14% of salary cap myth

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm not arguing for or against your 14% thing. I'm saying top paid QBs don't win Super bowls

but that's the point. top paid QBs do win..... maybe not the year they were top paid, but subsequently they have.....that's the point....

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

To be clear this shows a sample size of less than 2 QBs per year when only one QB a year wins the SB. It's adding clarity to the statement.

Hope this helps.

I am even more confused than I was before and I had not idea what was it before.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

but that's the point. top paid QBs do win..... maybe not the year they were top paid, but subsequently they have.....that's the point....

I have no idea why fans can't follow this.

 

[jwooten15]

not disagreeing with you, but what may be 14% of cap today, may not be 14% of cap next year or the year after based on contract structure. Eli, when he signed his first big contract, took about 13% of the cap. but he went on to win two superbowls, since the cap went up and his salary was no longer hinderence to them signing players.....furthermore caps have been manipulated for years, pushing money into the future, knowing at some point, you cut the players, take deadmoney and work towards rebuilding. dynasties like New England are almost impossible to have. but any team that we consider to be competitive for superbowls, year in year out, has a QB, like Rodgers, Brees, Wilson, etc.

I agree with you all in all fronts, actually! I’m just letting my personal opinion (of not thinking Dak is anywhere talented enough to warrant that amount of money) cloud reality lol.

It just doesn’t compute with me how just because he’s next in line for a contract, Dak, like Tank Lawrence and Zeke before him, thinks that he should be setting a new $$ benchmark. I can’t think of any other salary market that operates in the same way. Everywhere else, your salary is based on your own independent value to the company. But with football, even a mid-level starting QB is going to become the highest paid ever, even if it’s just for a short time. Just doesn’t make sense to me haha

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I agree with you all in all fronts, actually! I’m just letting my personal opinion (of not thinking Dak is anywhere talented enough to warrant that amount of money) cloud reality lol.

It just doesn’t compute with me how just because he’s next in line for a contract, Dak, like Tank Lawrence and Zeke before him, thinks that he should be setting a new $$ benchmark. I can’t think of any other salary market that operates in the same way. Everywhere else, your salary is based on your own independent value to the company. But with football, even a mid-level starting QB is going to become the highest paid ever, even if it’s just for a short time. Just doesn’t make sense to me haha

I think those are two separate issues, that sometimes Dak detractors use one to justify the other....the fact is that top paid QBs do win and they have won.

now, is Dak worth the money or not, is an opinion we can argue about until the cows come home. I don't think there has been any thread on that so maybe you should start one

in my Opinion, Dak is a top 10 QB, with couple of retiring, getting older QBs, that may push him up the list as those that have come before him went through the same thing.....I don't mind the $35 mill contract, in fact, I was not a supporter of giving him a contract prior to this season, knowing yes, he would be cheaper, but I was advocating a wait and see and if he does well and improves, then a few million per year doesn't matter, but you ensure you got your QB and I think we do.

and the NFL salary market is what the NFL salary market is.....they don't do guarantee contracts. they have a hard cap, which forces the players into this type of contract negotiations. Baseball, Basketball have guaranteed contracts. with ridiculous salaries and no hard cap, just luxuary tax penalties to deter owner from spending.

given NFL has 53 and not 12 or 25 players. and they have 16 games, not 82 or 162. and high risk of injuries and end of careers, I don't think its so bad. Owners are protected (some what). players are protected (somewhat). manage/minimize the risk on each side.

 

[kskboys]

but when Joe Flacco signed his original contract he was at 14%. no? but subsequently, his salary wasn't....
same with Eli Manning. same with aaron Rodgers. same with drew brees. same with big ben.....not sure how close to top 5 was brady, I would have to check......

it maybe 14% when they sign...but in subsequent years, its not 14%....so signing a QB to a large contract, doesn't preclude you from winning a superbowl in the future.\


for example Jimmy G was at 14% of salary cap in 2018, but in 2019 he was not, since the cap went up!!! and SF made it to the superbowl…..

get it?

And all of those QB's teams regressed in a major way after overpaying their QB's. That's the point.

 

[kskboys]

I'm not arguing for or against your 14% thing. I'm saying top paid QBs don't win Super bowls

Manalive, did you see the regression in Flacco as soon as they dumped Boldin? And why did they dump him? So they could pay Flacoo.

This is a recurring theme. Something's gotta give when you pay players top dollar.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

And all of those QB's teams regressed in a major way after overpaying their QB's. That's the point.

sorry, you miss the point again. all QBs regress at some point...but some after signing the big contracts went on to win the superbowl. so signing a big contract, doesn't preclude a team a chance to win a superbowl, by any statistical measure you want to throw out there...that's been proven.

 

[kskboys]

sorry, you miss the point again. all QBs regress at some point...but some after signing the big contracts went on to win the superbowl. so signing a big contract, doesn't preclude a team a chance to win a superbowl, by any statistical measure you want to throw out there...that's been proven.

Actually, you missed the point. I didn't say the QB's regressed, I said the team regressed. Completely different line of thought.

The opposite of what you're saying has been proven. Overpaying your QB keeps you from the super bowl.

Name these top paid QB's you keep claiming have won super bowls.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

but that's the point. top paid QBs do win..... maybe not the year they were top paid, but subsequently they have.....that's the point....

It seems they don't win the SB if they are taking up more than 12-13% of the cap, to this point in the salary cap era that has been proven and until somebody proves otherwiswe and proves it more than once then that is the line.

 

[kskboys]

It seems they don't win the SB if they are taking up more than 12-13% of the cap, to this point in the salary cap era that has been proven and until somebody proves otherwiswe and proves it more than once then that is the line.

Correct. It appears that some have trouble seeing the correlation between overpaying too many players and non-contention. IMO you have to really try hard not to see it.

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

sorry, you miss the point again. all QBs regress at some point...but some after signing the big contracts went on to win the superbowl. so signing a big contract, doesn't preclude a team a chance to win a superbowl, by any statistical measure you want to throw out there...that's been proven.

None when their cap hit was more than 12-13%, that doesn't mean when they signed their big deal the team kept their cap hit down the 1st year of the deal and they won the SB. But as soon as their cap hits crosses a certain line/percentage of the cap (12-13%) they and their team don't win the SB, it's proven over the cap era

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Correct. It appears that some have trouble seeing the correlation between overpaying too many players and non-contention. IMO you have to really try hard not to see it.

I know it's like beating a dead horse

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Actually, you missed the point. I didn't say the QB's regressed, I said the team regressed. Completely different line of thought.

The opposite of what you're saying has been proven. Overpaying your QB keeps you from the super bowl.

Name these top paid QB's you keep claiming have won super bowls.

how could the team have regressed if they went on and win the superbowl? you missed the point, yet again....

its been proven over and over, that paying QBs doesn't preclude you from winnign superbowls...perhaps not the year they signed the contract/extension, but in subsequent years.....otherwise only players on their rookie contract make it to the big dance....

its not that hard to understand the concept, but seems like you are set in what you want to say, and blind to any other lines of reasoning on purpose.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

It seems they don't win the SB if they are taking up more than 12-13% of the cap, to this point in the salary cap era that has been proven and until somebody proves otherwiswe and proves it more than once then that is the line.

yes, but as its been mentioned multiple times, given salary cap goes up, perhaps they don't win it when their salary is 12/13%, but in subsequent years, when salary cap goes up they no longer occupy 13% of salary cap......that's the point. just because its 13% today, doesn't mean its 13% in a couple of years....that has been proven given several have won superbowl after given a large contract....its not that hard of a concept to grasp

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

None when their cap hit was more than 12-13%, that doesn't mean when they signed their big deal the team kept their cap hit down the 1st year of the deal and they won the SB. But as soon as their cap hits crosses a certain line/percentage of the cap (12-13%) they and their team don't win the SB, it's proven over the cap era

and people just are fixated on a number...it could have been 17% or 10%...there are a lot of teams that don't win the superbowl and their QBs make less than 10% of their salary cap..... should we come to a conclusion that a QB must make more than 10% and less than 13%....

and again, just because in their first year or two they make up 13%, doesn't mean in subsequent years it will, since salary cap keeps going up and that percentage is reduced.

 

[Ring6]

What percentage of Dak's tag taking up this year?

31.5 mil out of 198.2 mil cap = 15.893%

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

yes, but as its been mentioned multiple times, given salary cap goes up, perhaps they don't win it when their salary is 12/13%, but in subsequent years, when salary cap goes up they no longer occupy 13% of salary cap......that's the point. just because its 13% today, doesn't mean its 13% in a couple of years....that has been proven given several have won superbowl after given a large contract....its not that hard of a concept to grasp

Well if they win the SB in subsequent years when their cap hit is less than 13% then it just proves the point. The total contract is not relevent what is relevent is their total cap hit for any given year, and again QB's with a cap hit of 13% have not one the the SB except once in the salary cap era. Now if Dak's cap hit is say 15% of the cap this year i will bet you any amount of money you would like that we don't win the SB this year, that doesn't mean that next year or the year when his 35m per year salary becomes less than 13% of the cap as the cap because the cap goes up thus we have more money to spend on other better players,that we can't win the SB but this year we won't win it if his cap hit is over 13% or any other year that it is, unless it is an exception to what has been proven in the salary cap era and so far that exception has been very very rare

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Well if they win the SB in subsequent years when their cap hit is less than 13% then it just proves the point. The total contract is not relevent what is relevent is their total cap hit for any given year, and again QB's with a cap hit of 13% have not one the the SB except once in the salary cap era. Now if Dak's cap hit is say 15% of the cap this year i will bet you any amount of money you would like that we don't win the SB this year, that doesn't mean that next year or the year when his 35m per year salary becomes less than 13% of the cap as the cap because the cap goes up thus we have more money to spend on other better players,that we can't win the SB but this year we won't win it if his cap hit is over 13% or any other year that it is, unless it is an exception to what has been proven in the salary cap era and so far that exception has been very very rare

exactly..... that giving Dak a $35 mill a year as many dak detractors are arguing that no team has ever won, not acknowledging that in a couple of years his salary wont' be the highest, nor does it preclude dallas from winning superbowl.

and there is a low probability of winning the superbowl for dallas this year anyway...even if he was still on his rookie contract. no outside to the team coach ever has won the superbowl the first year they became headcoach of a team. salary cap or no salary cap. and its not a rule about 13%....its the way it has worked out. it just doesn't allow you to sign other players, thus the 13%...its the law of probabilities, not absolutes.....

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

exactly..... that giving Dak a $35 mill a year as many dak detractors are arguing that no team has ever won, not acknowledging that in a couple of years his salary wont' be the highest, nor does it preclude dallas from winning superbowl.

and there is a low probability of winning the superbowl for dallas this year anyway...even if he was still on his rookie contract. no outside to the team coach ever has won the superbowl the first year they became headcoach of a team. salary cap or no salary cap. and its not a rule about 13%....its the way it has worked out. it just doesn't allow you to sign other players, thus the 13%...its the law of probabilities, not absolutes.....

It is still yet to be determined what his cap hit might be in a couple of years, but should he sign a deal you can bet they will want to keep his cap hit lower this season making it much higher in subsequent years. At his franchise tag this year (approx 31.5M) his cap hit is about 16%, if he signs the kind of deal reported and they want to keep his cap hit lower this season than even with a rising cap it would be hard to keep Dak's cap hit under 13% in years 2,3 and 4. Part of the reason the Cowboys want a deal longer than 4 years is not only to keep Dak from getting another deal but so they can work the cap to keep his cap hit as low as possible in the 1st few seasons