What happens when a qb contract cripples a team?

[Nabbs4u]

5 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

If your owner is fine with ponying up the dough, cant you eat a massive cap hit like the Matt Ryan contract and be fine soon?

Eagles did with Carson Wentz. Made the SB 2 seasons later. It starts with a competent GM/HC/QB. Without one if not all 3, Purgatory you go!!

[JaguarCrazy2832]

10 hours ago, squire12 said:

the owner doesn't pay the cap hit.  that is from the revenue sharing.  

I meant more the guaranteed $ he has to pay out

[scar988]

On 7/21/2024 at 2:58 PM, Nabbs4u said:

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.

I'd say Kyler the man is a good person. Kyler the player is meh.

DeShaun the man is not a good person. DeShaun the player is meh.

[Soko]

On 7/24/2024 at 7:34 AM, 11sanchez11 said:

AZ gutted their roster and tanked last year cause Kyler was hurt and they still basically went .500 in the games Kyler played (Prater missed 2 game winning fgs to preserve the tank in the last game of the szn otherwise they would've went 4-4). 

This is with Greg Dortch as his #1 WR. And playing in a system he has never played in before. After coming back from an ACL.

Their #1 WR is on a rookie contract for 5 more years. #2 WR is on a rookie contract for 3 more years. LT is on a rookie contract for 4 more years. TE is on a rookie contract for 2 more years and is a TE so his contract will be bargain for how good he is. 

They have iirc 35 million in cap space rn and like 85 million in cap space this offseason. 

I wouldn't classify that as being in a crippled roster situation.

That’s the thing with these QB contracts. You can make them fit (ala Browns, Broncos) and even have wiggle room (ala Cardinals)…but you’re going to be fielding a young roster. The Cardinals have, what, like 8-10 veteran contracts that aren’t roster fodder level deals? And next year when that cap number jumps to $85M, how many guys then? Like 4? $85M in cap space seems healthy until you look at the roster and see a literal handful of guys not on rookie deals. If this were the Niners or Ravens or Bengals or any other good, competitive football team, you’d be lamenting the Kyler contract. 

It’s easy to deal with a massive QB contract when the rest of the roster has virtually no veteran talent.

[Jakuvious]

17 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

If your owner is fine with ponying up the dough, cant you eat a massive cap hit like the Matt Ryan contract and be fine soon?

5 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I meant more the guaranteed $ he has to pay out

I mean...kind of? It depends on the particulars of the contract. Some QB contracts get tough regardless because teams have started doing rolling guarantees, where like, in 2027 your 2028 salary becomes guaranteed, so it's always difficult to cut them, at any point in the contract. But for relatively normally structured contracts, or your Saints/Eagles style pro-rated bonus based contracts, most of the dead cap that hits when you cut a player isn't really money that the team still owes them, it's money that they've already paid them, but haven't paid against the cap. Cash is only really an issue if it's incredibly early in the contract and you still have fully guaranteed years. But generally the issue nowadays, is teams are using option bonuses or restructured signing bonuses to give players now, but pay it salary cap wise over the course of 5 years, and if you cut them at any point in that time, anything you already paid that player, but haven't paid on the cap, needs paid on the cap as soon as you cut them.

So like, using the Saints as the textbook example of problems cutting players. If the Saints want to cut Carr in February, he only has $10M in guaranteed money left on his deal. And that's a $10M roster bonus for 2025 that became guaranteed from him being on roster in March of 2024. Nothing else on his contract from 2024 on is guaranteed right now. But they'll take a $50M dead cap hit if they cut him, because they've paid him around $60M in guarantees already, but have only eaten around $20M of it against the cap. So cutting him isn't a cash problem, that $10M really isn't a big deal in the scale of things. It's a cap problem because of the cash they already paid him.

Or like Jason Kelce, where the Eagles owe $25M in dead cap, after he retired. They don't owe Jason Kelce any money, he got paid all of that while he was still playing. But they never paid that money against the cap, so they have to now that he's gone. The cash was more relevant when he was around, now it's exclusively a cap problem for the team.

Just for another example, if the Chiefs needed to cut Mahomes today, the cash impact of that move would be $49M, as that's what he has left right now in unpaid guaranteed money. But the team already has to hold that in escrow, so the money is there. Much more problematic would be the $113M in dead cap. That $64M difference is, again, money we already paid him, but haven't paid on the cap yet. That's the impact of signing bonuses and option bonuses and restructures. Pay the player money today, owe it on the cap later, and suffer the consequences if you ever need to cut that guy.

So usually, the cap implications are honestly more prohibitive of cutting a player than the cash is. Especially since guaranteed money needs to be set aside anyway prior to the contract going through.

 

And fine is....relative. The dead cap will always be gone in 1 to 2 years. So in that sense, yeah, you'll be fine shortly. It's all the things you have to do to make that year or two work that makes it less fine. Players not extended or signed, money shifted down the road to make it work, etc.

[Ray Reed]

16 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

IDK, I think you are underselling the difference between the eras. Also the 2009 team was clearly superior to the 2017, just had an unlucky regular season (they were +130).

2008-2012
54-26
5 playoff appearances
9 playoff wins
1 SB

2013-2018 (first half)
44-45
1 playoff appearance
1 playoff win

Of course I agree there was some roster degradation post Super Bowl, but Flacco's failure to develop as a QB after signing the biggest deal ever at the time was "debilitating" if not "crippling".

Oh of course there was a huge difference from 2008-2012, that was a run up there with some of the best 5 year stretches we’ve seen in the AFC in the last 20 years.

I just think 44-45 and a playoff win from 2013-2018 under Flacco (definitionally average) is far from what many would consider “crippling”, at least in regards to what this thread is asking.

[El Ramster]

@Forge

@Manny/Patrick

 

tag Jay all day we suck. 
 

[WeBlitz]

Do people really believe Murray’s contract is “crippling” Arizona’s franchise when in actuality it was arguably one of the worst drafting GMs of all time in Steve Keim doing it?