Conference Championships

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, MacReady said:

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

 

basically all you are saying then is the less you spend at qb, the more you can spend on the rest of your roster.

This is not some grand insight.  It's not even saying "the best way to build a team is with a below-market young qb who is not quite a super-star".

I think that's definitely one approach.  A good approach.

[MacReady]

3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

basically all you are saying then is the less you spend at qb, the more you can spend on the rest of your roster.

This is not some grand insight.  It's not even saying "the best way to build a team is with a below-market young qb who is not quite a super-star".

I think that's definitely one approach.  A good approach.

The problem is no team has yet accepted this reality. It is abundantly obvious that these new QB deals are not going to end well. Until a team says enough is enough and trades that QB instead of relegating themselves to runners up each and every year, the QB contracts will continue going up, and teams who luck into above average play at below average contracts will win Super Bowls while the great quarterbacks lose.

Hurts contract didn’t even really kick in and now the Eagles have a lot of holes to fill without the draft capital or the cap space to fill them.

It makes more sense to pay a QB 30% of the cap one year and spread that crap out over the other years.

Just take the loss on one year. Anything. Something different.

[Kampfgeist]

21 minutes ago, MacReady said:

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. 

 

1 hour 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.

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.

And you are choosing to use a lot of verbiage and ignore the most important part of the fallacy of your argument.    IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE DEAD CAP SPACE IS USED FOR.      It's honestly a bunch of fluff words that calls me back to Billy Madison and the Puppy That Lost Its Way

There is no logical argument that says paying 25% of cap space to keep players away is okay because that is uplifting to a team's personality (FLUFF - queue the Patriotic music and flag waving) but paying 13% to retain your most important piece-- the piece that our players LOVE and don't fear, they love him, they fight for him (FLUFF) ---is unacceptable.    This team would not have performed any worse if our dead cap space was $0 and Love made $57mil this year

To use your words:  To act like QB cap space % has a set limit but dead cap space doesn't is stupid and incorrigibly so.   If you think QB cap% impacts chances but dead cap % doesn't, you are unfixable. Your mental acumen is beyond repair. You’re dumb. Stupid. Idiotic and literally unintelligent.

 

All cap space (dead or active) allocated to the QB position needs to be factored in to your % of cap quest to make your argument work.   And by including it your argument, it necessarily fails.  But you know that - hence the furious digging

Edited January 16 by Kampfgeist

[MacReady]

4 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

 

And you are choosing to use a lot of verbiage and ignore the most important part of the fallacy of your argument.    IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE DEAD CAP SPACE IS USED FOR.      It's honestly a bunch of fluff words that calls me back to Billy Madison and the Puppy That Lost Its Way

There is no logical argument that says paying 25% of cap space to keep players away is okay because that is uplifting to a team's personality but paying 13% to retain your most important piece-- the piece that our players LOVE and don't fear, they love him, they fight for him ---is unacceptable.    This team would not have performed any worse if our dead cap space was $0 and Love made $57mil this year

To use your words:  To act like QB cap space % has a set limit but dead cap space doesn't is stupid and incorrigibly so.   If you think QB cap% impacts chances but dead cap % doesn't, you are unfixable. Your mental acumen is beyond repair. You’re dumb. Stupid. Idiotic and literally unintelligent.

If you pay a QB 97% of the salary cap and have 97 billion dollars pushed forward on every other contract you can win.

That’s what the Rams did.

And you’re acting like we won the Super Bowl.

We didn’t. And we won’t.

Because of the dead cap.

Because we didn’t trade our entire draft class this year and next year to compensate for it.

You can’t win with the amount of dead cap we have or the Rams had unless you kill the future of your team to do it. Does that make it easier for you to understand?

The Rams would not have won without trading away their draft capital to compensate for their roster that wasn’t good enough to win by acquiring cheap veteran cap hits that year. 

Edited January 16 by MacReady

[MacReady]

The Rams paid 13% of their cap in dead cap to Goff. 10% to Stanford.

7% of their cap was their next biggest cap hit to the best defensive tackle in our era. How did they do that? By pushing everything forward

5% went to Ramsey. How? Elite corner? They pushed it forward.

3% to the best receiver in the NFL that year. How? They pushed it forward.

Just look at the cap hits. 15% to arguably the best WR, CB and DT in the NFL in one year doesn’t seem possible because it’s not. They threw away their future for an all-in that paid off.

They’re paying 8% this year to Ramsey and he’s not on the team. They’re paying Donald 15% of the cap this year when he’s not worth half that anymore. 8% to Kupp.

They pushed everything forward and don’t have a roster capable of competing deep into the playoffs with no first round picks either of the last two years.

Not sustainable. As we are now seeing. By the time they catch up they will need to start all over because all of their talent will be old AF.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/cap/2021/

So yeah. Everything is possible with this. Pay your QB 30% and you can still do it. If the QB is good enough and you’re only paying an all-time great DT, OT, EDGE etc 7% because you pushed the rest into future years.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, you can’t win a Super Bowl with that much dead cap or that much to one position.

The dead cap argument though… To me, that’s about the same as injury. When it’s egregious like the Rams or us this year, you better be doing something to compensate for that.

Edited January 16 by MacReady

[vegas492]

35 minutes ago, MacReady said:

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.

You saying it is a lazy stupid argument doesn't make it so.  Don't take it personal.

And yes, it is just as fair to allocate it into the EDGE position, or any other position.

But you've brought up this idea of cap dollars for quarterbacks, not EDGE players, so here we are.

In regards to injury, yes, I'd say that counts too.  Let's say Wentz was a 14% cap hit when they won the Super Bowl.  But he was hurt and didn't play.  Foles was, let's say .5% of the cap.  Do you count that as .5% or 14%  Or do you add them together?  (And I'm just making up cap numbers for the sake of conversation, I have no idea if those are remotely close.)

I feel like you are understating GB's cap allocation to the QB room when you only give Love's number and fail to include the dead money to Rodgers.  Just like you wouldn't say that the Eagles won it with a .5% cap hit with Foles (hypothetical) if that were the case and the highly paid starter was hurt.

In all fairness here, I do agree with your general statement of cap % tied to odds of winning a Super Bowl.  There's just this grey area of dead cap at the position that can happen and is certainly not normal.  Perfectly fine to add an asterisk to your statement regarding dead cap.  What does that get you to?  An extra one SB winner?  And a possible one this year, maybe?  To me, it doesn't disprove what you are stating.

[MacReady]

I guess we could still win. We’re paying Gary 5%, Tom .4%, Alexander under 5, Jones under 4. Our ENTIRE WR/TE roster accounts for less than 4.2% of our cap.

That accounts for Aaron’s 17%.

[MacReady]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

You saying it is a lazy stupid argument doesn't make it so.  Don't take it personal.

And yes, it is just as fair to allocate it into the EDGE position, or any other position.

But you've brought up this idea of cap dollars for quarterbacks, not EDGE players, so here we are.

In regards to injury, yes, I'd say that counts too.  Let's say Wentz was a 14% cap hit when they won the Super Bowl.  But he was hurt and didn't play.  Foles was, let's say .5% of the cap.  Do you count that as .5% or 14%  Or do you add them together?  (And I'm just making up cap numbers for the sake of conversation, I have no idea if those are remotely close.)

I feel like you are understating GB's cap allocation to the QB room when you only give Love's number and fail to include the dead money to Rodgers.  Just like you wouldn't say that the Eagles won it with a .5% cap hit with Foles (hypothetical) if that were the case and the highly paid starter was hurt.

In all fairness here, I do agree with your general statement of cap % tied to odds of winning a Super Bowl.  There's just this grey area of dead cap at the position that can happen and is certainly not normal.  Perfectly fine to add an asterisk to your statement regarding dead cap.  What does that get you to?  An extra one SB winner?  And a possible one this year, maybe?  To me, it doesn't disprove what you are stating.

It’s just not fair to tie something not on your team to a position. You don’t want dead cap anymore than extra cap paid to one player.

They’re off your team because your GM decided it was better for the team to pay money for them to not be on the team than to be on the team.

You have to account for it somehow.

[vegas492]

6 minutes ago, MacReady said:

It’s just not fair to tie something not on your team to a position. You don’t want dead cap anymore than extra cap paid to one player.

They’re off your team because your GM decided it was better for the team to pay money for them to not be on the team than to be on the team.

You have to account for it somehow.

Right.  So account for it with the dead cap for a QB who is gone into the QB cap number.

It isn't hard.  It is accounted for.  Forget the Ram and all the pushed forward stuff.

I'll bet if you simply added the dead cap, you aren't adding much to the "winner" of the Super Bowl and cap charges being more than what, 12%?  

Certainly having that large dead cap at the QB position while winning a Super Bowl and being over 12% is not a normal event.   

I'll bet if you look at SB winners since the salary cap and adjusted the cap hits to included dead money at the QB position, your argument is still quite strong.

That's what I'm saying here.  Speaking only for myself.  Certainly outliers happen and can happen.  

And I'm curious, what % of the cap are we using at the QB position if you add Love and Rodgers together?  

Then when we win it, you can say we are an outlier.  And the outlier happened because we have a GM who drafted quite well for a year or two so we could overcome that number.

Edited January 16 by vegas492

[MacReady]

But the Packers and Rams would not have been the first teams to win with large dead cap numbers and they couldn’t have overcome those dead cap numbers if their quarterbacks were getting paid well above that 12% number.

[Mazrimiv]

To pretend that GB does not have the Rodgers cap hit allocated to the QB position in 2023 is exactly that.  It's pretending.  The % argument is meaningless if the allocated numbers are ignored on what is essentially a whim to support a pre-determined result.  Is Mac an accountant?  This has shady bookkeeping written all over it.

[packfanfb]

Just start manifesting it now fellas.

[Smidgeon]

23 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Just start manifesting it now fellas.

I would enjoy the heck outta that game. I like Stroud.

[incognito_man]

44 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Just start manifesting it now fellas.

#BELOVE

[Scoremore]

You guys can try to poke holes in what Outpost's argument is.  But if you look around the league these highly paid QB's are a problem.  Just can't field a competitive team allocating so much cap to one player.  Sure there will be exceptions but believe the theory is sound.  KC, Philly, Cincy etc.  Once the QB gets paid they generally don't win it all.   Just like what the Packers went through with Rodgers.  Always in contention but unable to bring the Lombardi home.  Also drafting late every year and just kind of stuck spinning their wheels.  

Baltimore is probably my favorite to win it all.  This year Lamar is only around 10% at 22 mil cap hit this year.  NFC San Fran Purdy on a rookie deal.  Packers Love essentially on a rookie deal.  We'll see what happens this year but Outpost's 13% will probably hold again this year.  

Man I remember the early discussions on Love's trade value.  Rodgers signed his new deal and trade talk around Love was swirling.  He had no value then.  What's he worth now?  3 1's and probably 3 additional players.  We won't trade him and expect now he'll get a very expensive contract.  We'll always be a good team but our window will be short once those cap hits come rolling in.  We'll have to let a lot of the nice young talent go once their rookie deals are up.  

Was hoping to get him for around 40 mil/yr but after all he's done probably looking at more like 50 mil/yr.  Sucks and will make it real difficult to build a superbowl contender. It's where we are headed.  Our window is 2023-2025.  Then around 10 years of perennial playoff team but unable to get to the big dance.