Speculation Owners Pondering Idea of QBs Having Separate Salary Cap (2 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

Interesting. There’s only 32 starting quarterbacks. There’s over 1,500 other NFL roster spots. NFLPA might just decide this is good “most” players.

That's not how the NFLPA thinks. The answer to them will be to raise the entire cap, not cap the amount QBs can make.

And, I'll note that the top WRs are now making what the top QBs made 5 or so years ago so putting a limit on QBs isn't going to change anything because all positions will eventually rise to a level seen as "just too much". Except it isn't too much because the NFL is making that much money.

 

[El Caliente]

No disrespect intended with the reaction...I just truly don't understand your proposed solution. Can you expand on your point?

If your point is for the owners to impose a position bucket cap across all players then what you're going to get is a player union strike.

I’m sure that people much smarter than me can sort it out and make it work. By changing up the way rookies are compensated it helped solve a major problem.

 

[Rouxble]

That's not how the NFLPA thinks. The answer to them will be to raise the entire cap, not cap the amount QBs can make.

And, I'll note that the top WRs are now making what the top QBs made 5 or so years ago so putting a limit on QBs isn't going to change anything because all positions will eventually rise to a level seen as "just too much". Except it isn't too much because the NFL is making that much money.

The NFLPA reached agreement with the NFL on limiting rookie earnings to shift more money to other players, I don't know why they couldn't do the same with an individual player cap. I think they would balk at specifying a position since it would open the door to one position having a ceiling that gets surpassed by a player at another position.

If they could negotiate for increases in salary minimums (or benefits) for the other 52 players on the roster to keep the owners from pocketing the savings, it could work. They could also push for an increase in minimum cash spending to accomplish the same goal.

 

[NatureBoy]

Why not? The concept of salary buckets for certain positions is already an unspoken practice on both sides.

 

[Saint Greg]

Carr and Danny Dimes deals are going to look like bargains real soon.

Oh yeah. Carr is tied for 15th AAV with Rodgers. Really 16th because we know Wilson is still getting paid just not by the Steelers. Love, Tua, Purdy will knock that down to 18/19 within a year. Stroud knocks it down another spot a year after that.

 

[SweetT]

At least they are brainstorming ideas with the bloated sized contracts that they are dealing with.

 

[Doug B]

Just something that popped into my head -- not sure if this helps or doesn't really change anything:

- Eliminate being able to push salary cap money into future years. Each team's cap should be reckoned one season at a time, and flattened back down to zero at the beginning of each league year. (This could require a few seasons of back-out for teams that have a lot of future money dedicated. Maybe instead allow a one-shot uncapped payout to clear the books).

- After that's set up, each team gets two annual salary cap budgets. Probably each equal in size (50% of that year's overall cap per team) but that could be played with.

- One bucket - The A-Cap - is for a team's designated top-5 (or some other small number) salaries for that season. A player from any position would be allowed to be reckoned in that bucket, but realistically it would be chiefly QBs, pass rushers, WRs, CBs, and left tackles. Some elites at TE and LB could maybe make into that bucket as well.

- The other bucket - The B Cap - is for the entire rest of the team.

- To help with the strict year-by-year cap reckoning, player salaries will be negotiated not as dollars, but as percentages of cap. A star QB contract could look something like this:

Year 1: 30.0% of the A-Cap​

Year 2: 32.5% of the A-Cap​

Year 3: 35% of the A-Cap​

Year 4: 37.5% of the A-Cap​

Year 5: 40.0% of the A-Cap​

Or it could be front-loaded:

Year 1: 50.0% of the A-Cap​

Year 2: 40.0% of the A-Cap​

Year 3: 30.0% of the A-Cap​

Year 4: 30.0% of the A-Cap​

Year 5: 25.0% of the A-Cap​

​

And yes, salaries would be largely guaranteed. In some way that they aren't now. Maybe not 100% guaranteed for all players, but something.

EDIT: Actually, thinking on it some ...maybe fully guaranteed contracts would be a good concession to get the NFLPA to agree to a creative salary-cap re-do.

 

[St. Widge]

The NFLPA reached agreement with the NFL on limiting rookie earnings to shift more money to other players, I don't know why they couldn't do the same with an individual player cap. I think they would balk at specifying a position since it would open the door to one position having a ceiling that gets surpassed by a player at another position.

If they could negotiate for increases in salary minimums (or benefits) for the other 52 players on the roster to keep the owners from pocketing the savings, it could work. They could also push for an increase in minimum cash spending to accomplish the same goal.

I think the difference is that the rookie pool shifted money from players that were not yet in the NFLPA to players that were already members of the NFLPA. This would shift money from one group in the NFLPA to another group in the NFLPA. I'm not sure why the NFLPA would agree to that without a significant increase in the overall salary cap.

So, it seems unlikely to happen when the other option is for the NFL owners to dedicate a higher percentage of team earnings to the salary cap. Maybe there are ways to tweak it to make everyone happy by overall giving more money to the players, but I think it would be a really hard sell. And one that only buys time until the next position ends up getting paid like QBs do now.

 

[MarylandWHODAT]

Yeah. Cause that will do wonders for team morale.....

 

[LetsGetWaffles]

I think it could be beneficial for teams to be able to decide on 1 player a year to not count against the cap.

This would make it so it doesn’t always have to be a QB if the starter is in a rookie deal, and it would also incentivize some creative contract structures.

I’m sure there are negatives I haven’t thought about before (like an already stacked team going all out for a 1 year contract for a FA and the ramifications that’d come w that) but I do think it could help teams not fall apart once they find their franchise Qb and have to pay him on that 2nd contract.

 

[Doug B]

I'm not sure why the NFLPA would agree to that without a significant increase in the overall salary cap.

Maybe in exchange for gains in guaranteed salaries?

 

[Doug B]

Yeah. Cause that will do wonders for team morale.....

It's not different currently, is it? There are already huge salary disparities among players on the same team.

 

[St. Widge]

Maybe in exchange for gains in guaranteed salaries?

I don't know why the owners would do that. Fully guaranteed contracts increase their risk of losing money and it's one of the major victories the owners have won against the NFLPA that the NBA and MLB owners did not win. It would be a huge concession in exchange for a very minor victory IMO.

 

[Saint Jack]

Sometimes I wonder if the QB salaries will lead to an uncapped league.

 

[Plow]

- One bucket - The A-Cap - is for a team's designated top-5 (or some other small number) salaries for that season. A player from any position would be allowed to be reckoned in that bucket, but realistically it would be chiefly QBs, pass rushers, WRs, CBs, and left tackles. Some elites at TE and LB could maybe make into that bucket as well.

- The other bucket - The B Cap - is for the entire rest of the team.

So basically an A-team and a B-team. One team, one fight.