Aaron Rodgers and new contract

[Packerraymond]

5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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. 

 

So a 1% average increase for a far superior QB? I'm failing to see the issue... Instead of all over the place from over and under 15% you just get a steady projectable number. Again don't see the issue. Would rather it be steady than jump all over.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

So a 1% average increase for a far superior QB? I'm failing to see the issue... Instead of all over the place from over and under 15% you just get a steady projectable number. Again don't see the issue. Would rather it be steady than jump all over.

I just told you what the issue is.  I'll break it down further:

You need that 1-5 percent of the cap to pay a star player.  If you have a QB who is taking up 16% for three years, then 10-12% two of the other three years, you put that 1-5 percent of that star player's cap in one of the 10-12% years.  If you don't have one of those 10-12% years, where do you put that 1-5 percent of the cap that you need to re-sign that star player? 

You've got to remember that this is going to be a 5-6 year deal.  Where are you getting the crystal ball to see which players we will need to re-sign over those 5-6 years? 

If your quarterback's deal becomes a lower % as the years go on, you don't worry about what you haven't foreseen yet.  It's really simple actually.  Ryan's deal gets easier at the end, Jimmy's does, Brady's did, Aaron's did...

 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I just told you what the issue is.  I'll break it down further:

You need that 1-5 percent of the cap to pay a star player.  If you have a QB who is taking up 16% for three years, then 10-12% two of the other three years, you put that 1-5 percent of that star player's cap in one of the 10-12% years.  If you don't have one of those 10-12% years, where do you put that 1-5 percent of the cap that you need to re-sign that star player? 

You just sign the player. When you have a star QB this type of planning needs to be done every single year. If you haven't planned for it you aren't going to be successful anyway so it's a moot point. This is the type of thing Ball specializes in, it's why all the insiders said we were throwing around cautious numbers to Robinson, Watkins, Trumaine Johnson. They know this extension is coming and what it will cost and they're planning for it. Same thing the Eagles are doing with Wentz and the Rams are doing with Goff. 

[SSG]

On 7/3/2018 at 12:38 PM, 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?

 

 

The confidence  you have with your answer is hysterical considering it wasn't the question that was asked.  I'd stay away from Jeopardy if I were you.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 4:32 PM, SSG said:

You honestly believe that we're going to have back to back to back HOF QBs?  No team in  NFL history has done it and we're going to be the first? 

 

Interesting tidbit having nothing to do with my original question.  None of those 3 franchises you listed actually drafted back to back HOF QBs.  Favre,  Young and the Dutchman were all acquired using high draft picks (Favre a 1st rounder, Young a 2nd & 4th, VB the #2 pick in the draft and 2 players).

I could only find one team who drafted back to back HOF caliber QBs and that is assuming that Phillip Rivers makes the HOF (which is a lofty assumption IMO).

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

You just sign the player. When you have a star QB this type of planning needs to be done every single year. If you haven't planned for it you aren't going to be successful anyway so it's a moot point. This is the type of thing Ball specializes in, it's why all the insiders said we were throwing around cautious numbers to Robinson, Watkins, Trumaine Johnson. They know this extension is coming and what it will cost and they're planning for it. Same thing the Eagles are doing with Wentz and the Rams are doing with Goff. 

I'm not talking about the Robinsons, Watkins, Johnsons of the NFL.  I'm talking about the Mike Daniels, the David Bakhtiaris, the Lane Taylors.  It's not about being able to plan for it, it's about having somewhere to put the money for those players that we didn't anticipate we'd have to re-sign 5 to 6 years from now.

We're going to have two first round draft picks next year.  What happens if both of them are strong hits and we don't have a year to back load or front load their contracts?

For the history of the NFL, teams have always had gaps, either early or late, in a quarterback's contract to stuff money for players that they can't anticipate they'll have to re-sign.  Favre, Brady, Manning and others reworked their contract to afford them when the gaps didn't work.  Without any gaps, and without Rodgers changing his contract, we'll have to let those players go.  We both know Rodgers has an ego much too big to change anything about his contract. 

As I've said from the beginning, I don't give two craps about his contract if it's money based and not percentage based. 

[MacReady]

Just now, SSG said:

The confidence  you have with your answer is hysterical considering it wasn't the question that was asked. 

It might not have been the question you thought was asked, but it was the question that was asked. 

Quote

The idea that you can build a dynasty around any warm bodied QB is down right hysterical.  You honestly believe that we're going to have back to back to back HOF QBs?  No team in  NFL history has done it and we're going to be the first? 

Where'd you say draft? 

[Arthur Penske]

26 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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. 

 

It's because your argument isn't even really worthy of a serious response.

 

How many Superbowls would the Pats went to/won without Brady? 0. and he's not even as good as Rodgers.

[MacReady]

Just now, ArthurPensky said:

It's because your argument isn't even really worthy of a serious response.

Then don't respond at all.  It's a fricking football forum.  It's meant for discussion.  If you don't see merit in discussing whether or not a player coming off two broken collarbones and one Super Bowl win should be guaranteed 15% of the salary cap for the rest of his career, go find discussion you'd want to be a part of and quit being an insufferable Butkus.  Are you not getting enough attention lying about your Packer sources on Twitter or something? 

[AlexGreen#20]

34 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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. 

 

I agree with that assessment up until 2022 which is basically when it will matter in the discussion of Rodgers.

but with inflation calculated in, I would think we might see a decrease in the cap with decreased value in television deals stemming from decreasing viewership. 

[Packerraymond]

11 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I'm not talking about the Robinsons, Watkins, Johnsons of the NFL.  I'm talking about the Mike Daniels, the David Bakhtiaris, the Lane Taylors.  It's not about being able to plan for it, it's about having somewhere to put the money for those players that we didn't anticipate we'd have to re-sign 5 to 6 years from now.

We're going to have two first round draft picks next year.  What happens if both of them are strong hits and we don't have a year to back load or front load their contracts?

For the history of the NFL, teams have always had gaps, either early or late, in a quarterback's contract to stuff money for players that they can't anticipate they'll have to re-sign.  Favre, Brady, Manning and others reworked their contract to afford them when the gaps didn't work.  Without any gaps, and without Rodgers changing his contract, we'll have to let those players go.  We both know Rodgers has an ego much too big to change anything about his contract. 

As I've said from the beginning, I don't give two craps about his contract if it's money based and not percentage based. 

I'm pretty sure it only took 1 year to see that Bahk and Daniels are quite plausibly going to be core players. That gives you 3 years of planning, if that isn't enough you shouldn't be an NFL GM.

Lane Taylor is a league average player. You lose him for Aaron and the two you listed above any day.

You act like you still don't get 85% of the cap if you give Aaron 15. It's not the stars that suffer, it's the Lane Taylor's, the Ty Montgomery's, Jake Ryan's, those type of players don't see a 2nd deal and hit FA. You have to replace them with rooks. That's how the NFL works and what the league wants. Creates parity. I'll trade an elite QB over a good one and keeping all your mid tier guys any day. 

[MacReady]

Just now, ArthurPensky said:

How many Superbowls would the Pats went to/won without Brady? 0. and he's not even as good as Rodgers.

How many Super Bowls would the Pats went to/won without Brady?  3.  And he's not even as good as Rodgers.

I can do that, too. 

[AlexGreen#20]

16 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I'm not talking about the Robinsons, Watkins, Johnsons of the NFL.  I'm talking about the Mike Daniels, the David Bakhtiaris, the Lane Taylors.  It's not about being able to plan for it, it's about having somewhere to put the money for those players that we didn't anticipate we'd have to re-sign 5 to 6 years from now.

We're going to have two first round draft picks next year.  What happens if both of them are strong hits and we don't have a year to back load or front load their contracts?

For the history of the NFL, teams have always had gaps, either early or late, in a quarterback's contract to stuff money for players that they can't anticipate they'll have to re-sign.  Favre, Brady, Manning and others reworked their contract to afford them when the gaps didn't work.  Without any gaps, and without Rodgers changing his contract, we'll have to let those players go.  We both know Rodgers has an ego much too big to change anything about his contract. 

As I've said from the beginning, I don't give two craps about his contract if it's money based and not percentage based. 

I think we find ourselves in something of a catch 22 situation, are the non QB players signed to deals structured with peaks and valleys because teams know they can "hide" that money in QB low years, or are QBs signed to the deals with peaks and valleys because teams forecast their own cap and choose to build them that way?

If you have the money to sign Rodgers to a flat number, you simply sign other players to flatter contracts.

Also it's not like agents go into free agent negotiations ignorant of the cap percentages. Guys ask for the same percentage as a guy that came before them. It's not like we're tricking anybody.

[SSG]

15 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It might not have been the question you thought was asked, but it was the question that was asked. 

Where'd you say draft? 

But it wasn't, I  know exactly the question that was asked.  One would have thought you would have too given the foolish confidence you had with the ridiculous tangent you went off on.  Hey, maybe that's how you think Jeopardy works though., Ignoring the original question while attempting to answer your own instead.  

 

I  didn't.  Was just making an obvervation that at this point no team in NFL history has drafted back to back HOF QBs.  The Chargers are the closest to it and that's making the rather large assumption that Phillip Rivers is a HOF QB.  The only teams who have had back to back HOF QBs have been teams who have made trades to do so.

[MacReady]

If having a set cap percentage was an okay/safe/good/team-friendly/manageable type of contract, Aaron Rodgers would not be the first one to sign it.  There's a reason it has never happened before. 

Consider all the major changes to contracts in the NFL.

Fully guaranteed contracts.  Length records of contracts.  Total money records. 

In spite of all the advances in contract negotiations, in spite of all the unique deals and clauses and variances in how contracts are handled, no player has ever been guaranteed a cap percentage.  I'm the only one who sees a problem with that? 

[MacReady]

Just now, SSG said:

But it wasn't, I  know exactly the question that was asked. 

What in the hell, man?  I just quoted your original quote.  You said nowhere in the question about draft.  You said "have."  Show me where you asked when a team has ever drafted back to back quarterbacks.  I get it.  You meant to ask "drafted," but you didn't.