Gutey or Rodgers?

[skibrett15]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

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?

my point is that the market isn't efficient at relating importance to salary.  full stop.

 

If things progressed to where importance = salary, the NFL would be horribly out of control.  It would need a full labor deal re-do to figure out.

 

But i AM interested in an NFL where teams can build their teams as they choose, rather than chase after the next QB.

It just feels like the NFL, because of rule changes and an increase in information, is heading in a direction where the 1985 bears roster, as constructed today with today's players would be a borderline playoff team rather than one of the best rosters ever constructed.

Edited May 3, 2021 by skibrett15

[squire12]

6 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

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

would because they would have to.  

I guess you are trying to propose a philosophical shift in how teams pay the middling QB's of the world.   Stafford, Dak, Bridgewater, Big Ben, Eli, Rivers etc.  

30% for Mahomes and Brady

20-25% for Allen, Rodgers, Watson, Wilson

10% for Tannehill, Cam, Ryan, Goff, Wentz

 

@skibrett15

[fistfullofbeer]

23 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.

And thats a massive cop-out. In a salary cap era, numbers and metrics are very important. This is true in every sport. You want to pay QB's 4 times as much as the next highest paid player on the team. Sure. In a salary cap era that will come at the cost of underpaying every other role/key player on the team.

[Donzo]

6 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

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.

Not completely accurate.

Brady wanted to get as much as could for what was available in the market. Then this year he signed a big extention with the team committing to him until he's atlest 45. The Bucs also completely financially committed to win now while Brady is on the team.

[squire12]

9 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

my point is that the market isn't efficient at relating importance to salary.  full stop.

 

If things progressed to where importance = salary, the NFL would be horribly out of control.  It would need a full labor deal re-do to figure out.

 

But i AM interested in an NFL where teams can build their teams as they choose, rather than chase after the next QB.

It just feels like the NFL, because of rule changes and an increase in information, is heading in a direction where the 1985 bears roster, as constructed today with today's players would be a borderline playoff team rather than one of the best rosters ever constructed.

That becomes the @Outpost31 process of if you can find the rookie QB, build around them at the other spots and shoot your shot on the 3-4 year window of the rookie contract and then trade them before you need to pony up the $40M+ per year on the new contract.   Get the draft picks and hope to go at the process again

 

[incognito_man]

19 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Too Old/unprecedented age and not interested in seeking a market deal.  More interested with winning than money.

you just painted yourself into a corner here

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, fistfullofbeer said:

And thats a massive cop-out.

you misunderstand.

Raw vs cap-adjusted.  % of the cap numbers (20%) rather than 5 years 150 million (raw)

 

I've posted a lot over the past few pages.  Read up before you say I'm copping out.

[skibrett15]

Just now, incognito_man said:

you just painted yourself into a corner here

do tell

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

do tell

if he brings so much value to ANY team (because he's paid half of what you think he's worth), the surrounding talent becomes such a minor factor it's almost immaterial. If he, himself, is worth 1/3 of the salary cap as you've proposed earlier, the remaining teammates matter less and less and won't factor into a decision of where to go.

Unless...Brady also recognizes he relies on talented teammates and needs to take less money to build a competitive team and isn't worth 33% of the cap on a contender.

[skibrett15]

Some sort of QB cap penalty  - e.g. each $ spent on a QB salary count 1.5x -2x against the cap, or something of the like is a starting point.

 

Doesn't change the actual dollars paid, does allow for much more flexibility in roster building.

[TransientTexan]

5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

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?

GB went 3-7 with Rodgers in the latter half of 2018. Ppl are too dismissive of what other GB players have contributed to wins over the years besides Rodgers. 

At the end of the day, even when fully healthy, QB’s are on the sidelines for 55% of a team’s snaps. And for the other 45%, he is  just one of 11 guys. QB has a plurality of impact, but that doesn’t mean he is responsible for the everything, & that you could just throw him a roster full of UDFA’s and he’ll get you to .500. 

[fistfullofbeer]

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

you misunderstand.

Raw vs cap-adjusted.  % of the cap numbers (20%) rather than 5 years 150 million (raw)

 

I've posted a lot over the past few pages.  Read up before you say I'm copping out.

I don't understand you at all to be honest. 20%+ of the salary cap being paid to a QB on a 53 player (or similar) roster is not good enough for you? You want them to make more? Sure a QB is important. Heck, I agree that the QB is the most important player on the team. But that kind of discrepancy cannot exist in a team. In any sport. The best player in hockey, McDavid, makes 12.5M. Which is only about 15.3% of the teams salary cap. And this is on a team with a significantly smaller roster size than what football has to do.

And while I understand we are comparing different sports, popularity of the sport has nothing to do while comparing the the salary % and importance of the best player of the team.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, TransientTexan said:

GB went 3-7 with Rodgers in the latter half of 2018. Ppl are too dismissive of what other GB players have contributed to wins over the years besides Rodgers. 

At the end of the day, even when fully healthy, QB’s are on the sidelines for 55% of a team’s snaps. And for the other 45%, he is  just one of 22 guys. QB has a plurality of impact, but that doesn’t mean he is responsible for the everything, & that you could just throw him a roster full of UDFA’s and he’ll get you to .500. 

great point, but even stronger with the edit above because that distinction matters in a salary cap % discussion.

QBs, if anything, are OVERpaid for their value, especially after the top few guys

[incognito_man]

Just now, incognito_man said:

great point, but even stronger with the edit above because that distinction matters in a salary cap % discussion.

QBs, if anything, are OVERpaid for their value, especially after the top few guys

and the reason that QBs are OVERPAID is for non-football (business related) reasons that add value to franchise despite a lack of parallel value on the field. Butts in seats, jersey sales, fan excitement, face of franchise, marketing, etc. etc. etc.

[TransientTexan]

Just now, incognito_man said:

great point, but even stronger with the edit above because that distinction matters in a salary cap % discussion.

The 45% I am talking about is offense-only. So 11. 45% is defense and 10% is special teams.