Quarterback Exemption for NFL Salary Cap?

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,635
Reaction score
1,808
I think watching that NFL Live episode, they were discussing having an entirely separate cap for QBs, specifically Franchise QBs. While there could indeed be a lot of bidding for the services of the top tier QBs, it would also allow for other players (Le'Veon Bell) to get the money they've earned without affecting the Franchise QB's (Big Ben) money. The conversation on the show oscillated between the words exemption and separate when discussing the QBs, but its a really interesting theory. There could be bidding wars, but much like today, a team must still hit in the draft and in free agency. Also, the NFL cannot say they don't have the money to make it happen, if this theory ever came to fruition.
No kidding. The NFL has plenty of money. I missed the episode you referenced, and both separate caps for QBs or cap exemptions for QBs would probably, and ironically, bring the overall pay of QBs down. $30 mil versus $25 mil? I wish I had that dilemma!
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
The Eagles won the Super Bowl, because the moves they made turned out to be the right ones. Also, Carson Wentz (a top 10 QB) is still on his rookie deal, and the Eagles were able to field a balanced quality team, with experienced depth (Nick Foles); plus their draft picks (Derek Barnett) were heavy contributors. The Eagles winning the Super Bowl was the Perfect Storm. Eventually, it is imperative to pay top dollar for the QB, because there is no guarantee that you can replicate what he brings to the table. @Pokerbrat2000 Would you spend a nice chunk of the cap on Aaron Rodgers?
Yet, the Eagles still won a Super Bowl without having to pay top dollar for a QB, which shows it can be done. Now once they have to start paying Wentz what he is worth, we can revisit this conversation.

You asked me if I were Gute, would I spend a nice chunk of the cap on #12. Yes, I would, once I know that shoulder is proven to be 100%. This discussion isn't about spending under the current cap conditions though, it is about whether a QB salary should be exempt from the Cap.
 
OP
OP
McKnowledge

McKnowledge

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
270
To clear up any confusion...the Franchise QB's money does not affect the team's salary cap. Separate cap for Franchise QB and a separate cap for the other players on the roster (including backup QBs).
 
OP
OP
McKnowledge

McKnowledge

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
270
Yet, the Eagles still won a Super Bowl without having to pay top dollar for a QB, which shows it can be done. Now once they have to start paying Wentz what he is worth, we can revisit this conversation.

You asked me if I were Gute, would I spend a nice chunk of the cap on #12. Yes, I would, once I know that shoulder is proven to be 100%. This discussion isn't about spending under the current cap conditions though, it is about whether a QB salary should be exempt from the Cap.

I created this thread, everyone is welcome to discuss and debate. The discussion is whatever people want to talk about in regards to the title of the thread. Furthermore, Aaron Rodgers with shoulder strength @ 80%, is still a top 10 QB. Pay the man!!!
 
OP
OP
McKnowledge

McKnowledge

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
270
No PokerBrat, you describe the consequences well. It would take us back to the days when teams like the Yankees could simply buy the best players. Small markets like Milwaukee were shut out, and Green Bay would literally disappear. For it’s faults, the parity/cap system established by, I think, Rozelle, has worked to make every season interesting. Messing with the cap position just for the QB would ruin that, IMHO. I suppose they could assign a max % of the cap that goes to the QB, but intuitively, I don’t think that would work either.

For the record, I don't agree with an exemption/separate cap for the QB, but that doesn't mean the idea/theory is not interesting. GB has a Franchise QB, one of the top players overall in the NFL. Would be cool to see how many elite players would really come to GB to play for the ring. Without AR12 money affecting the rest of the roster, Packers (in theory) could have a Dream Team (s/o Vince Young). There's really only a handful of elite QBs in the league, and it would be fascinating to see which philosophy wins out. The current model would just be on steroids!!! Knowing a player could get max dollars, would they still go to a team with a shaky QB in a large market? Or would they go to a small market, get max dollars, and play with an elite QB?
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
I agree with you. The wealthiest teams in the NBA and MLB can simply outbid less-wealthy, meaning smaller cities. I’m amazed at what the Bucks have accomplished lately, but the system relies too much on dumb luck. That’s why the Milwaukee Bucks last title was in 1972, and while the Brewers are still looking for their first World Series win. I agree with you, why bother watching the games? Parity/cap is the best thing the NFL did to make the sport so popular. And it’s not like the players are starving from the salary cap.....

It's not really luck. Small market teams in those sports sometimes get a small window of opportunity for success, only because they did a good job with drafting and developing. However, once those great players contracts are up, the house of cards falls, because they can't afford to pay them all. Both the Brewers and the Bucks are "this close" to getting over the top, but I have a feeling not having the money the big market teams have, makes that short lived dream very difficult to achieve. I thought I remember reading one year recently, either the Dodgers or Yankees starting rotation of pitchers were making more money cumulatively than the entire Brewer roster. That is hard to compete with.

I prefer the way the NFL operates versus the NBA but guys stop using the Bucks as an example why the the NFL is better. Just stop. The reason they haven't won a PO series since 2001 isnt because they're a small market. The best team in the league the last 3-4 years has been a small market team and they'll continue to be so until either KD or Steph leave in all likelihood. The Knicks have sucked forever, the Lakers got a few decent pieces but are still a ways away and the Bulls have been good for like a total of 5 years post MJ. Market size doesnt mean what it used to in today's NBA

The Bucks have sucked because they've been one of the worst run franchises in all of sports. Not because of any salary cap set up
 
Last edited:

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,051
Reaction score
1,307
It's not really luck. Small market teams in those sports sometimes get a small window of opportunity for success, only because they did a good job with drafting and developing. However, once those great players contracts are up, the house of cards falls, because they can't afford to pay them all. Both the Brewers and the Bucks are "this close" to getting over the top, but I have a feeling not having the money the big market teams have, makes that short lived dream very difficult to achieve. I thought I remember reading one year recently, either the Dodgers or Yankees starting rotation of pitchers were making more money cumulatively than the entire Brewer roster. That is hard to compete with.

I recall at one point many people said the Brewers had one of the best farm systems in Baseball. Why did it seem like we never were able to take advantage of that. Its that small window you spoke of. They either lost the top prospects once their contracts were up or were forced to trade them away to acquire top talent who were under contract because they would never be able to outbid anyone to get them otherwise.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
To clear up any confusion...the Franchise QB's money does not affect the team's salary cap. Separate cap for Franchise QB and a separate cap for the other players on the roster (including backup QBs).

To clear up any confusion, yelling...doesn't make you look smart and us dumber. :coffee:
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
I recall at one point many people said the Brewers had one of the best farm systems in Baseball. Why did it seem like we never were able to take advantage of that. Its that small window you spoke of. They either lost the top prospects once their contracts were up or were forced to trade them away to acquire top talent who were under contract because they would never be able to outbid anyone to get them otherwise.

Pretty much just that and I am pretty sure the same thing would happen to the Green Bay Packers under a no cap type situation. Also, revenue sharing is a HUGE part of all this. Currently, NFL teams share equally. I don't follow MLB or the NBA close enough anymore, but I don't think either does. No revenue sharing and no cap, just seems like a really bad situation for small market teams. Especially in a sport like football, where you have 53 man rosters.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
Pretty much just that and I am pretty sure the same thing would happen to the Green Bay Packers under a no cap type situation. Also, revenue sharing is a HUGE part of all this. Currently, NFL teams share equally. I don't follow MLB or the NBA close enough anymore, but I don't think either does. No revenue sharing and no cap, just seems like a really bad situation for small market teams. Especially in a sport like football, where you have 53 man rosters.

There is revenue sharing in the NBA. There's also a soft salary cap, a luxury tax (which works as a hard cap) and maximum contracts (something the NFL doesnt have) and now super max contracts in order for a team to retain its stars

None of those things would be in the best interest of the NFL to implement. The NBA's problem isnt that rules aren't set up to ensure parity that allows small markets to compete. They have. GS is proof enough of that. The problem with the NBA is that its overly reliant on having multiple superstars and those are exceedingly rare. It would be like NEEDING a HoF QB and at least 5-6 other HoF players at other positions, all in their prime, to win a title
 
Last edited:

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,051
Reaction score
1,307
Maybe we should make the backup QB position exempt from the salary cap. That way teams could pay a young 2nd stringer with promise to stick around more than 4 years. The way it is now if you draft a QB late and he develops into anything in 4 years teams can't afford to keep him and they have to start over.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,635
Reaction score
1,808
For the record, I don't agree with an exemption/separate cap for the QB, but that doesn't mean the idea/theory is not interesting. GB has a Franchise QB, one of the top players overall in the NFL. Would be cool to see how many elite players would really come to GB to play for the ring. Without AR12 money affecting the rest of the roster, Packers (in theory) could have a Dream Team (s/o Vince Young). There's really only a handful of elite QBs in the league, and it would be fascinating to see which philosophy wins out. The current model would just be on steroids!!! Knowing a player could get max dollars, would they still go to a team with a shaky QB in a large market? Or would they go to a small market, get max dollars, and play with an elite QB?
It would depend on how the dollars are allocateds, if they are allocated, by the league. A small market like GB won’t generate the advertising/promotion revenue of NYC. Now if the league ensures (through revenue sharing) that each team gets the same dollars to spend on QB, that changes the calculus. But given the size of these salaries, I doubt that teams in NYC would want to, essentially, subsidize other teams. That’s the way the current salary cap works. The NFL has common revenue sources, TV contracts being the biggest, and then they allocate those dollars equally to each team. I agree it’s an interesting concept, I’m just not sure it would work differently from the cap system in place.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
To clear up any confusion...the Franchise QB's money does not affect the team's salary cap. Separate cap for Franchise QB and a separate cap for the other players on the roster (including backup QBs).

It's a terrible idea the NFL shouldn't even think about for a moment. Several posters have listed some reason why it wouldn't work, especially for the Packers.

For the record, I don't agree with an exemption/separate cap for the QB, but that doesn't mean the idea/theory is not interesting. GB has a Franchise QB, one of the top players overall in the NFL. Would be cool to see how many elite players would really come to GB to play for the ring.

Most likely none of the elite players at other positions would sign with the Packers as the team wouldn't be able to afford keeping Rodgers in green and gold.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
6,635
Reaction score
1,808
To clear up any confusion...the Franchise QB's money does not affect the team's salary cap. Separate cap for Franchise QB and a separate cap for the other players on the roster (including backup QBs).
For what it’s worth, I thought you were pretty clear the first time. Not sure what other commenters are fussing about. It’s a very interesting topic and has generated a lot of thoughtful discussion. Anyway, well done.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
The entire point of Free Agency and Salary Cap is to level the playing field. The league wants it to be difficult for you if you're winning and "easier" if you're a loser. Inverse draft order, salary cap, FA, etc. It's not so teams can keep all their good players. About the only thing I can see changing are increases to PS or developmental players increasing in number. But once they're paid and on the roster, they aren't going to exempt anybody.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
About the only thing I can see changing are increases to PS or developmental players increasing in number. But once they're paid and on the roster, they aren't going to exempt anybody.
I would love to see an increased PS size along with protection of a limited number from being poached, an increased roster size 53 -> 60 0r a combination of. Teams put a lot of resources into young developmental players and to see them just get poached by another team, I have never liked. Also with percussion protocol and what seems like the desire to sit injured players longer, an increased roster size would possibly help to prevent a teams output from getting watered down after a lot of injuries.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I would love to see an increased PS size along with protection of a limited number from being poached, an increased roster size 53 -> 60 0r a combination of.

I would prefer the league to finally install a developmental league in which players on the fringe of NFL rosters would receive much needed playing time.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
I would prefer the league to finally install a developmental league in which players on the fringe of NFL rosters would receive much needed playing time.
I would love to see that and there has been an increase talk of trying it again. Seems to work for Baseball and Hockey but for whatever reasons, the NFL hasn't seemed to want to go all in on it. I believe NFL Europe was an attempt at it? However, I think if it is actually going to work, they need to situate the farm teams close enough to the parent team, so that fans like me actually attend games and get involved. Owners might view it as throwing money away, but IMO, the money is there and in the long run they are going to employ more people, as well as develop talent faster for the NFL.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
I'd like to see a roster designation for players that are maybe restricted from roster call ups, and also have relaxed CBA training restrictions. Have real mini camps for them. Maybe a year or 2 period.

Football is so much more equipment/staff/coach etc intensive than other sports. Other than the NCAA getting rich, I like the college pro relationship. I'll watch college, I doubt I'd watch farm league nfl football
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Football is so much more equipment/staff/coach etc intensive than other sports. Other than the NCAA getting rich, I like the college pro relationship. I'll watch college, I doubt I'd watch farm league nfl football

I have a hard time understanding people being opposed to the NFL installing a developmental league. Players who aren't ready to produce at the pro level immediately after coming out of college currently don't have any chance to play in a competitve league featuring talent even close to the one in the NFL. A farm league would present them with the chance of getting valuable playing time and developing into an NFL caliber player.

Just take a look at Kurt Warner, without the NFL Europe he would still work in a grocery store.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,533
Reaction score
8,137
Location
Madison, WI
Added to giving a better chance of a player making it into the NFL, is the chance for all 32 teams to actually have a stake in those players development. Imagine if the Packers had a second team of say 50 protected players, that were actively training and playing in a farm league. So instead of combing the unemployment lines for guys capable of stepping in mid season, they could call up a player who is actually ready to play. A win-win for the player, the team and the NFL IMO.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
898
Added to giving a better chance of a player making it into the NFL, is the chance for all 32 teams to actually have a stake in those players development. Imagine if the Packers had a second team of say 50 protected players, that were actively training and playing in a farm league. So instead of combing the unemployment lines for guys capable of stepping in mid season, they could call up a player who is actually ready to play. A win-win for the player, the team and the NFL IMO.

A developmental league would be a win for the product, loss for the billionaires (they'd be paying the second team and making no ad money from them). Always remember, we fans love these teams; however, these teams are nothing more than money-making toys for the vast majority of owners. If an idea doesn't increase their profits, then the players have to give up money to get the idea to actually happen. Having better backup players to replace injured guys or poor players with only makes sense if winning is the primary goal and is rewarded in kind. Unfortunately, much like the NBA, the NFL doesn't reward winning with anything in the way of material compensation. The fans have fun, the owners get a parade and have to buy the players/coaches fancy rings and attendance spikes for a couple years. Those are drops in the bucket compared to the revenue that doesn't change whether the team goes 16-0 or 0-16 (tv money).
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
898
Isn't college football somewhat of a farm league for the NFL as it is?

Yes. The college system is farm league for NBA and NFL that is somehow structured to pay coaches millions and pay players in education. Curious how many coaches would jump at a chance to be paid in "education"...
 

Members online

Top