14% of salary cap myth

[kskboys]

So Matt Ryan eclipsed that 14% number when he took the Falcons to the Super Bowl.

I suppose they blew that 28-3 lead because Ryan was making too much money.

Possibly. What if they sign Damon Harrison to strengthen the DLine rotation instead of having to pay Ryan huge dollars? Olivier Vernon, Mike Daniels, Karlos Dansby, Eric Weddle, Steve McLendon, Andre Branch, Josh Norman

Any one of those available guys might have made the difference.

 

[HungryLion]

You're the one who claimed his next year after losing Boldin was just as good. It wasn't. He lost Anquan because he got paid.

Now read that several times, and just maybe you'll be able to quit making false claims.

Actually what I said was


“Flacco didn’t regress that much. He was always the same player. Flacco was meh is entire career. He wasn’t particularly good the year they won the Super Bowl either during the regular season.

to his credit, he got hot in the playoffs and had an amazing playoff run. But he wasn’t really that good of a QB before that or since then to be honest.”


Nowhere in there did I say “the year after losing Boldin” was just as good. I was clearly talking about the totality of his career both before and after losing Boldin.

Funny you’re going to tell me to read something several times, when you totally misconstrued what I said in the first place.

Either way, Flacco had his best season AFTER Boldin was gone. Which is all the evidence anyone needs to know your point was flat out wrong.

 

[kskboys]

Actually what I said was


“Flacco didn’t regress that much. He was always the same player. Flacco was meh is entire career. He wasn’t particularly good the year they won the Super Bowl either during the regular season.

to his credit, he got hot in the playoffs and had an amazing playoff run. But he wasn’t really that good of a QB before that or since then to be honest.”


Nowhere in there did I say “the year after losing Boldin” was just as good. I was clearly talking about the totality of his career both before and after losing Boldin.

Funny you’re going to tell me to read something several times, when you totally misconstrued what I said in the first place.

Either way, Flacco had his best season AFTER Boldin was gone. Which is all the evidence anyone needs to know your point was flat out wrong.

Actually, that means you misconstrued what I said, and have been arguing over something completely different than what I originally stated.

What I originally said was about Flacco not playing well due to losing Boldin. They lost Boldin due to having to pay Flacco.

Steve Smith joined the Ravens in 14, giving Flacco that every down receiver.

Anyway, you argued over something different to begin w/ and keep doing this really strange thing of declaring yourself right.

Weird, dude.

 

[HungryLion]

Actually, that means you misconstrued what I said, and have been arguing over something completely different than what I originally stated.

What I originally said was about Flacco not playing well due to losing Boldin. They lost Boldin due to having to pay Flacco.

Steve Smith joined the Ravens in 14, giving Flacco that every down receiver.

Anyway, you argued over something different to begin w/ and keep doing this really strange thing of declaring yourself right.

Weird, dude.

He still played well after losing Boldin.

And he was still under that big contract when they were able to sign Steve Smith and give him a good receiver to throw to, was he or was he not? So apparently his contract didn’t prevent them from getting a quality receiver like Steve Smith. Yet you’re here trying to argue that Flacco’s supporting cast blew up due to his contract.


Flacco was basically the same guy his entire career in totality. He didn’t just regress after the contract was signed, which was what you argued........ which isn’t true.

that’s the point. You said Flacco regressed. He didn’t. He was the same guy. You based your evaluation of him off one season out of 10
With the Ravens. Which makes zero sense.

 

[jterrell]

Don't know if you are supporting what I said, or just making a point.

Supporting just how much he has improved, specifically in 2019.

 

[aikemirv]

You used a lot of words to say stats or bull ****

And he used "firstly"!

 

[aikemirv]

It's been said ad nauseam amongst those against resigning our QB1 that no QB that has taken up 14% or more of CAP wins the Super Bowl.

Firstly only one QB wins the SB every year making it very unlikely accomplishment. Now let's dive into the numbers.

Heading into 2020 there are only three players with CAP hits that represent 14% or more, those are Goff, Wilson, and the highest CAP hit being Mr. Dak Prescott. So if you believe in the 14% myth you should want us to resign him immedsitely to lower that CAP hit.

In 2019 only 3 QBs hit the 14% mark again. Those being Cousins, Rodgers, and Stafford. As we know the Packers and Vikings had no issues putting good rosters around their QBs despite the large CAP hit.

In 2018 anybody want to take a guess as to how many hit it? YES YOURE RIGHT, 3! Carr, Stafford, and Jimmy G.

How about 2017? Anybody anybody? Correct it was only 3 again those being Flacco, Palmer, and Cousins.

In 2016 that number jumped up to a whopping 5 QBs, which you'll see seems to be an anomaly. Eli, Big Ben, Ryan, Flacco, and Stafford taking those honors.

2015 had two with only Brees and Rivers.

2014 also only had two with Eli and Big Ben

2013 saw that number jump to 4 with Brees, Manning, Stafford, and Eli.

2012 only had one with Peyton Manning

2011 also only had one with Sanchez

2010 was uncapped

2009 had two with only Manning and McNabb

2008 had Manning all by himself

2007 didn't have any

2006 didn't have any

2005 None

2004 want to guess? Yes you're right

You get the point


So when someone uses the argument of "No team has won SB(very unlikely event in the first place) if they've taken up 14% or more of CAP". What they are actually saying is that over the course of the last 15+ years that these 27 players(out of 500ish starting QBs) didn't win the Super Bowl so therefore it is impossible.

The simple fact is that the more you put into one player, the less you will have to build the talent around him. So you can say that there is not enough data to support the position but common sense and business sense tells you that if you spend a lot of your capital on an individual asset it better be able to produce an ROI!

Dak does not have the ability to produce the equivalent ROI as would be produced spending that money on assets elsewhere!

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

The simple fact is that the more you put into one player, the less you will have to build the talent around him. So you can say that there is not enough data to support the position but common sense and business sense tells you that if you spend a lot of your capital on an individual asset it better be able to produce an ROI!

Dak does not have the ability to produce the equivalent ROI as would be produced spending that money on assets elsewhere!

Incorrect

 

[eromeopolk]

That 14% stat is as bogus as no Heisman trophy winning QB has ever won a Super Bowl? Up until Roger Staubach. No team starting 0-2 has ever won a Super Bowl? Up until the 1993 Dallas Cowboys. No Wild Card Team has ever won a Super Bowl? Up until the 1980 Raiders. No no.1 overall draft choice QB had won a Super Bowl. Up until Bradshaw won 4. By the way the Cowboys have the most Super Bowls featuring a no.1 overall draft pick (Ed Jones -3, Troy Aikman - 3, and Russell Maryland - 3).

The cap gets bigger and the QBs counting 14% of salary cap will fluctuate. Dak may count 14% for one year and then Mahomes or Jackson will blow his contract out the door.

Real stat - No Cowboys team finishing the season without winning their last 2 games of the regular season has gone to a Super Bowl.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Whether those 27 players not winning a Super Bowl validates the claim is sort of irrelevant.

What is relevant, though, is the element of common sense when it comes to allocating funds in a restricted market.

Giving one player too much money will inherently make it more difficult to acquire/keep enough talent to sustain team success. Key words for those who love to argue: MORE DIFFICULT; not impossible. All-world talent like Mahomes or Brady or Favre were/are so good that they can take a bigger piece of the $$% and still have a chance to win Super Bowls, but that’s because they’re capable of putting the team on their back. In my opinion, Dak cannot do that, and that’s why he is unworthy of 14%+ of the cap.

Hes saying there isnt actually enough data to make a claim either way.

 

[jwooten15]

Hes saying there isnt actually enough data to make a claim either way.

Well I hope Dak is the first QB to do it! #fingerscrossed

 

[DandyDon52]

Actually what I said was


“Flacco didn’t regress that much. He was always the same player. Flacco was meh is entire career. He wasn’t particularly good the year they won the Super Bowl either during the regular season.

to his credit, he got hot in the playoffs and had an amazing playoff run. But he wasn’t really that good of a QB before that or since then to be honest.”


Nowhere in there did I say “the year after losing Boldin” was just as good. I was clearly talking about the totality of his career both before and after losing Boldin.

Funny you’re going to tell me to read something several times, when you totally misconstrued what I said in the first place.

Either way, Flacco had his best season AFTER Boldin was gone. Which is all the evidence anyone needs to know your point was flat out wrong.

As soon as they paid flacco, the team started downhill , they never got close to a sb again, so what good did it do to pay him??????????

 

[HungryLion]

As soon as they paid flacco, the team started downhill , they never got close to a sb again, so what good did it do to pay him??????????

1. I’m not arguing it was wise to pay Flacco.

2. Dak is a much better QB than Flacco was. Flacco was mediocre. He really only got paid because of an insane 4 game stretch he had in the playoffs. Other than that, he was middle of the pack at best.

 

[DandyDon52]

1. I’m not arguing it was wise to pay Flacco.

2. Dak is a much better QB than Flacco was. Flacco was mediocre. He really only got paid because of an insane 4 game stretch he had in the playoffs. Other than that, he was middle of the pack at best.

well flacco was maybe better at deeper passes than dak, dak is a better runner , but he doesnt use that ability much at all.

My point also is that when you pay a qb the big payday, your hurting your chance to get to a SB.
It isnt impossible, but paying dak what he wants now and again in 4 years, is going to hurt dallas chances of getting to a sb much less winning one.