You need to do a little research on PAY FOR PLAY/PERFORMANCE (on a game by game basis) being against NFL league rules before you have the nerve call others "naive".
I don't need to do any research. It's only your claim that it would be pay for play. If you think players' salaries now aren't determined by their performance/play then you are naive.
When it's time for a new contract GMs and owners pay them off of statistical production, yes; but to have a pay for play/pay for performance system in place on a week to week and game by game basis it's 100% illegal and an awful idea for NFL locker rooms league wide. You play to win the game; not for cash reward's throughout specific games as that's a disgusting thought.
The QB is paid what he is worth, that’s the way that the market works. The price is fair, and the fact that it is agreed upon is proof. Buyers remorse has nothing to do with that. All you have to do is draft well, just look at the Colts. They have 2 different $20+ million QB’s on their roster and they still have cap space and enough talent to play well, plus they still have dead money from Andrew Luck’s retirement.
Right, because if the teams don't have to pay so much to the players they can make sure that the destitute owners' grandchildren will have shoes on their feet and gruel in their bowls.
The owners will never do it because it will mean more money out of pocket but I’ve said for a while they should adopt some NBA type exemptions.
its a reason the pats fell so hard. they have been drafting bad for a decade. especially on offense. they were covered by bill and brady but with brady gone now and no talent on offense they have issues. hell we are more talented on offense then they are
Your idea is solid because I've seen the idea of having QB salaries as some sort of exception to the cap and the NFLPA would never go for that. But I think the next round of quarterback salaries and fifth year options and what not is going to be telling. Teams over the past decade have learned very quickly that they can't pay a QB a top 5 salary for the position and compete for a Super Bowl every year. I'm curious to see what happens with Lamar Jackson. The Ravens are probably the best drafting franchise of the last 30 years (24 since their inception at least) and have made just about every correct move possible free agency wise. I'm not completely sold they're going to stick with him if he wants a contract like Dak wanted. And why wouldn't he want that? He has an MVP and Dak doesn't.
I'm wondering what the Bills do with Allen. He has regressed a bit after a hot 4 game start to the season. Do they think they can win with him or do they see him as holding the team back? We'll see.
It's tough with these QB's too moreso than it is with other positions. They sort of become lame ducks at that point even though they shouldn't be so damn sensitive.
Part of the salary you pay YOUR OWN VETERANS should NOT count against the cap. That way, you aren't penalized for keeping a 10-year veteran at OT but you do get penalized for going after another team's OT.
This really is the same sort of issue the Jets have. It costs so much to keep these QBs on their fifth-year option, or longer-term, but it is not yet clear exactly how good they are. Most people are ready to bail on Sam, but just last year he was definitely trending in the right direction and he's still so young. Quarterbacks are kicked to the kerb so quickly now because teams don't want to get locked in to a guy who turns out to be a failure, because the cap ramifications are horrific.
A built-in hometown discount would be interesting. Perhaps a percentage of the average salary of all players at the position who have the same number of accrued years in the NFL. Incentive improves as time goes on, giving the drafting team an advantage in holding on to their players. Problem is that the rich get richer, which would negatively impact parity. Teams that draft poorly have less cap space to improve their situation. The Jets might as well fold in that scenario.
It's an interesting argument, but I respectfully disagree. The price agreed upon is neither fair nor unfair. In the same way that nature isn't really cruel or kind. It's just nature, and it's just the market. In the tulip mania of the 17th century, it wasn't 'fair' for a tulip bulb to cost as much as a house. It was just what the market dictated. When the bubble burst, there were lots of people scratching their heads, wondering why they hadn't bought a house instead of a flower bulb... The price a player signs for is just an amount both sides can live with. Other contracts signed recently factor heavily into it, and teams often have to close their eyes and hope they are getting the player they THINK their quarterback is developing into. They either do that, or let the player go, because someone else will pay him the big money and nobody wants to let a quarterback go who turns out to be great. It's as much driven by fear as fairness.
The Jets might as well fold in almost any scenario I can think of. In fact, I heard that Doctor Strange looked into the future 14,000,605 times in order to find every possible scenario in which the Jets might win a Super Bowl. Based on what he saw, Strange told Iron Man that there was only one possible future where the Jets win.
If you’re comparing it to the Tulip Mania, then the price of a QB will naturally go down wouldn’t it? You wouldn’t need to essentially change the law to change the price of tulips, just wait a while. I completely agree with your last paragraph, and yet, there is nothing about fear that makes a market unfair. At least not the kind of fear you’re talking about. The only aspect of the NFL market that is not fair is the rookie market. There are limits to the price for all rookies.
The problem is that if you have a key player who has been with you for a long time he might also be (more) valuable to another team but you really want to keep him. But he's your 2nd or 3rd best OL and you have to keep the other 2 guys. So, another team bids $12 MM a year for 2 or 3 years and you can only do $6-$8 MM or something like that. I would go with a sliding scale. Guy you drafted has been with you 5 years, only 90% of the contract counts against the cap. 10 years, 75%. 15 years, 50%. Something like that. This would allow teams to keep key players, especially OL, who help make the game better in a way that paying star players doesn't, but is critical to quality of play. Just think about what happens if you have to let a 12-year veteran OT go that you want to keep over $$$ and then in Game 4 his 4th round replacement gets the assignments wrong....makes a rookie mistake.....and lets Nick Bosa tear into your QB and he's out for the year. "Yeah, we lost our QB and our season is over thanks to the salary cap" -- sh*** way to manage the situation.
