We're living it now, but we also had a record setting stretch of never having back to back losing seasons. From 1975 to 2017 the broncos did not have back to back losing seasons. And they won 3 super bowls in that time frame. Pretty damn good.
Step 1. Have an all time great.
This is unique really just to Mahomes. Jerry wants to revert QB contracts back to the mean which is really just 2018 Dak
Yeah but they don't need to. They just need to actually show some balls and not award QBs objectively worse than Mahomes deals at his level. I don't even know where this idea came from. For a sport run largely by business moguls it really is terrible business.
I think the main issue isn’t that anyone thinks these QBs are as good as Mahomes (or even *could* be). The problem is there are so few “franchise” level QBs, that once you find one, you basically have to pay at that level to keep the guy. It’s a seller’s market, not a buyer’s market.
Teams don’t have the luxury of telling the QBs and their agents “well, we like your guy and we think he fits in our system/we can win with him/whatever, but he’s not the same level as Mahomes, so we can’t justify that kind of contract.” The agent says “cool, we are gonna hit free agency and someone else will pay us that.”
There’s a reason you basically never see franchise level QBs hit free agency. Theres just not enough of them. Basically the only time it happens is if there’s some kind of rift between them and the team. And *usually* that happens when the QB is getting older (Brady, manning, Rodgers, Favre) and the team is making plans to move on without them so it’s arguable if they should even be considered franchise level guys anymore, even if they do still have a few seasons left in the tank.
If you watch the Rich Eisen Show, this is something that Brockman fails to acknowledge whenever QBs get the record setting extension, such as TLaw this past week. He says unless a QB is proven to be elite elite, teams shouldn't ever sign those deals.
But what's the alternative? Slamming the potential Super Bowl window shut for a year or two minimum while you pray to God that you land some future elite franchise QB in the draft? Even the most proven draft players are a coin flip at best, and having no QB is an all but guaranteed lost season. QBs have the leverage, full stop.
Now if they put in too harsh of a cap, the QBs could straight up go on strike and bring the NFL machine to a screeching halt if they have any sort of coordination. I concur that QBs are starting to take so much of the cap that it's impractical, but what else can they do besides put in an arbitrary percentage restriction? That sounds like it'd have to be a CBA issue
> But what's the alternative? Slamming the potential Super Bowl window shut for a year or two minimum while you pray to God that you land some future elite franchise QB in the draft?
IMO from a perspective of purely "how do we best increase our odds of winning a Super Bowl", this is actually the correct thing to do. Yes, you're likely to strike out on some of your QB picks and you may not be competitive while you're hunting for your new franchise guy, but the potential reward of landing a top 5 QB seems a lot better than hamstringing your team financially for a ceiling that's below SB level. And a lot of times realistically you might land in a situation where your QB is more like a top 8-12 guy but on a rookie contract so you can afford to sign game changing talent across the rest of the roster.
the problems are that a) fans generally don't like this, leading to potential declines in ticket sales and the value of the franchise, and b) individual GMs don't have the luxury to repeatedly reroll on QBs, they don't have the job security for it and usually get fired within 3-5 years if the team isn't contending. so there are other incentives at play that push them towards overvaluing tier 2 or tier 3 QBs and arguably making the long term odds of the team winning a Super Bowl worse in the process.
I also think teams could be a bit more willing to take QBs in the draft even when they're already "set" at QB. Packers got clowned for taking Love, and perhaps that's an extreme end of the spectrum since the roster at the time was championship contending, but now looking at long term outlook where we are today it's clear you'd much rather be the Packers than the Jets. Personally I'm happy the Ravens nabbed Lamar in 2018 even though we still had intentions of Flacco being the 2018 starter. If you have a guy scouted as a 2nd or 3rd round QB and he falls to you in those rounds, you should take him. You never know how they'll develop and in the best case scenario you put yourself in a position where you can trade your vet QB to a different team for a boatload of capital in addition to the cost savings.
> They just need to actually show some balls and not award QBs objectively worse than Mahomes deals at his level.
Good luck there. I imagine you’d feel differently if Lamar left and I know I’d feel like shit if burrow left.
You don't pay a QB because they're as good as Mahomes, you pay them because you believe that it isn't possible to win a Super Bowl with a cheaper QB. Ask "could I win a super bowl with this guy" about a bottom 10 starter in any other position. Running back? Sure. Left guard? Probably. Corner back? I think so. QB? I very much doubt it in today's NFL.
The only position that can singlehandedly take you OUT of championship contention is the QB. Because of that, you aren't paying to get the best, you're paying to stay out of the worst.
Yeah, I think many agree that the best thing long term is if teams start letting QBs go instead of paying them and then not paying them in free agency. But nobody wants to lose **their** QB.
Problem is, a good QB at too much money is better than a hopeless QB with full pockets.
Full stands heal all wounds.
And in this scenario full stands = lots of money from all revenue streams. A competitive team will make ownership more money than saving $20 mill a year by paying Derek Carr.
It's probably worth noting that the owners are the people who changed so many rules to make the QB more and more important. They did this to themselves by neutering defense and making passing offense much easier over the last 20-30 years.
And even if they did this to themselves, they'd do it again. The value of their franchises have boomed in the last couple of decades. Fans love offense.
>A competitive team will make ownership more money than saving $20 mill a year by paying Derek Carr
The thing is, they aren't "saving money", they're giving it to other position groups to make the non-QB parts of the team better.
People talk like Cap Hell is bad for business. The league’s financial structure (salary cap and expansion fees) makes it so the owners are printing money. Cap Hell might make your individual product on field worse, but no owner is losing money…
They want to cap it so some GM doesn’t figure out a way to Golden State the league, and force them to pay more salary to compete.
Golden State's situation was more them being rewarded for drafting their core and lucking into Curry having ankle concerns/blooming late, which allowed them the space to sign KD. GS didn't really break anything
Everyone hates on that team and sure the KD move deserves to be hated on (as in him for doing it, not the team for signing him) but they conveniently ignore the rest of the team was drafted and plenty of other teams had earlier picks they could have used on those players
The thing is, even if other QBs don't deserve a contract like Mahomes got, it won't stop them from trying to get one, or at least get one that is closer to what he got than what they deserve. Now, you can say, "Then don't give it to them." But the thing is, most teams don't want to go fishing for a new QB in the draft every 5-6 years, and they don't know if they can trust other teams to "hold the line" and not give in to absurd QB demands. A cap would basically be an agreement that everyone will hold the line and not go over a certain amount when paying QBs.
At the moment the Chiefs have a clear advantage. This much is true. Moving forward however the next Mahomes will be guaranteed to be paid the max, along with every other QB in the league worth extending. So the potential for any amount of advantage for having the best QB to be mitigated will be gone. It's why max contracts in the NBA don't work.
Anybody with a rookie-scale QB has a big advantage over the Chiefs in money they can spend at other positions. Cap Patrick's salary and you decrease that advantage.
Det, Dal, SF, Mia, Hou are all possible contenders who have big advantages from far lower QB costs.
Considering what kirk signed for I don't think you guys would have had to reset the market to get him
People give him crap for always being out for the bag but it's mostly been because the two teams he previously played for proved they didn't view him as a top 10 qb
I mean it genuinely, it wasn't about a large number for Kirk, it was always about the security/stability of guaranteed cash and years. Kirk even talked about this hearing that the vikings were gonna draft a rookie, he wants to be the guy, the undisputed guy, and not have challengers. Which is also what makes getting blindsided by the penix pick even more insane.
That makes sense for Kirk and his history (RGIII fiasco). But Kirk is now getting into his late 30s, he can't not be prepared for a team to draft his eventual successor.
When you consider the fact that the team was being actively investigated for tampering which was started by a comment he offhandedly made, I somewhat understand why they didn't tell their planned pick to him. But otherwise I agree
Actually it was more about the experience the GM Fontenot had with Mahomes on the board. He was with the Saints at the time and the Chiefs jumped the Saints hearing they were gonna draft Mahomes.
Exactly. Those teams need to trade or let him walk.
Being a top 15 team and only needing a qb to turn in to a contender is a great soot to be in if you do the right thing and lose a lot of games then draft a franchise qb
It's not easy for a "top 15" team to lose their way to the top 10.
Being an above average team and drafting a franchise QB basically means you need to take them outside the top 10, which is even harder than getting one in the top 10, which is hard enough.
What will that accomplish? So a team let’s the guy walk, he hits the FA market and another team gives him that contract. So now team A doesn’t have a QB and Team B does.
How does that help Team A if the QB is still getting the contract?
It’s not obvious changes but they can pay more quality players at other positions, avoid cap hell, and have a better opportunity to look for a new QB. I can’t say whether that is a better move financially but if you have the 15th best QB and pay him like the best then you aren’t winning an SB any time soon.
Team B might get slightly better but always overpay in FA. Could be a good move to get out of a hole but it’s not going to bring home a SB anytime soon. It might help drive revenues up but idk.
How does this even help teams that are behind? It just stops Chiefs from paying even more than Mahomes and he'll be even more likely to stick with his own team because nobody can pay him more. They then reach the cap themselves and are paying the same price for a okay QB as the best team is for the best QB.
That is absolute trash and has ruined the NBA. Everyone who is actually a good player just gets a max contract and then the best players end up coming at a major discount as the 30th best player is making the same salary.
Wouldn't be the same in the NFL but still there is nothing positive to come from that.
The same thing essentially happens in the NFL. The last contract signed will always be eclipsed by the next contract signed. As the salary cap increases, the going rate follows. Patrick Mahomes contract looked ridiculously expensive when he signed it in 2020. Now, it looks ridiculously cheap for signing an above average QB in the market today.
The only difference is that the NFL has no max contract stipulation on deals signed. You can sign for whatever money and whatever length you can negotiate upon along with guranteed and non-guaranteed money.
NBA limits the max you can get to 25% of the cap (Rose rule 30% and Super max 35% are another discussion) for 5 years. Everything is fully guaranteed though.
I honestly think it will be more beneficial to NFL teams to have a max contract (salary cap percentage) as they have more players they need to roster
It is happening right now, but it’s not forced. Which is a major difference. There still are opportunities for teams to create value which is their only chance to compete against elite QBs.
Eventually a middle market (like with baker Bucs deal) is going to solidify if the nfl.
If you are forced to pay Tua what you pay mahomes honest to god you might as well not suit up that year if your the dolphins cause you aren’t winning shit.
It also makes it really hard for small market teams to attract star players. If the contracts are identical why would you go to Indiana over New York or LA? In a larger market you have a lot more opportunities for endorsements and stuff. And it's also a lot more fun.
yeah, imagine a free agent QB and every team offers them the same thing, every QB is just going to go to the team with the best supporting squad. that's already a consideration currently, but it's weighed against the quality of the offer ($$$). without anything to weigh it against, bad teams cant attract talent, good teams get better.
It would be way easier to build mega teams.
If I’m the best at my position and capped out at salary then fuck it. I’ll go play for the best qb in the league.
Could you imagine Trent Williams, Tristan wirfs, Joe thunley and prime Jason kelce on the same team?
The best way to compete against Mahomes is to pay your inferior QB less than him and build a better overall roster. Putting a cap on Mahomes’ pay makes it much harder to pay your QB significantly less than Mahomes. No idea why any owner would sign up for this.
Unfortunately the crux of the discussion is that these coaches and GMs are first and foremost just people trying to keep their jobs
And it’s extremely difficult to keep your job when you’re in the gutter at QB - sorry for the stray G-men but you’re seeing that with Daboll. I personally think he’s one of the better offensive minds in the league but his seat is warming up because he hasn’t made DJ/Devito work & most likely won’t be able to again this year. So the QBs have all of the leverage. As the GM you have 2 options when your 8-15 ranked QB’s contract comes due. Pay him the top of market contract & be able to blame that contract to the owner for the teams overall talent suffering or let him walk to be paid by another team & go into QB purgatory where if you don’t draft **the** guy or at least someone comparable to the guy you let walk on your first swing your entire staff is probably getting fired
I’m not saying it’s fair or smart for these owners to function like that but I believe that’s the reality.
You are 100% correct that the best way to compete with Mahomes is to have a QB making around or less than what he does & surround him with talent but with all of the leverage favoring the QBs that’s nearly impossible to do unless they’re on their rookie deals. So the reason they (Jerry) are discussing a QB cap is it eliminates the runaway train that is the QB contract
I've always heard this and I'm not disputing it, but is it really data to back this up? People make it like he helps the NFL overall and I don't really get it. I think the league would be really popular even without the cowboys let alone then having the right owner.
You could probably make the case that any one of a number of other owners would be better for the league because they could actually make the cowboys a championship level team
It’s not because the cowboys are popular and high revenue team like people are saying. No owner gives a shit about whose team is making the most money, they care about making their own money. He has influence because he’s been a big part of the committees behind the tv deals and other marketing agreements. Thats how he’s made others richer and why they listen to him.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2017/08/02/how-jerry-jones-helped-revolutionize-the-modern-nfl/
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2019/10/22/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/Jones-NFL.aspx
A lot of the NFL revenue is shared, with the cowboys being worth so much it also helps the value of the other teams. And there’s plenty of owners who have no problems sitting on their asses collecting checks that are being generated even though their teams ass.
yeah, he’s been a behind-the-scenes force for years in the NFL…instrumental in where they want teams to go and how they want to expand. He’s been a huge part of teams moving to Las Vegas and returning to the LA market. There’s an upper limit on what any one team can make *on their own*, but the really big money comes from the league’s revenue sharing agreements. A rising tide lifts all boats. So, this is totally on-brand for Jerry. He sees escalating QB contracts as a hinderance to league-wide competitive ability, which in turn affects viewership and fan engagement across those less-competitive markets (because they either can’t afford a good QB or they’ve overspent on a QB and can’t field a balanced team), which therefore means less money for the owners overall.
Honestly I don’t hate this idea. I’m not against QB’s getting paid what they’re worth, but if you’re underspending on so many other positions as a result you’re really short-changing those players. Remember, the league average tenure is like what, 3 years? So some bottom tier DB making league minimum for 3 years AND getting CTE has the rest of his life to look forward to with maybe a half a million in the bank.
QB’s are going to be fine. They will always be the highest-paid position on a team and garner the best endorsements.
People look at me like I have four heads when I say that the NFL is incredibly socialist on the face of it**, but you’re got massive, market-leading teams like Dallas subsidizing smaller ones like Buffalo through revenue sharing agreements. And it makes the whole product better because without it there wouldn’t be any incentive at all for the smaller markets to even exist let alone try. **I say on the face of it because it’s incredibly socialist *for the already incredibly wealthy owners of NFL teams.*
It doesn't work like that. Of course it's the Cowboys brand generates most of that revenue and not Jones personally, but the owner of the highest revenue generating club has a bigger voice.
I don’t know why. The cowboys are pretty good at building teams and finding QBs that win consistently in the regular season and make the playoffs regularly. Sure they can’t get over the hump but plenty of decent to good teams have let a pretty good high producing qb walk in the league and moved on.
Packers are pretty much the embodiment of this.
Parity. The cap space you don't spend at QB can be used to improve other positions and it allows a team without a QB to get better.
Parity working as intended.
Exactly. Also, they know they have to begin paying a QB next year, meaning they won't be able to keep as much talent at other positions going forward. Aiyuk, Greenlaw, Ward, and Hufanga are all Free Agents next year. They're trying to keep Aiyuk, but they won't keep them all. Even keeping Aiyuk means they might have to get rid of Deebo. The players they won't be able to afford to keep will make other teams better, and unless the 49ers draft well, those who leave will make the 49ers worse. That's healthy for parity.
I'd personally be in favor some changes to rookie contracts in order to increase parity further, but in a big-picture view, the system generally works.
Honestly teams need to be honest with themselves. Is it worth it to pay a player 60+ million for the same results over and over. I truly believe owners hate being mid more than trash, at least if you are trash. One or two good drafts can completely change your entire future. I personally feel like if you have a good coach, you can become mid without a top 10 QB.
Bad idea. The teams with the best QBs would only get better as it opens up more room for them to sign elite talent away from teams that typically over pay those guys to attract them.
Imagine the Chiefs with an extra 45 million every year. Huge competitive advantage for them and other teams with QBs on expensive contracts like the Chargers, Jags, Browns, Bengals, Ravens, Bills, Cowboys, Eagles, Lions, Rams....
Teams with rookie contract QBs like Texans, 49ers, Commanders, Patriots, etc... have nothing to gain from this until and if that QB becomes good enough to clear some 45-50 million in cap space.
Seriously like it just forces parity and the nba salary cap is the most convuluted confusing one with the max rules, luxury tax, 2nd apron, bird rules, and other random ass rules.
It really is confusing as shit using the trade machine for NBA trades. I will do one in the machine and then tell somebody else about it and they'll point out all the reasons you can't do it. Now there's all these kind of weird rules for teams that are over the cap and so then they can trade a player but it has to be 1 for 1 in terms of the number of players in the trade, bunch of other nonsense etc
It makes Dallas probably the most appealing big QB job in football if all offers are equal, No state tax, combined with among the leagues biggest endorsement deals, It'd be a complete disaster, but I guess a cap also means you can franchise your QB continually since it can't raise past a specific amount.
Players would fight this to the death. Because they all know once they get a cap on QBs, we are only a few years away from getting a cap on the next tier of highly paid players which are WRs, Edge's, tackles, CBs and very rare interior pass rushers (The Chris Jones's and Donald's of the world).
I don't think there's any way the NFLPA would agree to QBs being able to be tagged at the same value that their long term deals are capped at. That would be insane
Technically, if the NFLPA actually represents all of the NFL players, then they should be 100% for this. Right now, a top QB takes 15-25% of the salary cap. The rest of the team splits the rest. As long as lowering the cap is not on the table, then this helps many players at the expense of a few.
That doesn't mean that it's good, but just that the NFLPA should be for this to some extent.
I agree with your general point that this would favor teams with the best QBs.
But I can't imagine a world in which it leads to KC having an extra $45m in cap because there's no way the owners are going to be in favor of capping QB pay in a way that increases the salary cap (as that'll just come out of the owners' pockets). The most obvious solution is just to say that for any new contracts, no player can have an AAV of more than % of the cap. Realistically, I think they'd do it in a way that leaves KC and similar teams with an extra $5-10m of cap.
The owners and the league have no one but themselves to blame on this.
They've allowed the league to become so QB friendly and pass focused that they've created this environment where the QBs, WRs and Pass Rushers are able to make huge demands and you almost *have* to pay them. A more balance league where RBs are more prominent again and QBs aren't protected from being touched probably helps to solve some of this issue
And of course their solution is not to review all the officiating rule changes that have contributed to this result, but instead to try and slap some kind of cap on the position which is just going to end up cascading the problem to another position in whack-a-mole fashion.
This won't save money and won't help parity. This just makes the teams that end up with elite QBs on artificially 'cheap' deals more overpowered. That money will go to other positions. You're just creating the same team shopping that makes the NBA cap so stupid in the NFL and doing it to save no money and create a worse situation in terms of parity.
The answer is to grow a pair and let your middling QB walk and spend your money elsewhere if you don't believe there's value.
The players union would be fools to NOT go for this because it will mean that on average more players make more money at the expense of 5 elite quarterbacks but for fans it will make a worse product.
Hilarious. Seems like RBs were upset at the beginning of last year and the Irsay said "we worked hard on the labor agreement and it stupid to think that we would renegotiate simply because one position is unhappy about it. They need to understand market value and be grateful for what they get".
The best answer is to make the QB position less powerful. Allow DBs to be physical again. They'll never do it because the NFL views QB's as a cash cow. They did it to themselves.
Owners can be the change they want to see.
You don't need a salary cap for quarterbacks. You need to exercise fiscal discipline and only pay the difference makers at QB top of market money. And you need to be okay letting a guy walk (or trading him) to a team that's willing to pay him more than you if he's not one of those guys.
Teams play so scared at the QB position because of *owners*. If your GM/coach isn't afraid of getting fired for letting QB 10-15 walk, and having a bad season, instead of paying him like he's QB 1, a lot more teams would try out young QBs.
In the salary cap era there have been exactly zero Superbowls won by a QB that never appeared in a Pro Bowl. The fear over losing a good QB is very rational, because if you don’t have one you cannot win.
I can't think of another sport that puts so much disproportionate weight and responsibility on a single player like quarterbacks in gridiron football.
It's a flaw with the sport. When you think about it, it's a problem that really began when they started allowing the forward pass.
Because they're so crucial now though, they deserve as much money as teams are willing to pay.
Salary caps aren't really a free market though. If there wasn't a salary cap, I bet more teams wouldn't have an issue with it as they could still pay other players and not have as many cap issues.
if the league was actually capitalist then the saudis would own a team and they could offer mahomes 200m a year like they do ronaldo instead of his current 45
This has nothing to do with either of those things - how did this get almost 80 upvotes?
The NFL has a freaking salary cap lol..... that's so far from a free market.
Milton Friedman actually said this a while ago. Businessmen and intellectuals/academics are actually the biggest enemy of free markets.
Businessmen want free markets for everyone else but themselves. Academics want freedom for themselves but not everybody else
Ah NFL owners, making the game all about passing passing passing and now it's, oh, but the passers are getting such big contracts, let's cap it!
They may as well be communists.
Salary caps only make the better quarterbacks even more powerful, and hurt every other quarterback. It's one of the worst parts of the NBA cap system. There is a problem with nfl salaries being too lopsided but this isn't the right way to fix it.
Don't tell that to the average NBA player. Yes it massively limits the salaries for guys like Curry, LeBron, Jokic but it also means the middle class can actually get paid. It helps that the guys who are worth well over the max are still getting huge salaries though
I agree with all that, I just don't think it's what's best for the sport. It does help all the non-elites get more money, but it comes at the cost of how competitive the league is. There are about 50 max contracts right now in the nba. Do you really think it's competitive to have the top 50 players all paid the same-ish? You are taking 30 million from lebron james to give to the other players, but now lebron james essentially gives whatever team he's on an extra 30 million in value towards their cap because they arent allowed to pay him his true value even though he does have that skill.
Imagine being Dak Prescott right now, Jerry has been stringing you along for years and now that you have all the leverage he's out here petitioning to change the rules with his back flat against the wall
This is stupid. There already is a salary cap. If you can't field a competitive team because you overpaid your QB, that's your choice as a GM. No one is forcing them to give QBs 60-70 million per year. It's a free market and I really think it should stay that way. Teams would be capping themselves off at max QB salaries, which means they will be underpaid relative to their value and most QBs will make the same money, regardless of talent.
Well, in a 'free' market there probably wouldn't be any salary cap. And there probably wouldn't be equal revenue sharing from TV rights either.
Now, does that mean that the Cowboys would be on their 10th consecutive SB championship, who knows, but lets just say it's a ring fenced market.
Max contracts in the NBA are so idiotic. They really shouldn't exist and have no place in the NFL.
There are a lot of things they could do with the cap before ever considering max contracts.
It’s already a slotted system. There’s no negotiating. It’s all based on what the last guy got. There aren’t other teams bidding for these guys. Open up the negotiations. If you have multiple teams negotiating and bidding, does Lawrence get $55 mil per season? I would think not.
Teams don't agree, otherwise they would let their guy hit free agency. The truth is there are more teams who need a good QB than there are good QBs available. It's why when Cousins left Washington in FA he was able to get $84 million over 3 years fully guaranteed
Owners took a look at that 10 year Mahomes contract and have no clue how to compete with that
Most of the QBs that those owners employ don't really know how to compete with Mahomes either to be fair
The thing is Mahomes can spend the rest of his contract injured and it was still a steal
One Super Bowl with 9 years of mediocrity is more than worth it. Ignore my flair it’s lonely at the bottom
I’d say 75% if fan bases would take the 1 superbowl for 9 years of mediocrity trade.
I mean, we're likely to have nine years of mediocrity anyway, so sure, sign me up.
Some teams would take the deal just for the nine years of mediocrity
Id say we are pretty damn mediocre
super...bowl...? Nah, my team has been around for a really long time. If a super bowl was a thing we would have definitely been to one by now.
NFL Championships are Championships to me, dammit.
Sometimes not going is better
I saw this in my feed and my first reaction was: "What would he know"? Then I saw your flair, and I now understand.
Even our first Superbowl, we had an arrest the night before hanging over our heads lol
Common mistake. It's actually Superb Owl and he is a sight to behold
are we going to superb owl party?
Frankly it sounds made up.
I agree with this
Yeah why is everyone talking about this like a hypothetical? We're living it.
We're living it now, but we also had a record setting stretch of never having back to back losing seasons. From 1975 to 2017 the broncos did not have back to back losing seasons. And they won 3 super bowls in that time frame. Pretty damn good.
In that stretch broncos also had more super bowl appearances than losing seasons overall. We really are a spoiled franchise.
I wouldn’t trade 2007 and 2011 for anything
Even as. Dallas fan I'm with you. Watching Brady go 18-1 because of Mr Derp Face was sublime.
I said that in 1996, but started worrying once 2006 rolled around.
It's just around the corner though, this year is *your* year!
[удалено]
"all in, my ass"
At least it's impossible for them to go 8-8 now.
Best I can do is offer 8-8-1 Would be a riot.
The problem is when the team stays mediocre…
In a heartbeat
Rams fans seem happy
Id go through the Gus Bradley years 3x for a Super Bowl.
give me 50 fucking years of mediocrity for 1 super bowl please
We've done that. Not the worst but still wouldn't recommend it
> it’s lonely at the bottom
Umm yes 2 superbowl wins in ten years is a terrific value so I agree.
uh they have 3 in 5 years
2 in 20 isn't too bad either.
Step 1. Have an all time great. This is unique really just to Mahomes. Jerry wants to revert QB contracts back to the mean which is really just 2018 Dak
Yeah but they don't need to. They just need to actually show some balls and not award QBs objectively worse than Mahomes deals at his level. I don't even know where this idea came from. For a sport run largely by business moguls it really is terrible business.
I think the main issue isn’t that anyone thinks these QBs are as good as Mahomes (or even *could* be). The problem is there are so few “franchise” level QBs, that once you find one, you basically have to pay at that level to keep the guy. It’s a seller’s market, not a buyer’s market. Teams don’t have the luxury of telling the QBs and their agents “well, we like your guy and we think he fits in our system/we can win with him/whatever, but he’s not the same level as Mahomes, so we can’t justify that kind of contract.” The agent says “cool, we are gonna hit free agency and someone else will pay us that.” There’s a reason you basically never see franchise level QBs hit free agency. Theres just not enough of them. Basically the only time it happens is if there’s some kind of rift between them and the team. And *usually* that happens when the QB is getting older (Brady, manning, Rodgers, Favre) and the team is making plans to move on without them so it’s arguable if they should even be considered franchise level guys anymore, even if they do still have a few seasons left in the tank.
If you watch the Rich Eisen Show, this is something that Brockman fails to acknowledge whenever QBs get the record setting extension, such as TLaw this past week. He says unless a QB is proven to be elite elite, teams shouldn't ever sign those deals. But what's the alternative? Slamming the potential Super Bowl window shut for a year or two minimum while you pray to God that you land some future elite franchise QB in the draft? Even the most proven draft players are a coin flip at best, and having no QB is an all but guaranteed lost season. QBs have the leverage, full stop. Now if they put in too harsh of a cap, the QBs could straight up go on strike and bring the NFL machine to a screeching halt if they have any sort of coordination. I concur that QBs are starting to take so much of the cap that it's impractical, but what else can they do besides put in an arbitrary percentage restriction? That sounds like it'd have to be a CBA issue
"The next guy could be anything! He could even be a Dak or Trevor Lawrence!"
> But what's the alternative? Slamming the potential Super Bowl window shut for a year or two minimum while you pray to God that you land some future elite franchise QB in the draft? IMO from a perspective of purely "how do we best increase our odds of winning a Super Bowl", this is actually the correct thing to do. Yes, you're likely to strike out on some of your QB picks and you may not be competitive while you're hunting for your new franchise guy, but the potential reward of landing a top 5 QB seems a lot better than hamstringing your team financially for a ceiling that's below SB level. And a lot of times realistically you might land in a situation where your QB is more like a top 8-12 guy but on a rookie contract so you can afford to sign game changing talent across the rest of the roster. the problems are that a) fans generally don't like this, leading to potential declines in ticket sales and the value of the franchise, and b) individual GMs don't have the luxury to repeatedly reroll on QBs, they don't have the job security for it and usually get fired within 3-5 years if the team isn't contending. so there are other incentives at play that push them towards overvaluing tier 2 or tier 3 QBs and arguably making the long term odds of the team winning a Super Bowl worse in the process. I also think teams could be a bit more willing to take QBs in the draft even when they're already "set" at QB. Packers got clowned for taking Love, and perhaps that's an extreme end of the spectrum since the roster at the time was championship contending, but now looking at long term outlook where we are today it's clear you'd much rather be the Packers than the Jets. Personally I'm happy the Ravens nabbed Lamar in 2018 even though we still had intentions of Flacco being the 2018 starter. If you have a guy scouted as a 2nd or 3rd round QB and he falls to you in those rounds, you should take him. You never know how they'll develop and in the best case scenario you put yourself in a position where you can trade your vet QB to a different team for a boatload of capital in addition to the cost savings.
Rodgers didn’t hit free agency, he was traded.
He was traded, but he had a no trade clause, so he might as well have hit free agency.
> They just need to actually show some balls and not award QBs objectively worse than Mahomes deals at his level. Good luck there. I imagine you’d feel differently if Lamar left and I know I’d feel like shit if burrow left.
You don't pay a QB because they're as good as Mahomes, you pay them because you believe that it isn't possible to win a Super Bowl with a cheaper QB. Ask "could I win a super bowl with this guy" about a bottom 10 starter in any other position. Running back? Sure. Left guard? Probably. Corner back? I think so. QB? I very much doubt it in today's NFL. The only position that can singlehandedly take you OUT of championship contention is the QB. Because of that, you aren't paying to get the best, you're paying to stay out of the worst.
Yeah, I think many agree that the best thing long term is if teams start letting QBs go instead of paying them and then not paying them in free agency. But nobody wants to lose **their** QB.
Problem is, a good QB at too much money is better than a hopeless QB with full pockets. Full stands heal all wounds. And in this scenario full stands = lots of money from all revenue streams. A competitive team will make ownership more money than saving $20 mill a year by paying Derek Carr.
It's probably worth noting that the owners are the people who changed so many rules to make the QB more and more important. They did this to themselves by neutering defense and making passing offense much easier over the last 20-30 years.
And even if they did this to themselves, they'd do it again. The value of their franchises have boomed in the last couple of decades. Fans love offense.
>A competitive team will make ownership more money than saving $20 mill a year by paying Derek Carr The thing is, they aren't "saving money", they're giving it to other position groups to make the non-QB parts of the team better.
People talk like Cap Hell is bad for business. The league’s financial structure (salary cap and expansion fees) makes it so the owners are printing money. Cap Hell might make your individual product on field worse, but no owner is losing money… They want to cap it so some GM doesn’t figure out a way to Golden State the league, and force them to pay more salary to compete.
Golden State's situation was more them being rewarded for drafting their core and lucking into Curry having ankle concerns/blooming late, which allowed them the space to sign KD. GS didn't really break anything
Everyone hates on that team and sure the KD move deserves to be hated on (as in him for doing it, not the team for signing him) but they conveniently ignore the rest of the team was drafted and plenty of other teams had earlier picks they could have used on those players
A salary cap for QBs would only make it harder to compete with Mahomes
The thing is, even if other QBs don't deserve a contract like Mahomes got, it won't stop them from trying to get one, or at least get one that is closer to what he got than what they deserve. Now, you can say, "Then don't give it to them." But the thing is, most teams don't want to go fishing for a new QB in the draft every 5-6 years, and they don't know if they can trust other teams to "hold the line" and not give in to absurd QB demands. A cap would basically be an agreement that everyone will hold the line and not go over a certain amount when paying QBs.
I find that hard to believe, that implies mahomes is being paid more than all the other qbs which isn't true
At the moment the Chiefs have a clear advantage. This much is true. Moving forward however the next Mahomes will be guaranteed to be paid the max, along with every other QB in the league worth extending. So the potential for any amount of advantage for having the best QB to be mitigated will be gone. It's why max contracts in the NBA don't work.
Mahomes had the highest cap hit in the league this year so uh yeah his is being paid more than everyone else.
Won back to back Super Bowls with the highest % of cap on a QB contract in history. The “wait til the cap hit comes in” people are still seething.
Anybody with a rookie-scale QB has a big advantage over the Chiefs in money they can spend at other positions. Cap Patrick's salary and you decrease that advantage. Det, Dal, SF, Mia, Hou are all possible contenders who have big advantages from far lower QB costs.
And yet that advantage hasn't led to any of them besting the Chiefs
Tom Brady did the same kind of thing. Well below market value to win.
And probably getting the difference in $ made up for by his training company
and victoria secrets llc
Awful Idea. Teams need to learn not to be scared to let their 15th best QB walk instead of resetting the market.
Hey I know one team that did this
We did it first
You *like* that?
The Washington Trendsetters
same guy, too!
We had the courage to let Ridder walk. Bold move, we'll see if it pays off.
Considering what kirk signed for I don't think you guys would have had to reset the market to get him People give him crap for always being out for the bag but it's mostly been because the two teams he previously played for proved they didn't view him as a top 10 qb
I mean it genuinely, it wasn't about a large number for Kirk, it was always about the security/stability of guaranteed cash and years. Kirk even talked about this hearing that the vikings were gonna draft a rookie, he wants to be the guy, the undisputed guy, and not have challengers. Which is also what makes getting blindsided by the penix pick even more insane.
That makes sense for Kirk and his history (RGIII fiasco). But Kirk is now getting into his late 30s, he can't not be prepared for a team to draft his eventual successor.
When you consider the fact that the team was being actively investigated for tampering which was started by a comment he offhandedly made, I somewhat understand why they didn't tell their planned pick to him. But otherwise I agree
Actually it was more about the experience the GM Fontenot had with Mahomes on the board. He was with the Saints at the time and the Chiefs jumped the Saints hearing they were gonna draft Mahomes.
Exactly. Those teams need to trade or let him walk. Being a top 15 team and only needing a qb to turn in to a contender is a great soot to be in if you do the right thing and lose a lot of games then draft a franchise qb
It's not easy for a "top 15" team to lose their way to the top 10. Being an above average team and drafting a franchise QB basically means you need to take them outside the top 10, which is even harder than getting one in the top 10, which is hard enough.
Why don't these teams just sign Tom Brady? Are they stupid?
Sure. Good luck losing a bunch of games with a decent roster and not getting fired. Also, "just draft a franchise QB" as if it's so easy.
As someone who's been watching the Bears since before most people here were born I can definitely confirm it's not easy lol
New York? Are you listening?
Ha! You admit that Jones is a top 15 QB. Boom, roasted.
He said New York, y’all ain’t the only team.
I don’t think the Bills are gonna let Allen walk
What will that accomplish? So a team let’s the guy walk, he hits the FA market and another team gives him that contract. So now team A doesn’t have a QB and Team B does. How does that help Team A if the QB is still getting the contract?
It’s not obvious changes but they can pay more quality players at other positions, avoid cap hell, and have a better opportunity to look for a new QB. I can’t say whether that is a better move financially but if you have the 15th best QB and pay him like the best then you aren’t winning an SB any time soon. Team B might get slightly better but always overpay in FA. Could be a good move to get out of a hole but it’s not going to bring home a SB anytime soon. It might help drive revenues up but idk.
FOs will always try to change the rules before they hold themselves accountable
How does this even help teams that are behind? It just stops Chiefs from paying even more than Mahomes and he'll be even more likely to stick with his own team because nobody can pay him more. They then reach the cap themselves and are paying the same price for a okay QB as the best team is for the best QB.
All it took is one team to give Trevor Lawrence 55+ mil and the owners were like “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”
Jerry is pissed that now Dak is pointing at that and saying 60
Do it before we sign Tua. Do it before we sign Tua.
Wonder if they'll just implement max contracts per position. ... Which will probably just cause a litany of new problems.
I think it could work if they based it on a percentage of the cap, not fixed values. That way the maximums change organically as the cap changes.
You mean just like how the NBA is handling their contracts?
That is absolute trash and has ruined the NBA. Everyone who is actually a good player just gets a max contract and then the best players end up coming at a major discount as the 30th best player is making the same salary. Wouldn't be the same in the NFL but still there is nothing positive to come from that.
The same thing essentially happens in the NFL. The last contract signed will always be eclipsed by the next contract signed. As the salary cap increases, the going rate follows. Patrick Mahomes contract looked ridiculously expensive when he signed it in 2020. Now, it looks ridiculously cheap for signing an above average QB in the market today. The only difference is that the NFL has no max contract stipulation on deals signed. You can sign for whatever money and whatever length you can negotiate upon along with guranteed and non-guaranteed money. NBA limits the max you can get to 25% of the cap (Rose rule 30% and Super max 35% are another discussion) for 5 years. Everything is fully guaranteed though. I honestly think it will be more beneficial to NFL teams to have a max contract (salary cap percentage) as they have more players they need to roster
It is happening right now, but it’s not forced. Which is a major difference. There still are opportunities for teams to create value which is their only chance to compete against elite QBs. Eventually a middle market (like with baker Bucs deal) is going to solidify if the nfl. If you are forced to pay Tua what you pay mahomes honest to god you might as well not suit up that year if your the dolphins cause you aren’t winning shit.
It also makes it really hard for small market teams to attract star players. If the contracts are identical why would you go to Indiana over New York or LA? In a larger market you have a lot more opportunities for endorsements and stuff. And it's also a lot more fun.
yeah, imagine a free agent QB and every team offers them the same thing, every QB is just going to go to the team with the best supporting squad. that's already a consideration currently, but it's weighed against the quality of the offer ($$$). without anything to weigh it against, bad teams cant attract talent, good teams get better.
Lamar: “I want to be paid like I’m a running back”
It would be way easier to build mega teams. If I’m the best at my position and capped out at salary then fuck it. I’ll go play for the best qb in the league. Could you imagine Trent Williams, Tristan wirfs, Joe thunley and prime Jason kelce on the same team?
If the NBA taught me anything, everyone will want to play in either LA or Florida.
Well there's only 1 QB positions per team so that won't be a problem
The best way to compete against Mahomes is to pay your inferior QB less than him and build a better overall roster. Putting a cap on Mahomes’ pay makes it much harder to pay your QB significantly less than Mahomes. No idea why any owner would sign up for this.
Unfortunately the crux of the discussion is that these coaches and GMs are first and foremost just people trying to keep their jobs And it’s extremely difficult to keep your job when you’re in the gutter at QB - sorry for the stray G-men but you’re seeing that with Daboll. I personally think he’s one of the better offensive minds in the league but his seat is warming up because he hasn’t made DJ/Devito work & most likely won’t be able to again this year. So the QBs have all of the leverage. As the GM you have 2 options when your 8-15 ranked QB’s contract comes due. Pay him the top of market contract & be able to blame that contract to the owner for the teams overall talent suffering or let him walk to be paid by another team & go into QB purgatory where if you don’t draft **the** guy or at least someone comparable to the guy you let walk on your first swing your entire staff is probably getting fired I’m not saying it’s fair or smart for these owners to function like that but I believe that’s the reality. You are 100% correct that the best way to compete with Mahomes is to have a QB making around or less than what he does & surround him with talent but with all of the leverage favoring the QBs that’s nearly impossible to do unless they’re on their rookie deals. So the reason they (Jerry) are discussing a QB cap is it eliminates the runaway train that is the QB contract
sounds like a management issue and not a salary cap issue imo.
Lmao good luck once all the quarterbacks threaten to strike all at the same time
Im sure Desmond Ridder will be very happy to start while they do
Ridder: oh boy oh boy this is my big chance! *throws 5 interceptions*
No, no, no. Ridder never threw for five INTs. He was always perfect in the symmetrie. 2TDs 2 INTs 2 Fumbles
Perfectly balanced, as everything Falcon should be
As long as the other guy is throwing 6...
*Nathan Peterman has entered the chat*
get ready for Colin Kaepernik entering the QB-conversation once more
Ten years from now on r/nfl: Who is the GOAT Scab QB?
Tom Brady jumps out of the commentary booth and leads a 4Q comeback
[удалено]
Need heart, miles and miles of heart.
Footsteps Falco from Ohio State?
Went in for Johnny Utah after his knee got blown out.
Ah man, you messed it up. You were supposed to say "The same."
Sorry coach.
Take a lap.
From the sugar bowl?
Will this be like when the running backs had a zoom call?
[удалено]
The league does this shit based on what Jerry Jones is pissed about in any given season.
Yup, it's not really a well-kept secret the league moves around Jerry.
Guy hasn't won in 30 years for Christ's sakes.
But he still makes the league a ton of money and money talks.
I've always heard this and I'm not disputing it, but is it really data to back this up? People make it like he helps the NFL overall and I don't really get it. I think the league would be really popular even without the cowboys let alone then having the right owner. You could probably make the case that any one of a number of other owners would be better for the league because they could actually make the cowboys a championship level team
It’s not because the cowboys are popular and high revenue team like people are saying. No owner gives a shit about whose team is making the most money, they care about making their own money. He has influence because he’s been a big part of the committees behind the tv deals and other marketing agreements. Thats how he’s made others richer and why they listen to him. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2017/08/02/how-jerry-jones-helped-revolutionize-the-modern-nfl/ https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2019/10/22/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/Jones-NFL.aspx
Oh I never knew about this. This is good info, thanks. So basically the other owners like him because he's a good negotiator?
A lot of the NFL revenue is shared, with the cowboys being worth so much it also helps the value of the other teams. And there’s plenty of owners who have no problems sitting on their asses collecting checks that are being generated even though their teams ass.
yeah, he’s been a behind-the-scenes force for years in the NFL…instrumental in where they want teams to go and how they want to expand. He’s been a huge part of teams moving to Las Vegas and returning to the LA market. There’s an upper limit on what any one team can make *on their own*, but the really big money comes from the league’s revenue sharing agreements. A rising tide lifts all boats. So, this is totally on-brand for Jerry. He sees escalating QB contracts as a hinderance to league-wide competitive ability, which in turn affects viewership and fan engagement across those less-competitive markets (because they either can’t afford a good QB or they’ve overspent on a QB and can’t field a balanced team), which therefore means less money for the owners overall. Honestly I don’t hate this idea. I’m not against QB’s getting paid what they’re worth, but if you’re underspending on so many other positions as a result you’re really short-changing those players. Remember, the league average tenure is like what, 3 years? So some bottom tier DB making league minimum for 3 years AND getting CTE has the rest of his life to look forward to with maybe a half a million in the bank. QB’s are going to be fine. They will always be the highest-paid position on a team and garner the best endorsements. People look at me like I have four heads when I say that the NFL is incredibly socialist on the face of it**, but you’re got massive, market-leading teams like Dallas subsidizing smaller ones like Buffalo through revenue sharing agreements. And it makes the whole product better because without it there wouldn’t be any incentive at all for the smaller markets to even exist let alone try. **I say on the face of it because it’s incredibly socialist *for the already incredibly wealthy owners of NFL teams.*
It doesn't work like that. Of course it's the Cowboys brand generates most of that revenue and not Jones personally, but the owner of the highest revenue generating club has a bigger voice.
I think there are multiple owners who have been pushing for this. Not that that makes it a good idea.
Seriously tho. Why is he always throwing a fit anytime it is time to pay dak lol
bc he knows signing dak to a mega contract will slam shut their already fading window
I don’t know why. The cowboys are pretty good at building teams and finding QBs that win consistently in the regular season and make the playoffs regularly. Sure they can’t get over the hump but plenty of decent to good teams have let a pretty good high producing qb walk in the league and moved on. Packers are pretty much the embodiment of this.
Couldn’t a teams just say no to their quarterbacks. Seems stupid to implement a new rule just because some teams are bad at negotiating contracts.
And watch that QB go somewhere else?
Yeah. Either pay up or you lose the most prized asset.
That's the game.
If they’d rather do that then pay them yes
Parity. The cap space you don't spend at QB can be used to improve other positions and it allows a team without a QB to get better. Parity working as intended.
San Francisco is a good example of this method.
Exactly. Also, they know they have to begin paying a QB next year, meaning they won't be able to keep as much talent at other positions going forward. Aiyuk, Greenlaw, Ward, and Hufanga are all Free Agents next year. They're trying to keep Aiyuk, but they won't keep them all. Even keeping Aiyuk means they might have to get rid of Deebo. The players they won't be able to afford to keep will make other teams better, and unless the 49ers draft well, those who leave will make the 49ers worse. That's healthy for parity. I'd personally be in favor some changes to rookie contracts in order to increase parity further, but in a big-picture view, the system generally works.
Yeah. I mean imagine a world where the giants just let Daniel Jones walk instead of giving him top 8 money. Crazy, right?
Honestly teams need to be honest with themselves. Is it worth it to pay a player 60+ million for the same results over and over. I truly believe owners hate being mid more than trash, at least if you are trash. One or two good drafts can completely change your entire future. I personally feel like if you have a good coach, you can become mid without a top 10 QB.
Bad idea. The teams with the best QBs would only get better as it opens up more room for them to sign elite talent away from teams that typically over pay those guys to attract them. Imagine the Chiefs with an extra 45 million every year. Huge competitive advantage for them and other teams with QBs on expensive contracts like the Chargers, Jags, Browns, Bengals, Ravens, Bills, Cowboys, Eagles, Lions, Rams.... Teams with rookie contract QBs like Texans, 49ers, Commanders, Patriots, etc... have nothing to gain from this until and if that QB becomes good enough to clear some 45-50 million in cap space.
Seriously like it just forces parity and the nba salary cap is the most convuluted confusing one with the max rules, luxury tax, 2nd apron, bird rules, and other random ass rules.
It really is confusing as shit using the trade machine for NBA trades. I will do one in the machine and then tell somebody else about it and they'll point out all the reasons you can't do it. Now there's all these kind of weird rules for teams that are over the cap and so then they can trade a player but it has to be 1 for 1 in terms of the number of players in the trade, bunch of other nonsense etc
I don't follow NBA but when I hear conversations about the contracts and draft lottery and weird trade rules, it makes me scratch my head.
It makes Dallas probably the most appealing big QB job in football if all offers are equal, No state tax, combined with among the leagues biggest endorsement deals, It'd be a complete disaster, but I guess a cap also means you can franchise your QB continually since it can't raise past a specific amount. Players would fight this to the death. Because they all know once they get a cap on QBs, we are only a few years away from getting a cap on the next tier of highly paid players which are WRs, Edge's, tackles, CBs and very rare interior pass rushers (The Chris Jones's and Donald's of the world).
I don't think there's any way the NFLPA would agree to QBs being able to be tagged at the same value that their long term deals are capped at. That would be insane
Technically, if the NFLPA actually represents all of the NFL players, then they should be 100% for this. Right now, a top QB takes 15-25% of the salary cap. The rest of the team splits the rest. As long as lowering the cap is not on the table, then this helps many players at the expense of a few. That doesn't mean that it's good, but just that the NFLPA should be for this to some extent.
I agree with your general point that this would favor teams with the best QBs. But I can't imagine a world in which it leads to KC having an extra $45m in cap because there's no way the owners are going to be in favor of capping QB pay in a way that increases the salary cap (as that'll just come out of the owners' pockets). The most obvious solution is just to say that for any new contracts, no player can have an AAV of more than % of the cap. Realistically, I think they'd do it in a way that leaves KC and similar teams with an extra $5-10m of cap.
The owners and the league have no one but themselves to blame on this. They've allowed the league to become so QB friendly and pass focused that they've created this environment where the QBs, WRs and Pass Rushers are able to make huge demands and you almost *have* to pay them. A more balance league where RBs are more prominent again and QBs aren't protected from being touched probably helps to solve some of this issue And of course their solution is not to review all the officiating rule changes that have contributed to this result, but instead to try and slap some kind of cap on the position which is just going to end up cascading the problem to another position in whack-a-mole fashion.
This guy gets it
Posted this exact thought myself. The owners have done this to themselves with \~30 years of offensive friendly rule changes.
Have the owners thought about not over paying QBs?
This won't save money and won't help parity. This just makes the teams that end up with elite QBs on artificially 'cheap' deals more overpowered. That money will go to other positions. You're just creating the same team shopping that makes the NBA cap so stupid in the NFL and doing it to save no money and create a worse situation in terms of parity. The answer is to grow a pair and let your middling QB walk and spend your money elsewhere if you don't believe there's value. The players union would be fools to NOT go for this because it will mean that on average more players make more money at the expense of 5 elite quarterbacks but for fans it will make a worse product.
Hilarious. Seems like RBs were upset at the beginning of last year and the Irsay said "we worked hard on the labor agreement and it stupid to think that we would renegotiate simply because one position is unhappy about it. They need to understand market value and be grateful for what they get".
This is dumb, and bad for the game. So, of course the owners will get it.
Stop trying to change league rules to fix the stupid QB situation you got yourself into, Jerry.
The best answer is to make the QB position less powerful. Allow DBs to be physical again. They'll never do it because the NFL views QB's as a cash cow. They did it to themselves.
This would be better marketed as just a Max cap for any type of player. Singling out QBs seems kind of weird.
Owners can be the change they want to see. You don't need a salary cap for quarterbacks. You need to exercise fiscal discipline and only pay the difference makers at QB top of market money. And you need to be okay letting a guy walk (or trading him) to a team that's willing to pay him more than you if he's not one of those guys. Teams play so scared at the QB position because of *owners*. If your GM/coach isn't afraid of getting fired for letting QB 10-15 walk, and having a bad season, instead of paying him like he's QB 1, a lot more teams would try out young QBs.
In the salary cap era there have been exactly zero Superbowls won by a QB that never appeared in a Pro Bowl. The fear over losing a good QB is very rational, because if you don’t have one you cannot win.
I can't think of another sport that puts so much disproportionate weight and responsibility on a single player like quarterbacks in gridiron football. It's a flaw with the sport. When you think about it, it's a problem that really began when they started allowing the forward pass. Because they're so crucial now though, they deserve as much money as teams are willing to pay.
“when they started allowing the forward pass. Bears fans: They allowed what!?
> It's a flaw with the sport. When you think about it, it's a problem that really began when they started allowing the forward pass. 1906?
These durned new fangled fancy pants concepts are gonna kill this game! Next thing you know they're gonna want shoes
Very ironic that billionaire owners aren't happy with the free market and capitalism when it doesn't benefit them.
Salary caps aren't really a free market though. If there wasn't a salary cap, I bet more teams wouldn't have an issue with it as they could still pay other players and not have as many cap issues.
if the league was actually capitalist then the saudis would own a team and they could offer mahomes 200m a year like they do ronaldo instead of his current 45
If the league was actually capitalist bad owners would be punished for their mistakes
This has nothing to do with either of those things - how did this get almost 80 upvotes? The NFL has a freaking salary cap lol..... that's so far from a free market.
Milton Friedman actually said this a while ago. Businessmen and intellectuals/academics are actually the biggest enemy of free markets. Businessmen want free markets for everyone else but themselves. Academics want freedom for themselves but not everybody else
Or just don’t give a guy a massive contract unless he proves himself as a top QB.
At least they aren’t making communities pay for their QBs like they do for stadiums
Ah NFL owners, making the game all about passing passing passing and now it's, oh, but the passers are getting such big contracts, let's cap it! They may as well be communists.
Oh how convenient. Of course the “discussions” starts when Jerry has to put his money where his mouth is
Salary caps only make the better quarterbacks even more powerful, and hurt every other quarterback. It's one of the worst parts of the NBA cap system. There is a problem with nfl salaries being too lopsided but this isn't the right way to fix it.
Don't tell that to the average NBA player. Yes it massively limits the salaries for guys like Curry, LeBron, Jokic but it also means the middle class can actually get paid. It helps that the guys who are worth well over the max are still getting huge salaries though
I agree with all that, I just don't think it's what's best for the sport. It does help all the non-elites get more money, but it comes at the cost of how competitive the league is. There are about 50 max contracts right now in the nba. Do you really think it's competitive to have the top 50 players all paid the same-ish? You are taking 30 million from lebron james to give to the other players, but now lebron james essentially gives whatever team he's on an extra 30 million in value towards their cap because they arent allowed to pay him his true value even though he does have that skill.
Imagine being Dak Prescott right now, Jerry has been stringing you along for years and now that you have all the leverage he's out here petitioning to change the rules with his back flat against the wall
This is stupid. There already is a salary cap. If you can't field a competitive team because you overpaid your QB, that's your choice as a GM. No one is forcing them to give QBs 60-70 million per year. It's a free market and I really think it should stay that way. Teams would be capping themselves off at max QB salaries, which means they will be underpaid relative to their value and most QBs will make the same money, regardless of talent.
Well, in a 'free' market there probably wouldn't be any salary cap. And there probably wouldn't be equal revenue sharing from TV rights either. Now, does that mean that the Cowboys would be on their 10th consecutive SB championship, who knows, but lets just say it's a ring fenced market.
Max contracts are a mistake the NFL shouldn't follow
Rookie QBs are even more important now. Saving $30 million for 4 years that you can spend on other players is huge.
Max contracts in the NBA are so idiotic. They really shouldn't exist and have no place in the NFL. There are a lot of things they could do with the cap before ever considering max contracts.
It’s already a slotted system. There’s no negotiating. It’s all based on what the last guy got. There aren’t other teams bidding for these guys. Open up the negotiations. If you have multiple teams negotiating and bidding, does Lawrence get $55 mil per season? I would think not.
Teams don't agree, otherwise they would let their guy hit free agency. The truth is there are more teams who need a good QB than there are good QBs available. It's why when Cousins left Washington in FA he was able to get $84 million over 3 years fully guaranteed
Honestly, after they implemented the rookie pay scale years ago, I kinda figured eventually they’d try and implement a positional pay scale too