Wish to make a one time donation? Make it here.

Most disappointing

JB

Old Curmudgeon
Contributor's Club
We have a couple years until both DW and LT are going to be high priced so I’d draft a young guy to groom. Guys like Armstead and Bhaktiari were 3/4 rd picks. For the record I’m not advocating getting rid of Tunsil, I’m just open to all possibilities.
Understand, but getting rid of Tunsil puts the OL right back where it was 3 years ago and puts Watson at risk for an even bigger pounding
 

otisbean

Veteran
Contributor's Club
Understand, but getting rid of Tunsil puts the OL right back where it was 3 years ago and puts Watson at risk for an even bigger pounding
Im not advocating getting rid of him without a contingency plan. DWs contract doesn’t get crazy until 2022. Id absolutely draft another young T in one of the next 2 drafts.
 

texanhead08

All Pro
I don't blame Watson for getting all he can.

I have faulted management for giving him the extension when they did and for as much as they did many times over.

I've heard several different reports on who was responsible for the contract from Cal to OB to Easterby , I'm not certain who gets the blame .... One thing for sure none of them called the cap guy prior to doing so.


One thing you can bank on is in those seasons where he and Tunsil make up a third of the cap between them (60+M) , it'll be hard to put much talent around them.

Thats because BOB fired the cap guy because he told him they needed to get an extension done with Tunsill before he made that trade.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
Unless we're saying only rookie QBs will win the Super Bowl, this 13.2% thing is going to change.
Eventually it will. Law of averages. However 26 yrs is a pretty large sample size. DW4'S not the guy that's going to break the trend. IMHO and for this reason it wouldn't be the worst thing to grant DW4 his wish and trade him as long as you get massive value. This would be a great time to take advantage of a team like the Bears or Redskins.

From the time a QB is drafted they have 5-6 yrs to win a championship. 4-5 yrs on their rookie deals and 2 cheap yrs on their 2nd contract.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
From the time a QB is drafted they have 5-6 yrs to win a championship. 4-5 yrs on their rookie deals and 2 cheap yrs on their 2nd contract.
So you are saying only guys on rookie contracts will win the Super Bowl from here on out.
 

Corrosion

Idealist
Staff member
We have a couple years until both DW and LT are going to be high priced so I’d draft a young guy to groom. Guys like Armstead and Bhaktiari were 3/4 rd picks. For the record I’m not advocating getting rid of Tunsil, I’m just open to all possibilities.

Tunsil's already there , his cap hit is 19.4m next season and goes up over the following 2 years 21.1 and 21.75m in 22 & 23.

Watson's is 15.94m next year ..... 22 & 23 are the big number years at 40.4m & 42.4m then a reduction to 37.4m and 32m.

I suspect those final two years the cap is back in line and those figures could be very reasonable in terms of QB salary in 24 & 25.

22 & 23 will be difficult to navigate .

If you trade Tunsil , How many teams would have the cap space to absorb that contract ? And what's the expected return. Hell you might end up paying him to play for someone else.

Then you better have a plan at LT or you leave Watson exposed ....

If you don't trade him , you are looking at being bent over the proverbial barrel a second time financially.
The one thing that helps them is the cap reduction where franchise tag numbers are going to drop by about 12% 20 to 21 and with the cap losses spread over 21-24 , those tag numbers shouldn't rise significantly like they had from 2012-2020 .... which should give the team at least some leverage.

OB and Co really made a mess out of that situation.
 

Corrosion

Idealist
Staff member
So you are saying only guys on rookie contracts will win the Super Bowl from here on out.
No. Just not those in high cap hit years.

Unless we're saying only rookie QBs will win the Super Bowl, this 13.2% thing is going to change.
I have little doubt that this statement is correct , eventually. But for now , the odds are that it holds true this year.


Here's the list of playoff QB's cap percentages for this year -

AFC
Josh Allen 2.66%
Lamar Jackson 1.31
Baker Mayfield 3.94
Phillip Rivers 10.42 (Brissett 8.91)
Pat Mahomes 2.24
Ben Roethlisberger 11.83
Ryan Tannehill 10.21


NFC
Tom Brady 13.04%
Alex Smith 10.23
Russell Wilson 15.53
Drew Brees 11.94
Jared Goff 14.15
Aaron Rodgers 10.61
Mitch Trubisky 4.39


Brady is right at the figure , Goff and Wilson above it and everyone else below.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
Brady is right at the figure , Goff and Wilson above it and everyone else below.
Do you think Brady, Goff, & Wilson are legit contenders? Or are their teams devoid of championship talent?

They may not win the Super Bowl, but it won't be for lack of talent. jmo
 

Corrosion

Idealist
Staff member
Do you think Brady, Goff, & Wilson are legit contenders? Or are their teams devoid of championship talent?

They may not win the Super Bowl, but it won't be for lack of talent. jmo

The qualifier is "win a superbowl" above 13%.


But to answer the question .... Suppose it really depends upon your definition of contender. They all have a punchers chance but they are not favorites.

....
 

OptimisticTexan

2021 Building Block 1 / Go Texans
No. Just not those in high cap hit years.



I have little doubt that this statement is correct , eventually. But for now , the odds are that it holds true this year.


Here's the list of playoff QB's cap percentages for this year -

AFC
Josh Allen 2.66%
Lamar Jackson 1.31
Baker Mayfield 3.94
Phillip Rivers 10.42 (Brissett 8.91)
Pat Mahomes 2.24
Ben Roethlisberger 11.83
Ryan Tannehill 10.21


NFC
Tom Brady 13.04%
Alex Smith 10.23
Russell Wilson 15.53
Drew Brees 11.94
Jared Goff 14.15
Aaron Rodgers 10.61
Mitch Trubisky 4.39


Brady is right at the figure , Goff and Wilson above it and everyone else below.
How many of these guys are near the end of the current contracts? Based on the Mahomes and Watson....some of those percentages will change drastically in due time.
 

Corrosion

Idealist
Staff member
How many of these guys are near the end of the current contracts? Based on the Mahomes and Watson....some of those percentages will change drastically in due time.

Watson and Mahomes are technically still on their rookie deals. We just know what lies beyond that rookie deal in regards to them.

Mayfield , Allen , Jackson and Trubisky are also still in their rookie contracts - we just don't know the details of their next contracts.


Brady and Rivers had 1+1 deals .... they may or may not play next year.

Roethlisberger has one more year on his contract and will have a $42m cap hit for 21. His cap hit for this year was $23.75.m

Rodgers numbers go up significantly next year as well $21.642m to $36.352m or 10.61% to (estimated) 20.29%..

Wilson was 31m this year and is 32 , 37 and 39 in the following 3.


I think Wilson is the poster child for this whole discussion - He was a very good / great young QB but that team around him that won the Superbowl in 2013 and went back to the Superbowl in 2014 had a lot of talented players , particularly on defense that they just couldn't afford to keep. Despite the fact that Wilson is a better player today , the team just isn't as good top to bottom ... and they are up against the cap to boot.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
The qualifier is "win a superbowl" above 13%.


But to answer the question .... Suppose it really depends upon your definition of contender. They all have a punchers chance but they are not favorites.

....
You keep talking about 13%, as in teams only has 87% left and you claim that it's not enough to field a championship team,

But I had already told you that there were teams that had spent less than that and had won a Superbowl.
 
You keep talking about 13%, as in teams only has 87% left and you claim that it's not enough to field a championship team,

But I had already told you that there were teams that had spent less than that and had won a Superbowl.
No team that has spent 13.2% of the cap on ONE player has ever won the SB. Not sure how you can say teams have spent less than 87% when there is a league wide minimum that teams have to spend.

"There are two cash requirements in the current CBA.

  • The first is a league wide spending requirement of 95% of the NFL salary cap over two four year periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2020).
  • The second is that each team must spend to a minimum of at least 89% of the salary cap to make certain that the 95% number is not being met by a minority of teams."
 
Do you think Brady, Goff, & Wilson are legit contenders? Or are their teams devoid of championship talent?

They may not win the Super Bowl, but it won't be for lack of talent. jmo
Wilson has dragged his team across by his bare hands and been blessed, like the rest of the NFC, that the NFCE is so incredibly bad. Seattle did have 7 pro bowlers named so there is some talent but teams haven't feared playing them this year and they are nothing compared to the Seattle of just a few years ago.

Goff no I don't think there is any talent on that team. Donald and Jamsey were the only pro bowlers and I don't think they get past the wild card round. As Corrosion said they have a punchers chance but I compare them to the Texans as far as playoff chances go.

Buccs already had a lot of that talent in place they just needed a QB that could remember which uniform he was suppose to throw to. They did add Gronk and AB but they got them on cheap contracts strictly because they wanted to play with Brady.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
No team that has spent 13.2% of the cap on ONE player has ever won the SB. Not sure how you can say teams have spent less than 87% when there is a league wide minimum that teams have to spend.

"There are two cash requirements in the current CBA.

  • The first is a league wide spending requirement of 95% of the NFL salary cap over two four year periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2020).
  • The second is that each team must spend to a minimum of at least 89% of the salary cap to make certain that the 95% number is not being met by a minority of teams."
There were at least two teams that had won the SB while spending less than 87% of their cap , on top the starting position.
Ie., They paid their QB less than 13%, but they also spent less than 87% for the rest.
I had named them and the year in one of the threads.
These teams could have paid the QB the 13% and they still would be under the cap.

That means spending more than 13% on any single position does not preclude teams from building a SB winner.
 
Last edited:
There were at least two teams that had won the SB while spending less than 87% of their cap , on top the starting position.
Ie., They paid their QB less than 13%, but they also spent less than 87% for the rest.
I had named them and the year in one of the threads.
These teams could have paid the QB the 13% and they still would be under the cap.

That means spending more than 13% on any single position does not preclude teams from building a SB winner.
Again how did they spend less than 87% in the cap era of the league when that was in violation of league rules?
 

FuzzyLogic

Mathematically Possible
Again how did they spend less than 87% in the cap era of the league when that was in violation of league rules?
Trying to decipher...

I didn't look for the original post, but I THINK what he is saying if a team paid their QB 10% of the cap, the rest of the team was less than 87% of the cap - total being, for example - QB 10% + rest of team 82% = 92% total which would not violate the 89% cap rule (pretty sure it's 89%?).

So in theory the team could have paid their QB 18% if they had used every dollar available.
 
Trying to decipher...

I didn't look for the original post, but I THINK what he is saying if a team paid their QB 10% of the cap, the rest of the team was less than 87% of the cap - total being, for example - QB 10% + rest of team 82% = 92% total which would not violate the 89% cap rule (pretty sure it's 89%?).

So in theory the team could have paid their QB 18% if they had used every dollar available.
Ok that would make sense but it also assumes a team is going into the season with either a lot of their cap free or a lot of players on rookie deals. Neither of which applies to the Texans or really very many teams these days.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
I don't know how to locate those posts of mine.
Shortly after I posted them, the website that has the cap space figure started charging premium to pull up their content so I don't have a way to look for the numbers now.

Another thing that I came across, however, is the Pats in 2019.
Brady came into the season with a high salary/cap charge, but they reworked his contract.


Soon afterward, they used that money to sign Antonio Brown for 15M, including 9M in singing bonus.
They did book 4.5M of that figure for 2020, but that still meant they were spending 10.5M on Brown.
They cut Brown 11 days later and never needed him to win the SB.

In another word, had they not redone Brady's contract, he would have occupied more than 13% of the cap space.
 

amazing80

Fire Easterby
I don't know how to locate those posts of mine.
Shortly after I posted them, the website that has the cap space figure started charging premium to pull up their content so I don't have a way to look for the numbers now.

Another thing that I came across, however, is the Pats in 2019.
Brady came into the season with a high salary/cap charge, but they reworked his contract.


Soon afterward, they used that money to sign Antonio Brown for 15M, including 9M in singing bonus.
They did book 4.5M of that figure for 2020, but that still meant they were spending 10.5M on Brown.
They cut Brown 11 days later and never needed him to win the SB.

In another word, had they not redone Brady's contract, he would have occupied more than 13% of the cap space.
This is why I hate casual fans talking about the cap like they know. I used to go deep into that stuff but its a lot of work. Teams have so many options at their disposal to "create" room. Someone experienced and savvy enough can work things out.
 
This is why I hate casual fans talking about the cap like they know. I used to go deep into that stuff but its a lot of work. Teams have so many options at their disposal to "create" room. Someone experienced and savvy enough can work things out.
Ok fine but those teams have never done it when a QB was 13.2% or more of the cap. People can twist numbers and argue what ifs all they want but since the salary cap was put in place, thanks Jerry, it has never been done and you don't have to be a cap expert to know that.
 

amazing80

Fire Easterby
Ok fine but those teams have never done it when a QB was 13.2% or more of the cap. People can twist numbers and argue what ifs all they want but since the salary cap was put in place, thanks Jerry, it has never been done and you don't have to be a cap expert to know that.
And you don't need to be an expert to know what a player signs on day 1 is not the same break down on year 3. They move money around.
 
I don't know how to locate those posts of mine.
Shortly after I posted them, the website that has the cap space figure started charging premium to pull up their content so I don't have a way to look for the numbers now.

Another thing that I came across, however, is the Pats in 2019.
Brady came into the season with a high salary/cap charge, but they reworked his contract.


Soon afterward, they used that money to sign Antonio Brown for 15M, including 9M in singing bonus.
They did book 4.5M of that figure for 2020, but that still meant they were spending 10.5M on Brown.
They cut Brown 11 days later and never needed him to win the SB.

In another word, had they not redone Brady's contract, he would have occupied more than 13% of the cap space.
Patriots won the Super bowl in 2019? I don't recall Pats winning a SB or even really being competitive that year. In fact wasn't that the year we stomped them and it was as close to a championship as OB ever saw here? Putting that aside I'm confused as to what you are trying to argue here as it seems to be further proof of teams knowing they have to cut a QB salary down to stay competitive since according to your numbers Brady would have been 13% then they cut him down to 10%. I'm afraid you are totally losing me on what your point is.
 
And you don't need to be an expert to know what a player signs on day 1 is not the same break down on year 3. They move money around.
So? Again no team has moved money around enough to win it. Not sure what people are arguing about here, this is simply a fact of the NFL but people seem to think if they throw enough numbers and what ifs out then that will change.

Its like a person saying "I had two apples and then bought two more apples so now I have four apples."

"Yeah but what if they were oranges?"

"Ok then I would have four oranges, whats your point?"

"That you can't compare apples to oranges!"

:confused:

Thats how I feel about this whole discussion.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
Patriots won the Super bowl in 2019? I don't recall Pats winning a SB or even really being competitive that year. In fact wasn't that the year we stomped them and it was as close to a championship as OB ever saw here? Putting that aside I'm confused as to what you are trying to argue here as it seems to be further proof of teams knowing they have to cut a QB salary down to stay competitive since according to your numbers Brady would have been 13% then they cut him down to 10%. I'm afraid you are totally losing me on what your point is.
I got it mixed up with 2018.

At any rate, in 2018, when they won the SB, Brady's cap space was just below the 13% mark, but the Pats was about 1.2M under the cap.
Meaning they did spend under 87% for the rest of the team.


If you add that 1.2M to Brady's salary, his cap space would have been over the 13% mark.
 

TexansBull

Hall of Fame
I got it mixed up with 2018.

At any rate, in 2018, when they won the SB, Brady's cap space was just below the 13% mark, but the Pats was about 1.2M under the cap.
Meaning they did spend under 87% for the rest of the team.


If you add that 1.2M to Brady's salary, his cap space would have been over the 13% mark.
So pay QBs a salary to stay at the statistical anomaly and bonus the rest of their income as not to disturb the superstitious statisticians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
So pay QBs a salary to stay at the statistical anomaly and bonus the rest of their income as not to disturb the superstitious statisticians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know, right.

How about 2011 when the Giants beat the Patriots.


Both teams had plenty of cap space left. The salary cap that year was 120M.

Eli Manning's cap space was at 11.7% according to another website that I will pull up later.

Brady's cap space was way beyond that 13% threshold.

Neither team spent anywhere near 87% of their cap space on the rest of the roster.

And of course, everybody knows that the Pats were the better team that year.
 

Corrosion

Idealist
Staff member
The minimum is not assessed every season, like the cap. It's like a rolling three years or something, which is how they're allowed to rollover unused cap.
Ok that would make more sense then.

Thanks.

Edit: Also bring back Rob Zombie.

They have to spend 89% of the cap over a 4 year period.


Most teams roll some cap over year to year as very few are ever up against the hard cap. figure.
I got it mixed up with 2018.

At any rate, in 2018, when they won the SB, Brady's cap space was just below the 13% mark, but the Pats was about 1.2M under the cap.
Meaning they did spend under 87% for the rest of the team.


If you add that 1.2M to Brady's salary, his cap space would have been over the 13% mark.
Irrelevant.

First , we're talking about THE GOAT. That should end the discussion , No other team has that guy.

Second , he didn't earn greater than 13.2% of the total cap.

Regardless if he earned X% of what they spent - That's not what has been stated.

No team has won a superbowl while paying their QB greater than 13.2% of the total cap. None , Zip , Zilch , Nodda.

Moving the goal post does not change that FACT.
 

thunderkyss

Just win baby!!!
Staff member
Contributor's Club
I know, right.

How about 2011 when the Giants beat the Patriots.


Both teams had plenty of cap space left. The salary cap that year was 120M.

Eli Manning's cap space was at 11.7% according to another website that I will pull up later.

Brady's cap space was way beyond that 13% threshold.

Neither team spent anywhere near 87% of their cap space on the rest of the roster.

And of course, everybody knows that the Pats were the better team that year.
So you agree no team has won a Super Bowl in the salary cap era when their QB has made more than 13.2% of the cap?
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
They have to spend 89% of the cap over a 4 year period.


Most teams roll some cap over year to year as very few are ever up against the hard cap. figure.

Irrelevant.

First , we're talking about THE GOAT. That should end the discussion , No other team has that guy.

Second , he didn't earn greater than 13.2% of the total cap.

Regardless if he earned X% of what they spent - That's not what has been stated.

No team has won a superbowl while paying their QB greater than 13.2% of the total cap. None , Zip , Zilch , Nodda.

Moving the goal post does not change that FACT.
I never disputed that fact.
 

steelbtexan

King of the W. B. Club
Contributor's Club
No team that has spent 13.2% of the cap on ONE player has ever won the SB. Not sure how you can say teams have spent less than 87% when there is a league wide minimum that teams have to spend.

"There are two cash requirements in the current CBA.

  • The first is a league wide spending requirement of 95% of the NFL salary cap over two four year periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2020).
  • The second is that each team must spend to a minimum of at least 89% of the salary cap to make certain that the 95% number is not being met by a minority of teams."
Thanks

I haven't the time or inclination to deal with posters like him.

There's a reason I have him on ignore.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
The qualifier is "win a superbowl" above 13%.


But to answer the question .... Suppose it really depends upon your definition of contender. They all have a punchers chance but they are not favorites.

....
I disputes this.
In 2011, the Pats paid Brady much more than 13% of the cap and his team was not only way under the cap, but it was also the favorite to win the Super Bowl.

That's a heck a whole lot more than a punchers chance.

And it wasn't just that.
They came into the season as the clear favorite to win the SB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To recap.


The salary cap was 120M

Tom Brady salary was at 17.427M, which is 14.52% of the cap.

The Pats cap number was 89.22M, more than 31M under the salary cap.
Ok I’m pretty sure you are just arguing for the sake of argument because you have no real point. No one has said teams didn’t get close, no one has said teams can’t be built cheaply but correctly, what is the ONLY thing that has been said is that no team has won a SB with the QB 13% or more of the cap so unless you can find a team that has done that then stop with the pointless spin and trying to move goal posts.
 
The qualifier is "win a superbowl" above 13%.


But to answer the question .... Suppose it really depends upon your definition of contender. They all have a punchers chance but they are not favorites.

....
I disputes this.
In 2011, the Pats paid Brady much more than 13% of the cap and his team was not only way under the cap, but it was also the favorite to win the Super Bowl.

That's a heck a whole lot more than a punchers chance.

And it wasn't just that.
They came into the season as the clear favorite to win the SB.

And again your point has ZERO to do with the post you are quoting. TK asked if the Buccs, Rams and Seahawks of THIS YEAR have a chance. No one was talking about the 2011 Pats and frankly no cares because it’s got zero to do with the topic of discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

76Texan

Hall of Fame
Ok I’m pretty sure you are just arguing for the sake of argument because you have no real point. No one has said teams didn’t get close, no one has said teams can’t be built cheaply but correctly, what is the ONLY thing that has been said is that no team has won a SB with the QB 13% or more of the cap so unless you can find a team that has done that then stop with the pointless spin and trying to move goal posts.
No, the argument has been here for a long time, way before this thread.
If you don't understand it, ask for an explanation.

Long ago, when corrosion brought up this crap about 13%, he said it's impossible to build a real contender after a team pay a QB that much.
And he used thw fact that no QB that had occupied that much cap space has ever won a SB.

I answered that while it is true that no such QB had ever won a SB, you can still build a real contender with less than 87% of the cap space (not counting the starting QB).

And I had shown several proof.
The lastest example are the Pats and Giants in the same year.
Both teams had used less than that 87% figure to build the rest of the roster to get to the Super Bowl and faced one another.
 

76Texan

Hall of Fame
And again your point has ZERO to do with the post you are quoting. TK asked if the Buccs, Rams and Seahawks of THIS YEAR have a chance. No one was talking about the 2011 Pats and frankly no cares because it’s got zero to do with the topic of discussion.
The real topic of discussion is always about DW4, and this time, it's all about "how the next GM" can't build a contender while being saddled with his contract".

I hope that you understand it by now and not trying to MoVe the Goal Post again. Thank you kindly.
 


Top