tukafan21

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.

You still are not at all grasping what I'm saying. First and most importantly, this all started by me just saying that it's completely absurd and disingenuous to say that fans pay the player's contracts and thus they have the right to complain about how that money is spent by the teams. Yes, I absolutely understand how advertising works and even how, but more accurately, what, can be tracked back to specific ads, have spent over a decade working in advertising for major brands. Yes, they know what channels work, but what I was saying, is that they can't track specific spend back to TV ads, it's not possible. There is a difference between knowing what channels work for your brand's marketing and tracking specific spending to specific advertising channels. Some you can do, some you can't, TV ads is one you can't. Hence why I was saying that people buying random products that were advertised during NFL games in no way shape or form can be construed into that fan's money going towards paying the players. And no, my argument on fan spend is nothing like yours. You were saying that if all fans of the sport stopped watching and switched to another sport, that it would have an affect. Well no poo, but that's also never going to happen, the entire sport's fanbase isn't going to just up and drop it. Maybe my individual person example is an extreme, but the theory is the same and still valid. The franchise with the highest merchandise revenue and the franchise with the lowest, will still spend the same amount of money on their players. Yes, their facilities may be much nicer as they have more money to spend on the franchise as a whole, but fans actual money spent on merchandise/concessions again have ZERO impact on the money spent on player contracts. Which I feel is the more accurate comparison to fans in Soccer overseas, because there, the money teams can spend on the players is fundamentally based in how much money the clubs bring in through things like merchandise. That's how their rules are set up, teams can only spend a specific portion of revenues on players, so the more money a team makes, the more they can spend on players.

Either first or tied for first if Smitty were to get in this year. But I'm actually hoping Smitty doesn't yet, sure it would be cool for him to go in with Peppers, but I think it would be more fun for the fans if he went in the same year as Kuechly. Same reason as my previous post, Smitty and Luke are higher on the Panther GOAT list than Peppers because they spent their whole careers here (Smitty's Ravens years don't count lol).

Luke is the question mark for first ballot and that's only due to longevity (I think he gets it though) But Peppers was never in question, the only reason Smitty is the Panthers GOAT and not Peppers, is because half his career was with the Bears and Packers. He's 4th all time in sacks, I wouldn't need to know anything else, even the player's name, to know that person is a first ballot HOFer

Yet again, I ask... do you even actually read my posts or do you just see it's me, quote it and spew randomness? I literally said that to you last night, that we agree on paying him but that it's ridiculous to use the "players need to feed their families" argument when defending them holding out. But you kept quoting me and arguing random stuff that I wasn't saying. Go re-read the posts from last night, or even any post of mine on the Burns contract matter. The entire time I've been saying to just pay the man what he wants as we lost all leverage by turning down the 2 firsts and we can't afford to lose him or let him play the year out and risk needing to give him the biggest contract ever next spring. Here's the post where you argued with me about something I wasn't saying and where I directly quoted both of us saying the same thing, but somehow you couldn't realize it...

I'm fine giving him 30 as it won't be bad in a couple years when a bunch of other contracts pass it up. But if he's asking for more than that, he's being stubborn and ridiculous and I'd just rather trade him right now to say the Raiders for a First and Adams or a First, Second, and Jones. I want him here and am fine paying him to stay, but it's gotta get done before the season starts (or at worst after week 1 or 2). We can't have him sitting out and we can't risk him having a crazy season and then needing to pay him above Bosa's deal next spring, neither of those are acceptable for me.

Because we were stupid I still hate that trade, especially after giving Miles a decent contract. I'd so much rather have given up some more of our own picks in the trade to get Bryce than have the ones from the 49ers to use there. Just imagine putting CMC in the same backfield as Bryce and having his route running and ability to be a check down guy. They'd be a perfect match made in heaven together and would dominate the league for the next 3-5 years.

You're conflating how business works and operates with "the fans pay the player's salaries so they have a right to complain how it's spent" and they couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, the salary cap is set based on league revenue, which is based off TV contracts, which yes, are then also based off what the networks will be able to get from advertising money. But to say "we pay their salaries" when you buy a tube of toothpaste is a significant and rather farcical leap of correlation between the two. That same Crest commercial is also going to run on Real Housewifes of Atlanta. Are you saying when you buy that $5 tube of toothpaste, that you're partially paying for Brian Burns' contract as well as paying Betty Joe Sue's contract to be on that show? Of course not Brand's budgets for advertising on NFL games is solely set by the number of eyeballs that watch the games, not based on how many tubes of toothpaste the ads sell, because there is no way to ever correlate sales to any TV commercial. The brands who advertise during NFL aren't mom and pop places, they're global fortune 500 type of companies, the ones who are going to have massive sales regardless of how many football fans buy their products. You buy a tube of toothpaste from Target, Target bought that toothpaste from a distributor, the distributor bought it from Crest, Crest paid CBS and Fox for commercial time, CBS and FOX paid the NFL for the games, the NFL pays teams the TV revenue, the teams pay players. If you're seriously trying to say that you buying that tube of toothpaste gives you the right as a fan to complain about how YOUR money is being spent on players, then I think you're the one who doesn't understand how business works. I'm guessing if P&G spent $0 on NFL advertising, while maybe their sales take a small hit, they'd still be one of the biggest companies in the world. But they spend it there because they know it has a ton of eyeballs so it's a smart use of their advertising money that they'd be spending to place ads somewhere else instead if not on the NFL. Your argument about if nobody bought P&G products or if all NFL fans started to only watch soccer aren't real life scenarios. You were saying that in response to if fans spent $0 or $1 million that it wouldn't change how they spend, but I clearly wasn't saying ALL fans, it was individually. Your scenario would literally take almost every fan of the sport to just stop watching it, which is just nonsense. If I go out and buy $10 million of Panthers gear today, or even $100 million, it's affect on what we'll pay our players is literally the exact same thing as me spending absolutely nothing. Because teams want to be competitive, so they spend based on what the cap is, not how much merchandise sales they have. This isn't European Soccer to where those merchandise sales are what allow you to purchase players from other teams, where they don't have salary caps but caps on what you can spend based on what you bring in. And all that is set at multitudes of levels away from NFL fan's individual spending on products advertised during games.

Fan spent money is a drop in the bucket for the teams/owners compared to what they make thru the TV deals and what these owners make from their other businesses that gave them enough money to buy these franchises. Don't try to say when you buy that tube of toothpaste, that you're paying money towards your favorite NFL team because Crest will advertise during an NFL game. Also, whether fans spend a million dollars a year each on stuff or no money, the teams are still going to spend the same amount of money on their roster. They're not signing better players because a team sold more jerseys or beer during games.

hmmm, that's interesting. But if we're saying what is likely vs unlikely, I wouldn't put that number for Burns at 12 sacks. If he can stay healthy for 17 games, with an upgraded offense, better scheme/coaches, I think the incentive number should be 15 as I think he'll easily surpass 12 sacks. If he plays 17 games this year, I don't expect him to come in at less than 15 sacks

Take a step back and look at that objectively though. If you're saying Burns has been the 9th best pass rusher over the last 2 seasons, then I think you're making the argument for Burns being paid more than what the team wants to give him. He'd have done that during 2 seasons in which we were not good and thus losing a lot and teams running it more than passing against us. So if he was still the 9th best pass rusher during that time, imagine what he could be if we're playing with leads and he can pin his ears back and rush the passer on more snaps. I think that is something that people tend to forget when looking at his past years and trying to project his future.

They won't in the end CMC for example will get restructured as he has a $14 million cap hit and an $11.8 million salary. They'll end up re-structuring that to be like a $10 million roster bonus and a $1.8 million salary so they can spread that 10 million into future seasons. Do that with 3-4 of the guys on that list and they cleared up a solid 20-30 million from that alone for next year.

ehhhhh, you sure about that? I'm not saying I'm 100% sure myself, but I was pretty sure that I read once that incentives still need to be worked into that season's cap number and you have to make sure you have enough room in the cap to satisfy any potential incentives. Which is also why incentives are usually a set number based on hitting a mark, easier to make sure you have the cap room available, as opposed to just "X amount of money for every Y stat over Z number" So it's not a big problem for teams to keep 5-6 million a year in extra cap room for possible incentives and then if they don't hit, that extra cap gets rolled over into the next season anyways.

Well that depends on what side of the fence you currently sit on in regards to all this. If you're on the side of "Burns isn't worth the elite pass rusher money" then no, this isn't good for us. But if you're like me and on the side of, "we turned down 2 firsts, we have to get it done and not worry about the money since in a few years it will be a bargain contract when the next batches of pass rushers get their deal" then this is OUTSTANDING news. It now gives the team the ability to give him his 28-30 a year that he wants, which while it's more than the team wants to pay, it keeps him solidly below the top number, which will then continue to get topped over the next few years. So we give Burns his 28-30 a year now, we'll feel much better about that when Parsons gets 36-38 next offseason.

I think the whole tier system is also a fallacy Elite players don't grow on trees, this isn't like an accountant, where if the person you want is asking for too much money, you can easily pass on him and go out and get someone equally as good for less money. You don't pay a player because of what they're worth, you pay a player because of what they're worth to another team because you have to beat them out on contract offers. If Burns were an unrestricted FA right now, he'd easily get a contract over $25 million and probably pushing $30, because another team in need of pass rushing would give it to him as you have to overpay to get players of his talent. So in essence, you're never paying the player for what they're worth, you're paying what it takes to keep the player from going to another team, and once you look at it like that, you can't look at players in terms of tiers of elite status or even what others have been paid. You can see the same thing in reverse right now for RB's. There were a ton of RBs on the market this year, which is why they struggled to get good contracts, because if a team passed on an RB, there were a plethora of other options out there, which isn't the case with top end pass rushers.

No, just a hard no There is nothing wrong with including incentives, but that one would hamstring our cap situation. If he went out there and dropped a 20 sack season, which isn't out of the question if he plays 17 games and has a great year, that's an extra $8 million he'd earn. The only way to make that work is to ensure we're well under the cap during the season and play the year with probably a good $10-12 million in free space to ensure we don't have issues with any of his incentives. If he then only gets the 12 sacks, that's $8-10 million we didn't spend that season, or basically an above average starter at another position.

People really need to stop comparing a potential Burns deal to deals signed a year or two ago. It's not hard to understand, every off season the next batch of elite players at a position pass by the previous high contracts. It's the reason Mahomes is like the 10th highest paid QB after he was the Top guy the second he signed his deal a few years ago. I guarantee there will be no less than 5-6 players in the next 2 years that will sign bigger deals than whatever we give Burns, plus the couple guys who would still have bigger deals than him right now. If I were to tell you that in 2 years, we'd have Burns locked up for another 4 years while being paid in the 10-12th highest paid lineman/pass rusher in the league, is there anyone who wouldn't be thrilled about that? Stop looking at the moment and look at the bigger picture.

I'm guessing if they had Burns and Donald, they find a way to keep Ramsey though as well. They also probably would have been able to get a few other vets to come there on cheaper deals to try and make a run at a ring. And yes, Kupp being banged up hurts their prospects, but again, that's a recent thing, he'd have been perfectly healthy during the off season when they'd have still been trying to put together a contending roster. They'd have gone the Saints route and found a way to keep kicking the can down the road to keep a good roster together for another season.

Yea, that hurts because there is a chance we could have ended up either pairing Bryce with say a Marvin Harrison Jr or flipping the pick to a QB needy team for a haul. However, I will say that I think if they had Burns but not their first round picks, their offseason would have been very different and they'd have tried to make sure this year's team could make a real run at the SB again. Hell, just putting Burns next to Donald could have made their defense elite. Good luck trying to give your QB time to pass the ball with the two of them rushing the passer next to each other. It's easy to say we might have given up a Top 5 pick when looking at the Rams this very moment, but if they've had Burns since middle of last season, things likely play out differently.

I did like the "and showing the public" part of that post, how dare you not only prove me wrong, but show it to everyone, not cool man, not cool LOL

I actually don't think a ton of rookie QB's were named captains in their first seasons as of late, some get it, but most end up getting it in their second season. But this one was obvious for months, just the way the rest of the team talked about him and how crazy impressive he is off the field, he took over the leadership role of this team the second he stepped into the locker room, it's just who he is. It's one of the reasons I was okay with drafting him, I still hate how small he is as I'll never not be concerned about him holding up long term in this league, but his ability to lead and his mental side of the game has the chance to be Peyton or Brady level type of stuff.

^^^^ lol.... everyone calls this guy out, but according to him, it's everyone else who is crazy and stalks him. I'm sure he's right and the dozens of people who have called him out over the last few months are all the crazy ones. It's okay bud, you just don't understand how the real life NFL works, you're too stuck in how you can run a team in Madden and manipulate the system to get everyone and anyone you want. Cue the stalking claims (even though he's the latest post on the most active thread on the forum) in 3, 2, 1..............

Yes and no, I think people keep forgetting that we'd only be paying him top dollar for one, maybe two seasons. It won't take long for the next batch of pass rushers to surpass the contracts. Parsons is eligible for an extension next year, I'll bet any amount of money right now that he will sign a contract for more than Bosa.

Which when you think about it, makes these DE contracts almost a bargain. The top QB's in the league right now are making $50+ million a year, second most important position then going for max about 30 a year, that's a steal

If it's a player still on a non first round rookie deal and is playing like an all pro or a vet on a low contract who's career took off after signing it, then I have no problem with them doing it because teams have no issue cutting you if you're not performing up to the contract. But if it's a player on a 10-15 million a year deal who just wants a new contract to be paid 15+ a year, then no, I don't agree with them holding out. You signed that huge deal, you need to honor it, if you wanted more, you should have asked for more at the time or wait until you can sign a new one. This also is in regards to regular season hold outs, I have less of an issue when a player is going into the last year of his deal and he holds out of camp while negotiating. That one makes sense as you don't want to risk injury in camp before you get the deal done, but then you gotta show up and play Week 1 if a deal isn't done yet. I'm okay with not risking injury in pre-season/camp, but not once the season starts, especially if it's someone like Burns who would be getting $16 million for the season, you just gotta play out the contract or hope to get a new deal done during the season.