Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers and new contract


Golfman

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

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.

There will never be a QB who manages that, so it won't change, but keep thinking it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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...

I know the point you're making and I think it's about to be proven outdated and wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

There will never be a QB who manages that, so it won't change, but keep thinking it will.

Actually, assuming the game itself doesn''t die and a salary cap remains, it is inevitable. It's just a matter of how long.

You can be, and have been, a smart and incisive poster, but you occasionally like to assert possibilities as certainties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18% to a QB who will win the Super Bowl.  Lol.  That's funny.  Inevitable.  This isn't a dollar amount we're talking about, this is a percentage.  18% of a billion is still 18%.  As QB dollars rise, the percentage really doesn't.  By the time that happens, if it does happen, it will be 7/7 football.  

As long as there are 53 or more players on a roster, that's never going to happen.  You can say it will all you want, but it won't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I know the point you're making and I think it's about to be proven outdated and wrong.

With all due respect, I don't think you're thinking.  Dollar amounts have changed and risen since football began and it will continue to rise.  Percentage of the cap is still a percentage of the cap.  The average cap percentage of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks since 1994 has been 6.9%.  That is NOT a coincidence. 

In the history of the NFL, in the history of sports, have the best players been able to win without strong teams?  No.  Can you build strong teams with 82% to pay the other 52 players?  No. 

Everyone knows it's true, it's just fear and trying to convince themselves that it's not true in our case.  Literally everybody here was saying that the Seahawks would fall apart once they paid Wilson.  It happened.  We had our laughs, we had our fun, but now it's not true for us?  It IS true for us. 

We can survive a massive guaranteed deal for Aaron Rodgers as long as his contract isn't tied to 15% of the cap.  It's as simple as that and everybody knows it, they just don't want to admit it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

With all due respect, I don't think you're thinking.  Dollar amounts have changed and risen since football began and it will continue to rise.  Percentage of the cap is still a percentage of the cap.  The average cap percentage of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks since 1994 has been 6.9%.  That is NOT a coincidence. 

In the history of the NFL, in the history of sports, have the best players been able to win without strong teams?  No.  Can you build strong teams with 82% to pay the other 52 players?  No. 

Everyone knows it's true, it's just fear and trying to convince themselves that it's not true in our case.  Literally everybody here was saying that the Seahawks would fall apart once they paid Wilson.  It happened.  We had our laughs, we had our fun, but now it's not true for us?  It IS true for us. 

We can survive a massive guaranteed deal for Aaron Rodgers as long as his contract isn't tied to 15% of the cap.  It's as simple as that and everybody knows it, they just don't want to admit it. 

You win SB's with QB play, the best QBs are making salaries at a higher % then ever when they ink a deal. Having a rookie QB play elite is still the best way to win a SB but that can't happen every year. Eventually these top QBs are going to win SBs. If you truly believe what you're saying if you place the same cap restrictions on the league since its inception do Starr, Unitas, Namath, Bradshaw, Montana, etc not win Super Bowls? They would have been among the highest paid players in the league. 

Good QBs are going to win SBs and they're all going to get paid. The QBs like the Flacco's and Eli's sure, they'll never win SBs if they are over 15%. A Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Montana type QB, no big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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.  

What's not sustainable? Keeping dead cap low? From 2011 to now, the only year GB allowed dead cap to take up more than 4.1% of the cap was in 2017 with the Bennett debacle, and that was still only 7.2% of the cap.
 

Here's Green Bay's dead cap % since the new CBA went into effect:

2017 7.2%
2016 3.0%
2015 3.8%
2014 4.1%
2013 2.5%
2012 3.9%
2011 2.6%

So yes, it is sustainable over several years.

Here's the dead cap % of selected superbowl teams over that span:

2013 Broncos 9.6%
2014 Seahawks 13.5%
2014 Patriots 14.0%
2015 Panthers 10.7%
2016 Falcons 16.8%
2016 Patriots 11.2%
2017 Eagles 11.7%

Keep in mind that that 2016 falcons team (which you claimed earlier in this thread "should have" won a superbowl) was also paying their QB 15.9% of the cap on top of that 16.8% dead cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cakeshoppe said:

What's not sustainable? Keeping dead cap low?

No.  Paying a QB 15% of the cap.  Interesting dead cap numbers from Super Bowl teams.  Here's those same Super Bowl cap percentages towards quarterbacks:

sbcap.png

And you think the Packers are somehow special and would somehow be able to transcend that?  They're not. 

Dead cap is a bad example, too.  We've got 8 million in dead cap for this coming year and a new GM.  You don't know how dead cap is going to be handled going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OneTwoSixFive said:

An apparent conflict that isn't, because if enough time goes by, anything that can happen, will happen.

In 3595, Wadalank Fiddlestick McOyscy is the first QB to add a third leg with two bionic arms and a heat seeking pinpoint accuracy laser eye demands 18% of his salary cap for the Lunar Eclipses (teams complained when they had to go to London, imagine those road trips to the moon).  That year, the Lunar Eclipses just happened to have 3 first round picks traded to them by the Honduran Heat in order to move up for Yeti Yetterson (that battle for Sasquatches to be able to play in the NFL almost ruined the league).  The Lunar Eclipse draft Wyan Rade, who is secretly a mutant and sees 2 seconds into the future.  He's a left tackle.  They also draft Tim Timmerson, a future Hall of Fame edge rusher who had his calf muscles transplanted to his biceps, got new bionic legs and thanks to a new drug, can bench press 10,000 pounds at 20 reps.  Their third first round pick busts, but that's okay because they already have another Hall of Fame pass rusher in the last year of his rookie deal as well as two all-pro corners.

That's the year that a team will inevitably win the Super Bowl while paying their QB 18% of the cap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No.  Paying a QB 15% of the cap.  Interesting dead cap numbers from Super Bowl teams.  Here's those same Super Bowl cap percentages towards quarterbacks:

sbcap.png

And you think the Packers are somehow special and would somehow be able to transcend that?  They're not. 

Dead cap is a bad example, too.  We've got 8 million in dead cap for this coming year and a new GM.  You don't know how dead cap is going to be handled going forward.

I don't see anything before 2011 as relevant here. 2011 was the new CBA and marked the beginning of the current passing era. $8M in dead cap in 2018 is 4.5% of the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No.  Paying a QB 15% of the cap.  Interesting dead cap numbers from Super Bowl teams.  Here's those same Super Bowl cap percentages towards quarterbacks:

sbcap.png

And you think the Packers are somehow special and would somehow be able to transcend that?  They're not. 

Dead cap is a bad example, too.  We've got 8 million in dead cap for this coming year and a new GM.  You don't know how dead cap is going to be handled going forward.

This is old news. A Kirk Cousins caliber QB makes almost 16% of the cap. A Matt Ryan caliber is at 17. These guys aren't even top 5 QBs in the league. Brett Favre signed as the best QB in the NFL in 2001 for about 14.5%. The number is going up, regardless of what you say. It's a burden every single team with a franchise QB is going to bear.

Pre Rodgers era you're totally right. What your saying in the current day is essentially "Only rookie QBs or below average ones with a good defense are going to win a SB now."

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...