QB Salary Comparison 2010 to 2020

[BigBillsFan]

I wanted to do an analysis of QB salaries. I don’t think the amount is ever my concern, it’s the relationship to the overall cap number which just shows how much you can afford for other players.

 

Salary cap 2020 $198.2 million
Highest 2 salaies  $34.5 mil   17.4%
Median salary $25 mil which is 12.5% of the cap
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/
 
Cap in 2011 (2010 was uncapped) $120 million
Highest 2 salaries: $22 mil  18%
Minus the McNabb overpay it’s for the top 2 salaries at $18.5 mil which is 15.4%
Median salary 10% of the cap at $12 mil
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2010/

 

Median cap for a QB is 12.5% in 2020 vs 10% 10 years ago.

 

Biggest changes: the bottom 1/3rd of salaries was reasonable for their placement in 2010, now it’s a $20 million baseline+ per starter; much closer to the median of $25 mil.

The top 10 guys in 2010 are paid around $15 million on average approximately with more variance from highest to 10th whereas 2020 salaries are much more tightly paid from 1-10 (minus McNabb).

 

QB salaries haven’t moved dramatically for the highest paid guys as a % to the cap, the move is marginally incremental in proportion to the salary cap. The difference is a mid-tier guy is a bit more inflated to the cap with fully guaranteed money.

 

Either you get a stud and try to win with a 15-20% hit to the cap (which it will reach for Mahomes) or you try to win on rookie salaries with more overall talent. I’ve voided the rings for the Cheats and there is more data you win with a rookie and less cap.

 

SBs from 2010-2020
4 Rookies contracts have won, 3 vets (don’t count the Cheats).
Vets QBs behind the Giants, Saints, Broncos were at 10% of the salary cap
In all 7 wins the max value of the QB to SB was 10% at vet (highest Manning at 10.4%) to rookie salaries.

 

Verdict: Some team will break the mold with a high paid QB but the odds are a team with a huge salary is low. This will happen as more teams will be cash-strapped at 10%+ to the QB as that is being normalized in the league. You have to draft unbelievably well and get the right mix of budget vets for it to work and other-worldly QB play.

 

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

I wanted to do an analysis of QB salaries. I don’t think the amount is ever my concern, it’s the relationship to the overall cap number which just shows how much you can afford for other players.

 

Salary cap 2020 $198.2 million
Highest 2 salaies  $34.5 mil   17.4%
Median salary $25 mil which is 12.5% of the cap
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/
 
Cap in 2011 (2010 was uncapped) $120 million
Highest 2 salaries: $22 mil  18%
Minus the McNabb overpay it’s for the top 2 salaries at $18.5 mil which is 15.4%
Median salary 10% of the cap at $12 mil
https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2010/

 

Median cap for a QB is 12.5% in 2020 vs 10% 10 years ago.

 

Biggest changes: the bottom 1/3rd of salaries was reasonable for their placement in 2010, now it’s a $20 million baseline+ per starter; much closer to the median of $25 mil.

The top 10 guys in 2010 are paid around $15 million on average approximately with more variance from highest to 10th whereas 2020 salaries are much more tightly paid from 1-10 (minus McNabb).

 

QB salaries haven’t moved dramatically for the highest paid guys as a % to the cap, the move is marginally incremental in proportion to the salary cap. The difference is a mid-tier guy is a bit more inflated to the cap with fully guaranteed money.

 

Either you get a stud and try to win with a 15-20% hit to the cap (which it will reach for Mahomes) or you try to win on rookie salaries with more overall talent. I’ve voided the rings for the Cheats and there is more data you win with a rookie and less cap.

 

SBs from 2010-2020
4 Rookies contracts have won, 3 vets (don’t count the Cheats).
Vets QBs behind the Giants, Saints, Broncos were at 10% of the salary cap
In all 7 wins the max value of the QB to SB was 10% at vet (highest Manning at 10.4%) to rookie salaries.

 

Verdict: Some team will break the mold with a high paid QB but the odds are a team with a huge salary is low. This will happen as more teams will be cash-strapped at 10%+ to the QB as that is being normalized in the league. You have to draft unbelievably well and get the right mix of budget vets for it to work and other-worldly QB play.

 

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

[GunnerBill]

39 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

 

Panthers with Cam too. And I don't believe you can just void the Pats either. Nor can you just discount McNabb and say "that is an overpay". 

 

This analysis has all the hallmarks of someone who had reached his conclusion and now is making the evidence support it.

Edited April 2, 2020 by GunnerBill

[billsfan89]

I remember thinking QB contracts were getting crazy when they eclipsed the 20 million mark around 10 years ago. Of course I did not fully grasp the percentage of cap concept and was just looking at the raw numbers. Now we are well into the 30 million aav range and easily going to get well into the 40 million aav range once Mahomes gets his deal and the cap goes up with more revenue coming in from the 17th game, 2 extra playoff games, and various other squeezings of revenues. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

I remember thinking QB contracts were getting crazy when they eclipsed the 20 million mark around 10 years ago. Of course I did not fully grasp the percentage of cap concept and was just looking at the raw numbers. Now we are well into the 30 million aav range and easily going to get well into the 40 million aav range once Mahomes gets his deal and the cap goes up with more revenue coming in from the 17th game, 2 extra playoff games, and various other squeezings of revenues. 

 

I don't think its wrong to pay a wilson top dollar, or mahomes when his contract comes up.  Rodgers, Brees, etc.  It's the other guys making top dollar where its a concern.  Why is Cousins making so much money?  Goff?  Carr?

 

Tannehill?!  He was so valuable that he threw for under 100 yards in their first 2 playoff games.  And you're going to pay him more than Newton and Brady get on the open market?  

[Thurman#1]

Love most of this post. Great stuff.

 

But voiding the Pats rings is deeply twisting the data.

 

EDIT: And Gunner is right when he says that removing McNabb as an overpay doesn't make sense either. There's always an overpay, that's how it works with a constantly rising cap. Sometimes the guy getting the overpay will be a Mahomes, and other times a guy like Cousins or Goff. That's how it works at every position, the rising cap means rising salaries which generally means whoever got the most recent deal and has a possibility of being really good will get what looks right then like an overpay.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Thurman#1

[BigBillsFan]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Panthers with Cam too. And I don't believe you can just void the Pats either. Nor can you just discount McNabb and say "that is an overpay". 

 

This analysis has all the hallmarks of someone who had reached his conclusion and now is making the evidence support it.

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

55 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Why don’t you do SuperBowl appearances instead? I understand the goal is to win, but to win you have to get there and then you have double the data points to work with. Teams like the Falcons and 2013 Broncos should be included in this analysis to make a reasonable verdict.

 

Because being the Biggest Loser is great for an NBC show, not so great as a fan. I also don't have time, I wasn't working, now I am so I have to be brief.

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

Love most of this post. Great stuff.

 

But voiding the Pats rings is deeply twisting the data.

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

[Thurman#1]

7 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

 

 

 

 

Of course players took discounts. Some anyway, a few. It's not like that only happened to the Pats. It happens to the top five teams or so in football every year. Not most guys, but some will give discounts.

 

As for the cheating, yeah I think they did it. But it's not the main reason they were a great team year in and year out. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I don't think its wrong to pay a wilson top dollar, or mahomes when his contract comes up.  Rodgers, Brees, etc.  It's the other guys making top dollar where its a concern.  Why is Cousins making so much money?  Goff?  Carr?

 

Tannehill?!  He was so valuable that he threw for under 100 yards in their first 2 playoff games.  And you're going to pay him more than Newton and Brady get on the open market?  

 

Goff was given a deal after putting together back to back very good to great seasons in 2017 to 2018. They just paid him early but at least given the context there was some sense to it. Derek Carr's contract actually makes sense. His aav is 25 million in 2017 which while a high end contract wasn't too bad. He constantly throws for well over 4000 yards, is super accurate, and has a TD to INT ratio that is usually 2 to 1 or better. He is an upper mid-level QB getting paid like one (and the fact that the deal was front loaded makes his current 20 million dollar cap hit better.) 

 

But I agree why pay guys like Tannehill and Cousins so much? Cousins is at best an above average QB who is getting paid like a top 10 QB with an insane guarantee. Who was paying 30 million for Tannehill on the open market? I would rather have lasic surgery Jamis for 10 million than Tannehill or even Tyrod plus 23 million in cap space than Tannehill. I think teams need to start playing hardball with QB's who aren't top players. Let a QB walk if some other team wants to commit 30 million to a guy who can't throw for over 100 yards in a playoff game. 

 

That's why I think the Cowboys were and are smart to franchise Dak, why pay him 30+ million if you can't win with a team constructed around him and a massive cap hit dedicated to him. 

[FireChans]

20 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

 

Because being the Biggest Loser is great for an NBC show, not so great as a fan. I also don't have time, I wasn't working, now I am so I have to be brief.

 

You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*. 

Yeah but you’re trying to draw a conclusion from 10 data points and you started out by throwing out 3 right off the bat. 

 

It’s just not great analysis. The Seahawks could have easily beaten the Pats and the Falcons also could have beaten the Pats. 

 

You draw can all kinds of faulty comparisons if you avoid using a reasonable amount of data.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by FireChans

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning.

 

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

[BigBillsFan]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

 

That was my point overall. I wasn't saying middle tier QB vets were better, but their cost went up substantially which literally gives you no shot of doing anything. That the only chance to win really was off rookie deals or have stud QBs and nothing in-between.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Oh I know what your point was. I just haven't seen you really provide the evidence that backs it up. Yes some QBs have won on rookie deals. Some have won on vet deals. The % of the cap has gone up slightly for those in the middle band of QBs but in order to show that makes winning with one of those guys more difficult you need to show me the QBs on vet contracts in that middle band who were winning Superbowls in the 00s because there was 2% more cap available to build teams around them. Dilfer and Johnson is all I got. Other than that the 00s was Brady, Ben, Peyton, Eli and Brees. All either rookie deals or elite QBs. 

Here’s a fun stat. Since 2009, only 3 QB’s of the Super Bowl winning teams didn’t make the ProBowl the same year.

 

Conclusion? You have to be in the better third of QB’s to win a SuperBowl. Guys who do that consistently end up making lots of money. 

 

Bonus points to anybody who guesses the 3 QB’s 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

That was my point overall. I wasn't saying middle tier QB vets were better, but their cost went up substantially which literally gives you no shot of doing anything. That the only chance to win really was off rookie deals or have stud QBs and nothing in-between.

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002. 

 

Since 2003 nobody has taken mid ranking QB on a vet deal and won a Superbowl building around him. Whether they accounted for an average 10% or 12% of the cap. The % increase is irrelevant to that. 

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Here’s a fun stat. Since 2009, only 3 QB’s of the Super Bowl winning teams didn’t make the ProBowl the same year.

 

Conclusion? You have to be in the better third of QB’s to win a SuperBowl. Guys who do that consistently end up making lots of money. 

 

Bonus points to anybody who guesses the 3 QB’s 

 

Foles. Flacco. Peyton Manning

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But that was always the case. That has not been affected at all by the increase of 2% in cap cost. The last time a QB who wasn't in the top 5 or 6 in the league, or on a rookie deal, won a Superbowl (other than Foles who was a backup) is Brad Johnson in 2002. 

 

Since 2003 nobody has taken mid ranking QB on a vet deal and won a Superbowl building around him. Whether they accounted for an average 10% or 12% of the cap. The % increase is irrelevant to that. 

 

Foles. Flacco. Peyton Manning

Oh *****, forgot Wentz didn’t play. There’s a fourth then.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Oh *****, forgot Wentz didn’t play. There’s a fourth then.

 

Hmm. In which case I am going Rodgers. I know Russ did, Eli had his best year the 2nd one he won so I presume he did which leaves me basically with Brady (who makes in every year on reputation even if he isn't spectacular). So I am going ARod. 

[FireChans]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Hmm. In which case I am going Rodgers. I know Russ did, Eli had his best year the 2nd one he won so I presume he did which leaves me basically with Brady (who makes in every year on reputation even if he isn't spectacular). So I am going ARod. 

Incredible. 4/4.

 

I was shocked at Rodgers myself. Peyton and Flacco I think were easy, but Rodgers has been a perennial pro bowler for so long I was shocked he didn’t make it.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, FireChans said:

Incredible. 4/4.

 

I was shocked at Rodgers myself. Peyton and Flacco I think were easy, but Rodgers has been a perennial pro bowler for so long I was shocked he didn’t make it.

 

He only became Aaron Rodgers the superstar after the Superbowl. He was good not great on an injury riddled team the year they won. Then came back and was superman the next year and I think won MVP. 

[BigBillsFan]

32 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

As for the cheating, yeah I think they did it. But it's not the main reason they were a great team year in and year out. It's irrelevant in this discussion.

 

It's not thinking they did, they did cheat.

 

No connection to winning? Sure it does. It’s a butterfly effect. If the Pats weren’t cheating they probably don’t win a SB as quickly (or at all) and if they don’t win Brady won’t have as much confidence, which stifles his growth.

 

It makes recruiting guys at discounts harder.

 

It helps the league look the other way with penalties:
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

 

How about fumbling rates?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats

 

How about knowing how to tape the other teams and 2 of their assistants turned coaches getting busted as well? How about cheating this year?

 

How about Brady never throwing over 30 TDs in his career and then Moss comes over for a 4th and he goes to 50 and bar is raised. That’s confidence and the Bannister-effect of the 4 minute mile.

 

The difference between winning and losing is very small in the NFL and no team, coach, or individual can consistently beat the odds. Watching Brady throw into the ground and never getting a grounding call is all you need to see this year.

 

I mean it’s endless:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/09/19/tom-brady-raekwon-mcmillan-hit-referee-stay-off-tom-video/2380026001/

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, BigBillsFan said:

 

It's not thinking they did, they did cheat.

 

No connection to winning? Sure it does. It’s a butterfly effect. If the Pats weren’t cheating they probably don’t win a SB as quickly (or at all) and if they don’t win Brady won’t have as much confidence, which stifles his growth.

 

It makes recruiting guys at discounts harder.

 

It helps the league look the other way with penalties:
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge

 

How about fumbling rates?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats

 

How about knowing how to tape the other teams and 2 of their assistants turned coaches getting busted as well? How about cheating this year?

 

How about Brady never throwing over 30 TDs in his career and then Moss comes over for a 4th and he goes to 50 and bar is raised. That’s confidence and the Bannister-effect of the 4 minute mile.

 

The difference between winning and losing is very small in the NFL and no team, coach, or individual can consistently beat the odds. Watching Brady throw into the ground and never getting a grounding call is all you need to see this year.

 

I mean it’s endless:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/09/19/tom-brady-raekwon-mcmillan-hit-referee-stay-off-tom-video/2380026001/

 

Yea. They were just better than everyone else. Better coached. Better prepared. Better Quarterbacked.