Comments on: Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap

By: drevilstolemymojito

drevilstolemymojito — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:50:00 +0000

Looking at the stats after the season is long over, it does not appear that overpaying the help directly equates with success. It is more similar to the situation of hopefully intimidating others with your diamond encrusted Rolex.

By: snnyjcbs

snnyjcbs — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:05:51 +0000

The Players better hope there is a CBA because if not my guess is that the 80 mil spent by the CHEAP OWNERS in the NFL of which there looks to be a few of will become the norm.

By: Lance19

Lance19 — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:07:48 +0000

Chargers in the bottom 25 percent in spending — EVEN THOUGH they’ve chosen not to spend on left tackle Marcus McNeill and receiver Vincent Jackson?”
What am I missing here?
Shouldn’t it be BECAUSE 2 guys who would be among their highest paid, aren’t there, and thus aren’t getting paid?
Last year Chargers outspent Colts…
money wasn’t what stopped their Super Bowl run,
the worst day in the career of the kicker did.

By: kravon

kravon — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:12:55 +0000

Something to note is that the actual 2010 team payroll could be lower because the cap figures include players that were cut as well.

By: wax1973

wax1973 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:07:27 +0000

@SoFloSteeler
“Dan Snyder is making a lot of money using his business model”
Your own argument shows that Snyder may not necessarily be making “a lot of money”. True, he has very high revenues, but he has very high player costs and expense. On a net profit basis, not sure your argument holds water.

By: wax1973

wax1973 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 20:03:35 +0000

to all the morons pointing to the teams at the bottom of the list going 1-0 to start the season and calling it a success:
Really? You consider 1-0 a “success”? Anyone really think the Bucs, Chiefs, Jags or Cardinals are contenders? Cards make playoffs cuz their division is a joke (a CFL team might be able to compete in the NFC West in most years) but the other three are destined for playoff parties at home with their homies.

By: chazman1975

chazman1975 — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:21:35 +0000

From what I have read the cap would have been roughly $138 m this year and the floor would have been around $120m. 6 teams are over the ceiling representing 20% of the league yet 12 teams are under the would be floor which equals 40%. All this talk about how no cap would be a huge windfall for the players doesn’t seem to bear out.

By: dennis112484

dennis112484 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:56:56 +0000

this is what i have learned: pro sports in florida just dont work.

By: 1NationRaiderNation

1NationRaiderNation — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:54:15 +0000

how much of this money goes to guys that you cut like J-Bust, and you also rookies signing bonuses…this can be skeweed however you want to look at it.
Last year I know Rivers made 25 million the highest in the NFL

By: SoFlor Steeler

SoFlor Steeler — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:50:07 +0000

This is a bit misleading – a better measure – and the one that is the basis of the struggle to get a new CBA is % of revenues that go to player compensation. The Redskins are high – around 63% – but not the highest. The Raiders are over 75% and the Saints, Seahawks and Vikings are all above the Redskins in this measure – in the 68-70% range…
Another way to look at it this is to consider “incremental” revenues over the average – for example, the Redskins are about $110 million above average in terms of total team revenues [Forbes has the numbers - Google it if you want]. So when they spend $90 million above average on compensation, the are merely choosing to invest a large portion of their incremental revenue in players – and they still “pocket” about $20 million in incremental profit – not an irrational choice.
The relatively wide range of team revenues is going to make getting a labor agreement very difficult – Dan Snyder is making a lot of money using his business model – and the Bucs and Bengals can now make a lot of money using a very different approach since the do not have to pay a minimum revenue share to players now that the salary floor is gone…

By: Tandem

Tandem — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:48:54 +0000

where do you get your numbers from? i have checked out skins salaries on 3 different sites and the consensus is that it's around $123million this season. http://www.thehogs.net/washington-redskins/salary.php

By: Tcostant

Tcostant — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:43:41 +0000

The last two teams are both 2-0

By: Electrogasm

Electrogasm — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:11:22 +0000

Looks like the Chargers are the shrewdest team in the NFL by only spending $8.3M per win last year. The worst? Washington by a longshot at $44.55M.

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:24:04 +0000

To add to what Ian said the Redskins used cap rules to bloat the cap numbers of players like Haynesworth who is carrying a cap figure in the vicinity of 26 million and DeAngelo Hall who carries a tag around 18 million. If a cap was in place those numbers would be far far far lower. The Jets have a high number, but that also includes a bunch of dead money allocated to two players (Rhodes and Faneca) who never would have been moved in a capped season. My guess is alot of those high figure teams dont really represent as large separation from the bottom of the pack as the list suggests. I have a feeling the actual cash expenditures (or even what would be normal cap figures) are probably far closer and probably 10-15% off what they have been in the recent past.

By: MagicMan407

MagicMan407 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:40:21 +0000

Yeah yeah! HAIL!

By: Dryheave

Dryheave — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:35:02 +0000

HEY FLORIO!….if you had a cap number it would be a BIG FAT ZERO…

By: IanWhetstone

IanWhetstone — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:27:30 +0000

Keep in mind that these are measures of what teams’ cap numbers would be, not of their expenditures this year. The Redskins look that bloated because they dumped a ton of dead money into the uncapped year; the Cowboys orchestrated a bunch of deals to have ballooning cap figures in 2010 two years ago when the writing was on the wall that the owners would pull the plug on the CBA early. Neither team is actually spending nearly that much this year.
On the other hand, the Patriots are spending significantly more than either, but a lot of it is in signing bonuses (particularly the big ones to Brady and Wilfork) that don’t show directly in this kind of figure.

By: TheToolofTools

TheToolofTools — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:24:51 +0000

if they are locked out.. i’m bailing on the nfl just like i did on mlb.
i miss mlb, but not enough to go back even though i have the means.

By: Hauschild

Hauschild — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:17:30 +0000

Seems to me the Glazers are pretty thrifty. Why blow money on useless FA’s? There haven’t been many decent ones over the past few years.
Their spending half of what the DeadSkins are, yet the Bucs will probably end up with about the same record at season’s end.
Ain’t rocket science, ladies.

By: hawksfan2005

hawksfan2005 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:10:59 +0000

I would have though that Seattle would be more in the middle of the list, not top 5. I keep forgetting we have one of the richest owners in the league. Would be nice to start spending that money on quality during this rebuild 2.0.

By: steelerfan9598

steelerfan9598 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:10:28 +0000

The Bengals moved up by giving Antonio Bryant 8 mil for nothing.

By: NFLMMAfan

NFLMMAfan — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:47:41 +0000

Go back over the last ten years and calculate the salary per win. Call it the List of Accountability.
Redskins and Raiders have to be at the bottom of that list.

By: gojev93

gojev93 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:43:31 +0000

The bottom 4 teams that spent the least are all 1-0
Spending $$ doesn’t guarantee success. You also need team chemistry

By: CottageCheese * Packer Wife

CottageCheese * Packer Wife — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:33 +0000

Kind of shocked to see the Pats where they are. would have thought them to be a bit higher but I guess they have 0 cash in RB or bid name D. Anywhoo, I’m a fat Packer woman and am in need of food. Toodles

By: Joe Williams

Joe Williams — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:08 +0000

Chargers, Cardinals and Bengals fans should be pissed they have teams that should be in serious contention if only their tight-fisted owners would pony up some dough to patch holes and take them to the next level. Especially the Chargers who must think they can coast to a division win, lose in the playoffs and it won’t affect their bottom line, but I think the lack of sell outs says differently.
What it says is that teams are making money even if they don’t sell out their stadiums thus adding a boost to the NFLPA argument. Otherwise, teams would be fighting hard to spend more and win it all but I see too many owners just fielding a mediocre team, spending as little as possible and knowing they will still rake in the cash.

By: agenice

agenice — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:40:02 +0000

Skins paid more than the rest to “fix” haynesworths deal and a lot of other contrast that Cerato and Snyder screwed up over the last 10 years.
This is a clearing house year for the redskins. Next year they will be closer to the middle of the pack. Of course, most of the uninformed on this site will try and say it’s Snyder overspending still.
In case you haven’t heard. Snyder only writes the checks now. He doesn’t have anything to do with personell or players. NOTHING. Get it through your stupid thick skulls.

By: rickvaldez

rickvaldez — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:55 +0000

Anyone that knows about the Skins knows they re worked Alberts and Halls contract this year to give them a huge bonus so thier salary isnt a big cap hit next year if they do have a cap.

By: Dryheave

Dryheave — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:33:32 +0000

what are you talkin’ bout’ faulkn22?…..yes, the redskins spend alot but , HELLO McFLY……….THEY STILL SUCK

By: jimcg511

jimcg511 — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:31:06 +0000

So much for the Pats being “cheap”.

By: marjo

marjo — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:30:02 +0000

What’s worse, the Bucs being pikers ($80 mil), or the Browns and Lions spending what they do on the collection of stiffs they each have ($122 mil each).
Easily the latter.