Gutey or Rodgers?

[15412]

" when an athlete wants to treat a contract in exactly the same manner a team does."

 

You keep adding to your confusion.  They both signed the contract, they both know what's in it.  It already has been agreed on.  Contracts are always mutually agreed on and treated accordingly...

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

QBs are underpaid

market disagrees

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

market disagrees

NFL teams used to run the ball over 60%.  Team building is still potentially in the dark ages

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

NFL teams used to run the ball over 60%.  Team building is still potentially in the dark ages

or, it's not

i think i'll trust (at a minimum) Bill Bellichick on this one over you ha

[fistfullofbeer]

10 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

NFL teams used to run the ball over 60%.  Team building is still potentially in the dark ages

I am interested in how you figure that QB's are underpaid? What metric(s) are you looking at and what exactly are you comparing it to?

Also, if you think QB's are underpaid, you must think hockey salaries are a joke.

Edited May 3, 2021 by fistfullofbeer

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

or, it's not

i think i'll trust (at a minimum) Bill Bellichick on this one over you ha

It's possible it's not, but we've really only seen Kirk Cousins truly test the market in the modern era.  And he landed a fully GTD 2 year deal that people laughed at.

 

Every other deal for a franchise qb is "just eclipsing" the previous deal.  The teams pay just enough to appease the agent (whose small percentage fee structure incentivizes getting any reasonable deal done, rather than scratching and clawing for the absolute best deal -very similar to a realtor)

From the player's perspective, it's more money than they've ever seen.  They don't have a real incentive to drive a hard bargain.  So they stick to the status quo.

 

In what normal behaving market does something which is objectively superior, sometimes by many standard deviations -  imply the same approximate value as the inferior version?  

 

There aren't nearly enough repetitions of this cycle for the QB pay scale to catch up unless a QB actually holds out for their true worth on the open market to multiple teams.

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

It's possible it's not, but we've really only seen Kirk Cousins truly test the market in the modern era.  And he landed a fully GTD 2 year deal that people laughed at.

 

Every other deal for a franchise qb is "just eclipsing" the previous deal.  The teams pay just enough to appease the agent (whose small percentage fee structure incentivizes getting any reasonable deal done, rather than scratching and clawing for the absolute best deal -very similar to a realtor)

From the player's perspective, it's more money than they've ever seen.  They don't have a real incentive to drive a hard bargain.  So they stick to the status quo.

 

In what normal behaving market does something which is objectively superior, sometimes by many standard deviations -  imply the same approximate value as the inferior version?  

 

There aren't nearly enough repetitions of this cycle for the QB pay scale to catch up unless a QB actually holds out for their true worth on the open market to multiple teams.

did you forget about the QB who just won the SB?

[skibrett15]

17 minutes ago, fistfullofbeer said:

I am interested in how you figure that QB's are underpaid? What metric(s) are you looking at and what exactly are you comparing it to?

Also, if you think QB's are underpaid, you must think hockey salaries are a joke.

I'm not interested in raw numbers.  Those are driven by revenue of the league.  Hockey have low salaries because hockey doesn't draw in money.

 

QB salaries should be higher, like 3-4x higher than the next highest paid position, because they're that important to the success of the team.

 

Just breaking down 50% salary to offense and 50% to defense (and that's debatable).  QBs have a bigger slice of pie than other positions, sure.  But their slice of the pie relative to their importance to the team is not high enough.

[TransientTexan]

8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Every other deal for a franchise qb is "just eclipsing" the previous deal. 

That’s only because league revenue is going up. 

[squire12]

23 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

yeah of course. NBA max salaries have a trickle down effect to being able to pay for 2-3 stars and a few contributors.

 

There's no cap rules in place which prevent a team from spending 30%+ of your cap on a year to year basis on a QB.

 

The fact that good-not great yet highly paid QBs (like Roethlisberger or Kirk Cousins) give their teams a better chance to make the playoffs than a player like Ryan Fitzpatrick or Teddy Bridgewater tells me 2 things:

1) The rest of the NFL offensive players are not nearly important enough to overcome average QB play

2) The "highly paid" QB, is not really that highly paid.

So you are filling out the roster for the other 52 players with 70% cap space?   based on a $200M cap , that is 1.3% per position, or around $2.6M per player.  

Figure you have a good LT, WR and maybe another mid tier OL, you are probably spending 13-15% on those 3 positions.  

Need to field a defense at some point.   Good EDGE cost around 5-7%, and you need 2 of them.  so that is another 12%

1-2 DL players at 5-6% total 

1 CB going to be 5-6%

Total that up:   QB, LT, WR and another OL + 2 EDGE, 3 (CB+DL) = 9 players counting around 65% of your cap.   35% cap space left with 44 players to sign.   Welcome to studs and duds approach to roster building.  

[TransientTexan]

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I'm not interested in raw numbers.  Those are driven by revenue of the league.  Hockey have low salaries because hockey doesn't draw in money.

 

QB salaries should be higher, like 3-4x higher than the next highest paid position, because they're that important to the success of the team.

 

Just breaking down 50% salary to offense and 50% to defense (and that's debatable).  QBs have a bigger slice of pie than other positions, sure.  But their slice of the pie relative to their importance to the team is not high enough.

Your fallacy is presuming that non-SB QB’s provide *zero* value to the team and that all other levels of success besides a SB for a team is worth *zero*. Things aren’t that binary. 

[skibrett15]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

did you forget about the QB who just won the SB?

As far as Brady:
Too Old/unprecedented age and not interested in seeking a market deal.  More interested with winning than money.

Salary was probably 4th or 5th in Brady's criteria for picking Tampa after location, roster strength, coaching, and offensive scheme input.  As long as salary wasn't insulting he was signing.

 

Right now the only path to a successful (division winner/wildcard) roster is to have an above average QB on a market contract, an elite QB on a market contract, or an average QB on a below market contract.  Having a Good or Elite QB on a below market contract is basically a shoo-in for the playoffs and beyond as we saw with Russ Wilson, Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, and others.

 

If the salary market was working more efficiently, we should see average QBs who are paid like average qbs on market level contracts capable of winning games and going to the playoffs!  The best example of this is maybe Bortles on his rookie deal?  He was so bad he couldn't even outperform that rookie deal, and he had the benefit of a really really soft division.

Right now the only path is with a good QB because of the importance of the passing game.  SF was the only team close to challenging that, and even they had Garappolo performing at a decent level, well above average.

 

Increasing top end QB salaries would allow for more defensive teams or more skill player centric offenses to be competitive in the NFL.

[skibrett15]

12 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

Your fallacy is presuming that non-SB QB’s provide *zero* value to the team and that all other levels of success besides a SB for a team is worth *zero*. Things aren’t that binary. 

I'm not interested in SB qbs.  Playoff QBs - preferably Division winners, but even most wildcards in respectable divisions are all from Good QBs or better on market deals or average qbs on below market deals.

 

13 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Welcome to studs and duds approach to roster building.  

If you want to have a Mahomes or Rodgers or Peyton Manning, there should be a trade off.  Right now that doesn't feel like the case.  I think it's because the salary isn't high enough.

 

Is anyone arguing that if the Carolina Panthers spent like 65M on Rodgers and 118M on the rest of their roster, they wouldn't scrape together 9-10 wins on average?

Edited May 3, 2021 by skibrett15

[Packerraymond]

20 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I'm not interested in raw numbers.  Those are driven by revenue of the league.  Hockey have low salaries because hockey doesn't draw in money.

 

QB salaries should be higher, like 3-4x higher than the next highest paid position, because they're that important to the success of the team.

 

Just breaking down 50% salary to offense and 50% to defense (and that's debatable).  QBs have a bigger slice of pie than other positions, sure.  But their slice of the pie relative to their importance to the team is not high enough.

I agree with you if importance correlated directly to salary, but are you going to tell all the other positions they need to take a pay cut?

[skibrett15]

15 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So you are filling out the roster for the other 52 players with 70% cap space?   based on a $200M cap , that is 1.3% per position, or around $2.6M per player.  

Figure you have a good LT, WR and maybe another mid tier OL, you are probably spending 13-15% on those 3 positions.  

Need to field a defense at some point.   Good EDGE cost around 5-7%, and you need 2 of them.  so that is another 12%

1-2 DL players at 5-6% total 

1 CB going to be 5-6%

If elite/good QBs made more, other positions would necessarily make less.