Cheese Curds - News Around The League 2022

[YoHoChecko]

I would like people to keep this same energy with Jaire Alexander. How dare a player be paid what they deserve.

It's objectively different and if you'd read anything posted here you'd see that.

I said, specifically, that other players at other positions do not move the needle as much. Jaire Alexander's record-setting contract for a premiere position in the NFL is less than half of the top QB contracts. Further, QB play has a much more direct correlation to team success than any other individual player/position (that's why they get paid so much). Jaire Alexander can't take a 20% paycut and tangibly change the fate of the team over the next 4 years. Rodgers' 20% paycut could be an additional high-level starter.

But also, no one is saying "how dare" about Rodgers. We're specifically not saying he should or shouldn't do this or that. We're just pointing out the objective reality that when elite QBs play on below market contracts, Super Bowls become more likely. It's not even controversial. Everyone and their mother talks about the window teams have with great QBs on rookie contracts, but then they just forget it it's still an option otherwise.

We've seen in the salary cap era that no team whose QB accounts for more than 14% of the cap has ever won a Super Bowl. We've seen that with young phenoms like Mahomes and Wilson that playing on rookie contracts below market has led to Super Bowls. We've seen that with established young vets in the first or second years of middle-market second contracts, like Big Ben, Joe Flacco, and Aaron Rodgers, Super Bowl wins. And for the ONLY elite QB who has ever taken big discounts consistently, we've seen 7 Super Bowl rings in an era in which no other QB has gotten more than 3 (Aikman, early salary cap era; full salary cap era, no one more than 2).

We can even point out that Brady has received exactly one top of the market contract, from 2010 through 2013, where he went 0-1 in Super Bowls. The rest of his career, he went 7-2 in Super Bowls.

Are the sample sizes small? Unavoidably? Is the evidence more suggestive than conclusive? Absolutely.

But ALL of the evidence points in the same direction. Elite QB play on below-market contracts ,maximizes Super Bowl chances, and QBs, specifically, have the option to prioritize one or the other. I, at least, am not making a value judgement on his decision. I'm just wishing we would stop having these big arguments around the fringes of what it takes to win championships in the NFL when the answer seems so obvious: it takes elite QB play on below-market contracts on teams that are run/managed well enough to wisely use the extra space. Over any period of time, those factors will maximize your odds. Anything else we attempt is just window dressing. If Rodgers wants status and dollars, he's welcome to them. If he wants Super Bowl rings, he has a very clear avenue to pursue that, and he has not.

Everyone and their mother said that when Rodgers pulled his power play, he was looking for what Tom Brady got--more power, more say, more involvement. But he's not willing to give what Tom Brady gives--money.

[YoHoChecko]

Clowney going back tot he Browns, it sounds.

[Labrev]

It was being able to say for two weeks that he was highest paid qb. They all want to be able to say that. Adams got to say it for like 3 days, now Jaire can say it.

I also feel like it's an ego thing when you see a guy like, say, Matt Ryan, get a new deal that re-sets the QB market. I feel like it would bother a lot of better QBs to see a clearly inferior player like that making more money, especially with how incredibly competitive these athletes are by nature.

Even for me, I feel like it would be very bothersome to see lesser players making more money than myself, and I (from my armchair) would otherwise feel inclined to take less money to field a better team and win more championships.

[lupedafiasco]

I would like people to keep this same energy with Jaire Alexander. How dare a player be paid what they deserve.

It's objectively different and if you'd read anything posted here you'd see that.

I said, specifically, that other players at other positions do not move the needle as much. Jaire Alexander's record-setting contract for a premiere position in the NFL is less than half of the top QB contracts. Further, QB play has a much more direct correlation to team success than any other individual player/position (that's why they get paid so much). Jaire Alexander can't take a 20% paycut and tangibly change the fate of the team over the next 4 years. Rodgers' 20% paycut could be an additional high-level starter.

But also, no one is saying "how dare" about Rodgers. We're specifically not saying he should or shouldn't do this or that. We're just pointing out the objective reality that when elite QBs play on below market contracts, Super Bowls become more likely. It's not even controversial. Everyone and their mother talks about the window teams have with great QBs on rookie contracts, but then they just forget it it's still an option otherwise.

We've seen in the salary cap era that no team whose QB accounts for more than 14% of the cap has ever won a Super Bowl. We've seen that with young phenoms like Mahomes and Wilson that playing on rookie contracts below market has led to Super Bowls. We've seen that with established young vets in the first or second years of middle-market second contracts, like Big Ben, Joe Flacco, and Aaron Rodgers, Super Bowl wins. And for the ONLY elite QB who has ever taken big discounts consistently, we've seen 7 Super Bowl rings in an era in which no other QB has gotten more than 3 (Aikman, early salary cap era; full salary cap era, no one more than 2).

We can even point out that Brady has received exactly one top of the market contract, from 2010 through 2013, where he went 0-1 in Super Bowls. The rest of his career, he went 7-2 in Super Bowls.

Are the sample sizes small? Unavoidably? Is the evidence more suggestive than conclusive? Absolutely.

But ALL of the evidence points in the same direction. Elite QB play on below-market contracts ,maximizes Super Bowl chances, and QBs, specifically, have the option to prioritize one or the other. I, at least, am not making a value judgement on his decision. I'm just wishing we would stop having these big arguments around the fringes of what it takes to win championships in the NFL when the answer seems so obvious: it takes elite QB play on below-market contracts on teams that are run/managed well enough to wisely use the extra space. Over any period of time, those factors will maximize your odds. Anything else we attempt is just window dressing. If Rodgers wants status and dollars, he's welcome to them. If he wants Super Bowl rings, he has a very clear avenue to pursue that, and he has not.

Everyone and their mother said that when Rodgers pulled his power play, he was looking for what Tom Brady got--more power, more say, more involvement. But he's not willing to give what Tom Brady gives--money.

Tldr

[YoHoChecko]

It's objectively different and if you'd read anything posted here you'd see that.

Tldr

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

[Realist]

It's objectively different and if you'd read anything posted here you'd see that.

Tldr

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

So noted Yoho. https://images.app.goo.gl/aXixdbfJfbpCjVr79

[lupedafiasco]

It's objectively different and if you'd read anything posted here you'd see that.

Tldr

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

[salmar80]

Tldr

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

tldr

[YoHoChecko]

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

My favorite thing about this post is that it was previously two lines and then edited to try to actually make a point about how IF Rodgers had ever chosen to take less money, the team would probably screw it up anyway. Which is weird since his only below-elite contract he signed (second contract, with just one year as a starter before signing) got him a super bowl…

But look, no judgement. You’re totally bought into the system; most players and fans are. You’re so bought in that even presenting evidence that there might be benefits *to the player* that doesn’t absolutely max out his market value, and that those benefits might, to some people, be worth more than additional marginal dollars—the whole concept doesn’t even compute. You’re threatened by it and get defensive immediately. You start saying things like “oh how dare they” or dismiss the evidence without reading it. It’s your worldview. That’s fine. It’s most people’s.

I’m just presenting the evidence. I’m sorry that takes a few paragraphs sometimes.

[Labrev]

If deserving is measured by success in the W/L column, and Rodgers "deserves" the money, then he has to win the big games.

And since paying him is Mutually Exclusive with fielding more talent, that forfeits the ability to reasonably complain about the talent around him (but we need not assume that Rodgers apologists are reasonable).

Defense was great? "But he didn't have enough receivers!" Offense and receivers were great? "But the Defense was bad!"

The point of paying Rodgers (or *any* QB) all that money is... an elite QB is so valuable as to minimize the need for all-around talent, and can overcome weak areas on the roster. You pay him knowing that SOMETHING on the roster is probably going to be sub-par despite your best efforts, but gamble on his QB play being able to overcome it.

That's the Catch-22 of elite QBs.

[Scott4Pack]

If deserving is measured by success in the W/L column, and Rodgers "deserves" the money, then he has to win the big games.

And since paying him is Mutually Exclusive with fielding more talent, that forfeits the ability to reasonably complain about the talent around him (but we need not assume that Rodgers apologists are reasonable).

Defense was great? "But he didn't have enough receivers!" Offense and receivers were great? "But the Defense was bad!"

The point of paying Rodgers (or *any* QB) all that money is... an elite QB is so valuable as to minimize the need for all-around talent, and can overcome weak areas on the roster. You pay him knowing that SOMETHING on the roster is probably going to be sub-par despite your best efforts, but gamble on his QB play being able to overcome it.

That's the Catch-22 of elite QBs.

I think that's a real good point and I concur! Even so, the question of "how much" winning is adequate to pay an elite QB is in question. Like, is it worth paying a Rodgers/Favre is you are almost guaranteed a playoff slot in January? We have a string of 13 win seasons, which is unheralded. That's amazingly positive. But in three seasons, we have one playoff win, which is dreadful. And that is very negative and disappointing.

We could discuss if having the elite QB should translate into Super Bowl and/or NFCCG victories. Or better, to discuss it more. But to me, that will always revert back to Bart Starr. (How much was he paid as a player?) The guy came through in Super Bowls and championship games like nobody else ever. But he was not an elite player by stats. He carried his leadership ability to levels that his arm strength could never match. If only we can find that guy again!

[Drj820]

Rodgers is awesome!
His talent is awesome!
The team would probably suck without him for many of the years he’s been in GB!!

That said, he’s a me first guy. His demeanor isn’t helping the team perform well in big spots. He gets tight, the team gets tight. He gets disengaged on the sideline when his team needs him over there rallying the troops like Brady always does.

Brady and Big Ben would be on radio calling out the STs every week saying they are going to cost us and forcing the org to make a change or forcing some accountability. Rodgers sees his paycheck and smiles even without the problem being fixed.

Rodgers is awesome. But he’s barely a champion.

[Realist]

Rodgers is awesome!
His talent is awesome!
The team would probably suck without him for many of the years he’s been in GB!!

That said, he’s a me first guy. His demeanor isn’t helping the team perform well in big spots. He gets tight, the team gets tight. He gets disengaged on the sideline when his team needs him over there rallying the troops like Brady always does.

Brady and Big Ben would be on radio calling out the STs every week saying they are going to cost us and forcing the org to make a change or forcing some accountability. Rodgers sees his paycheck and smiles even without the problem being fixed.

Rodgers is awesome. But he’s barely a champion.

Good post. Nothing in it can be refuted. What sucks for me is that I no longer like or respect Aaron. That said I will be rooting like hell to get to another SB. Weird spot to be in as a fan.

[YoHoChecko]

I think that's a real good point and I concur! Even so, the question of "how much" winning is adequate to pay an elite QB is in question. Like, is it worth paying a Rodgers/Favre is you are almost guaranteed a playoff slot in January? We have a string of 13 win seasons, which is unheralded. That's amazingly positive. But in three seasons, we have one playoff win, which is dreadful. And that is very negative and disappointing.

We could discuss if having the elite QB should translate into Super Bowl and/or NFCCG victories. Or better, to discuss it more.

One note: we have 2 playoff victories. One apiece in 2019 and 2020.

But yes, I mean, that is what we're discussing, right? This all started with people debating whether or not a team is more likely to win a Super Bowl with an elite offense or an elite defense, and, given one of those, how good the other units have to be, including STs. There were many theories and a lot of information posted. And I blew it up basically by saying "it doesn't really matter which side of the ball you focus on, as long as your elite QB's paycheck allows you the resources to load up."

I agree that consistently being very good is awesome. I would 100% take a team that is in the playoffs 9 out of 10 years with 1 Super Bowl over a team that is in the playoffs 5 out of 10 years with 2 Super Bowls. I would. That's a matter of preference and there's no right or wrong answer, but that's how I feel as a fan. I enjoy rooting for good teams. Paying an elite QB a boatload of money all but guarantees the consistently good outcomes, and I appreciate them very much.

But if we're talking about taking the next step and winning Super Bowls, the answer isn't to ditch your elite QB and try to win without one. The answer isn't to pay your elite QB elite money. It's to have an elite QB who for one reason or another is not playing for elite QB money. That's the maximizing scenario.

My confusion here is why that's even controversial, given that EVERYONE says it all the time, but only in terms of rookie contracts (which is weird because you might see, at any given time 2-3 elite QBs in the league on rookie contracts--they're phenoms and freaks; it's not a repeatable, reliable, team-building plan). And it also shouldn't be controversial because the winningest QB of all time is the only elite QB who has continuously played at a market discount in the salary cap era.

The information is blatantly right in front of everyone to see; they talk around it all the time. But when I just say: "hey, if you want to win Super Bowls, the best way is to have an elite QB playing for less than elite pay" people get all twisted around with capitalism and market maximization and money = respect and the whole thing feels unconscionable.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a pro-capitalist with an econ degree. But the Goldwater-Friedman-Reagan conscious of a conservative, Gordon Gekko-style "greed is good" mentality is an extreme version that has taken over mainstream thought. Maximizing self interest does not always mean maximizing financial compensation, but the quants took over the profession and culture surrounding money and they don't know how to measure things like "legacy" or "contentedness" in their utility maximization formulas, so they pretend they aren't actually valuable. They are valuable. They can be valuable. Tom Brady figured that out and he has the legacy every QB dreams of.

[lupedafiasco]

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

tldr

3 paragraphs?

[go pak go]

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

tldr

3 paragraphs?

tldr

I saw the "3" and got bored after that.

[lupedafiasco]

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

My favorite thing about this post is that it was previously two lines and then edited to try to actually make a point about how IF Rodgers had ever chosen to take less money, the team would probably screw it up anyway. Which is weird since his only below-elite contract he signed (second contract, with just one year as a starter before signing) got him a super bowl…

But look, no judgement. You’re totally bought into the system; most players and fans are. You’re so bought in that even presenting evidence that there might be benefits *to the player* that doesn’t absolutely max out his market value, and that those benefits might, to some people, be worth more than additional marginal dollars—the whole concept doesn’t even compute. You’re threatened by it and get defensive immediately. You start saying things like “oh how dare they” or dismiss the evidence without reading it. It’s your worldview. That’s fine. It’s most people’s.

I’m just presenting the evidence. I’m sorry that takes a few paragraphs sometimes.

In a perfect world yes all these players would take less money for the benefit of the team. I’m sure they would all marry a wife who’s net worth is $400M as well.

I haven’t bought any system. I’ve accepted it for what it is. Why would players fight to change a system and not benefit from it? One team wins a super bowl a year. Meanwhile these players have the opportunity to set up generational wealth for their families.

[YoHoChecko]

In a perfect world yes all these players would take less money for the benefit of the team. I’m sure they would all marry a wife who’s net worth is $400M as well.

I haven’t bought any system. I’ve accepted it for what it is. Why would players fight to change a system and not benefit from it? One team wins a super bowl a year. Meanwhile these players have the opportunity to set up generational wealth for their families.

We're not talking about "all these players."

We're talking about 6-8 guys at a time in the league. We're talking about first-ballot hall of fame players. We're talking about guys who HAVE set up generational wealth for themselves and their families, often on earlier contracts.

Why would they? To emulate the success of Tom Brady and cement their legacies. And yes, you have bought the system because you believe that a person with $200 million in net worth would be "fighting a system" to simply say "eh, just pay me $25M/year for the next three and lets' sign a couple extra free agents" and you can't possibly fathom anyone making that choice freely.

It's a proven means to vastly increase your odds of winning multiple Super Bowls. Unless you really think Tom Brady is 3 times better than the next best QB in the past 20 years, and maybe that's what you think. But again, the rookie contract success and the mid-level contract success of other Hall of Fame players further the point.

[Drj820]

Tldr

Yes, as you can see, I already noted your inability or unwillingness to read. Strong case. Very persuasive. Effective dodge. Let the forum note that Lupe has no leg to stand on.

I guess man. Get your point across and get out. If you write too much on a single topic Im tuning out.

In terms of proportionality if youre a QB, unless youre on a rookie deal youre getting paid the most on your team. Bakhtiari at the time highest paid at his position. Alexander highest at his position. If a player is top 5 at his position when he is due for his next deal he will set the record. Thats the way the NFL is.

When Brady took cuts his team rewarded him with FAs and good defenses. Cant say Ive seen the same for Rodgers. Might as well get paid if youre given ass to play with.

I fully agree the org has not given Rodgers many reasons to have any faith they would use the money he saved them to actually execute bringing in top FAs. This could be because top FAs wouldnt want to come here anyways, or because they may not want to play with Rodgers directly. But the most likely reason is that, even if Rodgers saved them some money, and the org had the extra money to spend, the org is VERY resistant to overpay for players. They offer what THEY think is fair market value. The problem is that the weather sucks in GB and its not very fun for a young party man like LA or NYC. So in order to get these guys, they have to pay a "tax" to compensate for the lack of environment. (An environment I would die to play ball for btw). The org has just shown minimal willingness to pay that tax. The one time recently they were willing to pay that tax it earned us Z, P, and Amos.

Even if it meant winning a title. For instance, the org may not do it out of principle, but if they actually would do it out of principle, hey maybe we would have more than 2 titles in 40 years.

However, there are things Rodgers could have done to win more that does not include money. Brady and Big Ben would NOT put up with the BS the Packers have put out on the field year after year. Whether that is on Defense in the 2010s, or the STs of the last decade. Brady would coach STs himself, or go on radio and rip the STs and publically blame them for failures. He would straight up leave if the org was not supporting him in his ultimate goal to win a title. If the org and what they were putting together was preventing him from doing that, he would go somewhere that would enable him to do that. (hence, leaving NE once they declined and choosing TB).

Weve seen the org feel some pressure that they need to win over the last couple years brought on by seeing Rodgers isnt going to be around forever. Rodgers should have been putting that kind of pressure on the org a decade ago.

Point being, Brady would give up money to reach the goal of championship at all cost.

Rodgers on the other hand is willing keep his mouth shut, blame others, not rally his troops, not say anything about awful STs, awful defenses, as long as he drains the org of every penny he can while winning MVPs and having a few washed buddies around who dont contribute at all come playoff time. (crosby, cobb)

[YoHoChecko]

See, and this is where we again diverge [mention]Drj820[/mention].

This whole idea that Rodgers shouldn't take less money because if he did trake less money the team wouldn't use it well enough, evidenced by how the team used their money when Rodgers DIDN'T take less and they DIDN'T have that leeway is just nonsense.

First, most of that took place under a different manager than they currently have.

Second, you can't criticize how the team used money it didn't have. The whole point is that Rodgers' consistently large contracts have prevented the team from spending more on other players. You can't circular logic that into saying the fact that the team didn't spend that money they don't have is why Rodgers can't let them have it.

Third, the Packers have not been rolling over large amounts of cap space under Gutenkunst. There is no extra capacity to speak of and point the finger at.

Fourth and finally, Rodgers' latest contract extension came AFTER he exerted the leverage. In the reality where the team is bringing in guys specifically for Aaron, he still maximized his financial value. There are reasons for that, but you certainly can't say that it's the team's choice or pattern at that point.


Again, I don't care which choice he makes. I am one of the very few fans here doesn't consider a "lack of rings" some sort of major institutional failure. Favre only has one ring. Brees only has one ring. Marino never got a ring. Tarkenton never got a ring. Eli Manning has two rings. Elite QB play doesn't guarantee anyone anything, and lack of it doesn't determine a necessary failure. I am also someone who loves having a winning team year-in, year-out, so if Rodgers wants to take the money and make a playoff run every year and hope he eventually breaks through again, so be it. That's a fine choice.

I'm not moralizing the decision. BUT, to say anything other than "this is a decision of values that Rodgers has made" and place ANY of the onus on people outside of Rodgers is just silly and defensive-minded protecting of a man and a mentality about money that aren't based on empirics. They're based on our own prior assumptions and worldviews.