Originally Posted by :
The reasoning, Tom Pelissero explained on "The Rich Eisen Show," is that "at some point you want quarterback numbers to not go over a certain percent of your salary cap." For reference, the Cincinnati Bengals' Joe Burrow earns an an NFL-leading average of $55 million per year on the contract extension he signed in 2023, which means his deal alone is projected to account for an average of nearly 25% of the Bengals' entire salary cap per year, leaving the remaining 75% for the rest of the roster.
Adopting "an NBA model" might be one way to better regulate those percentages, as Pelissero noted. The NBA currently has "max" and "supermax" restrictions for free-agent and long-term contracts, limiting the number of players teams can sign to a certain dollar amount, while capping the percentage of the salary cap for which maximum deals account. The idea "really hasn't gained traction" among NFL owners, however, "in part because so many teams have paid their quarterback," contributing to the position's escalating market.
Which raises another point: If an NFL team feels forced into a cost-prohibitive deal for a quarterback that has yet to warrant the club's total commitment, that team can always simply not sign said quarterback. It's easier said than done in a league where a total quarterback reset brings plenty of risk, prioritizing the unknown over the familiar. If the concern, however, is dedicating too much salary-cap space to one player, then it's up to the organization to zig when the rest of the NFL is zagging. And, hopefully, find a good alternative under center.
Which raises another point: If an NFL team feels forced into a cost-prohibitive deal for a quarterback that has yet to warrant the club's total commitment, that team can always simply not sign said quarterback. It's easier said than done in a league where a total quarterback reset brings plenty of risk, prioritizing the unknown over the familiar. If the concern, however, is dedicating too much salary-cap space to one player, then it's up to the organization to zig when the rest of the NFL is zagging. And, hopefully, find a good alternative under center.
1. Not sure owners want to do this, it’s just more money out of their pocket, assuming they keep the current salary cap while now separating the qb salary entirely.
2. This would benefit us greatly and hurt teams like the 49ers and Texans who are paying their qbs pennys. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TripleThreat:
1. Not sure owners want to do this, it’s just more money out of their pocket, assuming they keep the current salary cap while now separating the qb salary entirely.
2. This would benefit us greatly and hurt teams like the 49ers and Texans who are paying their qbs pennys.
It would hurt the win with a rookie QB plan
It would help teams that spend a shit ton of money
It would hurt teams that aren't massive spenders.
Like even if this happens the Bengals aren't gonna magically find money for everyone, they just aren't a huge cash spending team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MarkDavis'Haircut:
The NFL salary cap has been in place for 30 seasons and before Mahomes win last year the highest paid QB % to the cap to win a ring was Steve Young in 1994 at 13%.
Mahomes won it last year at 17%.
If those numbers are correct: game changing play.
Yea I can see both sides of the argument on this.
On one side it gives teams like KC a chance to sign an elite receiver for example.
On the other side it doesn't penalize a team like Denver for giving Russel Wilson that stupid ass contract. [Reply]
The rest of the league trying to catch up to the Chiefs by changing the rules, because other dumb GMs can't assemble a championship team while paying a top-tier QB.
And it still won't work, because they don't have Mahomes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the Chiefs and Bengals were against this...
The teams that are going to be for it are the teams that are massive cash spenders because it would allow them to spend more money total. The Chiefs even in this age are not a massive cash spending team, on average they come in right around the middle of the pack.
This is a way for teams like Dallas that make the most money to try to be able to outspend other teams.
Bingo, this would actually put the Chiefs at a disadvantage. I think Mahomes has already fallen to like 4th or 5th on the pay scale, as insane as that is.
I guess I shouldn't call it a disadvantage, because obviously we could build a much better roster, but it definitely would tip the scales a bit for the other teams. It's probably the best option for parity overall, which we know is what they want. If we 3-peat, I would fully expect something like this to be implemented. [Reply]
It may have already been said but Mahomes is the only one paid like a super start that's pulled his weight. We should want the Burrows and Allens burdened by their own number. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Mahomes cap hit this year is $45 million while CJ Stroud is just north of $2 million. That $43 ish million disparity is the best chance they have to load up their team like any team with a good QB on a rookie contract.
You’re pretty much erasing the best advantage teams have for parity. Great for us with Mahomes though