Eric Reid signed

[NinerSickness]

I think one of the flaws with your OL analysis is that Joe Thomas was (is) considered the best LT in the league. Jake Long is coming off an injury riddled season where he didn't perform like an elite LT.

I did consider that. That's why I listed him 3rd. I was having a hard time finding the record-breaking OLT contracts over the years, so I don't have a huge sample size yet. I just remembered Freeney & Mario broke records in that respect. Joe Thomas had the biggest in history so far if I'm not mistaken.

The weird thing is that Steve Hutchinson was the highest-paid OL in the league at one point as a guard. That was the year a lot of record-breaking contracts were signed if I remember correctly.

 

[imac_21]

I think CB would be a good place to look. There was a bit of a shock around the league, at least according to the media, in terms of how many CBs that were expected to get long term, big money contracts this year ended up settling for one year deals (DRC with Denver), but Revis still got paid.

I'm about to call it a night, and can't really think right now, but I feel like there were about 5 CBs in that boat this year (guys expected to sign 4-6 year, 8M contracts settling for 1 year deals).

 

[NinerSickness]

I think CB would be a good place to look. There was a bit of a shock around the league, at least according to the media, in terms of how many CBs that were expected to get long term, big money contracts this year ended up settling for one year deals (DRC with Denver), but Revis still got paid.

I'm about to call it a night, and can't really think right now, but I feel like there were about 5 CBs in that boat this year (guys expected to sign 4-6 year, 8M contracts settling for 1 year deals).

I'm going to try to look at the positions that have more to do with the running game first to see if my theory holds any water (ILB, guard, DT). If all positions are getting bigger percentages of the pie at the top, then what these guys are saying is correct. If they're not, it may just be that certain positions are becoming more valuable than others.

 

[imac_21]

I did consider that. That's why I listed him 3rd. I was having a hard time finding the record-breaking OLT contracts over the years, so I don't have a huge sample size yet. I just remembered Freeney & Mario broke records in that respect. Joe Thomas had the biggest in history so far if I'm not mistaken.

The weird thing is that Steve Hutchinson was the highest-paid OL in the league at one point as a guard. That was the year a lot of record-breaking contracts were signed if I remember correctly.

Wasn't that 2007, the year the cap jumped significantly due to the new CBA (we signed Clements as well).

Looking at the franchise tags and the percent of the cap they take up might be a good way to look at it. That would tell you the top 5 average at each position the previous year, and you can calculate it by that. It excludes the new contracts though, and the new CBA changed the franchise tag rules to lower the cost. So forget that.

What did Peppers get in Chicago? I think it would be interesting to compare players that changed teams to those that re-signed as well (especially if they re-signed before FA started).

 

[imac_21]

I'm going to try to look at the positions that have more to do with the running game first to see if my theory holds any water (ILB, guard, DT). If all positions are getting bigger percentages of the pie at the top, then what these guys are saying is correct. If they're not, it may just be that certain positions are becoming more valuable than others.

I think you have to look at what's happening in the middle ground in terms of salary as well. How many teams cut starters this offseason that were making in the 3-5M range? How many teams just let those guys go?

 

[NinerSickness]

Looking at the franchise tags and the percent of the cap they take up might be a good way to look at it. That would tell you the top 5 average at each position the previous year, and you can calculate it by that.

Thanks 'mac. That's perfect! I can't believe I didn't think of that. Would've saved me some time looking this stuff up...

 

[NinerSickness]

Franchise Tag percentages in 2006 VS 2013:

DT - 5.55% / 6.87% respectively.
Safety - 4.03% / 5.62%

The tag isn't broken down by ILB vs OLB, and it isn't broken down by OG / tackle. So those numbers could be deceiving. But it's starting to look like those writers were correct about the top salaries.

The next question is this: is this trend because more cap space is opened up by the rooks not making as much or is it because of a shift in GMs' strategies?

 

[RedneckNiner]

Okay reading the SI Article.... uhm nol I don't feel sorry for those poor people only making a few hundred thousand to a few million a year for playing a game. Its awesome they have a job that pays like that but I am not going to think anyone that makes upwards of 300k a year to play my favorite game got any sort of raw deal. And the whole argument of short career.. most football players make more in their "short" career than the average working stiff does in his whole career. Just because they are more foolish with their money doesn't mean they are entitled to more.

 

[imac_21]

Sick, just ran across this info which applies to our discussion in this thread:

The Jets, this offseason, cut the following veteran starters: Brandon Moore, Sione Pouha, Bart Scott, Calvin Pace, Eric Smith and Bryan Thomas. Of those players only Calvin Pace is currently signed (he re-signed with the Jets. As far as I know the rest are all FAs two weeks before training camps open.

Eric Smith is the only guy that wouldn't be considered a starter, none have had a significant injury history.

Teams are choosing to funnel money to big name players and replace guys like Scott, Moore and Pouha (those 3 in particular) with rookies rather than invest 2-3M in one of these guys.

 

[NinerSickness]

What would be the most telling would be to compare the median (not the average) salary in the NFL as a percentage of the cap VS the median salary 5-8 years ago. Unfortunately, I'm only finding average salaries.

But it makes sense that if rookie salaries go down & their respective abilities on the field don't go down that teams will want to carry more rookies on their rosters. It's increased bang for yer buck compared to pre-2011. That means fringe veterans accept the minimum to keep a job. This means average players may have to accept less money as well.

However, it's hard to say for sure what the trends are without knowing the median salaries in the NFL.

The NFL could do what the NBA has done and have a maximum contract to buck this supposed trend, but I don't think that's a good idea at all.

 

[imac_21]

What would be the most telling would be to compare the median (not the average) salary in the NFL as a percentage of the cap VS the median salary 5-8 years ago. Unfortunately, I'm only finding average salaries.

But it makes sense that if rookie salaries go down & their respective abilities on the field don't go down that teams will want to carry more rookies on their rosters. It's increased bang for yer buck compared to pre-2011. That means fringe veterans accept the minimum to keep a job. This means average players may have to accept less money as well.

However, it's hard to say for sure what the trends are without knowing the median salaries in the NFL.

The NFL could do what the NBA has done and have a maximum contract to buck this supposed trend, but I don't think that's a good idea at all.

But ifthere are more rookies in the league, then that likely means that their respective abilities have gone down.

If 5 years ago there were an average of 5 rookies on a roster (160 in the league) and now there are 7 rookies per roster on average (224 total) those extra 64 rookies will likely bring down the "average" ability of the rookies.

I would imagine that teams have decided that you're better off having, say, 2 or 3 "superstars" on the roster at the expense of the the back end (the bottom 13 players on the 53 man). If you can carry 13 first or second year players as the bottom of the roster at rookie minimum costs, as opposed to veterans it saves some money that allows the team to keep their top players, or fish for top FAs.

How many veteran, bottom of the roster guys have we kept throughout the season the last couple years? We had Leonard Davis for OL this year, but other than that? I suppose Tavares Gooden and Larry Grant kind of count (though they were still young and quite cheap).

Just going off the top of my head, we didn't have any "established" veterans on the DL, OLB, WR, CB, S.

We had Jacobs and Edwards, but neither were supposed to be bottom of the roster players, but were injured. They were cut when it became clear they weren't going to get on the field.

 

[NinerSickness]

But ifthere are more rookies in the league, then that likely means that their respective abilities have gone down.

What I meant was that the production teams get from rookies hasn't gone down since 2011 (rushing yards, sacks, tackles, etc). It was just to say that teams are getting the same output for less money in rookies, so it makes sense that teams carry more of them in lieu of veterans.

You're right that the fringe veterans are becoming less valuable to teams & are making less money. Do you think that's because rookies are cheaper now or do you think it's just the strategy of GMs to get more star players & make up the added cost with more rooks?

And if players don't like this trend, what would they suggest the NFL does to change it? Max contracts? Limiting the amount of rookies a team can keep on the roster? And would that fix anything or would teams simply go after the star players & give the leftovers to veterans the same way they're giving 'em to rooks now?

 

[imac_21]

What I meant was that the production teams get from rookies hasn't gone down since 2011 (rushing yards, sacks, tackles, etc). It was just to say that teams are getting the same output for less money in rookies, so it makes sense that teams carry more of them in lieu of veterans.

You're right that the fringe veterans are becoming less valuable to teams & are making less money. Do you think that's because rookies are cheaper now or do you think it's just the strategy of GMs to get more star players & make up the added cost with more rooks?

And if players don't like this trend, what would they suggest the NFL does to change it? Max contracts? Limiting the amount of rookies a team can keep on the roster? And would that fix anything or would teams simply go after the star players & give the leftovers to veterans the same way they're giving 'em to rooks now?

I think it's a combination of the two as to why the fringe vets are finding themselves unemployed. if you're the 49th man on the roster, you aren't dressing on game day anyway, so production is a wash there.

The production of rookies I think is negligible because of course teams will get contributions from top end draft picks, it's the decision to carry extra undrafted FAs rather than veterans where it has a serious impact.

 

[aarrgghh]

It seems to me that the league really pulled a fast one on the players with the rookie wage scale. I realize that an adjustment needed to be made, and I realize the ostensible reason was to give the players who had proven their worth the money instead of unproven rookies, but the reality has been (seemingly) that this has really shafted a majority of free agent players, since the teams are able to use the cheap labor threat to force their salary downwards.

Part of it makes sense, but really IMO, they (the NFL owners) are out of control. They already have a draft and a built in talent pool to choose from in the NCAA, and now they force a wage scale on all players coming into the league. All of this is illegal except for the fact that congress has granted them anti-trust exemptions. It will be very interesting to see how the balance of profit shifts over the next years. One thing I think is very clear: Whoever negotiated this agreement on the part of the players association did a terrible job.

 

[NinerSickness]

It seems to me that the league really pulled a fast one on the players with the rookie wage scale.

That doesn't make any sense at all. The rookie wage scale doesn't affect the total salary cap. The owners don't care if they're paying less to rookies & more to veterans or the other way around; they care about the total amount of money they pay out.

And the league essentially couldn't exist if they didn't have an anti-trust exemption. Neither could MLB, NHL or NBA. Would you be happier if these sports leagues didn't exist?

One thing I think is very clear: Whoever negotiated this agreement on the part of the players association did a terrible job.

Then what would you have suggested that's different?

 

[NinerSickness]

By the way, nobody has shown whether the median NFL salary as a percentage of the salary cap has gone up or down from pre-2011 to now. Until someone can this is all just guess-work.

And it's a player VS player issue not a player VS owner issue.

 

[aarrgghh]

That doesn't make any sense at all. The rookie wage scale doesn't affect the total salary cap. The owners don't care if they're paying less to rookies & more to veterans or the other way around; they care about the total amount of money they pay out.

And the league essentially couldn't exist if they didn't have an anti-trust exemption. Neither could MLB, NHL or NBA. Would you be happier if these sports leagues didn't exist?



Then what would you have suggested that's different?

First off, I speak a language known as "English" and I can write fairly coherently also. I understand the reasoning behind the ant-trust exemption. I also think the owners are taking advantage in other ways as well. Now, in addition to being able to dictate where a player must play for the first several years of his career, he is also capped on how much he can make for at least 3 years, longer if you include a possible franchise tag. Clear enough?

Next, do you think all of the players who previously could look forward to a nice, big contract when they hit free agency are enjoying the new structure? Look at what happened to Goldson, who played out his contract, was franchised for a year, then let go because paying him 8-9 mil against bringing in a rookie at about 25% of that (just a guess) and putting that money elsewhere works out better for them - Reid is probably not going to be a big dropoff - understandable, but not fair to the guys who finish their rookie contracts only to find that it is much more enticing to bring in someone who won't be a cap problem for at least 3 years. If you've been following, then you may have noticed very few big contracts going to FAs this year.

My point is that for me, this was unforeseen. I'll bet it wasn't for the owners though. They had it all worked out.

 

[NinerSickness]

First off, I speak a language known as "English" and I can write fairly coherently also. I understand the reasoning behind the ant-trust exemption. I also think the owners are taking advantage in other ways as well. Now, in addition to being able to dictate where a player must play for the first several years of his career, he is also capped on how much he can make for at least 3 years, longer if you include a possible franchise tag. Clear enough?

Next, do you think all of the players who previously could look forward to a nice, big contract when they hit free agency are enjoying the new structure? Look at what happened to Goldson, who played out his contract, was franchised for a year, then let go because paying him 8-9 mil against bringing in a rookie at about 25% of that (just a guess) and putting that money elsewhere works out better for them - Reid is probably not going to be a big dropoff - understandable, but not fair to the guys who finish their rookie contracts only to find that it is much more enticing to bring in someone who won't be a cap problem for at least 3 years. If you've been following, then you may have noticed very few big contracts going to FAs this year.

My point is that for me, this was unforeseen. I'll bet it wasn't for the owners though. They had it all worked out.

This entire post is one giant non-sequitur. Especially the bold parts. The owners DON'T CARE who gets how much; they care how much THEY pay and about winning. They don't care if 1 guy gets 120 million per season and the other 52 players split the remaining 3 million; they still pay 123 million for the season.

And you didn't mention what you would have demanded in negotiations if you were there. You lament that the NFL "dictates" where players can play their "several years." Do you think rookies should become free agents after 1 season? 2?

And you claiming that there have been "very few big contracts" this year is an arbitrary statement. Big compared to what? Nobody has produced the mean NFL salary yet.

You're also missing that both sides agreed to the CBA.

 

[aarrgghh]

This entire post is one giant non-sequitur. Especially the bold parts. The owners DON'T CARE who gets how much; they care how much THEY pay and about winning. They don't care if 1 guy gets 120 million per season and the other 52 players split the remaining 3 million; they still pay 123 million for the season.

And you didn't mention what you would have demanded in negotiations if you were there. You lament that the NFL "dictates" where players can play their "several years." Do you think rookies should become free agents after 1 season? 2?

And you claiming that there have been "very few big contracts" this year is an arbitrary statement. Big compared to what? Nobody has produced the mean NFL salary yet.

You're also missing that both sides agreed to the CBA.

Dude, you act as though I'm the first and only person who ever said anything like this. Not one of your conclusions of what I said are even close. Read and comprehend. This isn't rocket science. Are you just being an agitator?

 

[imac_21]

First off, I speak a language known as "English" and I can write fairly coherently also. I understand the reasoning behind the ant-trust exemption. I also think the owners are taking advantage in other ways as well. Now, in addition to being able to dictate where a player must play for the first several years of his career, he is also capped on how much he can make for at least 3 years, longer if you include a possible franchise tag. Clear enough?

Next, do you think all of the players who previously could look forward to a nice, big contract when they hit free agency are enjoying the new structure? Look at what happened to Goldson, who played out his contract, was franchised for a year, then let go because paying him 8-9 mil against bringing in a rookie at about 25% of that (just a guess) and putting that money elsewhere works out better for them - Reid is probably not going to be a big dropoff - understandable, but not fair to the guys who finish their rookie contracts only to find that it is much more enticing to bring in someone who won't be a cap problem for at least 3 years. If you've been following, then you may have noticed very few big contracts going to FAs this year.

My point is that for me, this was unforeseen. I'll bet it wasn't for the owners though. They had it all worked out.

Goldson got his contract. The Niners spent two offseasons trying to come up with a long term contract for him and they couldn't agree, so he went and got it in TB.

I'm also curious as to how you define "big contracts" and what you consider to be "not very many."

I believe the two biggest contracts in NFL history were signed this offseason by Flacco and Rogers. Navarro Bowman got a pretty good extension, though it wasn't during the offseason. Victor Cruz just signed a nice contract, Goldson got a big contract, Harvin got a big contract.

Going by Rotoworld's list of FAs:
Mike Wallace and Dwayne Bowe both got over 10M per season on long term contracts, Greg Jennings got 9.5 per on a 5 year deal. Hell, Bryan Hartline got over 6M per year. Jared Cook got over 7M per year, 4 OTs signed 4+ year contracts worth 7+M, Sam Baker signed a 6 year 41M, Andy Levitre got almost 8M per year to play G on a 6 year contract, 2 of the top DTs signed their franchise tenders, Dumervil was the only really established DE, and there were circumstances surrounding his FA, Paul Kruger got over 8m per year, Anthony Spencer get 10+ on a franchise tender, Ellerbe got 7M per year,

The above doesn't include players signing extensions (such as Revis)

If we consider this to be "not many big contracts" as you have defined neither of your qualifiers ("big" and "many", could there be other reasons for not many big contracts? Maybe there weren't many players in FA this year that warranted them. Look through the rotoworld link (below) and find players who deserved big contracts and didn't get the.

2013 NFL Free Agents - Free Agency Update - Rotoworld.com