Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers and new contract


Golfman

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eyecatcher said:

21 of the last 25 Super Bowls have been won by Hall of Fame QBs.  That's a 5:1 ratio too that negates your 5:1 ratio.

Three of those were Brady before he was Brady.  Two of those were Manning when he sucked.  Two of them were Eli.  One of them was Wilson on a roomie deal.  One of them was Rodgers on just his second deal.  

I could go on, but I'm at work and those are just off the top of my head.

I've got a better number for you...

One single QB won a Super Bowl getting paid more than 12% of his team's salary cap.  One.  That was Steve Young.  Established dynasty team and coach in a year they literally cheated with the salary cap and got penalized for it.  

I never denied you need good QB play to win a Super Bowl.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Three of those were Brady before he was Brady.  Two of those were Manning when he sucked.  Two of them were Eli.  One of them was Wilson on a roomie deal.  One of them was Rodgers on just his second deal.  

I could go on, but I'm at work and those are just off the top of my head.

I've got a better number for you...

One single QB won a Super Bowl getting paid more than 12% of his team's salary cap.  One.  That was Steve Young.  Established dynasty team and coach in a year they literally cheated with the salary cap and got penalized for it.  

I never denied you need good QB play to win a Super Bowl.  

The first issue I take with the argument is that there hasn't been QBs making over 12% of the salary cap for that long. There isn't a very big sample size to go off of in order to make the claim that going over 12% of the cap is the root problem.

+++

This is more of an argument for backloaded contracts than it is not overpaying QBs in the case of Brady. 

If you are proposing doing that with Rodgers, and I think a definitive argument could be made that's a good plan, I'd be in some agreement. 

Starting next year if you could get Rodgers' cap number down to 14 million (from 21) you all of a sudden can go out and spend some cash. Getting that agreement likely requires pushing his cap HIGH into 2021 and 2022 though, so we would still need the extension.

As far as the 12% goes:

Foles: 1%

Brady: 8.9%

Manning: 12.2%

Brady: 11.1%

Wilson: .6%

Flacco: 6.6%

Manning: 11.8

Rodgers: Year was "uncapped" 5.4% going off 2011 number. 

12% is a very specific cut-off and based on how you decipher Manning in 2015, it may not even be accurate. 12% of our cap this year is 22million. If he gets a 4/120 contract entirely guaranteed that wouldn't kill me. Especially if you could structure it in such a way that you're paying like $75 of the $120 in 2011 and 2022.

Something like a 52 million dollar signing bonus with you paying

2019: 1 million in base/13 million in signing bonus

2020:  16 million in base/13 million in signing bonus

2021: 25 million in base/13 million in signing bonus

2022: 26 million in base/13 million in signing bonus

That's the deal you sign to max your chances. Maybe you swap 2019 and 2020 based on how your defense looks this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see the big deal between saying 12% or 15% of cap for Rodgers. It's not that big a jump to really say that it handcuffs the Green Bay Packers from acquiring talent to send them over the edge and win it all..

We spent almost 4% of our cap on Brooks and Bennett. Now imagine Rodgers was on 15% last year rather than 12% by doing so would that mean we could not have afforded those two free agent signings, and if we couldn't is it a big deal really if we didn't have them on our roster. The reality was neither was on our roster anyway one was injured a lot the other ****ed off?

That 3% difference is bottom feeder-free agent signings. If it was 8% difference i.e a jump from 12% to 20% of cap, I would agree, that would stop you singing or resigning a 'game changer' or blue chip player e.g like a Clay Mathews who had was 8.95% of cap in 2017. It would handcuff the team and management would have to make very tough choices.

In addition, we are never that tight to the cap that the additional 3% really means much. We are normally rolling over about 4.5% of the cap or more. We have over 7% in dead money. So by being a little more tight/smart we can easily deal with spending an extra 3% of cap on a guy who gives us the best chance of winning a Super Bowl again. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I personally think the whole argument is quite silly. You are attributing a cause and effect based on the fact that no team has won it with a QB with more than 12% of cap. I don't see enough evidence to see that the two factors are linked. It is just a question of how cap is distributed. If the argument is that the cap is too concentrated on one position than why don't we extend the argument and say that a team like the Steelers can never win a Super Bowl as they are over-invested in their QB, 1# WR and 1# RB, accounting for over 27% of the cap? Or Atlanta because their top three earners QB, 1# WR, and 1 # CB account for a similar 28% of the cap. Yet these teams are quite consistent playoff teams in recent years. 

Actually, if you look at the majority of teams their top three earners on the roster account for somewhere from 23% to 28%. Even the frugal Patriots top three earner account for 22%. So when it averages it out across top earners it isn't such a big deal.

If you take it a step further, 79% of the Giants cap is dedicated to 24 players, or 78.83% of the Lions cap to also 24 players, Falcons 82% to 25 players, Panthers 77% for 24 players, Bears 74% for 23 players,  and the Packers 79% for 21 players.

As you can see when you break it down, I don't know how that 3% - 5% difference in how cap being allocated to players is the difference in sending teams over the edge. It is just too small a percentage to be that meaningful and what you can additionally acquire with that percentage.

I really don't see the causal link. Teams pretty much all spend the cap in very similar ways some teams might slant it more to their QB, or to their star DE etc but when you look at the whole composition they are playing in pretty similar thresholds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

I really don't see the causal link. Teams pretty much all spend the cap in very similar ways some teams might slant it more to their QB, or to their star DE etc but when you look at the whole composition they are playing in pretty similar thresholds

Not only is the causal link poor, but in addition the <12% or more to the QB = no SB>, is a self adjusting prophecy. When a QB DOES win a SB while costing (for example) 13.5% of the cap, the former prophecy (12%) is adjusted upward to 13.5% and continues to be a prophecy. It is like focusing entirely on a particular tree, while being oblivious to the fact that you are in a forest. Anyone can create a prophecy like this, but this one seems too narrowly defined, to be of much use.

 

I'll give you another topical World Cup prophecy from my home country, England. Since 1998, When they play any World Cup match that is  shown by the BBC they have a 69% chance of victory, but if the match is shown on ITV, they only win 9% of matches (and their one ITV win was against the lowly Trinidad and Tobago). Last nights game was shown by ITV, and surprise, surprise, they won the knockout game, and it was won on a penalty shootout, which they also.....ahem......NEVER win. Prophecies last until they are overturned enough that they cease to be, or are adjusted to reflect the 'new truth'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is exactly the same as saying no QB under 6ft 2 can win a Super Bowl and the causal link you make is a performance one that a short QB can't see the field properly. Then Drew Bress wins it at 6ft and then that's the new boundary limit and then Wilson wins it at 5'11. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2018 at 11:38 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

Lol.  L... Lol.  Lol, what?  I'll take back-to-back Hall of Fame quarterbacks for 200, 400 and 600, Alex.

Who is Joe Montana and Steve Young, Alex?
Who is Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers, Alex?
Who is Norm Van Brocklin and Sony Jurgenson, Alex?

These are teams that are constantly hiring/firing coaches, making poor drafting and personnel decisions.  You can all choose to act like it's impossible to build a team and that you need that franchise QB, but it's simply not true.

The Eagles built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl without him.  You think Carson Wentz would have been Carson Wentz with the Browns or Bears?  You're wrong.

The Seahawks built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl without even needing him.

The Ravens built up draft revenue, got their QB, won a Super Bowl with him being the alrightest QB in the league. 

Everybody is acting like this is the late 90's and early 2000's.  It isn't.  This is 2018 when the NFL desperately wants quarterbacks and does everything to help build quarterbacks. 

In or around 2007, passing in the NFL Changed forever.  It made the search for quarterbacks significantly easier. 

Watson, Goff, Wentz, Winston, Mariota, Bortles, Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, Newton, Stafford, Ryan. 

12 quarterbacks drafted in the top half of the draft since 2007 who have shown tremendous talent and/or made it to the playoffs. 
Goff - Sucked with a crap system.
Winston - Performed well in spite of having no brain.
Mariota - Has won a playoff game in spite of having Wisenhunt and Mularkey as a head coach.
Bortles - Made it to the Championship game. 
Griffin - Was one of the best young QBs in the league until he got hurt and lost Shanahan. 
Tannehill - consecutive 4,000 yard seasons and a playoff appearance.

Even the questionable on this list have had success. 

Trubisky, Manuel, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Bradford, Sanchez, Russell. 

8 quarterbacks drafted in the top 16 since 2007 that have been busts. 
Trubisky - Could very well become a franchise QB, jury still out.
Manuel - Drafted by a team that sucked and had no business drafting any QB (much less Manuel).
Locker - Drafted by a team that sucked at drafting and sucked period. 
Ponder - Bust who happened to make it to the playoffs twice.
Bradford - Bust who managed to have success once he got out of a crap team with a crap system.
Sanchez - The second biggest bust on the list and he still managed to get to the NFC Championship game two years in a row.  Imagine that.  Rodgers hasn't done that. 
Russell - Nobody had any business drafting him. 

So if it's so damn impossible to find a franchise QB, why is it that over the past ten years, more franchise quarterbacks have been drafted in the top half of the draft than have busted?  Look at the teams that have drafted busts:

Bears, Bills, Titans, Jaguars, Vikings, Rams (with Fisher, who just had Keenum, Foles and Goff turn their careers around in his absence), Jets and Raiders.

It's almost like bad teams draft bad quarterbacks and good teams draft good quarterbacks.  What tremendous luck. 

 

It's so easy to accuse me of being the unrealistic one, and yet the facts are clearly available for anyone who wants to see them. 

The NFL right now is the best coach in the league (Belichick) with the second best QB in the league.  People need to remember that Belichick won three Super Bowls with Brady before Brady ever threw for 4,000 yards OR 30 touchdowns, under 12 interceptions or over a 92.6 QB rating. 

He was beaten three times in the Super Bowl by teams with inferior quarterbacks, better teams.  Why does nobody get and understand this?  If it was all about QB, why in the actual eff did Eli effing Manning beat Brady twice, and why in the damn actual damn effing hell did Nick Foles beat Tom Brady? 

If it was all about the QB, Rodgers would have gotten to the Super Bowl more than once. 

Everybody in the league overrates the QB position when it's clearly draft capital and top half QB play that provides the best route to Super Bowl wins. 

While you're all laughing at me saying I'm crazy, I'm over here watching 7 straight years of inferior quarterbacks on superior teams winning Super Bowls due to better draft capital and better teams. 

I pity all of you because I was in the same spot you're all at with Brett Favre making fun of the same people saying the same things I'm saying about Rodgers about Favre.  It sucks when you realize that the NFL isn't about the QB, so I understand why none of you want to accept it, but the Packers will never win a Super Bowl with Rodgers taking up 15% of the salary cap.  Fact is Rodgers is 1/9 in getting to Super Bowls and I'm the crazy one for wanting to replicate 5/10 Super Bowl odds. 

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2018 at 8:48 AM, Brit Pack said:

It is exactly the same as saying no QB under 6ft 2 can win a Super Bowl and the causal link you make is a performance one that a short QB can't see the field properly. Then Drew Bress wins it at 6ft and then that's the new boundary limit and then Wilson wins it at 5'11. 

No, it's really not like that.  It has been and forever will be a team sport.  Peyton Manning won his first Super Bowl while throwing three touchdowns and 7 interceptions in the four postseason games.  He won his second throwing 2 touchdowns and 1 interception in three postseason games.  Brady won three Super Bowls before he had ever thrown more than 28 touchdowns or over 4,000 yards in a season. 

If you'd actually take the time to read what I've been saying you'd get it.  Teams can win a Super Bowl while paying their QB 12-15% of the cap, but a team cannot sustain a team while paying that percentage to a QB every single year. 

Matthews, Cobb, Wilkerson, Clinton-Dix, Ryan, Montgomery, Daniels, Bulaga, Martinez, Bakhtiari, Graham, Linsley, Taylor, Clark, King, Jones, Jones. 

Those are players with contracts running out in the next three years.  You expect to be able to afford new players or our own players while paying Rodgers 15% of the cap every single year? 

There are two ways to build a team. 

Find talent in the draft that you can afford.

Supplement the draft with free agent signings. 

With Rodgers getting paid 15% every single year, we won't be able to afford re-signing our own and signing free agents or vice versa. 

I've already said dozens of times that I'm fine with Rodgers getting paid 15% one of the years as long as the deal levels out towards the end. 

But if you or anybody thinks any team can sustain a team or build a team while paying their QB 15% of the cap for four-six years, you're wrong.  The Patriots have just lost a bunch of their good players when Brady's contract finally caught up to them and he's been getting paid SIGNIFICANTLY less than what he's worth.  It's very obvious the extreme level of difficulty involved in maintaining a competitive team while paying a QB such a high percentage of the cap every single year.  If the deal levels off (like Aaron's last deal did), it's sustainable.  If it stays at the same percentage, it doesn't, and I shouldn't be considered the crazy one for seeing that.    No amount of overused Michael Jordan gifs from people who have lied about their Packer sources for ten years will change that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Am I the only one who can see the 15% is going to soon be an outdated number?

That's what good QBs get paid now, they didn't as much before but they do now. Good QBs win SBs and they get paid 15%. This is the NFL in 2018.

No, we've been over this before.  I've answered this before.  You haven't responded to my answer.

Matt Ryan signed the biggest contract ever.  He's getting paid 10% of the cap this year.  Assuming that the cap goes up 10 million every year as it has been:

10% this year.
12% next year. 
16% the year after.
16% the year after.
16%.
13%

That's two years of under 15%, three tough years at 16%, then it drops back to 13%.  That's an average of 14% of the cap. 

That's two years in which the Falcons can front load contract extensions or free agent signings, three years in which they can back load contract extensions. 

Jimmy G just signed a massive one.

20.9%
10.6%
13.5%
12.9%
12%

Average of 13.98% of the cap. 

Not only are their averages below 15% of the cap, but both contracts allow for front or back loaded contracts to maintain a team. 

Now imagine a team with no ebb and flow of those cap percentages.  If Rodgers is GUARANTEED 15% of the cap every single year, an unexpectedly high salary cap increase provides no benefit whatsoever.  Imagine Ryan's or Jimmy's contracts and how nice they will look if the cap jumps, say, 15 million one of those years instead of the expected 10. 

We would have to plan every single year for 15% of the cap to be tied to Rodgers.  How do you expect to maintain a team that way when you can't front load contracts, you can't back load contracts.  The TOTAL MONEY has been on a steady increase for the history of the NFL.  That will continue to be the case.  Tying a contract to a cap percentage has never been done, and this is why. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI, @Packerraymond, @AlexGreen#20, I appreciate the people who are actually discussing this instead of fishing for likes.  The others might not be quite as annoying and childish if they at least tried to make fun of me with different gifs/pictures, but that's really effing obnoxious to use the same damn ones. 

On 7/4/2018 at 3:51 AM, Brit Pack said:

I personally think the whole argument is quite silly.

You're missing the entire point.  As I've just shown, Jimmy is getting 20.9% of the cap this year.  His other years get significantly lower, and that allows a team to plan ahead or early.  Front/back loaded contracts.  Same thing with Ryan. 

Let's imagine you're on the interstate in a Uhaul traveling cross country from, say, California to North Carolina.  The Uhaul has a governor in it that prevents you from going over 80 and under 40 on the interstate.  You can slow down, you can speed up within limits.  Now imagine that same exact road trip, except you're going 65 miles per hour with no slowing down and no speeding up. 

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...