Sources: Owners push for an expanded season

[Rory Sparrow]

Russell Wilson, Rodgers, now Dak, hell, even average to shitty FA QBs can hamstring a roster for at least a few years dep on when their contract hits (MIA, DEN, WASH, SF, etc)

I thought that was kind of the whole point of the salary cap providing competitive balance.

As for your examples, Miami was out of the playoffs the 6 years prior to giving Tannehill 4yr/$77M, and then the next year they made the postseason. Not sure who Denver has been 'hamstrung' by in terms of FA QBs. It can't be Keenum, as he is one of the lowest paid starters in the NFL. Washington was mediocre with Cousins on franchise tag deals, and last year without Cousins 'hamstringing' them they finished 7-9. SF was terrible before Garoppolo's 2-year out deal...not sure how they are "hamstrung".

It seems like the good organizations are able to make things work.

 

[Chris Sojka]

It would be cool if they added 2 games but also expanded the roster spots by 5 or something like that. The player would get a few extra bucks to negotiate for and theyd have to expand the salary cap which could be paid for by the 2 extra games that create the revenue.

 

[gilder121]

No way the players ever try to limit their own pay. This would cause huge fighting within the NFLPA and probably lawsuits by QB's against their own union.

While I agree, it's not totally unfounded as members of the NFLPA HAVE advocated for this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164740298444066816

One thing to keep in mind though is that his Twitter timeline is full of conspiracy theories and references to possible CTE, so take it for what it's worth. Also, obviously he wasn't a QB.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

While I agree, it's not totally unfounded as members of the NFLPA HAVE advocated for this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164740298444066816

One thing to keep in mind though is that his Twitter timeline is full of conspiracy theories and references to possible CTE, so take it for what it's worth. Also, obviously he wasn't a QB.

But Larry Johnson has some gravitas, as his earning power was diluted by having Herm fricking Edwards as his HC. Poor guy had 416 carries in one season...obviously the NFL record and possibly an unbreakable one in this day and age.

 

[iueyedoc]

While I agree, it's not totally unfounded as members of the NFLPA HAVE advocated for this.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1164740298444066816

One thing to keep in mind though is that his Twitter timeline is full of conspiracy theories and references to possible CTE, so take it for what it's worth. Also, obviously he wasn't a QB.

I imagine RB's especially have some animus towards QB's, as the QB salaries skyrocket and RB's are becoming marginalized, but I just don't see this gaining any real traction. The owners would love to see the NFLPA start to eat their own.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Larry Johnson

✔@2LarryJohnson7

Guarantee contracts, stop “split” contracts when injury prone players get injured. A cap on QB salaries, making them equal to the rest of the team. Above all else, allow players to stay within the same health insurance plan they came in the league with for life.

I don't get this. Any football related injury would be a workers compensation case, not covered by any normal health insurance coverage. Not to mention the cost "for life" would be staggering.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Larry Johnson
✔@2LarryJohnson7

Guarantee contracts, stop “split” contracts when injury prone players get injured. A cap on QB salaries, making them equal to the rest of the team. Above all else, allow players to stay within the same health insurance plan they came in the league with for life.

I don't get this. Any football related injury would be a workers compensation case, not covered by any normal health insurance coverage. Not to mention the cost "for life" would be staggering.

I don't get what you are saying. Some pension plans offer the same employee health insurance plans. Its not an 'out there' sentiment. Your whole 'workers comp' angle should probably just be ignored.

 

[nc0gnet0]

Max cap on Qb's would never fly. Stupid idea. It would screw so many things up it wouldn't be funny.
Franchise tag on a QB? Going to cost you the Max Cap QB figure.
2nd franchise tag on QB? ruh roh shaggy, how do we calculate that?

So an elite QB, no longer has a financial incentive to stay with his current team, he can basically play anywhere he wants and make the same $$. Every year would see a QB carousal, much like the NBA, as QB's move to more favorable locations based on where they can live, how good the team is, etc etc.

Escalating QB contracts are already starting to sort themselves out, with teams now figuring out if they can incorporate a more college like offensive system, QB's on rookie contracts have a lot of value. We have already seen this happen to the RB's.

This is a can of worms you don't want to open.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I don't get what you are saying. Some pension plans offer the same employee health insurance plans. Its not an 'out there' sentiment. Your whole 'workers comp' angle should probably just be ignored.

Do the math.

Average health care costs per year for a normal (not high risk) individual is $6,000.00
High risk (this would be an NFL player) would be 2x that.
Figuring and average retirement from the NFL age of 30 and a life expectancy of 70 that equates to roughly 25-26 mil per 53 man roster per year. This doesn't even take into account that health care is escalating and at an astronomical rate, and is likely to be 3x that before even the current crop of players reach EOL.
At what point does a player qualify for lifetime health insurance? One day of service, one month, one year? How many players does an NFL team cycle through in a year that would qualify? My guess is much more that 53.
What about players that have already retired?
Not to mention that the current plan is a family plan, not an individual plan, so double that again (if what Johnson is asking is for "family coverage for life", not clear on that).

Your pension plan example is a poor one. They don't kick in until the employee is at retirement age, and EOL expectations are no where even close to the 40+ years of the average NFL player who retired at 30. Johnson isn't asking for a health insurance from the NFL when he reaches normal retirement age, he is asking for it when he walks away from the NFL.

A more logical approach would be to start a medical self funded expense fund for all NFL players that incurred injuries in service of the NFL that would cover issues only related to those injuries.

All most all Health Insurance providers exclude coverage for injuries and illnesses that are covered by Workers’ Compensation Insurance.

 

[Chris Sojka]

Max cap on Qb's would never fly. Stupid idea. It would screw so many things up it wouldn't be funny.
Franchise tag on a QB? Going to cost you the Max Cap QB figure.
2nd franchise tag on QB? ruh roh shaggy, how do we calculate that?

So an elite QB, no longer has a financial incentive to stay with his current team, he can basically play anywhere he wants and make the same $$. Every year would see a QB carousal, much like the NBA, as QB's move to more favorable locations based on where they can live, how good the team is, etc etc.

Escalating QB contracts are already starting to sort themselves out, with teams now figuring out if they can incorporate a more college like offensive system, QB's on rookie contracts have a lot of value. We have already seen this happen to the RB's.

This is a can of worms you don't want to open.

I completely agree. But i dont know that we see things the same way. As it could go a few different ways.

I see the QBs pay as a thing the market sets and eventually the market will correct it. The days of franchise QBs carrying teams to superbowls may be a thing of the past in the next 5-10 years. There will be exceptions, but I think going forward with mobilility being a must for many QBs entering the league you will see a shift back to defensive units tying up money while rotating QBs into a system offense. After all we have seen limited success from anyone outside of Brady Brees Manning Eli Ryan and Rivers. (Opinion) Flacco carried and got carried to a superbowl by an elite defense, Russ got carried by the LOB, we'd love to see offenses built the way they were a few years ago but its looking like with the Lamar Jackson and Kyler Murray pick we are starting to see a shift in the sentiment towards mobile QBs. After all its easier fir a QB to scramble behind a bad offensive line, wear teams down, and wait for a broken play to score points than it is to build a really good offense and then have a QB come in and execute the offense well for a decade. All this while changing up a couple of key players over the years while paying the Franchise QB and paying to keep him protected. We've seen QBs like Cousins, Cutler, Leinert, Fitzpatrick, Hasselback, get moved into offenses and be given weapons and not be able to execute. We've seen countless big money contracts wasted on QBs who are good Franchise QBs but cant seem to keep pace with how much their defenses give up meaning they play trailing. Making those deals bad deals if the goal is winning.

So paying less for QBs and demanding results first before the big contract is the way to play it. In this NFL you can rely on an elite defense and put points up with power running and a scrambling QB. Just dont pay big bucks for the scrambling QB if he wants too much replace him.

Vick was a unique player
RG3 was a unique player
Russell Wilson was a unique player
Lamar Jackson and Kyler Murray may not be so unique and there are probably a ton more in the pipeline.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I completely agree. But i dont know that we see things the same way. As it could go a few different ways.

I see the QBs pay as a thing the market sets and eventually the market will correct it. The days of franchise QBs carrying teams to superbowls may be a thing of the past in the next 5-10 years. There will be exceptions, but I think going forward with mobilility being a must for many QBs entering the league you will see a shift back to defensive units tying up money while rotating QBs into a system offense. After all we have seen limited success from anyone outside of Brady Brees Manning Eli Ryan and Rivers. (Opinion) Flacco carried and got carried to a superbowl by an elite defense, Russ got carried by the LOB, we'd love to see offenses built the way they were a few years ago but its looking like with the Lamar Jackson and Kyler Murray pick we are starting to see a shift in the sentiment towards mobile QBs. After all its easier fir a QB to scramble behind a bad offensive line, wear teams down, and wait for a broken play to score points than it is to build a really good offense and then have a QB come in and execute the offense well for a decade. All this while changing up a couple of key players over the years while paying the Franchise QB and paying to keep him protected. We've seen QBs like Cousins, Cutler, Leinert, Fitzpatrick, Hasselback, get moved into offenses and be given weapons and not be able to execute. We've seen countless big money contracts wasted on QBs who are good Franchise QBs but cant seem to keep pace with how much their defenses give up meaning they play trailing. Making those deals bad deals if the goal is winning.

So paying less for QBs and demanding results first before the big contract is the way to play it. In this NFL you can rely on an elite defense and put points up with power running and a scrambling QB. Just dont pay big bucks for the scrambling QB if he wants too much replace him.

Vick was a unique player
RG3 was a unique player
Russell Wilson was a unique player
Lamar Jackson and Kyler Murray may not be so unique and there are probably a ton more in the pipeline.

I agree but I think the whole process is cyclical. We all know that scrambling QB's running a college system don't have a very high life expectancy in the NFL. So are we going to see the QB position go the way of the Rb position, a 4-5 year disposable commodity? Maybe, but I do agree, the market will correct itself. But on the other hand, all the rule changes have allowed for QB's that stay in the pocket and not become a runner enjoy a must longer LE.

 

[Chris Sojka]

I agree but I think the whole process is cyclical. We all know that scrambling QB's running a college system don't have a very high life expectancy in the NFL. So are we going to see the QB position go the way of the Rb position, a 4-5 year disposable commodity? Maybe, but I do agree, the market will correct itself. But on the other hand, all the rule changes have allowed for QB's that stay in the pocket and not become a runner enjoy a must longer LE.

I believe we will @nc0gnet0.

You cant justify paying Stafford over Suh in retrospect because Suh actually contributed everywhere he went. Matt Schaub couldn't duplicate his success, and with a solid defense Houston has found success in an athletc QB. Wilson, had he not been signed could gave been traded to a team for a 1st rounder and change. Keeping most if not all of the LOB together while they retool on offense or even further strengthen their defense. Flacco's contract meant the end of defensive football in Baltimore, although aging it still couldnt bring in big defensive FAs or draft them. In fact they are lucky they had suggs or theyd have been bottom of the league at times. Cam Newton has a lot on his plate. That defense was one of the best in the league before he signed. Last year they were 15th in points and 19th in yards. If Cam cant make them a top 5 offense than he simply isnt worth the money. You were better off with a great defense and a power run game.

 

[Chris Sojka]

I agree but I think the whole process is cyclical. We all know that scrambling QB's running a college system don't have a very high life expectancy in the NFL. So are we going to see the QB position go the way of the Rb position, a 4-5 year disposable commodity? Maybe, but I do agree, the market will correct itself. But on the other hand, all the rule changes have allowed for QB's that stay in the pocket and not become a runner enjoy a must longer LE.

Also I dont think you'll see it go the way of the running back, but if you arent a top 5 offense, realky close to it or playoff team that got their with a balanced team in your contract year, you are actually very replacable. Everyone else is performing and you as a QB are getting paid for what you potentially bring to the table.

I love Mitch and banged the table for him on draft day.
But if were not a top 5 team in scoring with all the opportunities the defense will be giving the team. Then im sorry you need to take a short term deal for less money and prove it.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Do the math.

Average health care costs per year for a normal (not high risk) individual is $6,000.00
High risk (this would be an NFL player) would be 2x that.
Figuring and average retirement from the NFL age of 30 and a life expectancy of 70 that equates to roughly 25-26 mil per 53 man roster per year. This doesn't even take into account that health care is escalating and at an astronomical rate, and is likely to be 3x that before even the current crop of players reach EOL.
At what point does a player qualify for lifetime health insurance? One day of service, one month, one year? How many players does an NFL team cycle through in a year that would qualify? My guess is much more that 53.
What about players that have already retired?
Not to mention that the current plan is a family plan, not an individual plan, so double that again (if what Johnson is asking is for "family coverage for life", not clear on that).

Your pension plan example is a poor one. They don't kick in until the employee is at retirement age, and EOL expectations are no where even close to the 40+ years of the average NFL player who retired at 30. Johnson isn't asking for a health insurance from the NFL when he reaches normal retirement age, he is asking for it when he walks away from the NFL.

I'm not sure what any of this means. "Do the math"? Uh, ok. I was merely clarifying LJ's comments, because you said "I don't get this". After reading the above posting, I'm guessing you still don't get it. You are stupefied to the point of asking "at what point does a player qualify for lifetime health insurance"...I take it you are completely unfamiliar with a pension system?? Then you have the nerve to moments later say my pension plan example was a poor one. Ok.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I believe we will @nc0gnet0.

You cant justify paying Stafford over Suh in retrospect because Suh actually contributed everywhere he went. Matt Schaub couldn't duplicate his success, and with a solid defense Houston has found success in an athletc QB. Wilson, had he not been signed could gave been traded to a team for a 1st rounder and change. Keeping most if not all of the LOB together while they retool on offense or even further strengthen their defense. Flacco's contract meant the end of defensive football in Baltimore, although aging it still couldnt bring in big defensive FAs or draft them. In fact they are lucky they had suggs or theyd have been bottom of the league at times. Cam Newton has a lot on his plate. That defense was one of the best in the league before he signed. Last year they were 15th in points and 19th in yards. If Cam cant make them a top 5 offense than he simply isnt worth the money. You were better off with a great defense and a power run game.

Not sure what to make of you first comment. How do we know Stafford wouldn't contribute everywhere he went if he had went somewhere else?

But I digress, your getting off on a tangent here, and changing the argument from Capping the money for QB contracts to do I think Qb's are overpaid. The problem with the argument of the latter is Tom Brady and how much an influence he has on recent statistics in regards to average salaries of SB winning QB's in the last 10-20 years. He is such a unique outlier (take less as he is married to a supermodel) in regards to percentage of cap, I don't know if we will ever see something like it again. But, how many QB's have won the SB while on their Rookie contracts? I can think of one, Russel Wilson.

 

[gilder121]

Over the last couple of years there has been a fair bit of speculation about Jared Goff and if the Rams would be better off trading and drafting anew as opposed to paying. I think the mid tier QB market needs to reset.

 

[nc0gnet0]

I'm not sure what any of this means. "Do the math"? Uh, ok. I was merely clarifying LJ's comments, because you said "I don't get this". After reading the above posting, I'm guessing you still don't get it. You are stupefied to the point of asking "at what point does a player qualify for lifetime health insurance"...I take it you are completely unfamiliar with a pension system?? Then you have the nerve to moments later say my pension plan example was a poor one. Ok.

Because it was a piss poor example. The "I don't get this" part of had to do with the fact that health insurance wouldn't cover the injuries sustained while playing in the NFL or any lingering issues those injuries may have later in life. But please continue with your clueless examples comparing apples to oranges, it always makes me laugh.

Larry Johnson made 26 mil in the NFL, he can get his own dam health insurance. If he wanted life time health insurance, he should have asked for it when he negotiated a contract, nothing prevented him from doing so.

 

[Chris Sojka]

Not sure what to make of you first comment. How do we know Stafford wouldn't contribute everywhere he went if he had went somewhere else?

But I digress, your getting off on a tangent here, and changing the argument from Capping the money for QB contracts to do I think Qb's are overpaid. The problem with the argument of the latter is Tom Brady and how much an influence he has on recent statistics in regards to average salaries of SB winning QB's in the last 10-20 years. He is such a unique outlier (take less as he is married to a supermodel) in regards to percentage of cap, I don't know if we will ever see something like it again. But, how many QB's have one the SB while on their Rookie contracts? I can think of one, Russel Wilson.

Do you really credit Wilson as leading his team to a superbowl when he averaged at or below 200 yards passing in the playoffs?

My point was that Wilson and the LOB are proof that you dont have to pay a scrambling QB who averages 200 yards per game in the playoffs and still win a superbowl and make multiple appearances, and that once you paid him your superbowl chances go from very possible to highly improbable. Not only can Wilson not pull the numbers offensively to shootout against great defenses, his contract ties up money so he cant protect himself. Not with a great power runner or a solid offensive line. He has to stay on the field, deliver points and take damage. With the LOB gone its likely the days of winning championships in Seattle are over.

So to get back to my point. In the future if you have an elite defense it may be better to get rid of your QB if he hasnt already proven to be an Elite QB. The players that have proven this before their big contracts are Brady and Roethlisberger.

Franchise QBs in the future will be about winning. Not hoping and gambling your QB can win after he gets a huge payday. Rotting the talent on the team around the unproven QB. I know this is not how things are now, but would from a data analytics point of view be the logical way to go. Unless the actual goal is selling jerseys and not actually winning.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Because it was a piss poor example. The "I don't get this" part of had to do with the fact that health insurance wouldn't cover the injuries sustained while playing in the NFL or any lingering issues those injuries may have later in life. But please continue with your clueless examples comparing apples to oranges, it always makes me laugh.

Larry Johnson made 26 mil in the NFL, he can get his own dam health insurance. If he wanted life time health insurance, he should have asked for it when he negotiated a contract, nothing prevented him from doing so.

But what if he negotiated life time health insurance into his contract, but then the next CBA voided it?

Between this thread and the CBA thread, you obviously don't understand how anything works. I can't help you. Nor do I want to after reading your comments.

 

[nc0gnet0]

But what if he negotiated life time health insurance into his contract, but then the next CBA voided it?

Between this thread and the CBA thread, you obviously don't understand how anything works. I can't help you. Nor do I want to after reading your comments.

He is already retired, I highly doubt the next CBA is retroactive in terms of benefits for already retired players, what a moron you are. Keep arguing with me, and keep losing, it really is quite funny.