Bosa deal done. Burns, are you next?

[Aussie Tank]

4 hours ago, Saca312 said:

Name a better player on defense than Burns. I'd be hard pressed to name one.

Yeah, he'll get paid. The Panthers would be dumb at this point not to.

Being the best player on our defense isn’t the compliment you think it is 

[panthers55]

1 hour ago, AU-panther said:

The idea that the cap is a myth is actually a myth.  People think the Saints have cheated the cap for the last 10 years but it just isn't true.  Fans notice the big contracts that they add but they forget about the players they cut to free money or the large amount of dead money they carry some years.  Pretty much all of their moves the past few years were predictable by people who understand the cap.

For those that don't believe in the cap why did the Chiefs let Hill go?  Just think about that for a minute.  That alone does show you that the cap is real, and you don't have to decide where to spend your money.

 

 

The myth is not that there is a cap. Of course there is a cap. The myth is that you can't sign the players you want or need because of the cap. What I said was that there are many ways to manipulate the cap so it isn't worth all the angst that everyone here gives it.  Look at Hill as an example. You really think Kansas City couldn't have kept Hill if they really wanted to? Of course they could but it might mean coaching up some cheap rookies and UDFAs instead of JAG vets who cost 5 times as much and will still be backups. 

The myth is that the cap, if it 250 million, is all you can spend and it is the same for everyone.  Not true at all. Cash over cap through signing bonuses and restructures allows a team to spend 10s of millions more that gets prorated. Add on some voidable years and incentives and you can fit most any salary you want under the salary cap without having to gut your roster in the process. It favors owners like Tepper who have deep pockets and want to spend the money to bring a SB to Charlotte one day. They can spend cash over cap to get players just like he spent big bucks for coaches but didn't have to worry about a salary cap or have to disclose the salaries.

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, frankw said:

Not enough data to answer as of yet. It remains to be seen if he will stay healthy or revert back to being dinged up. He was top 5 in touches last season the 49ers damn sure are getting their investments worth out of him. At one point he had a rushing receiving and passing touchdown. Not even we put him out there for all that. I don't foresee that being a recipe for sustained injury free play for long.

I just can't ever agree with this mind set.  This is THE NFL. Not For Long League. Injuries happen. Running backs and linebackers have the shortest careers due to the hits they make and take.  

I NEVER judge a player by injury. I never hold that against them and their contract.  

You either pay to have the talent, or someone else will. Period. 

While I hated seeing CMC go. He was sacrificed so that the team would have a real opportunity to get the QB of their choice, rather than sit back and pick from what's left. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by pantherclaw

[Aussie Tank]

2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Defense has been the only thing keeping us somewhat watchable. Did you forget how bad our offenses has been since we drafted Burns?

 

Just look at our QB's during that time...

Your name sake was part of that turnstile. But I can’t remember having confidence in our Defense since Luke retired 

[tukafan21]

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

I get what you are saying but I’ll still disagree. Baseball is like soccer where they can spend based on revenue that’s not even. That said, the source of revenue in those sports is still the fan base like the NFL. Just because the NFL has more sharing (Yankees get way more TV revenue than the A’s) and rules on spending doesn’t change the fact that without NFL fans they’d have no revenue. That was my main argument to the people I was replying to at first. 

Nobody is arguing that the NFL could be what it is without their fans, that would be asinine.  The discussion is about whether the money spent by fans on merchandise and products from advertisers goes towards paying the players, which it doesn't, no matter how much or little they spend.

It's only about the number of fans who watch, period.

First, every team gets about $300 million a year from the TV deal while the salary cap is set off that and is about $225 right now.  That's why no matter how much is spent on merchandise, absolutely none of it goes towards the players, that goes towards everything else to run the franchise and why some have better stadiums, facilities, perks, etc, than others.

But I'm glad you brought up another American sport, because it kinda proves my point about why what we spend on advertiser's products doesn't matter either.

First you have to remember, that TV money is paid by the networks, not the brands.  The networks then charge the brands for ad space during the games just like they do for the NBA, MLB, and NHL. 

Those leagues all basically have the same group of advertisers, as they have basically the same target market as the NFL.  More people amongst them regularly watch, which is why the networks charge more for the ad space during NFL games than other sports.  Because TV ad space is sold on ratings, and ratings are based solely on eyeballs, not dollars spent.

So the same group of people are buying the products, the same amount of money being spent on them by said group of people... but these brands are paying significantly more for NFL ad space than in any of the other leagues by a wide margin, hence why the networks pay the NFL so much to get those rights.

Which is why for NFL games you generally only see ads from massive brands in the major categories like autos, phone, movies/tv, daily household items (your P&G stuff), as they're the brands who make so much money that it's a tiny drop in the bucket for them to spend the cost of the NFL ad space.  The NFL is huge and as a collective bring in stupid money, but the amount spent by brands there is a small fraction of their overall ad budgets.

Ford makes $170 Billion in revenue, AT&T $120, Disney $90, P&G $80 etc.... that is why those companies can afford to pay the NFL/networks good money for that ad space.  

Hence why, back to the original point.... saying the fans are paying for the player's contracts with their money spent on the products of their advertisers, is a fallacy.  Those brands are succeeding with or without the NFL advertising, they can just afford to spend the cost of the ad space that the networks charge.

If you want to say the fans interest in the game, sure, that's fair, but not their money spent directly.

Edited September 7, 2023 by tukafan21

[AU-panther]

6 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

The myth is not that there is a cap. Of course there is a cap. The myth is that you can't sign the players you want or need because of the cap. What I said was that there are many ways to manipulate the cap so it isn't worth all the angst that everyone here gives it.  Look at Hill as an example. You really think Kansas City couldn't have kept Hill if they really wanted to? Of course they could but it might mean coaching up some cheap rookies and UDFAs instead of JAG vets who cost 5 times as much and will still be backups. 

The myth is that the cap, if it 250 million, is all you can spend and it is the same for everyone.  Not true at all. Cash over cap through signing bonuses and restructures allows a team to spend 10s of millions more that gets prorated. Add on some voidable years and incentives and you can fit most any salary you want under the salary cap without having to gut your roster in the process. It favors owners like Tepper who have deep pockets and want to spend the money to bring a SB to Charlotte one day. They can spend cash over cap to get players just like he spent big bucks for coaches but didn't have to worry about a salary cap or have to disclose the salaries.

Not exactly true.

Certain teams can spend more than others in certain years but overtime the spending is pretty similar among teams.  There are league minimums put in place for such. Also, those signing g bonuses and restructures do get prorated at some point, that money just doesn't disappear.

You said it yourself, KC could have kept Hill but they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

 

 

[Martin]

54 minutes ago, Toomers said:

I posted facts about them together. That disputed the statement that Highsmith’s jump in stats was because Watt was out. I agree. It’s usually the opposite argument when discussing those two. But not this time. Just another attempt at “numbers before his nap”

Got you, that makes sense. I was a bit thrown off there for a minute 

[csx]

27 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

Being the best player on our defense isn’t the compliment you think it is 

It's not the insult you are wanting it to be either

Remember, we are complaining about not taking the great trade offers other teams were willing to make for him 

[UnluckyforSome]

11 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

 

 

Correct. This was the case in Atlanta when they moved on from Ryan. They played that season with a $50 million+change cap hit, and as a result they had the highest number of UDFAs in the league.

[Chaos]

I'm not smart enough to contribute to this thread, so here's a monkey

 

[panthers55]

6 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Not exactly true.

Certain teams can spend more than others in certain years but overtime the spending is pretty similar among teams.  There are league minimums put in place for such. Also, those signing g bonuses and restructures do get prorated at some point, that money just doesn't disappear.

You said it yourself, KC could have kept Hill but they would have had to go cheap elsewhere.

 

 

Of course the money doesn't disappear. That is an extreme mischaracterization. But if you actually spend 280 million a year and only have to account for 250 in any one year, it is gone for now given the NFL stands for Not For Long.  And you can keep kicking the excess down the line which seems what all the teams are doing these days. So it didn't disappear but it doesn't all show up on the salary cap in the year it was paid. Seems if you aren't doing that then you are at a competitive disadvantage.

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, pantherclaw said:

Still not your money. 

Nice attempt of taking owner ship just because your a fan. 

Ok dude, that’s what I said. NFL fans have every right to think what they want and say what they want because they run the engine despite what you think. Gotta be boring to not think for yourself.

[Aussie Tank]

13 minutes ago, csx said:

It's not the insult you are wanting it to be either

Remember, we are complaining about not taking the great trade offers other teams were willing to make for him 

I wasn’t insulting him at all. Just stating that being the best player on a mid level defense shouldn’t be the main reason to pay him Top 5 at the position money 

[AU-panther]

48 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

Of course the money doesn't disappear. That is an extreme mischaracterization. But if you actually spend 280 million a year and only have to account for 250 in any one year, it is gone for now given the NFL stands for Not For Long.  And you can keep kicking the excess down the line which seems what all the teams are doing these days. So it didn't disappear but it doesn't all show up on the salary cap in the year it was paid. Seems if you aren't doing that then you are at a competitive disadvantage.

but then the following year more cap hits your books and then you have less to spend in that year.  Saints had several years where they had huge amounts of dead money counting towards their cap. 

I agree most teams, most years, have some slack in their overall cap.  We can free up enough money for Burns, that isn't the question, but there are limits.  This idea that the cap is some myth is just wrong.  Teams just can't pay everyone, you have to decided the best use of your money.