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.
I would fully welcome this. It would raise the Chiefs ceiling way higher. It seems retarded to put all teams on a level playing field financially by having their QB paid on a different basis.
Teams like the Texans have the perfect opportunity paying Stroud pennies. Imagine if this team had a clean slate on our cap without Mahomes cap hits?
We could possibly win 5 straight Super Bowls :-) [Reply]
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. [Reply]
The league, by hyper focusing on offense and QBs since the 90s, already established a lack of parity. The one thing that helped to keep elite QBs in check was the salary cap. A franchise couldn't emulate the superteams of the 1970s.
Removing the QB salary from the equation further the divide. Sure, it is great for a team when they currently have a top five guy, but we all know how up and down the QB coaster can be. If other fans are tired of Brady and Mahomes style dynasties than this proposal virtually guarantees them. Remember, when Brady didn't win another Super Bowl after becoming a highly paid player. His title wins returned after taking a pay cut.
Imagine the Chiefs with Mahomes' salary not impacting the cap. He already overcome drops and the most penalty yardage to win a Super Bowl with the assistance of an elite defense. I have no desire to see Fat Andy reload with bombs and Spags rearming his corps.
No foresight or future thinking in the NFL. The owners want a bailout because they overpaid average QBs. [Reply]
I don't understand how you put a salary cap at a single position. It makes sense with an entire team because you spend more at some positions and less at others. How do you do a cap at just QB? If they're just going to set a limit on how much QBs can be paid, why would the QBs go along with it? Am I the only one here? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
I don't understand how you put a salary cap at a single position. It makes sense with an entire team because you spend more at some positions and less at others. How do you do a cap at just QB? If they're just going to set a limit on how much QBs can be paid, why would the QBs go along with it? Am I the only one here?
It would basically be like the NBA salary cap, like an exception. His accounted for number isn't what he actually makes.
So your super stupidly paid QB only accounts for something like 7% of your cap. [Reply]
1. Each NFL Team is allotted three QBs that don't count towards the 53 Man Roster
2. Create a % of the cap that doesn't count toward your salary cap. It only applies to the one QB on your roster. So Burrow makes $55M. Say the QB Cap Discount is 10M, so only 45M of his salary counts towards the cap. Say you're the steelers, well congrats, none of Russ's contract for 2024 counts against your cap. [Reply]
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 [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
I have long proposed the following.
1. Each NFL Team is allotted three QBs that don't count towards the 53 Man Roster
2. Create a % of the cap that doesn't count toward your salary cap. It only applies to the one QB on your roster. So Burrow makes $55M. Say the QB Cap Discount is 10M, so only 45M of his salary counts towards the cap. Say you're the steelers, well congrats, none of Russ's contract for 2024 counts against your cap.
Yea they ain't gonna do it like that if they do it.
It literally be if you make between this and this you are this %
So guys like Mahomes and Burrow would in the top tier so they'll count something like 15% and it will continue with adjusted salary tiers to percentages. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
It would basically be like the NBA salary cap, like an exception. His accounted for number isn't what he actually makes.
So your super stupidly paid QB only accounts for something like 7% of your cap.
I can see why some teams would want that. It's just a fix for owners/GMs that don't want to have to deal with the QB demanding lots of money. The NFL has been a QB-driven league for quite some time. Does this idea change that? I don't think so. Teams with bad QBs won't be helped. The teams that will be helped the most are the teams that sign a mediocre or bad QB to a big deal and then wish they hadn't. Broncos? It sounds like a system to rescue GMs from their mistakes at QB. [Reply]
