SAR I Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 4 hours ago, johnnysd said: Couldn't they sign Bridgewater for less than that. I think he would be a solid upgrade. Jerry Jones is about to be 78 years old. The question is whether or not he wants to make Dak Prescott the last quarterback of his life, the one player he’s banking on for him to win that one last Super Bowl before he’s in a home or in the ground. Dak ain’t that guy. Jerry should sign Tom Brady. It’s his best shot at getting back to the Super Bowl and maybe winning it. Dome, OL, easy division, first round bye, it’s all right there. Tom would love it too, great for his brand. SAR I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Exempt the QB1 salary from counting against the cap. Prosper as a league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, SAR I said: Jerry Jones is about to be 78 years old. Yeah but 78 for you is different than 78 for someone like Jones. Who knows what kind of expensive German stem cells he's having injected into his body every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, T0mShane said: Exempt the QB1 salary from counting against the cap. Prosper as a league. The NFL isn't MLB or NBA. Every team makes gazillions every season. A salary cap in this particular league is dumb. Every team can afford every guy, yet it has the strictest cap out of all the leagues. And somehow the owners have you yokels convinced that Dak Prescott asking for lots of money is the problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 1 minute ago, RutgersJetFan said: you yokels Look at this coastal elite **** 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAR I Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, T0mShane said: Exempt the QB1 salary from counting against the cap. Prosper as a league. Bad for competitive balance. So few legitimate franchise quarterbacks. If they can afford to keep all their playmakers it’s curtains for those without. SAR I 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAR I Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 10 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said: Yeah but 78 for you is different than 78 for someone like Jones. Who knows what kind of expensive German stem cells he's having injected into his body every year. LOL, I don’t doubt he’s got some tech on his side, but you know how the cycle goes in the NFL with drafts and contracts. The Cowboys have 2 years left in the current window to win a Championship. After that, they go rebuild again and Jerry would have to wait until he’s 86 years old to get another shot. This is it for Jerry Jones. The next QB he signs is the last one of his life from a standpoint of winning a Super Bowl. Tom Brady. What a Jerry move. Would be epic. SAR I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Just now, SAR I said: Bad for competitive balance. So few legitimate franchise quarterbacks. If they can afford to keep all their playmakers it’s curtains for those without. SAR I Or, why penalize a team for landing a great QB by forcing that QB to play with UPS drivers on the OL and hockey players at receiver? It hurts the game. Congrats on finding that QB, but in three years you’re tearing your roster to shreds so you can pay him! It’s like marrying a hot chick, but covering her up with a tarp because you don’t want the neighbors to be jealous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAR I Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Just now, T0mShane said: Or, why penalize a team for landing a great QB by forcing that QB to play with UPS drivers on the OL and hockey players at receiver? It hurts the game. Congrats on finding that QB, but in three years you’re tearing your roster to shreds so you can pay him! It’s like marrying a hot chick, but covering her up with a tarp because you don’t want the neighbors to be jealous I agree completely, and since we have Sam Darnold we would be one of the beneficiaries of such a policy. We could sign all the great wide receivers and tight ends we want and just keep building a collection of targets to bond around a young quarterback, we could have a fantastic decade. Methinks the owners of the 20 teams with sh*te QB’s would block such a move. SAR I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, SAR I said: I agree completely, and since we have Sam Darnold we would be one of the beneficiaries of such a policy. We could sign all the great wide receivers and tight ends we want and just keep building a collection of targets to bond around a young quarterback, we could have a fantastic decade. Methinks the owners of the 20 teams with sh*te QB’s would block such a move. SAR I All of the owners would block that move. These guys literally have Scrooge McDuck rooms in their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 2 hours ago, T0mShane said: Or, why penalize a team for landing a great QB by forcing that QB to play with UPS drivers on the OL and hockey players at receiver? It hurts the game. Congrats on finding that QB, but in three years you’re tearing your roster to shreds so you can pay him! It’s like marrying a hot chick, but covering her up with a tarp because you don’t want the neighbors to be jealous That sounds income inequality'd, qb salaries will rise faster than rest of team and potentially get prohibitive for smaller market teams. Dallas could pay Dak 100M a year and upset the balance league wide. Maybe layer in a QB cap tied to % of overall cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, CTM said: That sounds income inequality'd, qb salaries will rise faster than rest of team and potentially get prohibitive for smaller market teams. Dallas could pay Dak 100M a year and upset the balance league wide. Personally I would have no problem with this. Parity isn't an absolute necessity in the NFL. All this would do is force the smaller market teams to get creative. Build the rest of your roster up within the constraints of the cap and then find a middle-market QB you can compete with. That's what teams are doing anyways, since there's only about 8 or so good/great QBs in the game right now. The rest are basically trash or meh. Besides, with Revenue Sharing, there really aren't "small market" NFL teams. Just cheap owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said: Personally I would have no problem with this. Parity isn't an absolute necessity in the NFL. All this would do is force the smaller market teams to get creative. Build the rest of your roster up within the constraints of the cap and then find a middle-market QB you can compete with. That's what teams are doing anyways, since there's only about 8 or so good/great QBs in the game right now. The rest are basically trash or meh. Besides, with Revenue Sharing, there really aren't "small market" NFL teams. Just cheap owners. I don't think it does the league a service when certain owners can buy competitiveness year in and year out, like the Yankees. I think a separate cap for Qb's makes sense and maybe tied to the overall cap (which i edited in) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nycdan Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 13 hours ago, T0mShane said: Exempt the QB1 salary from counting against the cap. Prosper as a league. Maybe a variation of this. Right now only the top 51 players count against the cap. Maybe the highest paid player (not limited to QB1 in case you are lucky enough to have one on rookie contract or you are paying a DE more than your QB) only count at 50% against the cap. So you can pay Mahomes $40MM/year and it only counts at half that rate. Or phase it in at 80% the first year, then lower it year over year to whatever number you want. It would open things up for the best players to make even more, but it would then create a strange chemistry where teams would have to negotiate harder with their 2nd highest paid player. There are probably a lot of ramifications that would make it untenable ultimately, but if the NFLPA really wanted to be able to point to a few guys and say they are making mad money, that would be a way to explore it. Meanwhile, over in Europe, there are 3 professional soccer players making over $100M/season in an uncapped league. Seriously, they will all earn over $1B in their careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.