What is the max amount you can pay a QB and still win a SB

doomsday9084

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
4,007
Why do I care about this? The cap problems weren't b/c of the Tony contract.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Tony had a big contract and it contributed to the team not being able to go after free agents, cutting players, etc. As much as Romo supporters like to point out that the team didn't win with him because of defense, his contract directly impaired the team's ability to build up a defense.

It wasn't the only factor but time has proven that its extraordinarily hard to win a super bowl with a QB making a top, fair market contract. Its simple math. There is always going to be a team with a great QB on a rookie deal or a vet on a bargain contract. Those teams will have a massive advantage over the teams who are giving their QB 15% of the cap or more.
 

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Tony had a big contract and it contributed to the team not being able to go after free agents, cutting players, etc. As much as Romo supporters like to point out that the team didn't win with him because of defense, his contract directly impaired the team's ability to build up a defense.

It wasn't the only factor but time has proven that its extraordinarily hard to win a super bowl with a QB making a top, fair market contract. Its simple math. There is always going to be a team with a great QB on a rookie deal or a vet on a bargain contract. Those teams will have a massive advantage over the teams who are giving their QB 15% of the cap or more.
It isn't true. The cap problems - which were mostly made up by fans, b/c they had no problem adjusting - were caused by dead money and big contracts to bad or aging players (Ware, Carr, Austin, Free). It's not like they lost anybody in 2014 because of it.

No it hasn't. Tom Brady has always been paid fairly. Peyton Manning was one of the top-paid quarterbacks. Heck Matt Ryan would have won if Shannahan didn't get stupid. By this logic, the Chiefs should just let Mahomes go. There is not always going to be a bargain at QB like we've seen in the past, b/c you can't win just playing defense.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
Yes, he did. His highest salary was 2006 at 6 mill, and he took restructures to keep the team around him. Your info is incorrect.

That is not how you evaluate contracts. In 2005 he signed a 4 year contract that earned him $54m with its escalators and such or about . The salary cap was $85.5m on 2005 so in today's dollars you are looking at a AAV of around $30m.

Given the shortness of the deal that is only a savings a of a mil or two over what Dak is asking.

In 2010 he was making $18m AAV. That was in the uncapped year but I believe they used the $120m cap anyway via collusion. Translated to today's cap you are looking at around $30m again.

IOW, he was taking shorter deals at around the same dollar amounts for 8 years before he started taking less money.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Tony had a big contract and it contributed to the team not being able to go after free agents, cutting players, etc. As much as Romo supporters like to point out that the team didn't win with him because of defense, his contract directly impaired the team's ability to build up a defense.

It wasn't the only factor but time has proven that its extraordinarily hard to win a super bowl with a QB making a top, fair market contract. Its simple math. There is always going to be a team with a great QB on a rookie deal or a vet on a bargain contract. Those teams will have a massive advantage over the teams who are giving their QB 15% of the cap or more.

What screwed us was the cap penalty the NFL gave us in 2012.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Tony had a big contract and it contributed to the team not being able to go after free agents, cutting players, etc. As much as Romo supporters like to point out that the team didn't win with him because of defense, his contract directly impaired the team's ability to build up a defense.

It wasn't the only factor but time has proven that its extraordinarily hard to win a super bowl with a QB making a top, fair market contract. Its simple math. There is always going to be a team with a great QB on a rookie deal or a vet on a bargain contract. Those teams will have a massive advantage over the teams who are giving their QB 15% of the cap or more.

We continue to see the teams with greatest QB’s more regularly be the consistent contenders.

Yes , if you have one of the greatest QB on a Rookie that’s a massive advantage but it’s not the norm.
 

doomsday9084

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
4,007
It isn't true. The cap problems - which were mostly made up by fans, b/c they had no problem adjusting - were caused by dead money and big contracts to bad or aging players (Ware, Carr, Austin, Free). It's not like they lost anybody in 2014 because of it.

No it hasn't. Tom Brady has always been paid fairly. Peyton Manning was one of the top-paid quarterbacks. Heck Matt Ryan would have won if Shannahan didn't get stupid. By this logic, the Chiefs should just let Mahomes go. There is not always going to be a bargain at QB like we've seen in the past, b/c you can't win just playing defense.

Brady deserved to be the highest paid QB in the NFL for most of his career and he hasn't been. He hasn't been paid fairly by any stretch of the imagination.
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/tom-bradys-patriots-contracts-through-years#slide-3
There is a website showing Brady always took a big discount and here is a fun discussion from a guy who knows more than all of us:
“I was just trying to stay ahead of the curve," said Robert Kraft at the time. "If we were going to have to pay him elite-quarterback money and have elite-quarterback cap numbers, I just didn't think we would be able to build a team. We don't want to have a team where we're paying 18 to 20 percent to a player on the cap. I wanted to do something elegant that would work for everybody. I had been talking to him off and on for maybe 18 months, about how I wanted him to finish his career here, and about how we both have to be smart about it. I just really want him to end his career a Patriot.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_starting_quarterbacks

In the past 20 years:
Brady discount x6
Rookie contracts: Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Eli (1st), Brees
Low paid vets: johnson, Dilfer, Foles (Wentz was on his rookie)
Full value contracts: Eli (2nd), Peyton
Not sure (5th year winner): Rothlisberger, Flacco

For the amount of guys out there being paid full value contracts, very few of them win. A lot of the guys who win on their rookie deals (Wilson, Rodgers, Brees) don't win after they get a big extension.

There is a clear pattern here. People can choose to ignore it but it doesn't change reality. Paying a QB big bucks makes it really hard to win the big one in the salary cap era.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
Brady deserved to be the highest paid QB in the NFL for most of his career and he hasn't been. He hasn't been paid fairly by any stretch of the imagination.
https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/patriots/tom-bradys-patriots-contracts-through-years#slide-3
There is a website showing Brady always took a big discount and here is a fun discussion from a guy who knows more than all of us:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_starting_quarterbacks

In the past 20 years:
Brady discount x6
Rookie contracts: Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Eli (1st), Brees
Low paid vets: johnson, Dilfer, Foles (Wentz was on his rookie)
Full value contracts: Eli (2nd), Peyton
Not sure (5th year winner): Rothlisberger, Flacco

For the amount of guys out there being paid full value contracts, very few of them win. A lot of the guys who win on their rookie deals (Wilson, Rodgers, Brees) don't win after they get a big extension.

There is a clear pattern here. People can choose to ignore it but it doesn't change reality. Paying a QB big bucks makes it really hard to win the big one in the salary cap era.

Sure from age 33 onward, Brady took a discount. However the 8 years from 05-12 he was making 15% or more of the cap.
 

doomsday9084

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
4,007
We continue to see the teams with greatest QB’s more regularly be the consistent contenders.

Yes , if you have one of the greatest QB on a Rookie that’s a massive advantage but it’s not the norm.

In the past 20 years
Sure from age 33 onward, Brady took a discount. However the 8 years from 05-12 he was making 15% or more of the cap.

2005
Deal: 6 years, $60M
Signing Bonus: $26.5M ($14.5 signing bonus, $12M roster bonus in 2006)


This deal, which was slated to take Brady through the 2010 season, got contentious. It was signed on May 4, but the hangup and haggling began in late February. At issue? The Patriots wanted to pay Brady his proposed $24 million signing bonus in four installments. More than half of the bonus money would come in the first two years of the deal, but unpaid bonus money in the later years of the contract would not be guaranteed, meaning if Brady were injured and couldn’t keep playing, portions of the $24 M bonus would never be realized. Writing in March of 2005 for the Providence Journal I noted that, “At this point, the negotiations aren't quite acrimonious. But Brady isn't blind to the fact he's willing to meet the Patriots halfway on salary but is not being met halfway on the bonus.” Peyton Manning at the time was on a seven-year, $98M deal he signed in 2004 that had $34.5M guaranteed.

So, Brady signed a 6/60 one full year after Peyton signed a 7/98

That's a discount.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
What a silly question. Any amount!! The QB is just part of the team. One of the most important positions but the amount of money a QB, RB,WR, etc makes does not stop a team poised to win it all
Yes it does, and several examples have already been posted.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
Sure from age 33 onward, Brady took a discount. However the 8 years from 05-12 he was making 15% or more of the cap.
In 2005, Brady's cap hit was 10 mil. The salary cap was 85.5 mil. His cap hit was, therefore, 8.55%.

Why are people posting lies? All you have to do is look this up.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
In 2005, Brady's cap hit was 10 mil. The salary cap was 85.5 mil. His cap hit was, therefore, 8.55%.

Why are people posting lies? All you have to do is look this up.

You sure like to cherry pick; cherry picking the first year of a new deal is just adorable. I could just as easily wave my hands at the 2010 $17.4m cap hit.

And lying assumes intent to deceive. You clearly do not know what the word means. I may be wrong but I am not trying to deceive anyone. Levying such aspersions without proof is classless.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
You sure like to cherry pick; cherry picking the first year of a new deal is just adorable. I could just as easily wave my hands at the 2010 $17.4m cap hit.

And lying assumes intent to deceive. You clearly do not know what the word means. I may be wrong but I am not trying to deceive anyone. Levying such aspersions without proof is classless.
Maybe you just aren't aware, then that all that matters is the players cap hit.

Don't forget, you yourself declared that it was minimum 15% during those years. That is not correct. Maybe you shouldn't have made an erroneous statement?

In 06, Brady's cap hit was 14 mil, and the salary cap was 102 mil. That means his cap hit was 13.7%.

Proof: You stated 15% was the low. The facts are that both 05 and 06 were below that.

Why are you still arguing, your case has been dispersed?
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
That is not how you evaluate contracts. In 2005 he signed a 4 year contract that earned him $54m with its escalators and such or about . The salary cap was $85.5m on 2005 so in today's dollars you are looking at a AAV of around $30m.

Given the shortness of the deal that is only a savings a of a mil or two over what Dak is asking.

In 2010 he was making $18m AAV. That was in the uncapped year but I believe they used the $120m cap anyway via collusion. Translated to today's cap you are looking at around $30m again.

IOW, he was taking shorter deals at around the same dollar amounts for 8 years before he started taking less money.
You are talking in circles, and incorrectly.

OK, listen carefully. If you increase the amount of salary due to inflation, you also have to increase the salary cap amount. The percentage would be the same.
 

Blackrain

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
9,155
What a silly question. Any amount!! The QB is just part of the team. One of the most important positions but the amount of money a QB, RB,WR, etc makes does not stop a team poised to win it all

100% true if we are in the early 90s in 2020 the amount of money everybody makes directly influences the talent that can be added to make a team getting poised to win it all
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
100% true if we are in the early 90s in 2020 the amount of money everybody makes directly influences the talent that can be added to make a team getting poised to win it all
There's just so much evidence. Why are people denying it? Brees and Wilson's teams both took a giant step back after paying them huge. As did Flacco and Eli. It's just so obvious.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
27,237
You are talking in circles, and incorrectly.

OK, listen carefully. If you increase the amount of salary due to inflation, you also have to increase the salary cap amount. The percentage would be the same.

I did it proportionally to the relative salary caps. I used the the ratio of the relative salary caps to translate to 2020 dollars. IOW, I normalized everything to 2020 dollars.

That is not my talking in circles. In no way do I rejoin the initial premise and I did the simple algebra correctly. I figured that would be self evident from my saying "in 2020 dollars." You just didn't pick up on it.
 
Top