[St. Loser Fan]

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/some ... er-report/

Some NFL owners discussing potential QB salary cap in wake of escalating market, per report

With every new quarterback contract in the NFL, more eyebrows are raised at the inevitability of record-setting dollar amounts at the position, with even inconsistent and relatively unproven signal-callers commanding historic hauls. The league is well aware of the situation, according to NFL Media, with some team owners privately discussing the possibility of a separate cap on quarterback salaries.

Adopting "an NBA model" might be one way to better regulate those percentages, as Pelissero noted.

The idea "really hasn't gained traction" among NFL owners, however, "in part because so many teams have paid their quarterback," contributing to the position's escalating market.

This will probably have to wait for the next labor agreement but should remain a watch item.

[/zn/]

A better approach might be accounting for the starting qb cap number separately. There could still be an annually calculated ceiling, but then in addition to that you have one amount for the other 52 guys on the team (plus practice squad) and another, separate cap for the starting qb.

[PARAM]

A better approach might be accounting for the starting qb cap number separately. There could still be an annually calculated ceiling, but then in addition to that you have one amount for the other 52 guys on the team (plus practice squad) and another, separate cap for the starting qb.

They ought to group QB, PK, P and LS as one group and the other 49 as another group. They are all necessities while the number of others on the roster, WR, RB, etc. can vary from team to team. But everybody has to have a QB, PK, P and LS. That would give some leverage to paying a QB more if those other 3 were cheap enough or paying some of the other 3 more if the QB were playing cheaper. JMHO

[Elvis]

The reasoning, Tom Pelissero explained on "The Rich Eisen Show," is that "at some point you want quarterback numbers to not go over a certain percent of your salary cap." For reference, the Cincinnati Bengals' Joe Burrow earns an an NFL-leading average of $55 million per year on the contract extension he signed in 2023, which means his deal alone is projected to account for an average of nearly 25% of the Bengals' entire salary cap per year, leaving the remaining 75% for the rest of the roster.

Has this really grown that much? What percent of the cap do franchise historically eat up, you know, since the advent of the the cap?

I'd be curious to see that...

[rams1974]

Has this really grown that much? What percent of the cap do franchise historically eat up, you know, since the advent of the the cap?

I'd be curious to see that...

Some armchair figures and going from memory. Today's salary cap is ~250m. In 2000 it was 62m. Warner's deal at that time as a benchmark for "Top 5 NFL QB pay" was about 6.5m per year, I think? 7 years and 45m? So that works out to ~10%. Burrow at 55m and 250m works out to ~20%.

250 vs 62 seems like a lot but it's only about 6% / year. Remember to fund your IRA kids.

[snackdaddy]

All I know is, Matthew Stafford is a bargain compared to what some lesser quarterbacks are getting. I have no doubt whatever he's asking for in the form of guarantees will get done at some point.

[Dare]

The problem is that when you specifically begin to treat one position special then all the other positions will resent it and demand a positional oriented CAP. There won't be an end to the greed because of how much money is involved.

The only way it will work is if it's percentage based. No single player can be paid beyond a set percentage of a team's cap regardless of their position. If you have an Aaron Donald hell yeah you want to keep him happy.

Or like the concept of Top 51 then you separate out one exception which still must be within a certain pertcentage based structure. So it would be TOP 50 + 1.

[Elvis]

The problem is that when you specifically begin to treat one position special then all the other positions will resent it and demand a positional oriented CAP. There won't be an end to the greed because of how much money is involved.

The only way it will work is if it's percentage based. No single player can be paid beyond a set percentage of a team's cap regardless of their position. If you have an Aaron Donald hell yeah you want to keep him happy.

Or like the concept of Top 51 then you separate out one exception which still must be within a certain pertcentage based structure. So it would be TOP 50 + 1.

I think you're missing the point. The idea of a QB only cap would be so the owners pay them less than they are now. No player or position group wants that...

[Dare]

This is a runaway train. You can't stop it without catastrophic consequences so you try to manage it. The one exception will make room for raises for all the other greedy guys. Sooner or later someone else will want to be the exception. No different in some ways than it is now. It's still money given to one makes it less for the others. But the problem is that with the way it's going that QB will never get the team around him he needs to win. That is the lesson of guys like Stafford.

Matt understands that concept. He understands what I've been saying for years, it's all about the guaranteed money not the gross value. That is to say, if the Rams are willing to pay him $50M next year if he plays, he wants it all guaranteed. The sticking clause with Matt will be his injury guarantee clause.