Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers and new contract


Golfman

Recommended Posts

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Your trend is based off a short history, QBs in the past eras didn't make as much as they do today. It's also based on the loophole of Tom Brady, who would've won SBs anyway whether he was at 10% or 15%. 

In 10 years that point will be irrelevant as any QB who's any good will be making 15% of the cap. A rookie QB is not going to win every SB.

This is pure conjecture based on nothing.  If Tom Brady was getting paid 15% of the cap in 2016, he would have been paid 23.25 million instead of the 15 million he was paid.  That's 8.25 million dollars in cap space.  If I'm allowed the same capacity of conjecture, that 8.25 million dollars eliminates Chris Long (2.3 million) plus another 5 million they would not have had to re-sign Blount, or sign Hogan (5.5 million).  Or maybe Terrance Knighton.  Or take your pick, but however you do it, remove 8.25 million dollars from that 2016 roster. 

In 2017, Brady was paid 14 million dollars.  Had he been paid 15%, you would have had to add 11 million dollars to the Patriots cap.  Stephone Gilmore had a cap hit of 8 million last year.  Do the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl at all without Gilmore?

I know you think you're right and level-headed, but you're wrong here.  For a team like the Patriots, who rely on those 2-8 million dollar additions to compensate for poor drafts and poor drafting, not being able to add those players because of 8-11 million more dollars being paid to Brady changes the entire complexity of how that team is managed. 

You're wrong here.  You know it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we want to pay more for Rodgers? Is he playing better than when he signed his deal? Or is it just the fact that other players now make more than him? He should have signed a shorter deal is he wanted more frequent updates to his salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Just make him finish out his deal then see where he is in 2 years ... if he's still not ready for a new deal then tag him .. simple!!!  He GB's property for 4 more years.

And in two years......after Joe Blow QB Whomever up's the highest paid ante over its current levels - AR could have similar demands.

Extend him now - with no escalators or CAP %'s and let history repeat itself - he'll establish the highest paid mark others will eventually supersede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packer_ESP said:

Why do we want to pay more for Rodgers? Is he playing better than when he signed his deal? Or is it just the fact that other players now make more than him? He should have signed a shorter deal is he wanted more frequent updates to his salary.

Everybody is putting Rodgers up on this pedestal.  Acting like he can win if he's paid more than anybody else.  He hasn't shown that he can win when paid lower than what he should be getting.  Why do people expect he can win while getting paid more than what he's worth?  Don't get it.  If Rodgers has proven anything about the NFL, it's that not even the best can win without a competent defense, and we can't maintain that competent defense if we have 4% less cap space to work with than teams with younger or less expensive quarterbacks.

The Eagles just beat the "GOAT" because they were paying a rookie contract to their QB, and a backup contract to their backup.  What does that tell people? 

The Falcons should have won a year ago if not for the massive collapse.  The Seahawks should have beat the Patriots if not for a crap play call (blame the younger, cheaper QB all you want here, but that was a poor play call).  Fact of the matter is that Brady got lucky as all hell to win his most recent two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Generally speaking, I do. Not gonna lie. Lots of idiots out there

Well....there's a spectrum of stupidity - but dont become jaded. There's intelligent life amongst the human race still :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Everybody is putting Rodgers up on this pedestal.  Acting like he can win if he's paid more than anybody else.  He hasn't shown that he can win when paid lower than what he should be getting.  Why do people expect he can win while getting paid more than what he's worth?  Don't get it.  If Rodgers has proven anything about the NFL, it's that not even the best can win without a competent defense, and we can't maintain that competent defense if we have 4% less cap space to work with than teams with younger or less expensive quarterbacks.

The Eagles just beat the "GOAT" because they were paying a rookie contract to their QB, and a backup contract to their backup.  What does that tell people? 

The Falcons should have won a year ago if not for the massive collapse.  The Seahawks should have beat the Patriots if not for a crap play call (blame the younger, cheaper QB all you want here, but that was a poor play call).  Fact of the matter is that Brady got lucky as all hell to win his most recent two. 

Rodgers pay hasn't exactly been what's prevented us from fielding a competent defense.  Last year we had low spending but that hasn't always been the case.

Year/% of cap spend on defense

2017/22nd

2016/7th

2015/3rd

2014/2nd

2013/6th

That's as far back as it goes.  23rd this year but I bet our defense is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cannondale said:

That's probably a bit extreme. His deal needs to be updated, but I'm not letting him break any new ground other than being the highest paid QB.

No opt outs.  No % of the cap. Pandora's box has been opened on the guaranteed money so the Packers have no choice there. The guaranteed money is the perk, that's good enough. That's his update over previous deals. No need to give him damn near fully guaranteed plus some of this other crap.

Then tell his agent the team wants an opt out clause. See how he likes it. I hate people

This.

If he wants something daft then let his deal run out and franchise him if he is still worth it 2 years down the road. If his demands are sensible then fine let him be the highest paid QB in the league even though its probably unlikely that he will be the best QB for that time given his age and injuries. Any talk of opt-out clauses should see us opt out of the conversation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is pure conjecture based on nothing.  If Tom Brady was getting paid 15% of the cap in 2016, he would have been paid 23.25 million instead of the 15 million he was paid.  That's 8.25 million dollars in cap space.  If I'm allowed the same capacity of conjecture, that 8.25 million dollars eliminates Chris Long (2.3 million) plus another 5 million they would not have had to re-sign Blount, or sign Hogan (5.5 million).  Or maybe Terrance Knighton.  Or take your pick, but however you do it, remove 8.25 million dollars from that 2016 roster. 

In 2017, Brady was paid 14 million dollars.  Had he been paid 15%, you would have had to add 11 million dollars to the Patriots cap.  Stephone Gilmore had a cap hit of 8 million last year.  Do the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl at all without Gilmore?

I know you think you're right and level-headed, but you're wrong here.  For a team like the Patriots, who rely on those 2-8 million dollar additions to compensate for poor drafts and poor drafting, not being able to add those players because of 8-11 million more dollars being paid to Brady changes the entire complexity of how that team is managed. 

You're wrong here.  You know it. 

You think Chris Long and Blount are stopping possibly the best HC/QB combo ever from winning SBs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

You think Chris Long and Blount are stopping possibly the best HC/QB combo ever from winning SBs?

Chris Long didn't get many sacks, but he was an important part to that team.  So were all the other free agent additions they had that they wouldn't have had if Brady was getting paid less than 15% of the cap (8 million less to be specific).  Swap out Chris Long for Martellus Bennett.  Couldn't have signed such a luxury backup TE if Brady was getting paid 15%.  Bennett was a backup.  He replaced an injured Gronkowski, had 58 regular season catches, 7 touchdowns.  He had 62 yards in the Super Bowl. 

Blount had 18 rushing touchdowns in 2016.  Including 4 while Brady was suspended.

Long/Blount?  No.  The free agent additions the Patriots were able to make while Brady was getting paid 8-11 million less than 15%?  One hundred percent.  Patriots would not have made it to any of the last three Super Bowls had Brady been paid 15% of the cap in those years.  Think of all the role players the Patriots have been able to sign.  Ammendola, Hogan, they afforded Cooks and Gilmore last year, Bennett, Blount, Burkhead, Branch, Long, Sheard, Mingo.  They signed Darrelle Revis to a 10 million dollar deal one year they beat the Seahawks.  Can't sign Revis, can't beat the Seahawks without him.  Probably can't even GET to the Seahawks without him that year.

You know the point I'm trying to make, and you know the point I'm making is accurate.  A team CANNOT SUSTAIN 15% of the cap being spent on the QB.  If you've got a big influx of young talent like we do, you could survive it for the first year, maybe even the second year considering we have the Saints first round pick next year, but you CANNOT sustain paying a QB 13% of the cap, much less 15. 

If we give Rodgers 15% of the cap guaranteed for the next 5 years, we are OUT of Super Bowl competition after this coming season and the next.  Period.  Rodgers is good, but he isn't good enough in the playoffs, especially if we can't retain guys like Clark, Martinez, Clinton-Dix...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is pure conjecture based on nothing.  If Tom Brady was getting paid 15% of the cap in 2016, he would have been paid 23.25 million instead of the 15 million he was paid.  That's 8.25 million dollars in cap space.  If I'm allowed the same capacity of conjecture, that 8.25 million dollars eliminates Chris Long (2.3 million) plus another 5 million they would not have had to re-sign Blount, or sign Hogan (5.5 million).  Or maybe Terrance Knighton.  Or take your pick, but however you do it, remove 8.25 million dollars from that 2016 roster. 

In 2017, Brady was paid 14 million dollars.  Had he been paid 15%, you would have had to add 11 million dollars to the Patriots cap.  Stephone Gilmore had a cap hit of 8 million last year.  Do the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl at all without Gilmore?

I know you think you're right and level-headed, but you're wrong here.  For a team like the Patriots, who rely on those 2-8 million dollar additions to compensate for poor drafts and poor drafting, not being able to add those players because of 8-11 million more dollars being paid to Brady changes the entire complexity of how that team is managed. 

You're wrong here.  You know it. 

That 2016 patriots team also had 17M in dead cap. The Falcons team they were playing against had 25M in dead cap. The eagles last year had about 20M.  GB has Historcally been far lower than that over the last several gears. There’s your bonus $8M to play with. With decent cap management you can still assemble those teams with a QB taking up that full 15% of the cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cakeshoppe said:

That 2016 patriots team also had 17M in dead cap. The Falcons team they were playing against had 25M in dead cap. The eagles last year had about 20M.  GB has Historcally been far lower than that over the last several gears. There’s your bonus $8M to play with. With decent cap management you can still assemble those teams with a QB taking up that full 15% of the cap. 

For one year, two years... maybe.  I don't care how good a team is with their cap, it's not sustainable over three years or more.  Period.  

Why do people think it's a coincidence?  No QB is winning a Super Bowl without a good TEAM around him, and you can't sustain that team without the cap space to do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving him an opt out and all that stuff is dumb but I think people are forgetting that even though we can franchise tag him twice if we get to that point we lose any sort of leverage we have. If we don't work out a deal this year or next he's playing his last few years somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This is going to be fun.  Again.  Nobody has a counter to zero quarterbacks in the history of the game winning a Super Bowl while being paid 14% of the salary cap, and yet I'm the crazy one not taking my medicine for stating that in no world should Gute cave and give him 15% of the salary cap.  Always fun. 

My argument - Cold hard facts, trends and the entire history of the NFL.

The argument everybody hops onto - It's Aaron Rodgers, lol, and stuff.

 

This is a self adjusting prophecy.

When the first QB wins a SB paid (for example) 18% of the cap, then the prophecy is adjusted to that figure, instead of 14%. Self-adjusting prophecies are worth very little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...