Are Rookie NFL Contracts Too Short?
Questioning if the initial investment isn't long enough
By GregMeinholz
For some NFL teams, each year, that first-round draft pick could be a franchise-altering investment, especially if that team is picking first overall. Making the right choice could significantly impact the team moving forward. It could be the difference between hoisting the Lombardi trophy and remaining at the bottom of the barrel. If you made the right choice, you now have possibly the top up-and-coming player in the league. When it comes to their success, there's probably at least a year or so of a grace period before the true accolades begin to stack up.
When it comes to a rookie Quarterback that was picked first overall, you would normally just hope that they look to show some promise in their first year behind center. In their second year, you look for them to perhaps make the playoffs. Even if it's a first-round exit, the arrow is pointing up. In the third year, now is when you start to look for a deep playoff run, maybe even a Super Bowl appearance. But guess what happens after that third year? You need to decide whether or not you will be picking up the 5th-year option on that QB. In the case that the QB is doing well, it's a no-brainer, but it's a high likelihood that next year you will be paying that Quarterback a very lucrative deal.
That's when the other aspects of building a team come into play. It's possible, but very unlikely, that the team built around said Quarterback to help him get close to a Super Bowl is just a band of guys on rookie contracts and veterans on medium-sized deals. There must be some high-profile deals in there somewhere, whether it be on the defensive side or even the offensive line. Somewhere down the road, there are going to be a few cap casualties or sacrifices made to pay that Quarterback. And before you know it, you've got a high-paid quarterback leading your team to only first or second-round playoff exits each year for the next five seasons.
Why can't that bargain rookie contract be just a bit longer?
Extending the term
These issues don't just impact first overall quarterbacks. They impact every position in every round occasionally. In most cases, four years is more than enough time to evaluate whether or not a player deserves that second contract. But in some cases, especially with those where a player may take some time to develop, it's as if as soon as they start having a big impact on their team, it's time to either break the bank for them, or let them go.
When it comes to a player who just isn't cutting it, teams are more than happy to let them walk after four years. But those that are making a significant impact, it can be hard to roll that armored Brinks truck up their driveway without it being at the cost of some other pieces.
What if contracts were just a bit longer-term? Or maybe each draft pick has a 5th-year option, and perhaps 1st-round picks have a 5th and 6th-year option? Perhaps their salary increases by a set percentage in each of those options. That way, they still get a decent pay raise with the team picking up the option. This is likely all just dreamland, and the current structure set in the 2011 CBA is the best possible agreement. But when your team finally finds that big-impact player at a position of need, it's a real pain when another position of need has to open up so that you can pay that player.
Long-Term Rich Rookies of the Past
Once upon a time, rookies were signed to much longer contracts. Especially first-round picks. And they were compensated handsomely. The 2010 rookie class was referred to as the "last class to break the bank." The first overall pick, Quarterback Sam Bradford, signed an obscene six-year, $78 million contract after he was drafted. To give some perspective, this year's first-overall pick, QB Cam Ward, signed a four-year, $48.75 million deal. Even if you take the average annual value due to the longer length for Bradford, Bradford still has the richest contract, 15 years later.
Another comparative look at the obscene rookie contracts of the past, with a bit of a Packers kicker, shows us the 2006 contract of first-overall pick Mario Williams. Williams signed a six-year deal worth $54 million. That same year, the Packers signed a certain free agent cornerback who would have a career resurgence en route to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That would be Charles Woodson. Woodson signed with the Packers for seven years, $52 million. So, on average, the first overall pick, who never played a down, was making $9M per year, compared to a future Hall of Fame player making $7.42M per year.
It's no wonder that the 2011 CBA put a stop to this.
Looking to the future
It just may be that the current rookie contract structure is the best for both sides. Teams get a decent trial run with players at a fairly discounted rate. And players have their chance to earn generational wealth while they still have many years ahead of them. But there will always be that thought at the back of some heads, wishing those rookie contracts lasted just a bit longer to maximize championship windows.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz and Bluesky @gmeinholz.bsky.social for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.
__________________________
Comments (69)
Savage57
July 15, 2025 at 10:14 am
Good luck with the NFLPA with that idea.
I see them looking to dial rookie deals back a year, not add a year.
Coldworld
July 15, 2025 at 11:31 am
The quid pro quo would almost certainly be guaranteed contracts. Given that, I don’t see the owners wanting it either, since it would be guaranteeing more money for long enough to exceed the average tenure (3.3 years) by some way.
jannesbjornson
July 15, 2025 at 04:38 pm
Short-term deals are the future. These guys are College Graduates.
justjan
July 21, 2025 at 09:50 am
Some are.
LeotisHarris
July 15, 2025 at 08:28 pm
Keep an eye out for a shakeup in the NFLPA. Seems that the union busting is coming from inside the union.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/45703132/nflpa-nfl-agreed-keep-collu...
splitpea1
July 15, 2025 at 10:32 am
Rookie contracts are plenty long enough if you pick the right prospects who don't take an inordinate amount of time to develop. With the exception of QBs, that's why smart GMs draft players who are as ready to make an impact in NFL in the first three rounds: not only do you lessen the learning curve and hopefully get the production, but you take advantage of the rookie contract before you have to shell out big time--assuming of course the player is worth that bank truck.
T7Steve
July 15, 2025 at 10:42 am
They need to figure something out. If they don't get it balanced these kids are just going to stay and are staying in school getting their NIL. Losing easily a year of their career and worse, not having them in a system.
The #1 draft pick is usually a crap shoot because the teams they go to are crappy. Hard to be elite on a crappy team (to drift back to Cory's Corner).
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 10:49 am
I actually don't mind these kids staying in school. I don't kid myself, though: they really aren't going to school. The cream should still rise to the top and these kids come out physically and mentally more mature and stronger.
What I don't like is the bouncing around that the transfer portal enables as these kids chase the NIL money. Now that most of the Covid exemptions are done, we'll be seeing fewer 25-year-old rookies. I also question the commitment these kids have to the game. Scouting gets harder.
T7Steve
July 15, 2025 at 11:09 am
Have to let the kids jump around until they can make their coaches work through their whole contract or go back to making them (coaches and players) sit out a year if the transfer.
crayzpackfan
July 15, 2025 at 11:26 am
Or just make the kids sign a contract. If they wanna get paid like a pro, then they should have to sit at the table and make some promises to those who pay them. Can you imagine if the NFL or any pro sport had an annual open free agency for every player? Yuck!
T7Steve
July 15, 2025 at 12:23 pm
Because the coaches jump ship, they had to start letting the kids do it too. How would you like to sign on to play for a famous coach that turned around and went to another school and left you hanging? I always felt bad for the kids left behind and now it's gotten out of hand. They have to cap NIL like they do in the NFL except it's so hard to regulate. Heck, how many kids do you think were getting paid under the table before NIL?
crayzpackfan
July 15, 2025 at 01:16 pm
You make a valid point about coaches leaving but that happens a lot less often than the amount of kids moving around. Think of a coach and his staff putting time and resources into all the recruiting they do only to have that kid jump ship after one season? Works both ways. All they have to do is simply allow the kid the choice to stay or follow the coach if that coach wants them to go with in that situation.
T7Steve
July 15, 2025 at 02:44 pm
It doesn't happen so much in football but it's happening constantly in basketball. Even in women's basketball.
I think it's just gone down the tubes with NIL but the kids deserved to get paid so it just needs to be a different a system so the rich don't get richer while the small programs blow away.
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 02:52 pm
I think we collectively have set a record for the number of times the word "kids" appears in a thread that isn't about goats.
jannesbjornson
July 15, 2025 at 04:43 pm
M.J. went back for His degree. I'll take a Smart football player over a dumb ass, any day.
TKWorldWide
July 15, 2025 at 08:10 pm
In that case, I won’t plan on being taken.
BuckyBadger
July 15, 2025 at 10:50 am
Players would argue they are too long. They are plenty long. 1st rounders have 5 years deals which is longer than most careers.
GregC
July 15, 2025 at 11:38 am
Agreed. The NFL is a volatile business. Injuries happen. GMs and coaches are hired and fired. Teams rise and fall in the standings. Things can change a lot in four or five years. Also, the pay scale changes, usually going way up, which means that contracts become outdated. So it makes sense to me that rookie contracts are not longer than that. If they were longer, there would be even more players demanding to renegotiate.
crayzpackfan
July 15, 2025 at 10:52 am
Great article. Very refreshing and thought provoking read from the monotony of what has been offered lately. My only issue, at least here in GB is, that our high picks, say round one and two, with very few exceptions like at the WR position is that we don't play those picks very much in the first 2-3 years thus not taking advantage of that lower paying contract. It seems to stunt their growth not getting many reps and then suddenly their contract is up and we either cut them or sign them to a seemingly overpriced contract based on little past production with hopes that they peak sometime after their second contract. If we play these high draft picks, so long as they don't flat out suck, they will improve with reps and we'll know much more about them come second contract time. If we can't afford them, they have great tape laid out for the rest of the league to see and we can trade them for really good draft capital.
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 02:47 pm
Packers first round picks...
2024--Morgan-->played 6 games before getting hurt
2023--Van Ness-->played 33% of the defensive snaps as a rookie
2022--Quay Walker-->Started right away
Devonte Wyatt-->played 23% of the defensive snaps as a rookie
2021--Eric Stokes-->Started right away at CB
2020--Jordan Love-->Inactive rookie season
Packers second round picks...
2024--Edgerrin Cooper-->played 55% of defensive snaps, missed 3 games to injury
Javon Bullard-->played 81% of defensive snaps (missed 2 games to injury)
2023--Luke Musgrave-->played 31% of offensive snaps, starting TE week 1, missed 10 games to injury
Jayden Reed-->played 56% of offensive snaps
2022--Christian Watson-->played 56% of offensive snaps, lost 3 games to injury
2021--Josh Myers-->immediate starter at C
2020--AJ Dillon-->Played 14% of offensive snaps, missed 5 games
crayzpackfan
July 15, 2025 at 03:37 pm
So minus about 3 players on that list, rookies not only did not start, but most only played a third of a game. I guess what I meant is, players used to get drafted in round one and two and not only were they expected to start, most did, for better or for worse. Also, in my OP I admitted that the WR groups have been the exception in GB, so no need to pad your stats by including them. ;)
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 08:42 pm
NP. I didn't offer an opinion one way or the other, but rather just numbers. I didn't go into second and third years for those players who have progressed that far.
T7Steve
July 16, 2025 at 08:26 am
Don't you figure that the farther down in the rounds you pick, the more likely you are to have to take a project? Even Maholmes didn't start his first season behind Alex Smith.
GregC
July 16, 2025 at 09:46 am
Is this really true? I wonder if anyone has done a statistical breakdown. More to the point, if it IS true, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or neutral? I took a look at the 1996 draft, when the Packers were coming off an NFC championship game appearance and were going to win the Super Bowl, and here is the list of draftees by Ron Wolf:
1. John Michels
2. Derrick Mayes WR
3. Mike Flanagan C
3. Tyrone Williams DB
4. Chris Darkins DB
6. Marco Rivera
7. Kyle Wachholz QB
7. Keith McKenzie DE
A few of them eventually became good NFL players, but I don't think any of them started as rookies, except John Michels, who was an injury replacement for Ken Reuttgers halfway through the season. And then he got hurt and they had to put Bruce Wilkerson in there. (Wilkerson was the unsung hero of that championship team.)
crayzpackfan
July 16, 2025 at 10:17 am
I'm really only looking at players drafted round one and early to mid 2nd round picks. I see most players drafted from round 3 -7 as projects and or developmental depth unless someone pops and surprises everyone.
WD
July 15, 2025 at 11:08 am
In 2023 Love proved he wa an elite QB. Numbers don't lie. Then he was injured and was not an elite QB.
End of story .
TarynsEyes
July 15, 2025 at 11:19 am
When 2nd round players start demanding fully guaranteed contracts before playing a snap, there's a huge problem on the horizon that supersedes the length of the rookie contract. This is the beginning of the end of players sitting and learning, weeding out the draft mistakes, and increases the demand for star-level play from day one, which was mostly contained to the first 15 of the first round. The increased pressure placed on scouts, and FO decisions on players will be immense as those mistakes cannot easily be erased, your salary cap is now a disaster, and the road to kick the can down shrinks more and more.
College football, as a whole, is too large with too many teams, and the NFL is tied to too few colleges, though occasional outliers get rewarded every year. The highest number of busts come from the recruited colleges, and likely, many of the better football players never get the chance because of media driven colleges that can promote more.
Let's fix the draft quality, and the money structure will level out, just like water.
Don't become the MLB or NBA, where players get deals that are a losing return 2–3 years in for many. Players cannot guarantee a level of performance, and they shouldn't be guaranteed a salary that demands it.
MikeFlanaganStan
July 15, 2025 at 11:25 am
With the average length of an NFL career at 4 years last I checked, rookie contracts are probably much too long.
Cheezehead72
July 15, 2025 at 11:46 am
A team does not have to shell out a big contract with almost all of it being guaranteed. They can exercise the 5th year option and tag them for the 6th and 7th years.
Yes I know the player will demand a trade and maybe hold out but that is all part of the business.
Right now the NFL has the best system in all of sports. Yes it could be tweaked to make it a little better but to extend the length of rookie contracts would be a bad idea. The only way to stop the QB salary scale from growing faster than any other position is for all teams to stop paying them more. Yes I know that will not happen.
LambeauPlain
July 15, 2025 at 12:04 pm
Exercising the 5th year option is really not much of a cost saving move.
Quay Walker was going to be paid a pot of gold for his 5th year so the Packers passed...and will likely use some of that gold to create a more team friendly multiyear deal. Acknowledge some of his 5th year was due to the league lumping 3-4 edge OLBs with inside backers and 4-3 off ball LBs. They have to change that.
But I agree with you I'd leave rookie deals as they are. The NFL likes parity and the rookie K's help with that. After 4 years (or sooner) most team coaches and managers know the prospects of the players they see every day during the season.
In the NFL the trip from worst to first and vice versa is often a short journey. Rookie contracts, Free Agency and salary cap have kept the NFL competitive for the customers.
dobber
July 16, 2025 at 09:04 am
That 5th year option is usually a bridge to an extension.
I agree that the league has to look harder at how they align players (OLB/ILB, etc.) and determine 5th year option values. It's hard to say whether Walker would've gotten that 5th year option if they were comparing apples to apples, but my guess is that if they do extend him, he'll be far more affordable in 2026 under a longer-term deal than he would be under that one-year option.
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 02:49 pm
"Right now the NFL has the best system in all of sports."
Does anyone really understand how the NBA "cap" works?
LeotisHarris
July 15, 2025 at 08:40 pm
No, but there's a hard cap, a soft cap, an apron limit, and a luxury tax *and* teams can put together multi-team trades involving future first round draft picks out to 2045. Of course, there are exceptions, too, like James Harden can choose to play anywhere at any time, and Kevin Durant can't be happy. Also, it's mandatory that Commissioner Adam Silver keep his grown-up Bat-Boy appearance as long as he holds the job.
Cheezehead72
July 15, 2025 at 12:20 pm
I have thought about the idea of making RBs rookie contracts only three years as most teams start their first and second round RBs right away because they can and they want to use them while they are young. Also RBs right out of college are ready to play right away. That might help them increase their salaries because they would be ready for a new contract a year early.
Leatherhead
July 15, 2025 at 12:53 pm
Many people here think it's too long, and we should get rid of people before 4 years because they "aren't good enough".
Bitternotsour
July 15, 2025 at 02:39 pm
the food is horrible, and the portions are so small...
dobber
July 15, 2025 at 02:49 pm
Winner!
PhantomII
July 15, 2025 at 10:04 pm
The Packers rarely start anyone until year 3 or 4.....and that's why it's such a waste. GB picks a lot of marginal players it seems, barely getting much use out of many. Then we have players drafted higher getting too many reps over better performing players.
GregC
July 16, 2025 at 06:06 am
The Packers have rookie starters every year. And who are all of these "better performing" players who are losing too many reps to highly drafted players?
The two things you are saying in your post are kind of contradictory and both wrong anyway. And if the Packers pick such bad players, how do they keep making the playoffs?
Leatherhead
July 16, 2025 at 07:01 am
'''And if the Packers pick such bad players, how do they keep making the playoffs?"""
Hey, that's MY question. Our players are no good, our coach is no good.....how do we keep winning?
dobber
July 16, 2025 at 09:07 am
Yeah, if you're a good team, it's probably not because you have gaping holes in your lineup that unproven rookies can readily drop into.
dobber
July 16, 2025 at 08:49 am
First off, no. They "start" a significant number of guys in their first two seasons. When healthy, Cooper, Bullard, and Williams were essentially "starters" a year ago. Second year guys who were playing "starters" snaps? Carrington Valentine, Jayden Reed, Tucker Kraft. When you're fielding a young team every year, your "starters" are mostly going to be on rookie contracts. Of 11 preferred starters on offense at the end of 2024, only 3 were not on rookie deals...defense? 4. How many players out of the 2022 draft--third year players--were "starters" at the end of last season? At least 5, and you could argue others were nominally "starters". This narrative that the Packers don't play first and second year guys is tainted by how people view first and second round picks and their opinions on how they should be used.
Second, in this age of situational football, look at snaps played, not "starters." There are some position groups where guys don't rotate out: QB, OL, and most teams play their LB/defensive signal caller, 2 S and 2 CBs 90+% of game snaps. Otherwise, guys are going in and out based on situational play. Who's on the field with the chance to make plays? Look at snaps.
IN EDIT: BTW, thanks TGR for providing weekly snap counts during the regular season. It's one of the more informative pieces we see.
Coldworld
July 16, 2025 at 07:58 am
The average career in the NFL is 3.3 years, so teams have long moved on from some draft picks prior to the 4th year. Even allowing for injury forced departures, the NFL is, for most players, a short career.
That we remember the exceptions is because some thrive (and thus greatly increase the median over the modal average—for most individual players, 3.3 years is optimistic). For first rounders it’s 9.3 years. It plummets to 4 for second rounders and 2.9 for third rounders.
That illustrates the divergence between the median and the mode and highlights that teams really don’t historically give many more than 3 years to make the grade.
That, of course ties in with the consistently high levels of roster turnover in the NFL. About 56% of rostered (the 53) players are retained by teams year-on-year while about 16% leave the NFL entirely each year. Only about 35% manage to return to a team for two years. Interestingly, studies suggest that the best performing teams are more often among the higher churn group, not the lower one as I might have suspected.
Since'75
July 15, 2025 at 04:55 pm
If anyone really buys into the theory that NFL players average career only last 3.4 years, then i guess it's a debate.
I just won't debate it because it's foolish conversation.
IMO....the length of the contracts are exactly right where they should be, 4years + an option for 1st rounders, 4 years for the rest.
*****
The bigger problem comes as Taryn stated, in players wanting guaranteed deals like the first rounders.
Hell, i don't like the fact the first round is fully guaranteed.
Some stiff who can't cut it in the NFL is a multi millionaire, no matter what.
He won the lottery and is set for life as long as he has some common sense.
Now, i don't blame the players for getting what they can get.
But i just don't think it's smart business.
But then again, who am i to judge the NFL's business model....lol.
Goodell has turned the NFL into a multi billion dollar empire.
70 million is almost pocket change to NFL teams now. just ask Preston Smith, whose bathing in
Packer money as we speak.
Leatherhead
July 15, 2025 at 07:09 pm
Maybe,,,, 'average' isn't the best measure when it comes to career length.
While checking on this, I went back to the 2019 draft. That's the one where we got Gary and Savage and Jenkins and Sternberger and Keke. But the thing that kind of surprised me is that so many of the top 100 guys or so are still in the league. Over 80% of them are still playing....you'd think that injuries and bad luck would have knocked out more than that.
When calculating that average, are they adding in all the practice squad guys who last a year or two? Probably. But I think that if you are drafted in the Top 200, you have a better than average chance of playing more than four years. In fact, there's a 25% chance of playing until 30ish if you were a real player to begin with.
LeotisHarris
July 15, 2025 at 08:58 pm
There are different data sets. The NFLPA is the source of the 3.3 year average career. Their number includes players who may only be on a roster briefly, which lowers the average. The Ginger Hammer has a cadre of dedicated ninja-like actuaries that produce data indicating most NFL players have 14-year careers and leave the league to return to their home communities as role models and entrepreneurs.
Averages vary depending on how "career" is defined. Just being drafted? Being on a 53-man roster? Appearing in at least one game? Players with longer, productive careers (e.g., starters, QBs) skew the data upward. Kickers, punters, long snappers gum up the maths, too, as do the special teamers who buy exotic pets and shoot off bottle rockets from between their butt cheeks.
dobber
July 16, 2025 at 09:16 am
"as do the special teamers who buy exotic pets and shoot off bottle rockets from between their butt cheeks."
Do they have to do both of those things or do they get to pick and choose? Cuz I know what I'd pick.
LeotisHarris
July 16, 2025 at 10:50 am
Unfortunately, both are required (see Jervey, Travis) although I think exceptions can be made in hardship cases.
Bitternotsour
July 16, 2025 at 09:20 am
The NFLPA would be the arbiters in that they provide the health benefits to the guys who get vested, no? Vesting used to be 4 years, that may have been shortened. I had a client who through the wonders of modern chemistry was able to eek out a 6 year career as a special teams demon and undersized linebacker for two teams. When I was working with him, he was sweating out (literally) getting to that 4th year.
I feel for these guys, they literally shorten their lives to get in 6 to 7 car accidents every week. I never feel like "just a guy" reflects anything other than pure ignorance in regards to what a pro goes through to be one of 1200 on the planet. Just a guy my ass.
LeotisHarris
July 16, 2025 at 10:51 am
We must have The Entertainment. Can't you see?
Since'75
July 18, 2025 at 07:20 am
LH......
I think the average is based upon 'any' player who signs an NFL contract.
Meaning, lets say a rookie only lasted to one of the cutdown days, his career then only last maybe 3 months.
Same with...UDFA...The majority of those guys are cut in short order.
All that and other situations, i believe result in the very low average players career in the NFL.
To me, it isn't a valid reflection of players careers in the NFL.
You take out all the guys who get cut and are waived in short order because they don't belong in the NFL to begin with.....
I mean, why use a guys time in the NFL to dictate a average career length, that never even played in a game.....that makes zero sense.
My best guess is NFL careers last an average of maybe 7 or 8 years or so
Leatherhead
July 18, 2025 at 09:34 am
I think you're generally right about this. If you focus on the actual players who were drafted in the top 200, most of these guys get a second contract from someone. Some are injury casualties, and some were just draft mistakes, but the rest sign a second contract and play for a few more years
Since'75
July 19, 2025 at 11:15 am
The majority of the top 200 guys get a 2nd contract?
That's through round 5.
Hmmm....
I respect that, but i'd have to see that data.
***************
A think it would be just as interesting, to gather the data of every draft pick that didn't get a 2nd contract, AND every UDFA that last only 3 months to 2 years.
I think that combined number might shock you.
Including what it does to the 'average career length' of an NFL player.
Leatherhead
July 21, 2025 at 10:04 am
Go to pro-football-reference. Go to draft. Go to 2000 draft. Anybody from that draft that is still active is in a different font than people who aren't. IOW, they're on a second contract.
Go to any year and check from 5-6 years later. A solid majority are still in the league. When I check the 2000 draft, Only 4 first rounders didn't get a second contract. Only 6 Day 2 guys are out of the league. That's 90%.
When you get into Day 3, you start finding more guys who are out of the league, Still, a majority of the Top 200 are still playing after their rookie deal was up.
BuckyBadger
July 16, 2025 at 08:35 am
What is not to buy into the years played by the average player? For every player that plays 10 years there are probably 5 guys that where only on the roster for a year.
I will never understand fans being on the side of the owners when it comes to contracts. Every other sport guarantees contracts why should 1st and 2nd rounders get it as well? They are stuck on that contract for at least 3 years even if they out perform it.
dobber
July 16, 2025 at 08:45 am
"For every player that plays 10 years there are probably 5 guys that where only on the roster for a year."
I would say 25 guys or more.
"Every other sport guarantees contracts why should 1st and 2nd rounders get it as well?"
I'll just come back to the point that this is the deal and parameters on contracts the NFLPA negotiated. If they guarantee contracts, the cap structure as we know it would collapse...and either AAVs would drop dramatically or the cap would have to skyrocket. I don't know if the cap structure is the best one that could be worked out, but it's much easier to tweak what they have than to shitcan it and build something completely new that makes previous contracts unusable.
Bitternotsour
July 16, 2025 at 09:25 am
I remember Aaron Rodgers trying to get the younger players to reject the agreement specifically because it didn't protect the lowest players on the totem. They agreed to depress lower salaries in order to protect those max deals for quarterbacks and marquee stars, literally disadvantaging the majority of the players in the NFL.
They were short sighted.
Since'75
July 18, 2025 at 07:08 am
J'Marcus Russell and Sam Bradford seemed to be the catalyst in the restructuring of contracts back in the 2011 CBA.
If memory serves, Russell pocketed 36 million, while Bradford was guaranteed 50 million.
IF....that didn't happen when it did, current top draft picks would be broaching 100 million guaranteed in todays dollars.
Leatherhead
July 19, 2025 at 11:21 am
If I Recall.....the owners said "paying this much money for a guy who has never taken an NFL snap is insane. We need to put a salary structure in place to protect us from ourselves." So they did. A rookie shouldn't be making vastly more than guys who've already put in the sweat and blood for years, IMO. It's provided a lot of stability for the league.
I think if you're a college football player, and you get drafted in the Top 200, there's a better than 50% chance you end up signing another contract, and you're a multi-millionaire before you're 30. If you're a top talent, you're a multimillionaire at 22.
BuckyBadger
July 16, 2025 at 11:02 am
The cap would not collapse if they started guaranteeing contracts, that is what the owners want you to believe but is not the case. What will happen is that you won't see these fake numbers in which the player will never see the full contract. We see all the time a player signs for $120M for 4 years but only $50M is guaranteed. Well that is just a $50M contract as the player will be cut or forced to renegotiate once his cap number gets too big. It gives the owners too much leverage.
Since'75
July 19, 2025 at 11:38 am
Of course the cap will not collapse, but.....less money would be allocated to current players on active rosters.
Simply because a team......
Would have more dead money in their cap from players not on their roster anymore, or that are out of the league.
It's also possible in that scenario, that the skill level on the team suffers, IF a team keeps underperforming players on their roster, simply because that players money is guaranteed.
The level of dead money on team's salary cap numbers are at record high level.
I can remember when the Packers would only operate with dead money in the 2-3m million a year range. (See Wolf and Ted T era)
This season...the Packers are at 35+ million in dead money against their cap from 3 players....
Preston Smith
De'Vondre Campbell
Jaire Alexander
Now.....If all NFL contracts were guaranteed, can you imagine where that dead money level would be at?
Me either, but it would be high, for every team
Since'75
July 18, 2025 at 07:33 am
It's like this Bucky.....
No other sport is as violent as the NFL.
Out perform a contract?
Well.....J'Marcus Russell got 36 million guaranteed, he clearly underperformed his contract. So his team has to cut their losses and/or carry that dead money
When i say underperformed, he had no business wearing an NFL uniform.
The NFL business model allows teams to be competitive A-Z.
That is one of the reasons why (besides revenue sharing), that contracts are not guaranteed (like every other sport).
Any team with the right management in place, can win a NFL Championship, period
You don't have that parody in MLB and the NBA.
Bitternotsour
July 18, 2025 at 11:08 am
parody or parity, i suppose unintentionally both work.
Since'75
July 19, 2025 at 11:04 am
Thank you for your correction Bitter, i'm better off for it.
🍪
Now, do you have anything of equal intelligence in reference of the topic we were discussing?
Oppy
July 15, 2025 at 09:08 pm
I'm doing the horrible thing where you don't even open up the article and still comment on it.
NO, rookie contracts aren't too short.
The average NFL career is about 3 years long.
I shouldn't have to say anything else about it.
Since'75
July 19, 2025 at 11:47 am
What's the average length of an NFL starters career, and NFL 2nd string?
I'd bet it's a good piece longer than 3 years.
The average career length of NFL players should be formulated from players who actually play in the NFL, PERIOD
Not players who signed a contract and never played.
Think about it.
ricky
July 16, 2025 at 11:55 am
Things are changing rapidly in the NFL. This year, since Cleveland signed a second round draftee to a guaranteed contract (will this team ever learn?), other second rounders are demanding the same thing. And holding out until they get what they want. And you want to try to tilt the field even further toward the billionaire owners so they can make more money? Interesting.
Bitternotsour
July 16, 2025 at 06:50 pm
I finally find something to agree with you on, no one buys a ticket to cheer on a billionaire owner. fuck those inheriting assweeds.
Since'75
July 18, 2025 at 07:40 am
Cleveland is an F story as far as running a sport franchise.
What's scary to me, is the fact that Jimmy Haslam is now one of the majority owner of the Milwaukee Bucks