Kiwibrown Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 The rookie contracts around 2007-2011 really started to uold teams back like the Rams with Bradford, Russel with oak and Stafford+calvin+suh with Detroit, even nifty they were quality players. What happens when a qb contract tanks a franchise for 5 years? Will contract riles change like they did with the rookie wage scale? Arguably we will see it with Watson, Murray or maybe Love if he signs with the packers long term and doesn't pan out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMcFife Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 Flacco's mega contract and subpar play crippled the Ravens from 2013-2017. The only positive year was when Kubiak was onboard as a highly overqualified OC (2014). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 1 hour ago, Kiwibrown said: The rookie contracts around 2007-2011 really started to uold teams back like the Rams with Bradford, Russel with oak and Stafford+calvin+suh with Detroit, even nifty they were quality players. What happens when a qb contract tanks a franchise for 5 years? Will contract riles change like they did with the rookie wage scale? Arguably we will see it with Watson, Murray or maybe Love if he signs with the packers long term and doesn't pan out. You should just take it on the chin. Don't try and smooth it out with cap kicking and restructuring. Get as much of the cap pain out the way as soon as possible and go very young. Packers handling the Rodgers situation last season is the prototype. Obviously got lucky with the draft class looking exceptional so far. But none the less, its what you do, go young, let go of veterans and come out the other side with a very young roster. No reason to let a QB contract weigh you down for 5 years. Don't try to manage it over a number of years. Once you have decided it isn't working then you need to act decisively. Obviously we might have to do it again in the hopefully unlikely event Love goes south quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 I feel like cap manipulation is much more simpler for GMs now than in the past so you’re never exactly screwed. Heck the Brock Osweiler contract was so bad but then he got traded with a pick and it was fine for both parties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfelg Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 10 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said: I feel like cap manipulation is much more simpler for GMs now than in the past so you’re never exactly screwed. I feel like this happens in every league where a new CBA comes out, teams get caught up in the still operating like the old CBA, then they figure it out and near the end of the CBA they had enough time to be able to exploit every loophole the CBA offers. I wonder which loopholes they will go after next? I've felt like they should do something about the flow of the money and do maximum growth/shrink so you are hurt on how front or backloaded a contract is, and do something about the void year loophole to reduce the 1 year cap hit to reduce teams ability to manipulate the hit to 'afford' more expensive players. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 Depends how bad it is. Like, Kyler Murray bad, or Deshaun bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted July 21 Author Share Posted July 21 26 minutes ago, Soko said: Depends how bad it is. Like, Kyler Murray bad, or Deshaun bad? They have very little difelrerende between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabbs4u Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Kiwibrown said: They have very little difelrerende between the two. Huge difference between the two. One got $159M guaranteed and can be cut in the coming year or two if they have too? The other got $230M guaranteed and is the definition of a QB crippling a Franchise because You have NO CHOICE but to pay and 🙏. Now if you were referring to both being POS in thier own unique but different ways, that I can agree. Edited July 21 by Nabbs4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 53 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said: They have very little difelrerende between the two. Wouldn’t exactly call $70M “very little”, but to each their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhorse Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 What happens? A massive amount of eloquent waxing will occur here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naptownskinsfan Posted July 21 Share Posted July 21 I mean, I think that team would do what happens in baseball or basketball and start the tank. Sell off assets that don’t have a 3-5 year window with the club, reload on draft picks and try to continue to build the team around a QB. That QB is probably not going to be a full-pumpkin and should still be able to do something, but if they do go full-pumpkin, and it’s a release situation, the team has to go as cheap and young as possible to weather it out and be ready to come out of the other side with a rookie QB picked near the top of the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksavage1 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 They generally lose couple young FA starters then have to draft to replace those positions . Puts a lot of pressure to land starters in the draft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrILL! Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 What year will we see the first $100m/yr QB? Someone is going to top $60m/yr in the next year or 2. 3 years ago we didn't have a $50m/yr QB yet. I remember when Aikman signed for $50m combined. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-12-24-sp-5081-story.html Show Search ADVERTISEMENT SPORTS Aikman Becomes the NFL’s Richest : Pro football: Quarterback agrees to $50-million, eight-year deal with Dallas Cowboys. L.A. Times Archives Dec. 24, 1993 12 AM PT Share FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS IRVING, Tex. — Troy Aikman became the richest player in NFL history, agreeing Thursday to a $50 million, eight-year contract with the Dallas Cowboys. Aikman, a 27-year-old quarterback, will receive an $11 million signing bonus and salaries ranging from $1.75 million in 1994 to $7.5 million in 2000. Leigh Steinberg, his agent, said Aikman is the first NFL player signed through the rest of the decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 What happens is the Denver Broncos. Like right now. I feel like everyone expects cap hell or cap consequences to be super visual and catastrophic, like a team literally won't be able to field a roster, or something. But that's not really ever the result. It's just teams having far less resources than they should. It doesn't feel that crazy if you aren't looking close because it just seems like normal roster churn. But in Denver right now, you have a team with like 5 guys making a salary over $3M right now. And that's Bolles, Sutton, Jones, Stidham, and Singleton. So not like, a crazy exciting or expensive list of players or anything. And yet they're using basically all of their cap space. So like, where is the money going when your top 10 cap hits on roster include Jarrett Stidham, Ben Powers, and Tim Patrick? How do you not have a more talented roster than that? It's the $70M in dead cap. It's the 20% of their cap space that's still going to Russell Wilson. That failed QB contract is how you get a team that is bad, but somehow doesn't have the cap space to make splash signings (big signing was...Josh Reynolds?), isn't able to retain all of their own FAs (Cushenberry, Jewell), and those that they do sign/keep have to be restructured out still (Patrick, McGlinchey, Powers, Allen.) It's the on field results of a bad team with the roster building issues you expect to see from a top contender. It's also not going to feel like it tanks a team long term. It's still going to come down to drafting. If Nix is a stud and they have a good draft or two, it erases almost all of this. If Nix flops, Payton will re-retire, Paton will get fired, and it won't really feel like it was the Wilson contract, the narrative will be a bad GM who drafted poorly, a head coach who should have stayed retired, and a rookie QB who didn't pan out. Like, we know what this looks like, it just isn't quite as blatant as people expect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelersfan43 Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 24 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: What happens is the Denver Broncos. Like right now. I feel like everyone expects cap hell or cap consequences to be super visual and catastrophic, like a team literally won't be able to field a roster, or something. But that's not really ever the result. It's just teams having far less resources than they should. It doesn't feel that crazy if you aren't looking close because it just seems like normal roster churn. But in Denver right now, you have a team with like 5 guys making a salary over $3M right now. And that's Bolles, Sutton, Jones, Stidham, and Singleton. So not like, a crazy exciting or expensive list of players or anything. And yet they're using basically all of their cap space. So like, where is the money going when your top 10 cap hits on roster include Jarrett Stidham, Ben Powers, and Tim Patrick? How do you not have a more talented roster than that? It's the $70M in dead cap. It's the 20% of their cap space that's still going to Russell Wilson. That failed QB contract is how you get a team that is bad, but somehow doesn't have the cap space to make splash signings (big signing was...Josh Reynolds?), isn't able to retain all of their own FAs (Cushenberry, Jewell), and those that they do sign/keep have to be restructured out still (Patrick, McGlinchey, Powers, Allen.) It's the on field results of a bad team with the roster building issues you expect to see from a top contender. It's also not going to feel like it tanks a team long term. It's still going to come down to drafting. If Nix is a stud and they have a good draft or two, it erases almost all of this. If Nix flops, Payton will re-retire, Paton will get fired, and it won't really feel like it was the Wilson contract, the narrative will be a bad GM who drafted poorly, a head coach who should have stayed retired, and a rookie QB who didn't pan out. Like, we know what this looks like, it just isn't quite as blatant as people expect. Can't believe the Broncos GM still has a job if this is him who had make this move and the contract 1 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.