QB Salary Cap Is In Play - Are The Dolphins Part Of The Conversation?

[TrogdorTheBurninator]

yes QBs are more valuable, because the rules have made them more valuable, not because they have advanced their play at a more rapid rate than players at other positions. that is the quandry the league has put itself in, and why the QBs currently have so much leverage in their contract negotiations. i just mentioned trevor lawrence, maybe QB #15 in the NFL, career record 20-30, gets $55mm per year.

Could also be because of the lack of quality QB's available at any given time?

Some people would argue that only 5 to 10 people in the entire world are worthy of paying the going rate.

 

[gregorygrant83]

Lawrence $142m guaranteed at signing.

Burrow $219m guaranteed at signing.

They are not the same contracts. Their structures, cap %, and term before out opportunities are not similar in any way

Just say you think QBs make too much and leave it at that, because you are out of your depth when you try to bring numbers you do not understand, or apparently even care to understand.

Spotrac shows Lawrence at $142 guaranteed at signing and Burrow at $146. It shows total guaranteed of $200 for Lawrence and $219 for Burrow.

Also the salary cap was smaller when Burrow signed his deal. If he had signed this year he likely would have signed a much bigger deal.

 

[phinsforlife]

Lawrence $142m guaranteed at signing.

Burrow $219m guaranteed at signing.

They are not the same contracts. Their structures, cap %, and term before out opportunities are not similar in any way

Just say you think QBs make too much and leave it at that, because you are out of your depth when you try to bring numbers you do not understand, or apparently even care to understand.

you are data mining just to argue, about nothing really that is germaine to the point. the $200mm for all intents and purposes is practically guaranteed. $142mm fully fully guaranteed is still multiples of other players, who are better at their positions, full fake contract value. but anyway going back and forth on this is useless. the big picture point stands. unless you are trying to argue QBs really don't make a bunch more than other players. this is like arguing about where a period or comma should go, as opposed to arguing about the content of the actual sentence.

 

[Mach2]

Spotrac shows Lawrence at $142 guaranteed at signing and Burrow at $146. It shows total guaranteed of $200 for Lawrence and $219 for Burrow.

From Spotrac:

Joe Burrow signed a 5 year , $275,000,000 contract with the Cincinnati Bengals, including $40,000,000 signing bonus, $219,010,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $55,000,000. In 2024, Burrow will earn a base salary of $10,714,000 and a signing bonus of $55,000,000, while carrying a cap hit of $29,714,000 and a dead cap value of $154,714,000.

Joe Burrow | NFL Contracts & Salaries | Spotrac.com

Joe Burrow contract and salary cap details, full contract breakdowns, salaries, signing bonus, roster bonus, dead money, and valuations.

www.spotrac.com

Total guaranteed doesn't mean that much if they are triggered down the line.

What good is a guarantee that kicks in year five if the potential out is after year three?

 

[Mach2]

you are data mining just to argue, about nothing really that is germaine to the point. the $200mm for all intents and purposes is practically guaranteed. $142mm fully fully guaranteed is still multiples of other players, who are better at their positions, full fake contract value. but anyway going back and forth on this is useless. the big picture point stands. unless you are trying to argue QBs really don't make a bunch more than other players. this is like arguing about where a period or comma should go, as opposed to arguing about the content of the actual sentence.

Data mining, yes. You know why?

Data is important..........

If the actual data doesn't back up you generalized assertions, that's a young issue, not a me issue.

 

[1972forever]

I never said he wouldn’t have success in second tier programs. But I 100% think he is in his best situation here and that the situation wouldn’t be as good for him. If you can’t see that, that’s on you.

He walked into a terrible position as a rookie. They had a HC who had no idea how to hire a competent offensive staff and the WR’s on the team couldn’t get open to save their lives. Instead of supporting Tua and building an offense that fit his skill set, all Flores did was spend an entire season trying to get Grier and Ross to trade for Watson.

Once McDaniel was hired, he completely supported Tua and built a team around what Tua does best. So it was hiring a HC that knows how to build an offense around Tua or any other starting QB that matters. Some organizations have a GM, HC, and OC who are able to build a team around their QB for success and others aren’t able to do it.

Perhaps that’s why so many head coaches are fired in the NFL every season. The fact is if McDaniel was the HC with any other team in the NFL and he had Tua as his QB, he would just build that teams offense around Tua.

It really has nothing to do with Tua as much as it has with the ability of the GM and the coaching staff to understand the skill set of their starting QB and get the best players to complement the skill set of the most important player on their team.

As you stated, if you can’t see that, that’s on you.

 

[Mach2]

you are data mining just to argue, about nothing really that is germaine to the point. the $200mm for all intents and purposes is practically guaranteed. $142mm fully fully guaranteed is still multiples of other players, who are better at their positions, full fake contract value. but anyway going back and forth on this is useless. the big picture point stands. unless you are trying to argue QBs really don't make a bunch more than other players. this is like arguing about where a period or comma should go, as opposed to arguing about the content of the actual sentence.

What does other players being "better at their positions" have to do with anything? That's a goalpost move, there.

I think all would agree the QB position is, by far, the most impactful and important position in the game.

A janitor might be better at his job as an individual than a department head. Does that mean the janitor should make more? I know that is extreme, but that's what you are saying.

Should a top punter make more than the 20th Corner? Of course not.

 

[1972forever]

What does other players being "better at their positions" have to do with anything? That's a goalpost move, there.

I think all would agree the QB position is, by far, the most impactful and important position in the game.

A janitor might be better at his job as an individual than a department head. Does that mean the janitor should make more? I know that is extreme, but that's what you are saying.

Should a top punter make more than the 20th Corner? Of course not.

Please don’t confuse them with logic. Some people only see the world as black and white with no other colors possible.

 

[keller377]

well by definition, if a deal was worked out that limits QBs, as long as the total cap $ and the growth in the cap stays intact, less money for QBs by definition would mean more money for RBs, and all the other positions. the size of the pie does not change, but the way it is sliced would. you do not have to start mandating minimums for other positions. once the dis-proportionately biggest salary is capped, the free market takes care of the rest. any player not a QB should be in favor of this. my suspicion is some in the NFL like the current system, because it results in more parity. teams with the good QBs have to pay up, which weakens the rest of the roster, and levels the playing field. part of why mahomes had no WRs last year, which resulted in the competition at least having a chance. this is my guess.

This is by definition not a free market on many levels. The word market is a word on it's own.

 

[Bob512]

What does other players being "better at their positions" have to do with anything? That's a goalpost move, there.

I think all would agree the QB position is, by far, the most impactful and important position in the game.

A janitor might be better at his job as an individual than a department head. Does that mean the janitor should make more? I know that is extreme, but that's what you are saying.

Should a top punter make more than the 20th Corner? Of course not.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

This isn't a hard concept to understand and it has been explained in a number of different ways by you, me and others. Now it is just deliberate to not understand......

 

[phinsforlife]

Please don’t confuse them with logic. Some people only see the world as black and white with no other colors possible.

oh i agree it is human nature to see things as black and white, and also be overly certain or overly confident about ones position. other aspects of human nature tend to be digging in on ones position despite all the evidence to the contrary. people tend to dig in more, the more evidence they get showing them to be on the wrong side of an argument, instead of just changing their mind when presented with countervailing data. human beings also tend to accuse others of what they themselves are doing - thusly the saying "takes one to know one." even little kids seemingly somehow figured this issue out. but yes, valid point, the many aspects of human nature are interesting!

 

[The Ghost]

Quarterbacks are incredibly overpaid. No one is worth 55 mil plus a year unless they are getting you multiple superbowls like Malholmes.

There is no football without the QBs though. They're the ones who make EVERYONE else involved in football their money. Couple that with that fact that extremely gifted physical specimens are trying to hurt them for three hour straight over the course of 17 games, I'd say they are absolutely worth that kind of money.

It's more like owners aren't worth the $200M-$300M a year they make. Especially when the games are played in stadiums built by taxpayers.

That's who your gripe should be with.

 

[BennySwella]

There is no football without the QBs though. They're the ones who make EVERYONE else involved in football their money. Couple that with that fact that extremely gifted physical specimens are trying to hurt them for three hour straight over the course of 17 games, I'd say they are absolutely worth that kind of money.

It's more like owners aren't worth the $200M-$300M a year they make. Especially when the games are played in stadiums built by taxpayers.

That's who your gripe should be with.

I dont have a gripe, I just think that the current model of compensation is not sustainable nor logical. I wish everyone got overpaid including myself, just dont think it is realistic or business smart.

 

[fansinceGWilson]

Could also be because of the lack of quality QB's available at any given time?

Some people would argue that only 5 to 10 people in the entire world are worthy of paying the going rate.

Correct. There aren't 28 starting NFL level QBs in the league. The old rule applies . . . anything is worth what the highest bidder will pay

 

[The Ghost]

I dont have a gripe, I just think that the current model of compensation is not sustainable nor logical. I wish everyone got overpaid including myself, just dont think it is realistic or business smart.

What happens to a team when they don't have a good QB?