QB Pay

[FanofJerry]

Get rid of ripping off QB's through the draft.

If so many are busts:

Sign QB's to one year deals(prevents team from being strapped for 4 years - PRO OWNERSHIP)

The one year deal being at half of current market value for top 10 vet QBs(PRO PLAYER - still saves owner money). Currently...top pick gets 9M or 10M per year. If a QB...that is 1/4 to 1/5 starting QB's make.

Move it to half of vet QB's on one year deals is fair for both parties.

Each drafting team has bird rights on resigning the player. The player is on one year deals until his 4th year to not strap the Owner. After 4 years, the owner knows his guy is worth a long term deal. PRO OWNER

If you do not like this.

20% of cap is fair for QB's. Minus special teams and defense, most teams are 50/50 or near there with play calling pass or run. That means a QB's decision accounts for about 20% of all plays. The percentage is fair. Cap it there. But...

Start a committee that awards top QB play on bad teams...this committee awards bonuses to QB's that outperformed TEAM STATS. Other QB's on decent teams that are winning playoff games...provide a fair incentive for playoff wins, Conference Championships and Super Bowl appearances and victories.

End this stupid debate. I just did, but no one will listen. NBA has it figured out.

GHOST ME

 

[FanofJerry]

Bueller?

SMH

 

[Flamma]

I'm as pro owner as it gets in here. But I'd have to ask, do we need to be more pro owner? I don't see rookie contracts as being too restrictive.

About the 20%. I'm not even sure there are 2-3 QBs taking up 20% of the cap now. By that I mean their cap hits. If you mean average salary, then there are 13 of them. But average salary means nothing if you're never actually 20% of the cap.

 

[FanofJerry]

I'm as pro owner as it gets in here. But I'd have to ask, do we need to be more pro owner? I don't see rookie contracts as being too restrictive.

About the 20%. I'm not even sure there are 2-3 QBs taking up 20% of the cap now. By that I mean their cap hits. If you mean average salary, then there are 13 of them. But average salary means nothing if you're never actually 20% of the cap.

More pro owner? its endless with you. you get guys on cheap contracts for 4 years and you want more? you dont have feelings, sorry.

im talking about the 20% of cap, the figure a lot of posters pinpoint when talking about the new highest paid QB contract number. Obviously, there hit goes down as the cap usually increases.

 

[Flamma]

im talking about the 20% of cap, the figure a lot of posters pinpoint when talking about the new highest paid QB contract number. Obviously, there hit goes down as the cap usually increases.

I see what you're saying. But with today's GMs, most QBs don't approach a 20% cap hit ever. Jalen Hurts cap hits are small for the life of his 5 year contract. Not prohibitive what so ever. But in 2029 they'll take an atomic bomb dead cap. What do they care? Most of the QB problems is an owner's problem. They can work around the QB if they really wanted to. Most just don't.

 

[FanofJerry]

I see what you're saying. But with today's GMs, most QBs don't approach a 20% cap hit ever. Jalen Hurts cap hits are small for the life of his 5 year contract. Not prohibitive what so ever. But in 2029 they'll take an atomic bomb dead cap. What do they care? Most of the QB problems is an owner's problem. They can work around the QB if they really wanted to. Most just don't.

I think youre missing the point...

you can side-step all you want...

the meat and potatoes of my post is that I provided a solution to the whining about QB money that is fair for both parties.

owners are into slavery as much as they can be and dont want to read my post. well stop whining about being strung to a guy for 4 years, that you drafted or that you gave a contract to after you evaluated him for 4 years.

draft a guy, pay him half of the market value, if you like him, use bird rights to sign the following year...so on and so forth until the team feels he is a long term contract player. dont whine if he doesnt pan out after you evaluated him for 4 years and gave him a contract...thats lousy behavior.

owners want 4 years of cheap labor and wont come off it. players should hold out to a better deal...and I provided one that is fair for both parties, but slavery doesnt want to compromise...it wants to scrape you clean.

it wants it both ways and chases its own tail looking despicable...as opposed to just being reasonable

 

[Flamma]

I guess I just don't remember a lot of owners complaining about having to pay a bust for 4 years. Isn't that one of the major reasons they created the rookie contracts in the first place? Because QBs specifically wanted to be paid a lot more before playing their first game.

If the QB is good enough after 3-4 years, he'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars. If not, then he has his rookie contract.

 

[FanofJerry]

I guess I just don't remember a lot of owners complaining about having to pay a bust for 4 years. Isn't that one of the major reasons they created the rookie contracts in the first place? Because QBs specifically wanted to be paid a lot more before playing their first game.

If the QB is good enough after 3-4 years, he'll be making hundreds of millions of dollars. If not, then he has his rookie contract.

you got me on that one.

obviously the owners arent upset at a 8M to 10M QB that is a bust after one year....its just kind of stupid to prolong it...40M guaranteed over 4/5 years.

why would an owner offer 40M guaranteed over 4 years, then have pressure on him to make himself look good by forcing the guy to work out but is a bust. Please dont use lame excuses like "ahh, nah, owners dont act like that" yet youtube scouts are saying that picking a certain WR might take away catches from the permier paid WR lamb....so it might not be a good fit.

Please dont use weak excuses....even if all this is fake.

Back to the topic. If so many guys are busts...why not be willing to pay half of top 10 QB salaries median on one year deal?

Do I want to invest 25M in a QB on a one year deal? Or do I pay him 40M guaranteed over 4/5 year, then I am stuck with him or have to eat some money if I release him.

Id rather invest 50M guaranteed, 2 years of one year deals, than try and play casino with guaranteeing 40M to a most liekly bust and hoping it works out for 4 years of cheap QB play. Then you have to draft another guy and do the 40M guaranteed to all over again. Its betting that on your guy being good, and most suck.

I think I have money-balled it for you in a way that works for both parties.

You want to guarantee 40M over 4 years, in the hopes the guy works out. Numbers dont back up QB's panning out.

I want to guarantee 25M for one year. If my guy sucks, he banked, and Im looking for a new QB without the extra 15M guaranteed. If my guy works out...I have him on lock, through bird rights, for 4 years and then he is eligible for a long term deal. I would rather pay 100M over a rookie contract of 4 years for a baller...than spend 40M guaranteed every 2 or 3 years looking for a guy.

I dont know if you can make sense of it unless you claim your trying to play a different style of football that doesnt involve passing. Thats moving the goal posts and isnt whats taking place in NFL right now...and NFL has rules promoting passing. So there is a hill to climb for you on that front.

Ultimately, my proposition provides flexibility to the Owners to find their QB at a cheaper cost...UNLESS THEY GET LUCKY and the guy works out...which numbers dont support.

 

[FanofJerry]

If your guy sucks...why give him two years if he truly is not good?

I think you have to lean into 'development period' as an excuse for prolonging.

I think most clubs know after one year if the kid is capable. That might sound ignorant...and, yes, there are late bloomers or vets that have taken the helm of good teams after being backup for years, or starting and being benched and staring again(think Darnold and Goff and Alex Smith) and have succeeded. But clubs arent trying to wait 8 years...they want Mahomes now.

the point here is...clubs are looking for an early Mahomes...not a late blooming Alex Smith. Argue it until the World ends.

 

[Flamma]

What if he is good in year 1? You just paid 25m, now what? I ask this question because I get the impression you're intent is to get QBs paid more, or sooner, all while throwing the owners a bone in order to make it happen. But I would guess most owners would choose 4 years 40m over 2 years 50m. Just for the simple reason of it being easier on the cap hit.

These owners have a death grip on rookie contracts. When they hit on a QB, they have him at a fraction of the cost for a full 5 years if he's a first round pick. They'll never alter that.

 

[FanofJerry]

What if he is good in year 1? You just paid 25m, now what? I ask this question because I get the impression you're intent is to get QBs paid more, or sooner, all while throwing the owners a bone in order to make it happen. But I would guess most owners would choose 4 years 40m over 2 years 50m. Just for the simple reason of it being easier on the cap hit.

These owners have a death grip on rookie contracts. When they hit on a QB, they have him at a fraction of the cost for a full 5 years if he's a first round pick. They'll never alter that.

Reread my post. The answer to your first question is there.

 

[Flamma]

Reread my post. The answer to your first question is there.

You want to pay the QB 25M a year, or half of current market value until the team decides to give him a long term deal.

The money doesn't work here for the owners. If the team keeps the QB 3-4 years, that's 75-100m before he even gets a long term deal. On top of that, the team has no rookie deals left to absorb any of the cap hit since this is done on a year to year basis. All the owners get out of it is saving maybe 15M on some rookie bust.

Owners rather pay the 40m for 4/5 years. It was QBs like JaMarcus Russell that caused the league to move to this rookie contract format.