HokieHigh Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 14 minutes ago, Scoremore said: 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. Would be a tough call if you got an offer for 1, 9 and next years first from chicago. Then could trade #1 to wash for #3 and next years first. This draft class doesnt have me excited enough where we have holes on our roster. I am keeping Love and hanging up the phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 18 minutes ago, Scoremore said: 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. There is merit to the concept. But the idea that the 13% of the cap spending rule for teams doesnt include the deadcap for a QB player no longer on the roster after being cut/ traded is faulty accounting. The fact that the last 2 super bowl winners were over the 13% rule raises questions on it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Is Lamar allowed to win it this year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 6 minutes ago, squire12 said: There is merit to the concept. But the idea that the 13% of the cap spending rule for teams doesnt include the deadcap for a QB player no longer on the roster after being cut/ traded is faulty accounting. The fact that the last 2 super bowl winners were over the 13% rule raises questions on it. It's going to be Baltimore coming out of the AFC. KC is suffering from it right now. Buffalo as well. Philly man they really went into the tank. Dunno always exceptions and the hard 13% rule can be broken but in general the theory is sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Just now, incognito_man said: Is Lamar allowed to win it this year? 9.91% of the cap.... with lots backloaded on the contract, so not sure where that puts the new goalposts for the revised theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Scoremore said: It's going to be Baltimore coming out of the AFC. KC is suffering from it right now. Buffalo as well. Philly man they really went into the tank. Dunno always exceptions and the hard 13% rule can be broken but in general the theory is sound. Correct, the theory is good. But most have issues with not adding the deadcap from Goff onto what Stafford total cap % Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 8 minutes ago, HokieHigh said: Would be a tough call if you got an offer for 1, 9 and next years first from chicago. Then could trade #1 to wash for #3 and next years first. This draft class doesnt have me excited enough where we have holes on our roster. I am keeping Love and hanging up the phone. Yah me too. Really like Love. Let's roll with him for awhile. If he goes Diva draft his replacement and trade him for a buttload. Knowing the Packers he's going to get paid very well. Still can't believe we are here right now. Guess we'll have plenty of time to debate this in the offseason. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 People can't get over the mental hurdle of "didn't win it" and "couldn't win it." There is a chasm between those two points. Used to be no running QB can ever win, then I heard arguments why no team with a TE as a primary pass catcher can win, now 13% cap is the flavor for some. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoremore Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Kampfgeist said: People can't get over the mental hurdle of "didn't win it" and "couldn't win it." There is a chasm between those two points. Used to be no running QB can ever win, then I heard arguments why no team with a TE as a primary pass catcher can win, now 13% cap is the flavor for some. Nah man it's just QB contracts have gotten way out of hand. This is a fairly recent development. Not hard to understand why either. Without a franchise QB you won't win many games. However massive QB contracts limit the abiltity of the GM to surround said franchise QB with talent. It's a real catch 22. Probably why so many teams draft QB's and try the most out of their rookie contracts. Usually doesn't work very well though. Stroud and Purdy are rare and extremely difficult to find. So teams like Dallas, Philly, Cleveland, KC, Cincy, LA Chargers aren't going to win it all. Baltimore it's this year and then they will have to pay the piper. Don't know this wil be facinating to see how it all plays out going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kepler Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, packfanfb said: Lol what does the reporter think they do in Detroit, pump in cold air from outside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persiandud Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 boring but i predict all the home teams win this week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 8 hours ago, squire12 said: There is merit to the concept. But the idea that the 13% of the cap spending rule for teams doesnt include the deadcap for a QB player no longer on the roster after being cut/ traded is faulty accounting. The fact that the last 2 super bowl winners were over the 13% rule raises questions on it. Stanford was under 11%. Nice try though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 8 hours ago, squire12 said: Correct, the theory is good. But most have issues with not adding the deadcap from Goff onto what Stafford total cap % The same logic applies and I’ve already responded to this. It’s very simple, people just can’t grasp it because they want any excuse to forgive keeping their QB. Stafford was paid 10.8% of the cap. Change Stafford’s cap hit and it becomes that much harder to compensate for the dead cap. The Rams paid the year’s best WR, DL and CB a combined 15% of the cap. By pushing those contracts out. They essentially eliminated the dead cap the year they won the Super Bowl by pushing that dead cap into future years. They ruined their future for one year. In that one year, they had three postseason wins by 3 points. One muffed punt and they risked everything for nothing. They currently missed out on two years worth of first and second picks and they’re still paying Ramsey, Kupp and Donald top contracts for less than top play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 You have to remember the reasons so many here hate my theory. Rodgers got paid above that 12% mark every single year he was here. In the years he was due to make less, he cried like a diva and got more. They hate my theory because they knew I was right, but they didn’t want to believe we stood no chance. It’s very possible to overcome cap limitations for some teams. The Chiefs did it last year. The Rams did it. The Packers are not the Chiefs and they are not the Rams. The Chiefs got absurd I out from their rookie class mostly because they chose not to re-sign Hill. In the first place, the Packers never would have gotten a first round pick for a fifth round player because Hill would not have been on our board. We also prioritize our future. We would never be in the situation the Rams are in now because we would never mortgage our future by trading all of our draft picks and pushing billions into future years. Other teams can break that 12-13% barrier. A lot of teams try. More often than not the teams that try end up in football purgatory of constantly playing catch up after mortgaging their future for the present. The history of the Super Bowl in the salary cap era is full of evidence suggesting draft capital and cap health are the ways to win. I’ve shown how the Rams were able to overcome Goff‘S dead cap. Nobody has acknowledged it. Three elite players at 15% of the cap total. 25% dead cap? Okay. Fine. You show me 25% dead cap for a player that’s not on the team and you can add it to the QB cap hit, but I’ll show you 25% cap savings at DT, WR and CB as well as all the savings by using first and second round picks to acquire cheap expiring contracts and I’m going to subtract it from the QB cap hit. So by that logic, which has never made any sense and might as well have been added to the injured reserve cap hit, I can now say they paid quarterbacks less than 1% of the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.