DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Salary Cap To Take Another Big Leap in 2025

You are free to hate/dislike Baker...free to think he was responsible for locker room drama...free to be upset that he planted a flag on the O.

But it's not free to attempt to re-write history on why he was drafted...where he was drafted...and the circumstances on his first team...not to mention his continued success post-Cleveland.

"Browns should have taken Darnold, Allen, or Jackson."

None of those (3) guys broke Manning's rookie season TD pass record...and with fewer starts no less. None of those guys were drafted to a 1-31 team...HC'd by Hue Jackson no less. Two of those guys were drafted by playoff teams and STILL have the same HC since drafted. The other guy absolutely sucked until just this past year.

None of those guys have thrown as many TD passes as Baker over the last two years.

Baker has thrown more TD passes than any of those guys in his very first year...and most recently the past two years. What a turd.

None of those (4) guys have been to the Super Bowl.

I laugh when I think of Josh Allen and LJ being coached-up by Hue...and fans thinking they'd be the same QBs they are today if they were drafted by our dumpster fire.

Clueless Hue was gone 1 year later - not in place long enough to screw up Allen or Jackson.

You also neglect to mention ALL the rushing TDs Allen and Jackson have when comparing Mayfield to either and that Baker has led the league in interceptions the last 2 years.

Your hate is real. So you like the watson decision better than the Baker decision? So you think this FO made a better decision with watson? That turned it all around for you and put you in a better mood?

And yet, you think Baker would be the same QB he is today if he had stayed in Cleveland.

Yes, the rushing TDs keep being left out. Either of those two with Chubb would've been fun to watch.

Also, Baker led the league in fumbles this past year too. One added note to that: he did only lose one of those fumbles.

You are correct that Hue only lasted one (actually a partial) season...and then was replaced by Gregggg Williams for a few minutes...and then...wait for it...Freddie Kitchens...then a rookie HC with a now-5-yr losing record. I'm not going to count the number of OCs in that timeframe...one either recognizes that or they don't.

That's plenty of time to screw up a rookie QB.

Two guys from that draft went to garbage teams and shortly thereafter were gone...two guys went to playoff teams and are still there under the same coach...with talent and schemes that fit what they need. Crazy concept.

I would argue that Baker already WAS the QB he is today during the 2020 playoff-winning season...with Jarvis Landry and Rashard Higgins as his #1 and #2 receiver...the smartest guys in the world just couldn't see it. His team was one Chad Henne jailbreak from going to the AFC Championship game.

He had a great opening game in 2021 against the reigning Super Bowl champion in a loss. Destroyed his shoulder in Q2 of game 2...still won that game AND the next two before the wheels came off the wagon. That three game win streak matches the Browns win total from all of 2024.

2022 was a lost season coming off surgery except for that crazy Thursday night last minute victory with the Rams...after practicing ONCE with the team.

2023 & 2024 he was back in the playoffs.

A sane organization would have sat him...had him get the surgery he needed...and run it back with that ^ guy again.

Or he could not lead a game winning drive and beat a Chad Henne lead team in the Playoffs. Baker was a terrible #1 overall pick. There were 3 better QB's to be had that year and the Browns missed badly in that draft.

we are basically in the same situation as Denver. We have too much dead cap tied up in Watson to trade for a QB with a big contract.

We have to draft a QB or find a reclamation project and sign them for 1-2 years.

J/c


I'm not taking aside because I don't follow this stuff. I'm just posting information.

An edge the Browns were in front of (alongside other teams) could be coming to an end soon.

I would have loved to be a spectator in the room when this conversation was taking place. Just a couple of comments on this:

1. I would love to know what they consider "poorer." I find it hard to swallow any NFL franchise being considered "poorer." There will always be a richest owner but chronologically, I don't believe number 32 is considered "poorer."

2. "Cash rich owners use void years and rolling option bonuses to continuously push contracts higher and higher in terms of cash flow, but lower in terms of cap hits, and "poorer" owners can't really replicate that." The highest spend team 2 of the last 3 years has been the Cleveland Browns. No other team in the NFL has used more void years and rolling cash bonuses to continuously push contracts higher and higher in terms of cash flow but lower in terms of cap hits than the Cleveland Browns the last 3 years.

3. What is the point of the discussion then? The Browns are 21- 30 over that 3-year spend period. What league advantage has been bestowed on the Browns for their high cash spend?

4. I would think that this would be a hard sale to the NFLPA.

5.Just an FYI, the Cleveland Browns have deferred salaries to void years and/or rolling option bonuses on 45/51 of the current top 51 paid players. This does not include the future deferments of any of this year's rookies which will drive this number higher. Including this year, the Browns currently have $635,029,674 deferred over the next 5-7 years. Eventually, this money has to hit the cap and will deduct from those years' available salary cap.

I'd bet Mike Brown and/or Katie Blackburn were pounding the table.

Two points.

1. Out of 32 teams/owners, if you are #32, you are "poorer" than #1, no matter how you slice it. It's all measured in different perspectives. A person with $3-4 million of worth might seem very rich to most, but to a billionaire, they aren't. Heck, you have some who think if you make $100,000 a year you are rich.

2. To point 5: indeed you will still owe the money, but the cap will continue to rise, so that deferred money isn't going to hamstring a team.

Now, if it doesn't go up much like the country is facing, then teams will face problems. Unlike what the country can do, they can't print their own money which softens things in the short term but creates big problems down the road.

As they should. I'm not sure how anyone could claim that multi billionaires don't have a distinct advantage under the current system.

They probably do, but what is wrong with that? It's not like baseball. NFL teams share revenue on an equal basis across the board. They have a salary cap.

I don't see how an owner who has cash resources should be penalized. Taking things down to the lowest step on the ladder isn't the way to do things.

IMO

They aren't being penalized. They're being rewarded. There's a difference. Having a competitive advantage just because you're the wealthiest kid on the block isn't what the NFL has been trying to achieve. They've tried to make the playing field level for all the teams. Thus the salary cap. Thus the worst team drafts first. Having a level playing field has always been their ultimate goal and why things are set up the way they are.

The wealthiest managing to manipulate the current rules that are intended to make things fair for all the teams runs 100% counter intuitive to what the league has been trying to achieve all along.

It frustrates me that people keep saying that the annual cap increase will cover this deferred money.

The Browns have been a top spender in the NFL, particularly since 2021, with a focus on acquiring talent and retaining key players. The Browns have consistently spent heavily on their roster, particularly in the past few years, but have struggled to translate that spending into significant on-field success. The Browns have invested over $1.15 billion in cash spending from 2021-2024, according to Dawgs By Nature. Despite this high spending, the Browns only had one winning season (11-6 in 2023) and a 29-39 overall record over that period. This highlights a potential disconnect between their spending and their on-field performance.

The Browns are spending $80m more than 2nd place Buffalo and 3rd place Baltimore between 2021 and 2023. That Browns spend is $168M more than league average in that timeframe and continues to be the highest spending NFL team in 2024 & 2025.

As stated above, the Browns have spent 1.15 billion 2021 to 2024 but the NFL cap allocation during that timeframe has been $870.9M. The cap increasers have not come close to covering the Browns spend to the deficit tune of $279.1M and this deficit will increase again in 2025 with Garret's and a 1st round pick deals.

Keep in mind, the Browns already have $635,029,674 deferred in void years and/or rolling option bonuses over the next 5-7 years. The Browns are on pace to have to absorb more than $100M in deferred payments per season.

It's nothing like it was before the CBA had no revenue sharing. This is a much better system now when it comes to rich vs poor.





This league is by far the most fair as far as closing loopholes in the competitive advantage market aspect. The CBA doesn't try to make a "poor" owner equal to a "rich" owner, it closes the gaps in market viability. There isn't a large difference in market size between LA and New York, but there is a huge difference between Cincinnati and New York. The CBA allows all teams equal access to money made by the league. That's all it was intended to do. That way a city with 8 million people doesn't monopolize the market vs a city with 300,000 people. If you only awarded teams to the top cities by population, thus marketability, the difference between the top 8M and bottom is 562,000... but that doesn't even cover current NFL cities.. Cleveland for example is only 365,000. Their ability to create revenue though is directly related to population. THAT would give a team a distinct advantage.

As the CBA is written though, the teams must stay within the confinements of the cap ceiling and the cap floor in order to create continuity in rosters.

What it doesn't account for is cash available per team. THIS is what can be used to make a bad team more relevant in a shorter period if done correctly. The Browns have the available cash, but they have spent poorly, specifically on Deshaun Watson. Watson is a large part of the cash output, but a very little part of the salary cap. It will eventually come to roost, but I think the voidable years change a little of the cap structure which is where the "advantage" comes in. If you are able to move enough around, then when someone like Watson lands at the end of that road, it frees up enough cap space to absorb the hit. With the cap rising every year, a team takes advantage of this current cap savings moving it to a time when there is a significant change in the cap structure.

Finally, the rules aren't meant to keep things fair for all teams as far as spending is concerned, it's making it fair as far as revenue is concerned. If the rules were in place to make it fair for everyone then there would be a smaller gap between a cap and floor.

My concern is can we be a threat in the playoff race this season. Long-term cap implications
are important, I know, but my worry at 58 is winning ball games... deferred money, a million here, $600 million there...just blah dgaf.

Right there with you at 55… I think they put themselves in as good a position as they could considering the QB options that were available. They had a really good draft imho, taking the two QBs out of the equation. I think they found (3) quality starters in Graham, Scherssinger and Judkins, along with a solid contributor in Fannin. If that’s the case, they hit it out of the park.

They added some key free agents and shored up the best player this team has had since Joe Thomas.

If we get better than average play at QB consistently, we are sniffing playoffs. If they all play bad football, we don’t. We have a team to make the playoffs, it’s all about the QB spot, which is the most important obviously, but I think they did the best they could with the options available this off-season. I think Schwessinger will help this team more than any QB not named Ward in this draft… maybe even Ward, the juries still out on him.

Yes, they need a QB. They are actually desperate for a QB. This is why they spent so heavy hoping to find a QB. The majority of this money was for Watson. A swing and a miss according to Haslam.

I think in the end you will find the NFL will feel differently. They don't want the wealthiest owners having an unfair competitive advantage. The entire way the league is set up indicates that. Loopholes to circumvent that IMO will be and should be closed.

So, the biggest part of the issue is that with a guaranteed contract or likely-to-be-earned bonuses, the team/owner has to put the cash for that into a sort of escrow, right?
Owners who have tons and tons of cash can do this easily. Owners whose billionaire status is mostly tied up in assets/stocks/whatever - things that are not liquid cash - are not able to do so easily.

The answer is simple: the Cap is based on shared revenues. Only allow monies from the shared revenues to be used and enforce it with zero exceptions.

Problem solved. Contracts will be forced to fit into the Cap and the money available. Rollover money can be used because it is money from a previous Cap year, but that's it.

"Like!"

What you are describing is guaranteed contracts. The answer isn't as simple as you think. Owners currently make contracts expecting it to be lower than it is written, the players are happy they have a road to make more money, but in reality it is going to be less than total contract value, somewhere in between. Changing that rule will take away the ability to "earn" more with incentives. It will also disincentivize some players that need extra motivation.

The contracts aren't the issue, imho. People are making this out to be more than it is. If you can't afford to run a professional team properly, don't buy one. We've dealt with that in Cleveland before. The Jurruh Jones's and Jim Haslem's of the world will continue to work the system the best way they can with the assets they have. If you open up this can of worms, it will not work in the favor of the "poor" owners. They will lose the ability to sign top talent, because guaranteed contracts will be out of control.

It's actually a very basic concept. What we have now is obviously the can of worms that PPE's proposal would close.

Not exactly.. I agree it would close the loophole, but in doing so, it would lengthen the gap between teams in my opinion. Right now, about 99% of the contracts are incentive based to at least a small extent. Very few are fully guaranteed. "Poor" owners are banking on the fact that contracts are not going to be completely paid out, so they have their "kitty" of cash to play with at the end of each year, just in case a player out plays their contract, it just doesn't happen as much as many think it does. That is a door that also closes... So now, every contract may be guaranteed and those teams will be playing much closer to the league salary cap floor than they show on paper now, simply because it is a business and they still want to make money. If every cent in reality goes to the players, they only receive their portion of the gross coming out of the CBA. As long as they stay above the floor during the season they are good to go.

I get it that owners with cash can have a much larger kitty to cover 2-5 years down the road, so they have a slight advantage in how they do things... but teams can be devastated by having 100% fully guaranteed contracts when players get injured or retire. Those contracts are still covered for the duration of the contract. Cash poor teams will continue to suffer, or the league more likely suffers, because the rosters will be dependent on staying healthy the length of contract. You would probably see a shift in contracts to 2-3 years in length as well..

NFL teams are required to spend more than just the salary cap floor. Specifically, teams must spend at least 89% of their salary cap each year, and they must average at least 95% over a four-year period. This is a minimum spending requirement designed to ensure that the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is met.

Actually teams are required to spend an average of 89% over a 4 year period and the NFL as a whole must spend an average of 95% over a 4 year period. Teams that don't meet the 89% range have to pay back players the difference that were on the team during that 4 years, whether they are currently on the team or not. The 95% is taken as a whole, so it's in the leagues best interest to keep the balance up rather than doling out the difference out of the general fund each year. So, regardless, 95% of the cap is getting to the players every year. There can be teams contributing 99% of their allotment and other teams contributing 89% of their allotment. This is where the greed and mismanagement come into play. The difference in that 10% is $27,920,000 in 2025... That is a super stud player on the roster that the management is choosing not to employ... Why would you find another reason to reward these teams? I'm still trying to figure out why the NFLPA agreed that the league only has to spend 95% of the cap.

So that "floor" you mentioned isn't nearly as influential or as starkly different as it sounds on the surface.