Some people look at armed robbery as a rational response to income inequality. They like you would still be making an absurd argument. Players are being compensated for teams to have the right to cut them. That's part of the contract.
It's very possible that having the 20% QB is a hindrance also. Not enough data to make the case clearly but the guys winning Super Bowls generally are not the $20M QB's. Since Elway: 1999 - Kurt Warner - No. 2000 - Trent Dilfer - No. 2001 - Tom Brady - No. 2002 - Brad Johnson - No. 2003 - Tom Brady - No. 2004 - Tom Brady - No. 2005 - Ben Roethlisberger - No. 2006 - Peyton Manning - Yes. 2007 - Eli Manning - No. 2008 - Ben Roethlisberger - Yes. 2009 - Drew Brees - No. 2010 - Aaron Rodgers - No. 2011 - Eli Manning - No. 2012 - Joe Flacco - No. For the most part QB's have followed up their Super Bowl winning seasons with huge contracts that appear to have significantly hindered their ability to get back to the big game. The exception is the Patriots and Brady, who have been back twice despite Brady eating large parts of their cap in different seasons. In the cap era the best move after winning a championship and having your QB come due on a huge contract may well be to trade him for a mountain of draft picks and keep the rest of the team intact while you go hunting for the next good cheap QB.
I agree in theory but that wouldn't be pragmatic at all. It is a way-out-of-the-box strategy and would most likely result in GM getting run out of town. There is no way in a QB dominated league that a GM can trade a top-ten QB (that's what I assume we are talking about when we say championship QB) and keep his job. Can you imagine what would have happened in Green Bay if after the 2010 season if said: "Sorry fans. I know this Rodgers guy is good but he's gonna want $20 million per season soon. We have decided to trade him to the Miami Dolphins for 3 firsts and 3 seconds. We really like Matt Flynn and believe that he can do the same things as Aaron at a fraction of the cost."
Especially when your QB who won the SB basically sucks 364 days a year. There's a reason the Ravens didn't extend Flacco pre-SB and there's a reason why the Giants sucked moose cock in both their SB seasons. This is exactly what the Steelers did to the Jets with Neil O'Donnell. They parleyed a SB into a ton of draft pics for a shit QB.
I was thinking about the Ravens and Flacco because of the huge contract that Flacco signed but I think you can look at other large contracts given out after championships as equally questionable. Most championship winning QB's win and then get paid. Very few of them get paid and then win. I think there's a real question as to whether the current model for compensating championship-level QB's is flawed because when you heavily compensate that QB you also hurt your team's position over the mid-term. There are three potential paths if a franchise QB is due to get a new contract after winning a championship: 1. You pay him whatever it takes to retain him. This is the path of least resistance and the one that all NFL teams take. 2. You maintain the contract for as long as you can and then let him go. Nobody does this. 3. You proactively begin looking for his replacement. Nobody does this. In the cap era only one team has extended a championship winning QB at top dollar and then won another championship. The Pittsburgh Steelers in 2008. If the point of the competition is to win championships the evidence suggests that keeping your super star QB at top dollar doesn't produce results. BTW, I'm not saying having a great QB is not a great thing, because it is. I'm saying having a great QB being paid $20M a year is probably not a great thing.
If you have a Brady or P.Manning or Rogers that a team wins BECAUSE of then yes, you are right. Pay the man. But Trent Dilffer? Brad Johnson? Neil O'Donnell? Even E.Manning and Flacco...those guys you ship out for three 1st round pics instead of paying them $20+M/yr.
If, in my lifetime, our Jets are fortunate enough to have a great QB that puts them over the top - and they in turn go cheap and trade that man afterwards, I will get the pitchforks and clubs ready and lead the charge to tear apart Florham Park (if they are still there) to hold the leadership accountable for such a horrible mistake. I will remember this post and try to find you as well. (j.k... but maybe) A franchise QB makes winning SBs possible on a year to year basis.. and that of course doesn't come cheap at all. If there's one position you don't go cheap on it's QB.
He's getting bashed on twitter. Just like any other athlete or celeb. He's never even on twitter really. He must be glad he helped for their first win on MNF. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is this true though? Ben Roethlisberger got carried to his first trophy and then carried the Steelers to the second. Eli Manning got lucky as hell twice in a row on mediocre teams that LOST games in the regular season because of him but got in anyway and then ran the table. Tom Brady, well there's an exception to every rule but his championships came on deep loaded teams and his years since then have been ring-free. What I'm saying is that if you pay one person a sixth of your available resources it doesn't seem likely that they're going to be able to take you all the way. They just don't have enough help. If you have a team like the Colts in the Manning era that is completely built around the QB and supporting him *and* the guy is an all-time great, well then you get one championship in 13 years out of the deal. If those $20M QB's were winning championships every year then things would be different but at this point they're winning championships and then becoming $20M QB's. Dan Marino would have been a $20M (equivalent of) guy in the 80's. The Fins would not have been better because of that reality.
You are looking at a small subset of data that won't extrapolate. Hell there's a great chance you are proven wrong this year.. if Denver wins it all, N.O., Green Bay, New England, etc... If anything I look at your list and think - wow I see about 2 or 3 QBs that AREN'T great that won it all. I conclude, you need a great QB to win it all. Great QBs don't come cheap. You think Green Bay will regret paying top dollar to Rodgers? You think New England already regrets paying top dollar to Brady? Brees in N.O? Those guys are worth every penny - and THEN some. Baltimore may regret paying Flacco in time (I'm NOT so sure about that even) but if they do, it will be more about Flacco individually how he progresses, etc, and less about the decision to pay top dollar for their SB winning QB.. because that's the RIGHT decision. They can go cheap with another Boldin, Ray Rice, Ray Lewis, OL guys, Etc.. and still achieve success. BUT - if they dumped Flacco, they'd be JUST like the overwealming majority of the league that stands NO chance at success, those looking for a Franchise QB.
Holy cow. The players collectively negotiated this, having non-guaranteed contracts being able to be terminated mid-contract is completely permissable under the CBA. Holding out is NOT permitted. A GM is using the tools he was given by the players when he cuts a player with a non-guaranteed contract--or even WITH guaranteed if he pays the player. Holding out is NOT a tool that players were given by the owners under the CBA. _
Look at what you are talking about though - 3 or 4 teams that are always in the hunt and easily could win the title every damn year, because of their QB. How about the 25 or so other teams that crap out year after year and are desperate for a great QB? You think New England, The Colts, The Giants, etc. want to trade places with them? Not in a million years. I will take my chances putting together a SB winning team with less resources and a great player at the most important position, than all the resources in the world and an unknown at the most important position.
Or the trophy could go to Seattle, SF, Carolina or Indy, the teams with good young QB's on cheap contracts compared to the prime guys on huge contracts above. The winner last year wasn't one of the teams with a big money QB, it was the Ravens with Joe Flacco at $8M. The year before that Eli Manning was the 7th highest QB at $14.1M on the cap. In 2010 it was Aaron Rodgers at $6.5M on the cap. In 2009 it was Drew Brees at $14M. In 2008 Ben Roethlisberger at $8M (although he had signed a huge contract extension that would break the Steelers bank by 2011). These are mostly very good to great QB's playing at a lesser impact against the cap than the highest paid QB's in the given year. It's not just the QB's ability that matters although that's very important. It's also the impact that he has on your ability to retain and add talent around him.
This is true, and combined with the injury situation, and the NFL becoming more and more a QB based league, I wouldn't be surprised to see a day soon where QBs don't count against the cap. This would allow teams to have a big time QB, a servicable back up, and still be able to put talent around him. The ability to have a capable back up QB is extremely important these days, as starters go down right and left. And the cap prevents a team from spending money on a back up that could win games. And we know that in this league, if you lose your starter, you're finished. Unless you luck out like Belidick and have a hall of famer on your bench, which happens once in a generation.
There is a pretty strong argument for having one cap exempt slot on an NFL roster. You could allow a team to exempt a single contract from the cap each season without dramatically distorting the overall constraints imposed by the salary cap. One exemption is a big deal, especially if it's a QB, but it won't allow you to warehouse talent the way organizations like the 49ers did in the 80's.
Apparently Revis thinks we are bitter LOL I am really starting to understand why Idzik parted ways with this guy other than the obvious cap implications. Money hungry and a snob. Kind of upsetting. I really liked Revis man
