it all comes down to how that money is spent or how draft picks are cashed in for the team without the extra money.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    1,259
    Ok, Iíll play along. Sure, these high priced Qbís may not result in a Super Bowl win but neither will the cheap qb you bring in to replace him. The days of being able to win it purely on a defense and run game are over. Long gone. In todayís game, without a qb, you have nothing. And if you have the qb, at some point you have to pay him.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chi-Town
    Posts
    20,732
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfishguy85 View Post
    Ok, Iíll play along. Sure, these high priced Qbís may not result in a Super Bowl win but neither will the cheap qb you bring in to replace him. The days of being able to win it purely on a defense and run game are over. Long gone. In todayís game, without a qb, you have nothing. And if you have the qb, at some point you have to pay him.
    Us Bears fans can definitely vouch for this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,235
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The problem is that while teams can be very good even without a top QB, it is very hard to be consistently good without a top QB.

    If you look at all the teams that have had sustained excellence in recent years, the Patriots, the Packers, the Saints, the Steelers, the Colts with Peyton, and now the Chiefs.

    They all have one thing in common: a top tier QB.

    The only team I can think of who is perenially a 10 win or playoff team that didn't have a top QB is Baltimore, and now they have Lamar Jackson.
    The saints went 7-9 three years in a row, going 7-9 4 out of 5 years. Brees is not in the same tier as the Peyton, Brady, Rodgers. Sean Payton also gets too much credit for being some kind of mastermind when he has one ring.

    Anyway I dont think sustained success is going 7-9 4 out of 5 years.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    8,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Nunuu View Post
    The saints went 7-9 three years in a row, going 7-9 4 out of 5 years. Brees is not in the same tier as the Peyton, Brady, Rodgers. Sean Payton also gets too much credit for being some kind of mastermind when he has one ring.

    Anyway I dont think sustained success is going 7-9 4 out of 5 years.
    Yet he has the same amount of SB wins as Rodgers and beat Manning for his ring. But you're a Panthers fan so I get it that you're just hatin'.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •