Conference Championships

[MacReady]

13 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

the last two super bowl champions will have had over 15% of the cap devoted to QB.  It's the same wrong theory he can't let go of because of OCD or something.

 

Counting Goff for LAR and counting Rodgers for GB is obvious, and no, he's not counting it.

See directly below this.

Same logic applies to cancerous players.

Nothing good is free. It costs money to move on from players holding your team back.

[skibrett15]

7 minutes ago, MacReady said:

See directly below this.

Same logic applies to cancerous players.

Nothing good is free. It costs money to move on from players holding your team back.

there's no evidence whatsoever that eclipsing a cap% at the qb position at the current market rate for top QBs is preventing playoff attendance or playoff success.

It's one viable approach to build a successful team.  Others also exist with lower qb cap numbers/percentages.

[Leader]

Weather certainly shouldnt be a factor: https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/santa-clara/95050/daily-weather-forecast/331977?day=5

[squire12]

I can see the concept of the dead cap being less relevant for LAR as I don't think they got back picks for Goff.

GB is different as they bumped up 2 slots in round 1 and added a 2nd in the 2023 draft.  those added assets are making contributions so that deadcap added other assets to the team.  can't count those other assets as contributors while not acknowledging how those assets were obtained and the dead cap associated

[MacReady]

Obviously you don’t want dead cap, but counting Goff as QB hit for the Rams is like calling a diaper gold. The argument is offensive.

The Rams overcame it by pressing a billion contracts into the future. They’re suffering for it now. They also traded away their entire draft class for two years to compensate.

I’ve talked about this before. People refuse to accept it because they want to hope. They can’t be realistic, so they deny deny deny.

If there wasn’t evidence to suggest QB cap hits affect Super Bowl odds, there would be more outliers.

Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers. 45+ years between three of the greatest to ever play. 4 rings.

Tom Brady played 18 years and won 7.

Brady always kept his cap hit at or below 12%. The others didn’t.

Mahomes is the only QB ever to break the 13% barrier. Ever.

Clearly it’s not impossible. Granted. To act like it doesn’t effect it at all is stupid and incorrigibly so. If you can’t see how it would impact chances, you are unfixable. Your mental acumen is beyond repair. You’re dumb. Stupid. Idiotic and literally unintelligent.

[MacReady]

Same logic applies to us. We didn’t take Aaron’s dead cap to get worse. We took it to get better. Our players LOVE Love. They don’t fear him, they love him. They fight for him.

Even in the games we sucked you could see the difference. Aaron Jones running out and lifting Wicks’ head after that fumble. That crap didn’t happen with Rodgers.

Wicks never would have seen another target if this was still Aaron’s team.

Aaron was, is and always will be concerned about Aaron Rodgers, not the Packers. He chose which games we won and lost with his attitude.

I don’t see it as dead cap I see it as cap space spent to completely and utterly change the entire personality of our offense from defeatist can’t do this won’t do that into we can do whatever the **** we want and nobody is going to stop us.

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, MacReady said:

See directly below this.

Same logic applies to cancerous players.

Nothing good is free. It costs money to move on from players holding your team back.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

But I feel like, for the Packers, you need to look at what Love is making against the cap as well as what Rodgers' dead money is against the cap to really evaluate how much you are paying that position.  

I know that doesn't align with your train of thought.  Also?  While it isn't a true outlier, it is also not "normal".

[Kampfgeist]

So a team can have 25%+ of their cap space allocated to dead cap and that's okay.... because it's going to make the team......... better,

but the team can't have 13% of their cap space allocated to a good QB?

 

 

Just struggling to understand that, but that's because I'm a big fat stupid head with a thick candy shell.  Interestingly enough I do **&^ gold so we might have to revisit the diaper argument too

 

[Mazrimiv]

3 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

So a team can have 25%+ of their cap space allocated to dead cap and that's okay.... because it's going to make the team......... better,

but the team can't have 13% of their cap space allocated to a good QB?

This is all you need to understand about the argument to realize how dumb it is.

[Kampfgeist]

7 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

This is all you need to understand about the argument to realize how dumb it is.

Some take a ladder and just climb out and some just start digging faster

[Isherwood]

31 minutes ago, MacReady said:

Same logic applies to us. We didn’t take Aaron’s dead cap to get worse. We took it to get better. Our players LOVE Love. They don’t fear him, they love him. They fight for him.

Even in the games we sucked you could see the difference. Aaron Jones running out and lifting Wicks’ head after that fumble. That crap didn’t happen with Rodgers.

Wicks never would have seen another target if this was still Aaron’s team.

Aaron was, is and always will be concerned about Aaron Rodgers, not the Packers. He chose which games we won and lost with his attitude.

The fact that he criticized the LaFleur offense for being too easy and robotic to run and his wanting to inject some kind of degree of difficulty is sociopathic to me. Clearly he didn’t care about winning rings, because Tom Brady would have taken what he was given all day long. 

[skibrett15]

45 minutes ago, MacReady said:

Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers. 45+ years between three of the greatest to ever play. 4 rings.

Tom Brady played 18 years and won 7.

there's only 1 super bowl champion and these people all played at the same time.  Brady just happened to be the best QB on the best team with the best coach.

You can pay your QB pretty much whatever you want within 10-20% of the cap.  The lower the number the more you have to spend on other positions.  The greater the number, the greater your QB has to play in the playoffs and the super bowl.  You can't pay a 10% qb like cousins 15% and build a good roster.  You can absolutely pay Mahomes 20% and win the superbowl.

There is no 13% rule, you made it up in your head and it exists only there.

[MacReady]

31 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

So a team can have 25%+ of their cap space allocated to dead cap and that's okay.... because it's going to make the team......... better,

but the team can't have 13% of their cap space allocated to a good QB?

 

 

Just struggling to understand that, but that's because I'm a big fat stupid head with a thick candy shell.  Interestingly enough I do **&^ gold so we might have to revisit the diaper argument too

 

No. I literally just said you don’t want dead cap and explained how the Rams compensated for it.

You’re choosing to be obtuse. 

[MacReady]

4 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

there's only 1 super bowl champion and these people all played at the same time.  Brady just happened to be the best QB on the best team with the best coach.

You can pay your QB pretty much whatever you want within 10-20% of the cap.  The lower the number the more you have to spend on other positions.  The greater the number, the greater your QB has to play in the playoffs and the super bowl.  You can't pay a 10% qb like cousins 15% and build a good roster.  You can absolutely pay Mahomes 20% and win the superbowl.

There is no 13% rule, you made it up in your head and it exists only there.

I never said that was the rule. Before last year it was the number that hadn’t been achieved.

For the 30 years the salary cap has existed.

Some people call that inconsequential coincidence. I’m not dumb enough to believe that.

The number is likely different depending on the QB. All the years Brady was over it he never won. His number was 12%.

There aren’t many quarterbacks better than him, which leads one to deduce their number is likely lower than 12%.

 

Edited January 16 by MacReady

[MacReady]

41 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I understand what you are saying, and I agree.

But I feel like, for the Packers, you need to look at what Love is making against the cap as well as what Rodgers' dead money is against the cap to really evaluate how much you are paying that position.  

I know that doesn't align with your train of thought.  Also?  While it isn't a true outlier, it is also not "normal".

It’s dead cap. Dead cap doesn’t get onto the field. As such, it doesn’t get added to the QB salary.

It’s dead. Not living, not here. If it’s as fair to the argument against QB cap hits, it’s just as fair for me to allocate it into the EDGE position.

The position of the dead cap is inconsequential to any position.

It makes more sense to liken it to an injury.

Look at 2010 and all of our cap space paid to players who were on IR.

Same difference it made. We were paying Barnett and Chillar. Did we count their numbers against the ILB position?

Everyone brings up dead space as some sort of gotcha to my argument when it makes literally zero sense.

It’s just a lazy stupid argument.

Edited January 16 by MacReady