Page 9 of 10
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 15 Feb 2022 20:57
by Pckfn23
go pak go wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 19:03
That is actually amazing that the Rams bucked the trend with that much cap on essentially one player (even though it was spread amongst two). But I don't really understand the correlation with $45 million on one position and then "it's a team game"
But that is the first time someone over 14% won the SB. Congrats Rams and Stafford. That's impressive.
24% of the cap went to the starting QB position.
Trend bucked, but not in the way you think. The trend is no 1 player has taken up more than 13.1% of the cap since the cap began with Steven Young in 1994.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/cap/2021/
No player on the Rams active roster or IR took up more than Stafford who was at 10.69%. HOWEVER, Jared Goff, who was on the Lions team the entire season, did count 13.2% of their cap. Now that is the crazy part.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 04:47
by go pak go
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 20:57
go pak go wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 19:03
That is actually amazing that the Rams bucked the trend with that much cap on essentially one player (even though it was spread amongst two). But I don't really understand the correlation with $45 million on one position and then "it's a team game"
But that is the first time someone over 14% won the SB. Congrats Rams and Stafford. That's impressive.
24% of the cap went to the starting QB position.
Trend bucked, but not in the way you think. The trend is no 1 player has taken up more than 13.1% of the cap since the cap began with Steven Young in 1994.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/cap/2021/
No player on the Rams active roster or IR took up more than Stafford who was at 10.69%. HOWEVER, Jared Goff, who was on the Lions team the entire season, did count 13.2% of their cap. Now that is the crazy part.
Yeah I know it was amongst two different players. I don't get interested in meaningless things like "one player"
The Rams QB1 spot had 24%. The end result is still the same even if it is spread out amongst two players. A Dollar is a dollar. And a lot of dollars went to one spot (QB1)
But I do think we will start seeing more and more dead cap hits like this because the pressure of winning now, expected large increases in future cap, increased size in contracts and I believe nearly unlimited signing bonus proration just makes it too tempting to defer cap hit later.
I thought there used to be a rule actually on how much a contract could be signing bonus before. That just almost seems like it's gone now. I'm sure there is still some parameters on that though.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 06:53
by Pckfn23
go pak go wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 04:47
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 20:57
go pak go wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 19:03
That is actually amazing that the Rams bucked the trend with that much cap on essentially one player (even though it was spread amongst two). But I don't really understand the correlation with $45 million on one position and then "it's a team game"
But that is the first time someone over 14% won the SB. Congrats Rams and Stafford. That's impressive.
24% of the cap went to the starting QB position.
Trend bucked, but not in the way you think. The trend is no 1 player has taken up more than 13.1% of the cap since the cap began with Steven Young in 1994.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/cap/2021/
No player on the Rams active roster or IR took up more than Stafford who was at 10.69%. HOWEVER, Jared Goff, who was on the Lions team the entire season, did count 13.2% of their cap. Now that is the crazy part.
Yeah I know it was amongst two different players. I don't get interested in meaningless things like "one player"
The Rams QB1 spot had 24%. The end result is still the same even if it is spread out amongst two players. A Dollar is a dollar. And a lot of dollars went to one spot (QB1)
But I do think we will start seeing more and more dead cap hits like this because the pressure of winning now, expected large increases in future cap, increased size in contracts and I believe nearly unlimited signing bonus proration just makes it too tempting to defer cap hit later.
I thought there used to be a rule actually on how much a contract could be signing bonus before. That just almost seems like it's gone now. I'm sure there is still some parameters on that though.
That's all good, but you then have to compare apples to apples and go recalculate all the other years.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 07:24
by go pak go
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 06:53
go pak go wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 04:47
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 20:57
Trend bucked, but not in the way you think. The trend is no 1 player has taken up more than 13.1% of the cap since the cap began with Steven Young in 1994.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/los-angeles-rams/cap/2021/
No player on the Rams active roster or IR took up more than Stafford who was at 10.69%. HOWEVER, Jared Goff, who was on the Lions team the entire season, did count 13.2% of their cap. Now that is the crazy part.
Yeah I know it was amongst two different players. I don't get interested in meaningless things like "one player"
The Rams QB1 spot had 24%. The end result is still the same even if it is spread out amongst two players. A Dollar is a dollar. And a lot of dollars went to one spot (QB1)
But I do think we will start seeing more and more dead cap hits like this because the pressure of winning now, expected large increases in future cap, increased size in contracts and I believe nearly unlimited signing bonus proration just makes it too tempting to defer cap hit later.
I thought there used to be a rule actually on how much a contract could be signing bonus before. That just almost seems like it's gone now. I'm sure there is still some parameters on that though.
That's all good, but you then have to compare apples to apples and go recalculate all the other years.
The whole point of the analysis is determine how much cap space is left for the rest of the team. Just because Matt Stafford has a $20 million cap hit is meaningless when $24 million at that same position (QB1) is in dead money. There is still $24 million less to go around because it is allocated to one spot - the QB1 spot.
The point of the analysis isn't "how rich is the QB" but is instead how much cap resources is put into the QB1 position and therefore how much left is available for the rest of the 52 players.
But yes. To make the analysis fair, you would have to include the dead cap of the rest of the QB1 positions over the years. Though I doubt it still ever comes close to that 14% previously held by Steve Young because letting QBs go for another higher priced QB has been extremely rare in the NFL. Teams just don't trade QB1's on 2nd contract or 3rd contracts very often. And the dead cap thing my guess is more of a recent thing after the CBA in 2011 as before that the cap was a "use it or lose it" model and teams were more inclined to give contracts as a "pay as they play" setup.
I'd be very surprised if my assumption of looking at the Rams as QB1 rather than individual player would make any material difference.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 07:56
by Pckfn23
go pak go wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 07:24
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 06:53
go pak go wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 04:47
Yeah I know it was amongst two different players. I don't get interested in meaningless things like "one player"
The Rams QB1 spot had 24%. The end result is still the same even if it is spread out amongst two players. A Dollar is a dollar. And a lot of dollars went to one spot (QB1)
But I do think we will start seeing more and more dead cap hits like this because the pressure of winning now, expected large increases in future cap, increased size in contracts and I believe nearly unlimited signing bonus proration just makes it too tempting to defer cap hit later.
I thought there used to be a rule actually on how much a contract could be signing bonus before. That just almost seems like it's gone now. I'm sure there is still some parameters on that though.
That's all good, but you then have to compare apples to apples and go recalculate all the other years.
The whole point of the analysis is determine how much cap space is left for the rest of the team. Just because Matt Stafford has a $20 million cap hit is meaningless when $24 million at that same position (QB1) is in dead money. There is still $24 million less to go around because it is allocated to one spot - the QB1 spot.
The point of the analysis isn't "how rich is the QB" but is instead how much cap resources is put into the QB1 position and therefore how much left is available for the rest of the 52 players.
But yes. To make the analysis fair, you would have to include the dead cap of the rest of the QB1 positions over the years. Though I doubt it still ever comes close to that 14% previously held by Steve Young because letting QBs go for another higher priced QB has been extremely rare in the NFL. Teams just don't trade QB1's on 2nd contract or 3rd contracts very often. And the dead cap thing my guess is more of a recent thing after the CBA in 2011 as before that the cap was a "use it or lose it" model and teams were more inclined to give contracts as a "pay as they play" setup.
I'd be very surprised if my assumption of looking at the Rams as QB1 rather than individual player would make any material difference.
The point was very much singular player, but there is a related point with position group. I agree with you to an extent. However, with the modified look at it you changed the parameters of the trend from single player to position group. It very well may be a valid comparison, but we then have to make the comparison. If we want to go back and look at that, it probably has some merit and I also doubt very much if any other team comes close to spending cap dollar on 1 position like the Rams did on QB. The real unfortunate part about it, is you will not get data on that past about mid-2000s.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 09:21
by Half Empty
BF004 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 18:39
So fed up with everyone blaming Aaron, no one will admit that our special teams where bad.
Really? There may be someone who excused the ST, but I think that'd take some digging. Many of us who DO blame AR contend that someone with his contract and accolades on a day when he doesn't have to overcome the D as before, ought to be able to lead the offense to more than 13 points. Yes, if the ST don't suck, the Pack probably wins, and all is forgiven, but they didn't win.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 10:15
by NCF
Half Empty wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 09:21
BF004 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 18:39
So fed up with everyone blaming Aaron, no one will admit that our special teams where bad.
Really? There may be someone who excused the ST, but I think that'd take some digging. Many of us who DO blame AR contend that someone with his contract and accolades on a day when he doesn't have to overcome the D as before, ought to be able to lead the offense to more than 13 points. Yes, if the ST don't suck, the Pack probably wins, and all is forgiven, but they didn't win.
I think you need to re-read the post you quoted. It was meant for an audience of one.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 10:24
by go pak go
Half Empty wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 09:21
BF004 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 18:39
So fed up with everyone blaming Aaron, no one will admit that our special teams where bad.
Really? There may be someone who excused the ST, but I think that'd take some digging. Many of us who DO blame AR contend that someone with his contract and accolades on a day when he doesn't have to overcome the D as before, ought to be able to lead the offense to more than 13 points. Yes, if the ST don't suck, the Pack probably wins, and all is forgiven, but they didn't win.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 16 Feb 2022 21:44
by Raptorman
Half Empty wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022 09:21
BF004 wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022 18:39
So fed up with everyone blaming Aaron, no one will admit that our special teams where bad.
Really? There may be someone who excused the ST, but I think that'd take some digging. Many of us who DO blame AR contend that someone with his contract and accolades on a day when he doesn't have to overcome the D as before, ought to be able to lead the offense to more than 13 points. Yes, if the ST don't suck, the Pack probably wins, and all is forgiven, but they didn't win.
Well, I have to ask. If a QB like Brady gets the credit for winning, and a QB like Cousins gets the credit for not winning, why should Rodgers not get the credit the same as Cousins? After all, if the QB is the "most important" position, according to many, then should he not shoulder most of the blame?
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 06:54
by BF004
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 07:49
by Labrev
LOL!!!
I assign Rodgers plenty of blame regularly for games lost because, yes, QB is indeed the most important position... but Kurt "1-3 Playoff Record" Cousins is not even worth one of AR's toenail clippings on his worst day.
Do not even BEGIN to THINK to compare them!!
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 08:39
by Acrobat
I think I'm going to start an argument that if you were to put Kirk Cousins on every single Tom Brady Super Bowl team, that Kirk Cousins would have zero rings, and then I'm going to post that argument over and over again in multiple threads.
Sound good?
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 08:41
by Drj820
Im telling yal. Raptor is finally starting to admit it...but his point this entire time has been that Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, and Cousins are all the same...the only difference for them is the teams they have played on.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 09:09
by Acrobat
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 08:41
Im telling yal. Raptor is finally starting to admit it...but his point this entire time has been that Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, and Cousins are all the same...the only difference for them is the teams they have played on.
Let's add Blake Bortles to that list too!
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 09:52
by Raptorman
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 08:41
Im telling yal. Raptor is finally starting to admit it...but his point this entire time has been that Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, and Cousins are all the same...the only difference for them is the teams they have played on.
And your point is that Brady would have 7 rings if he had been on Detroit? No? Why not?
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 10:08
by Drj820
Raptorman wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 09:52
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 08:41
Im telling yal. Raptor is finally starting to admit it...but his point this entire time has been that Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, and Cousins are all the same...the only difference for them is the teams they have played on.
And your point is that Brady would have 7 rings if he had been on Detroit? No? Why not?
Brady would have either elevated Detroit to super bowl contender because he would demand the org get their s*** together....
Or he would simply leave after his 4th season in order to go to a place he could succeed.
Kirk had that chance, chose to go to MN, did nothing to elevate them.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 10:09
by go pak go
Let's the keep strawmans going.
Cousins would have 6 SB rings if on New England and Rodgers would have 13 rings if on New England.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 10:11
by Acrobat
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 10:08
Raptorman wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 09:52
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 08:41
Im telling yal. Raptor is finally starting to admit it...but his point this entire time has been that Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, and Cousins are all the same...the only difference for them is the teams they have played on.
And your point is that Brady would have 7 rings if he had been on Detroit? No? Why not?
Brady would have either elevated Detroit to super bowl contender because he would demand the org get their s*** together....
Or he would simply leave after his 4th season in order to go to a place he could succeed.
Kirk had that chance, chose to go to MN, did nothing to elevate them.
Yep and Calvin Johnson certainly never would have retired! Free Agents would have chosen to come to Detroit. Their whole trajectory would have changed. I mean, can we guarantee 7 rings? Of course not, but if Raptor is trying to argue that if Detroit had Brady for 20 years, that their fortune wouldn't have been any different, then this is by far the dumbest argument I've ever been a part of.
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 10:31
by Yoop
Acrobat wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 10:11
Drj820 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 10:08
Raptorman wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022 09:52
And your point is that Brady would have 7 rings if he had been on Detroit? No? Why not?
Brady would have either elevated Detroit to super bowl contender because he would demand the org get their s*** together....
Or he would simply leave after his 4th season in order to go to a place he could succeed.
Kirk had that chance, chose to go to MN, did nothing to elevate them.
Yep and Calvin Johnson certainly never would have retired! Free Agents would have chosen to come to Detroit. Their whole trajectory would have changed. I mean, can we guarantee 7 rings? Of course not, but if Raptor is trying to argue that if Detroit had Brady for 20 years, that their fortune wouldn't have been any different, then this is by far the dumbest argument I've ever been a part of.
the only thing relevant concerning Brady and Detroit is that he would have left town quicker then Barry Sanders, Cal Johnson, Stafford and the other dozen players that stayed there to long, no way Brady could have influenced the Ford foundation and people in charge of running that team to wake up, they watched us go through 20 years of upper level mis management and didn't learn a thing as we fixed that in 1990.
if your a cronic loser, rebuilding needs to start at the top, we had to learn that the hard way, and until teams like Detroit understand and accept this, a guy like Brady wont change a thing
Re: SB Thread
Posted: 17 Feb 2022 10:42
by BF004
Pretty sure Brady would have had 8 rings in Detroit, with all that talent there, he would have elevated the culture.
