Lou speaks on the state of the defense

[SunsetBengal]

(12-29-2023, 07:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: There are only around 1,000 veteran NFL players who have gotten through a rookie contract and thus have actually had the ability to have their services bidded on rather than fixed cost. Only about 600 veterans who are making at least $2m/yr and anyone under that are generally interchangeable depth. 10% of the ~600 vets making $2m+/yr is 60, 10% of the ~1,000 vets in the NFL is 100. The middle of that is 80.

You start expanding it too much to 10% of 2,000 or 20% of 2,000 and it just get dumb. The 198th, 199th, and 200th cap hits have to combine together to equal the 19th cap hit, you can't be putting them all in the same category. The 393rd-400th are all below $4m. You've nearly reached Nick Scott at that point. Heck, Tee Higgins is the 396th cap hit at $3.962m... are we really calling 2023 Tee Higgins an "expensive offensive talent"?

Which would put him in the top 40% of all contracts.  However, in order to retain him, it would require a deal that would certainly put him in the top 5% of contracts, which is fine as anyone who is among the best at their job should have their compensation reflect as such. Remember back that this discussion spun off of another post where it was suggested to let players walk and just draft new ones.

What I was proposing is for the league to put a cap on position pay as a percentage of a team's cap.  For example, limit QB contracts to a max of 15% of a team's yearly cap, make positional players 10% max, etc. (I don't know if those values are fair, but just numbers for discussion)  Because as it is now, teams face the real possibility of having nearly half of a team's cap invested in as little as two players.  Is it really fair to have two players consuming half of a number that is supposed to cover 53?