*[EDIT]* Multiple reports Browns actively shopping Mayfield pg. 29/30 - Ravens / Browns in QB contract pickle

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

 

I mean you act like they would have to rebuild the whole team.  Why would they?  Can an elite passer not utilize Mark Andrews?  Does an elite passer not benefit from an o line and good running game?  What would they really need to do here?  Add a WR maybe?

 

I think you would need a very different looking offensive line if you want guys to pass protect a guy in the pocket. Ronnie Stanley (so long as he has no ill effects from his injury) is fine but it would need work around that. They have built that line to play Greg Roman football. 

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

If I'm the Ravens there's no way I could look at the 2 QBs and then think I'm going to pay him Josh Allen type money. I'd rather trade him for a bunch of picks and start over at QB.

 

The problem with this approach is that the NFL is not much fun when you don't have a Quarterback. If every time you get a guy who is top 10 but not top 3 or 4 you throw your toys out of the pram and "start over" there is no guarantee you land on a guy as good as Lamar again. It is the same argument we had when there were people legitimately arguing that the Cowboys should let Dak walk cos you could get "similar play out of Andy Dalton at a third of the price." Then Dak got injured and we saw what was always true. Similarly without Jackson down the stretch the Ravens went from #1 seed to an 0-4 finish and missed the playoffs. And Tyler Huntley isn't terrible. It is just that the type of play you get out of a Lamar or a Dak is not easily replaced. 

 

I get it, more often than not when the lights shine brightest in the playoffs those teams with good not great Quarterbacks get shown up. But the Ravens are proof that you can find lightening in a bottle, they did it with Flacco who was in that same good not great category. I also get it that it sucks when you have one of those top 10 guys and the market forces you to pay them very similar money to the top 4 or 5 guys. That sucks. But the answer of "stop the world I want to get off" takes you to one place and one place only - the bottom of the NFL. If you don't have a Quarterback, you lose. 

 

There are not enough Josh Allens and Patrick Mahomes for everyone to have one. When you have a Dak Prescott or a Lamar Jackson if you decide not to overpay them because you want to spin the wheel and hope you land a guy that good you are playing roulette with your franchise. And while the sport is ultimately about winning Superbowls, winning a lot of regular season games is still a whole lot better than losing a lot of regular season games. We are fans. For these guys it is their job, their life. Every Monday morning after a defeat they have to go into work and live that. They can't escape with other things and it drags people down. Trading a guy who avoids that because he might want $3 or $4m more a year than he is really worth? Yea, I will never buy that as a good strategy.

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, JayBaller10 said:

You seem hyper focused on this 20% number. I told you, it’s just something I threw out, that’s not where the importance lies - it lies in making sure the contracts of one position don’t continue to balloon to the detriment of the league and it’s other players. Every QB’s agent will want more than what the previous one signed for and will argue for it. That’s how things get out of hand because the team has no choice but to pay - if it doesn’t, another franchise will. Let max contracts come to the NFL in the coming years, I’ll be sure to tag you. 

 

It's your number.

 

But since you mentioned every agent, if you put a "max contract"% at, say, 20%--every top QB will be asking for this number.  That would force QB contracts to be far more than they are "ballooning" to now.  

 

Anyway, agents don't determine contract offers, teams do.  They make their best offer and the player accepts it or holds out.  That's the way it always has worked.  Setting a max cap cannot change this.  every contract will move to the max and your imaginary problem is made worse, not solved.

 

Again (and again), the revenue stream covers all players costs for every team.  This is not a problem for the intelligent FO's.

[eball]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

There are not enough Josh Allens and Patrick Mahomes for everyone to have one

 

I just have to say how wonderful it is to read that statement and know (a) it’s true; and (b) we’ve got one.

[Brand J]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It's your number.

 

But since you mentioned every agent, if you put a "max contract"% at, say, 20%--every top QB will be asking for this number.  That would force QB contracts to be far more than they are "ballooning" to now.  

 

Anyway, agents don't determine contract offers, teams do.  They make their best offer and the player accepts it or holds out.  That's the way it always has worked.  Setting a max cap cannot change this.  every contract will move to the max and your imaginary problem is made worse, not solved.

 

Again (and again), the revenue stream covers all players costs for every team.  This is not a problem for the intelligent FO's.

As to the first in bold, how do you figure when there are contracts right now that exceed 20%?! QB contracts are getting richer, when Joe Burrow and Justin Herbert’s time comes, they’re going to argue for more than what Mahomes got. Why? Part of the reason will be because the cap is higher. Putting the arbitrary 20% number once again at the forefront, their contracts could surpass the percentage.
If QBs are worthy of being paid the max percentage, then pay them, there’s only a handful of those guys in the league anyway. “Every” contract wont be pushed to the max, that’s just silly. For those that are, teams can be assured the bloating contracts can never occupy more than “20%” of the cap.

Since you’re struggling to understand the concept, I’ll compare it this way… the NBA has a salary cap along with max value contracts and rules within those contracts. See here. MLB has no salary caps and player contracts in that league continue to balloon. Like the NBA, the NFL has a salary cap. You seem reluctant to compare the trajectory of contracts to earlier times, but the argument I was making is that QB contracts are consuming more of the salary cap year by year, percentage wise. That’s fact. Setting percentage limits would not only help ensure the contracts remain reasonable, but would also assuage current renegotiating arguments when players see there are others making more than them.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

If QBs are worthy of being paid the max percentage, then pay them, there’s only a handful of those guys in the league anyway. “Every” contract wont be pushed to the max, that’s just silly.

 

The problem is the market already does not adequately recognise the difference between the handful of guys and the next tier of good guys you want to keep. I actually agree with WEO here. If there is an arbitrary number at 20% then Dak Prescott and Kyler Murray and from the past Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan and Derek Carr will just go for 20% of the cap and not budge. You would end up with 16 Quarterbacks or so on non-rookie deals who all signed for what was at the time 20% of the cap. It would help the teams with Mahomes and Allen and Herbert and Burrow. It wouldn't help the teams with Murray and Prescott and Tannehill and whoever going forward of the young guys ends up in that second tier. The risk to me is it would bake in what is already the biggest inefficiency in the Quarterback market. And it's not the top guys getting paid too much of the cap. 

[Brand J]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The problem is the market already does not adequately recognise the difference between the handful of guys and the next tier of good guys you want to keep. I actually agree with WEO here. If there is an arbitrary number at 20% then Dak Prescott and Kyler Murray and from the past Matt Stafford and Matt Ryan and Derek Carr will just go for 20% of the cap and not budge. You would end up with 16 Quarterbacks or so on non-rookie deals who all signed for what was at the time 20% of the cap. It would help the teams with Mahomes and Allen and Herbert and Burrow. It wouldn't help the teams with Murray and Prescott and Tannehill and whoever going forward of the young guys ends up in that second tier. The risk to me is it would bake in what is already the biggest inefficiency in the Quarterback market. And it's not the top guys getting paid too much of the cap. 

Those players could argue for max value contracts, but do you believe those teams would pay it? You guys are looking at it from - max value means negotiations would cease to exist and they’ll all just push for that number. I don’t agree. I do agree the market does not adequately recognize QB tiers, but at the end of the day, an agent has to negotiate the best value for his client. Setting limits on how much a position can occupy the cap won’t stop those negotiations.

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

As to the first in bold, how do you figure when there are contracts right now that exceed 20%?! QB contracts are getting richer, when Joe Burrow and Justin Herbert’s time comes, they’re going to argue for more than what Mahomes got. Why? Part of the reason will be because the cap is higher. Putting the arbitrary 20% number once again at the forefront, their contracts could surpass the percentage.
If QBs are worthy of being paid the max percentage, then pay them, there’s only a handful of those guys in the league anyway. “Every” contract wont be pushed to the max, that’s just silly. For those that are, teams can be assured the bloating contracts can never occupy more than “20%” of the cap.

Since you’re struggling to understand the concept, I’ll compare it this way… the NBA has a salary cap along with max value contracts and rules within those contracts. See here. MLB has no salary caps and player contracts in that league continue to balloon. Like the NBA, the NFL has a salary cap. You seem reluctant to compare the trajectory of contracts to earlier times, but the argument I was making is that QB contracts are consuming more of the salary cap year by year, percentage wise. That’s fact. Setting percentage limits would not only help ensure the contracts remain reasonable, but would also assuage current renegotiating arguments when players see there are others making more than them.

 

You keep missing the point.  If they get what Mahomes got, that number will be well below 20% of the cap by then.  Whereas, if they say "I want a max deal of 20%", they will get far more than Mahomes's deal.  

 

The spotrac data suggests that the % going to top QBs will in 2024, be very similar to what it was in 2017 (under 20% by the way).  Revenue is outpacing QB contracts. What you fear is not actually happening. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

Those players could argue for max value contracts, but do you believe those teams would pay it? You guys are looking at it from - max value means negotiations would cease to exist and they’ll all just push for that number. I don’t agree. I do agree the market does not adequately recognize QB tiers, but at the end of the day, an agent has to negotiate the best value for his client. Setting limits on how much a position can occupy the cap won’t stop those negotiations.

 

Yes. Because the alternative is don't have a Quarterback. And that isn't a place to live in the NFL. It is a solution that, with respect, has misdiagnosed the problem. 

[Brand J]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

You keep missing the point.  If they get what Mahomes got, that number will be well below 20% of the cap by then.  Whereas, if they say "I want a max deal of 20%", they will get far more than Mahomes's deal.  

 

The spotrac data suggests that the % going to top QBs will in 2024, be very similar to what it was in 2017 (under 20% by the way).  Revenue is outpacing QB contracts. What you fear is not actually happening. 

I said they’d argue for more than what Mahomes got, partly because the cap is higher. You said there were QB contracts right now at 24% of the cap. There weren’t many, of course, but it exists. If what I fear is not happening, are you suggesting QB contracts have not risen percentage wise - relative to the cap - since 2013, the earliest year on that Spotrac sample you sent? 

[Brand J]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes. Because the alternative is don't have a Quarterback. And that isn't a place to live in the NFL. It is a solution that, with respect, has misdiagnosed the problem. 

We’ll have to agree to disagree here, Gunner, because lesser players arguing for max contracts is no different than Carr arguing in the present to be paid like Mahomes. A ceiling on player positions doesn’t mean a lesser player’s value or worth would then be equal to their superstar peers across the board. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

I said they’d argue for more than what Mahomes got, partly because the cap is higher. You said there were QB contracts right now at 24% of the cap. There weren’t many, of course, but it exists. If what I fear is not happening, are you suggesting QB contracts have not risen percentage wise - relative to the cap - since 2013, the earliest year on that Spotrac sample you sent? 

 

2013 i didn't have--but it doesn't matter because 2024 shows that the % of cap will go down (no one is at 24 % now), not up. I've said so several times now

[Brand J]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

2013 i didn't have--but it doesn't matter because 2024 shows that the % of cap will go down (no one is at 24 % now), not up. I've said so several times now

Yes, I’m not arguing future numbers, because we don’t have those. All we can objectively evaluate is the trajectory of contracts from then to now. It’s a simple question to an issue you said doesn’t exist - are QB contracts consuming a much greater percentage of the salary cap year to year?

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, JayBaller10 said:

Yes, I’m not arguing future numbers, because we don’t have those. All we can objectively evaluate is the trajectory of contracts from then to now. It’s a simple question to an issue you said doesn’t exist - are QB contracts consuming a much greater percentage of the salary cap year to year?

 

 

Again, per spotrac, no more in 2024 than 2017. So, no.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, JayBaller10 said:

We’ll have to agree to disagree here, Gunner, because lesser players arguing for max contracts is no different than Carr arguing in the present to be paid like Mahomes. A ceiling on player positions doesn’t mean a lesser player’s value or worth would then be equal to their superstar peers across the board. 

 

But if you could fix the actual inefficiency it sorts the inflation issue out IMO. It is the inefficiency in recognising Quarterback tiers that drives inflation. Derek Carr gets $28m a year and then Russel Wilson says "well I'm a lot better than Derek Carr I want $35m a year." I am not saying I have solution to fixing the market inefficiency, I don't. But until that is fixed I worry your proposal simply bakes the inefficiency in and make it harder for that differentiation to occur. 

[Brand J]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Again, per spotrac, no more in 2024 than 2017. So, no.

I’m going to have to dismiss your argument if you insist on referring to future years where salaries and the cap aren’t in existence. You couldn’t tell me in 2018 what it would look like, definitively, in 2022, so it’s not a fair argument. Also, apologies in assuming you had access to the earlier Spotrac content. I thought you were purposely being cagey so as to not support my argument 😂

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Similarly without Jackson down the stretch the Ravens went from #1 seed to an 0-4 finish and missed the playoffs. And Tyler Huntley isn't terrible. It is just that the type of play you get out of a Lamar or a Dak is not easily replaced. 

 

 

A lot of that was the defensive personnel dropping like flies. And many of us projected midseason or so that they would have a lengthy losing streak to finish the season because of how backloaded their schedule was with good teams. Packers, Bengals, Rams and Steelers. 

 

Ravens are in a tricky situation. Like you say you don't just give up on a top 10 QB because he isn't a top 3 QB. But I still see it as very likely that the Ravens treat Lamar a lot like Dak and Cousins teams did in contract negotiations. Ultimately using the franchise. That's not a bad deal at all for the player. For the team, it may cause them to end up overpaying but I get the strategy of using it when you just aren't 100% sure on a guy yet. Lamar missed a lot of games this year. If he were to miss 3+ games again next season the Ravens may look like geniuses for holding off on the long term contract. 

[Brand J]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But if you could fix the actual inefficiency it sorts the inflation issue out IMO. It is the inefficiency in recognising Quarterback tiers that drives inflation. Derek Carr gets $28m a year and then Russel Wilson says "well I'm a lot better than Derek Carr I want $35m a year." I am not saying I have solution to fixing the market inefficiency, I don't. But until that is fixed I worry your proposal simply bakes the inefficiency in and make it harder for that differentiation to occur. 

The inefficiency in recognizing tiers is part of the problem, yes. The other is that a higher salary cap means players are naturally going to get paid more. We already have a league that utilizes max player contracts, so it’d be easy to look over there and see if the fears are justified. Is it working? Are there players lesser than Lebron making just as much as him on max value deals? I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but would be shocked to learn that’s the case.

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

I’m going to have to dismiss your argument if you insist on referring to future years where salaries and the cap aren’t in existence. You couldn’t tell me in 2018 what it would look like, definitively, in 2022, so it’s not a fair argument. Also, apologies in assuming you had access to the earlier Spotrac content. I thought you were purposely being cagey so as to not support my argument 😂

 

lol none of this is my data.  Tell that to spotrac.  They feel they can and I provided the link.  They are pretty good at this...so I have no reason to doubt their numbers.  The cap tends to rise 5-6% per year (pandemic year excepted).  It's not hard to project for the next 2 years.  And the current player contracts are known for the next 2 years.  So it's really not hard to see what future years will be like. 

 

Also, new broadcast rights will blow it up the cap even further.

 

If you disagree with all of their data and projections...well, I guess you are free to.  But doing so isn't really an argument for your position.  When the owners all suddenly agree to change how they pay their best QBs, you'll let us know.

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, JayBaller10 said:

The inefficiency in recognizing tiers is part of the problem, yes. The other is that a higher salary cap means players are naturally going to get paid more. We already have a league that utilizes max player contracts, so it’d be easy to look over there and see if the fears are justified. Is it working? Are there players lesser than Lebron making just as much as him on max value deals? I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but would be shocked to learn that’s the case.

 

I have no idea about the NBA I wouldn't watch it if they were playing in my back yard so I have no idea if it is working. Where I disagree is that the problem of QB contract inflation is distinct from the tier inefficiency. I don't believe it is. I think the latter drives the former. Like I say I don't have a solution, but I am not persuaded your proposed solution is the answer.