This does affect the Jets, so I'm starting this thread here, but if moderators think it is too general, by all means move it, or delete it or whatever! I was wondering if anyone else is starting to think we may need a tweak to the cap rules. Specifically, to the amount of money quarterbacks are getting. There is an argument that it isn't fair they get so much more than others (more, yes, by all means. But FIFTY times more?), but I accept that fairness isn't really a major consideration, so I'll focus on another angle. Because quarterbacks are getting so much money, a team with a franchise quarterback is forced to get rid of good players in order to be able to afford their QB. This weakens the team, and the number of quarterbacks who actually make THAT much of a difference, to the point where they can take a below-average roster and elevate it to Super Bowl contention, is very small. Everybody is looking for that quarterback, but we know from bitter experience how hard it is to find one. So teams draft a QB, give him a few years, and then have to decide if he's worth $30 million a year or not. Or more, if he's shown flashes of greatness. And if he then flames out, the team starts over, having dumped a lot of solid players to make room for that enormous contract (and contract sizes are just going up and up). In this way, the search for a franchise quarterback becomes the only thing a team is interested in. It's the only thing that matters. And good defensive linemen, running backs, receivers, DBs etc, have to be allowed to leave in free agency because the QB is eating up such a huge amount of cap space. So teams are weakened. Are we actually heading to a point where the quarterback gets $100 million a year and every other player gets veteran minimum? I'd like to see a study on how pay distribution has changed over the last 20 years or so. For the Jets, the amount of money needed to keep Darnold after next year is definitely a factor. I hear comments on here that one of the reasons to switch to Lawrence will be to get him on a (relatively) cheap salary for four years or so. Sam has given us plenty of reasons for concern, but the financial side of it is looming very large, because who would want to commit $20 million, $30 million or whatever it would take per year to extend him, when he's still such a huge question mark? My idea? How about a limit on the amount of cap space a single player can eat up? Quarterbacks wouldn't be happy, but we have good, solid players - linemen, linebackers etc - who are playing their hearts out for veteran minimum. It's still way more money than I will ever see, but it's a joke compared to what the top QBs are getting. Apart from being unfair, I think it's making it difficult to build a long-term team, so we see all these stop-gap, one-year contracts to fill roster spaces after the lion's share has been gobbled up by the QB. This post is too long, I'm sure we can all agree on that if nothing else, but does anyone else want to see some sort of cap for QB salaries?
I agree on everything but especially so on the last point about length Seriously though these massive contracts are killing teams and it has surely got to stop, it will be interesting to see what happens with Dak, he didn't get his big contract signed and now he will be out of contract before he is healed, will this now put doubts in the Cowboys or other teams minds about his longevity moving forwards? There was talk on here about a separate QB cap and a team cap not so long ago, maybe it was mixed in talk in another thread but that would seem to be the right solution and it could also be a way to put a max cap on these greedy QB's.
I read somewhere that Tom always gave NE a big hometown discount, leaving cap$ for Bill to bring in talent. Essentially, Tom would rather win SBs and play till 50 while making $20m/yr, then demand $50/yr and play on a team full of C+ talent.
And I'd take it a bit further than just the QB. The same thing can happen when teams shell out $20M/yr+ to a good d-lineman, DB, WR etc. I've often wondered if a GM shouldn't trade out of the 1st round every draft and stockpile 2nd/3rd round picks. Avoid the mega contracts for a superstar and round out the entire team with better players, top to bottom.
In 1990 the salary cap was $60,000,000. Here in 2020 the salary cap is $198,000,000. So as long as the NFL continues to make 15.26 Billion Dollars (2019); these QB's will continue to make mega money. But you're correct. The NFL should become like the NBA, where there is an absolute cap on a Max contract that a player can receive because there are rumors of Patrick Mahomes soon to be making $40-$50 Million per year which is absolutely nuts. But nothing is worse than MLB where teams like the Yankees can afford any player they want.
Yes! Especially if you have your QB. The thing that worries me about these four first-round picks the Jets have in the next couple of years, is if they are all great players, we'll only be able to keep two of them, probably. If they aren't all great players, then we've blown the picks. Maybe what you say has merit. Get your QB in place (probably taking Lawrence in the Jets' case) and then get a shedload of second- and third-round picks off other teams. It's a thought. I said in another thread - we need pros every bit as much as we need All-Pros. We need depth.
I did not know that about the NBA (I only really follow the NFL) so thanks very much for that insight. And although I didn't make it the focus of my argument, because it's a hard-nosed business after all... I really do feel for the eight-year veteran guard, who's been a solid pro his whole career, getting cut so the team can bring in a cheaper rookie so they can pay for their QB, and that guard then signing for veteran minimum anywhere he can find a gig.
It's easy to cheat the salary cap too. Kraft: Hey Tom. I know you wanted a $30M per year but don't worry. I'll give you $20M against the cap and the other $10M? I'll give it to you off the record and off the books, without the NFL knowing. Brady: Sure. Ok. Thnx. There is no question in my mind that Brady/Bill/Kraft have cheated the cap over the years and made it appear as if Brady "was taking less".
I have a hard time blaming players for this. The owners are making huge amounts of profit, and I think the players should actually get more. But I also agree that a cap system is the best way to prevent the richer teams from having an advantage. I like the idea of not including the QBs salary in the cap at all, maybe having a separate cap for them so that again richer teams can't simply buy up the best QBs.
I can vaguely remember a time when the Broncos were kicking around the idea of giving Elway a lifetime contract. He would sign, and they would give him a chunk of money as a one-off payment and he would play for them for as long as he could. I'm pretty sure the amount being considered was $17 million.
I disagree. Owners and the NFL are raking in the cash hand over fist. Why should there be a cap on players' earnings when there is none on what the owners get? Yes, the owners are taking the risk and they wind up paying a lot of HCs and players who wind up being awful, but no one forced them to own a team. The players risk their health, they have to work very hard physically, they have to make many sacrifices, and they shorten their lives, and risk getting permanent brain damage, becoming paralyzed, or perhaps even dying on the field. The players just won some hard-fought concessions in terms of compensation. I'm sure that they would never be willing to go backwards and probably would never agree on a hard cap, although it seems like they might since there are a lot more position players than QBs. I've thought it ridiculous that for years NFL rosters had to stay at 53 and not even all of them are eligible to play on a Sunday. If a player is on a team, he ought to be eligible to play on any given Sunday without having do de-activate someone else. Rosters need to be expanded and game day rosters should be the full team. There have been times when every QB a team had (that was activated) was injured or grossly ineffective, and a RB or WR had to be the emergency QB. That lowers the quality of games. Instead of reducing QB pay, I think the salary cap should either increase more, or everything ought to be reduced: player contracts, TV contracts, the cap, ticket prices, concession prices, team gear prices, parking reduced to no charge, etc. The amount of money going into and flowing through the NFL and any professional sports franchise is insane. Infrastructure is falling apart, other people can't even survive decently on the salaries they make, there are too many ills in the world that need those financial resources. The other thing is that this helps keep the league fairer and more competitive. A super wealthy owner can't buy all the great players while a small-market team is left out in the cold. If a SB winner has to lose 3-4 excellent starters, it makes it more difficult for that team to be like the Patriots and keep repeating. Those 3-4 players can help elevate another team and make them more competitive. It helps keep fan interest of those other teams higher. When there have been dominant teams like the Niners, Steelers, and Patriots it decreases fan enthusiasm in other teams in those years.
But that kind of chimes with what I'm saying. ALL the players are taking the risks and making the sacrifices. Why is it fair for one group to make so much more than everybody else? They would still be getting multi-million-dollar contracts, but the hard-working guards and linebackers would be better compensated. I'm not talking about reducing any of the money paid to the players. I'm talking about a more equitable distribution in what is, after all, a team sport.
I think that they're all paid too much, but the QB deserves more; perhaps not 100 or even 30 times more, but in general, as QBs go, so go teams. A QB like Mahomes or Brady or Rodgers is worth every penny they get. A QB like Sanchez or Foles or even Sam, isn't. Another idea is for the league to create salary slots for all players. It would be based on a formula that took into consideration games played (health), performance at their job, and years of experience. There would be four tiers of players: elite, solid starter, quality backup, questionable backup/still developing/rookie. Elite players would be guaranteed a certain amount, and it would escalate by number of years and/or level of performance. Solid starters would be guaranteed a certain amount, and their contracts could escalate in the same way, and so forth. That might be "fairer" compensation for all, but I'm sure that many of the players would balk at such a system, as would many fans, because it sounds too "socialistic" or even "communistic" perhaps.
welcome to supply and demand and capitlism. it's the GMs job to balance a roster. teams are supposed to not be able to afford all the good players. that is what creates balance and parity as it should be.
I think we're being the system starting to hurt the product though, because teams are having to gamble on players they aren't sure about, giving them huge contracts to keep them or get them (see Kirk Cousins) and then struggling. And I never said I wanted teams to be able to afford all the good players. I said the way the system is breaking down now is hurting teams because it's impacting on team stability and cohesion.
Well it’s an interesting thought, but right now QB’s are by far the most important player on the team and warrant significantly more compensation. The highest paid QB makes $45 million per year in average, but you also have to realize that his contract is 10 years long, and 12 if you include the remaining rookie contract years. As the cap increases over the next 12 years that’s going to look like a great deal for the Chiefs. It’s up to teams to figure out ways to pay their QB while still fielding competitive teams. The Chiefs and Patriots figured it out. You can’t force players to take team friendly contracts like Brady or Mahomes, but finding players who will has to be part of the scouting process. Also, the question is how could you limit the cap for individual players? There are ways to work around cap hits in certain years by pushing money down the line, and teams already do this so it would be nothing new. It wouldn’t really change the way teams do things or how much these players get paid.
The answer is for teams to price QB's appropriately. We've seen some really good teams drop in performance when their QB got paid. These include the Falcons, Giants, Ravens, Seahawks, Packers, Texans and Saints. Whether or not the Chiefs and Ravens (again) will join them remains unknown but is fairly likely given what we know about the effect of a huge QB salary on the cap thus far. You can't primarily fix on the cap what is caused by the behavior of everybody who is bound by the cap. You need to let the effected teams fix their behavior first. Then adjustments in the cap can complete the process.
That would be a horrific idea. WR's are already diva's and could you just imagine the outrage they'd have during games where their QB couldn't get them ball, or how butthurt RBs would become while they're not receiving 20-30+ handoffs per game? It would ruin the sport and absolutely destroy locker rooms league wide. Also "pay for play/performance" is against league rules and is considered a bounty (and rightfully so) and is not allowed (thankfully).
I didn't say that it was a great or even good idea, but I think it has some merit. Do you seriously think that players don't already fuss that they're not getting the ball enough or that players aren't getting paid for their level of production? I hope that you're not that naive. I disagree that it would ruin the sport, and could make pay more equitable. GMs already establish values on players using a similar basis, so that is nothing dramatically different. Where it could be better is if in conjunction with higher salary caps it could force teams to pay players more as there could be higher minimum salaries, and no veteran asked to take a pay cut to fit under the salary cap or be underpaid so the team could stay together. It would not be against league rules, and has nothing to do with a bounty. That's ridiculous.
