Home Discord Chat
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > Nzoner's Game Room
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 06-26-2024, 11:33 AM   Topic Starter
RunKC RunKC is offline
Andy Reid Supporter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Some owners discussing a QB salary cap separate of the current cap

It seems this is starting to gain popularity.


Quote:
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.

Adopting "an NBA model" might be one way to better regulate those percentages, as Pelissero noted. The NBA currently has "max" and "supermax" restrictions for free-agent and long-term contracts, limiting the number of players teams can sign to a certain dollar amount, while capping the percentage of the salary cap for which maximum deals account. 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.


Which raises another point: If an NFL team feels forced into a cost-prohibitive deal for a quarterback that has yet to warrant the club's total commitment, that team can always simply not sign said quarterback. It's easier said than done in a league where a total quarterback reset brings plenty of risk, prioritizing the unknown over the familiar. If the concern, however, is dedicating too much salary-cap space to one player, then it's up to the organization to zig when the rest of the NFL is zagging. And, hopefully, find a good alternative under center.

Which raises another point: If an NFL team feels forced into a cost-prohibitive deal for a quarterback that has yet to warrant the club's total commitment, that team can always simply not sign said quarterback. It's easier said than done in a league where a total quarterback reset brings plenty of risk, prioritizing the unknown over the familiar. If the concern, however, is dedicating too much salary-cap space to one player, then it's up to the organization to zig when the rest of the NFL is zagging. And, hopefully, find a good alternative under center.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/s...er-report/amp/
Posts: 46,490
RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.RunKC is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.