Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Cap projections w/ main guys


Recommended Posts

There's been a lot of angst over how we can afford to keep all our guys together. How can we pay Luck like he deserves, and pay Hilton what he apparently wants, and pay the TEs, and AC? And can we still manage the cap once those guys are extended? And will we still have money for free agency afterward?
 
I've done these projections several times, but never posted them. This isn't perfect, but it's a reasonable idea of how the math can work. I'm posting it now so people can see how the numbers can work. First, I'm assuming the cap increases each year until 2021 by a modest 8% per year (it increased an average of 9.2% the last two seasons). By 2021, the cap is at $228.5m. I'm also using some generic contract structures with gradually increasing cap hits for each player, to varying degrees. 
 
AC: Five years, $46m.
Allen: Five years, $33m
Fleener: Five years, $33m
Hilton: Five years, $54m, new money is $13m/year
Luck: Six years, $126m, new money is $22m/year
(I'm not sharing all the contract structure, because it's really rudimentary, and it's not like anyone could really predict the contract structure. I just used numbers that I think are sensible and fair, and you can assume that the structures are somewhat team friendly in the long term.)

 

The spoiler tag contains the year to year caps, individual cap hits for those five players, combined cap hits for those five, and percentage of total cap for those five.

144 155.5   168.0   181.4   195.9   211.6   228.52015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021AC 7.5 8.5 9 10 11 Allen 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Fleener 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Hilton 4.9 9.7 10.7 13.7 15.2 Luck 7 13 18 20 23 26 25.425.2 43.6 52.1 60.1 65.6 26 25.418% 28% 31% 33% 34% 12% 11%

 

 

That probably seems like gibberish, but long and short, the cap hits of those five players never account for more than 34% of the cap. That's with no cap rollover (which we ought to have in 2016, for sure, and likely every year), modest cap increases, and no restructures. In 2016, we'd have $28m in cap space going into the offseason, including $10m projected rollover. Not including new contracts for 2016 draft picks, we'd go into 2017 with $54m in cap space, with no rollover. 

 
(FYI: I'm releasing Cherilus and Thomas right now, and releasing D'Qwell after 2015, so I gain some extra cap space through those moves.)
 
This is with Luck making $22m/year, and Hilton making $13m/year. The only year that things might even feel tight is 2016, and even then, not really. Potential cap casualties could be Walden and Irving, who could save another $7m against the cap. We'll have other free agents, of course: Toler, Freeman, Chapman, Herron, the 2013 draft class, etc.

 

It may be that no one finds this remotely interesting but me, but I continually see people thinking that if we re-sign our guys, we'll be completely messed up on the cap, and I just want to show why that's not the case. If you're so inclined, follow the math, and you'll see what I mean.

 

/rant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add, it may be that some of the guys price themselves out, or the front office decides to move on without them. I just want to show that the math allows us to keep all of them, if we want and can reach terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add, it may be that some of the guys price themselves out, or the front office decides to move on without them. I just want to show that the math allows us to keep all of them, if we want and can reach terms.

What's the likelihood that we can get away with paying Hilton $8-10 mil per year?  His agent, Rosenhaus, certainly won't make things easy.  But if Dez Bryant gets $13 mil a year, I don't think it would be difficult to make a case for $8-10 mil for Hilton.  What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard Dez might sign for $13 million. If he does, we may get Hilton for $11-$12 million instead.

 

The tag for Dez is 13M for this year to which he said he's cool with, however he never stated that's what he would want yearly. I think if Dez had wanted 13M/year, I would assume they would have done it by now, but I'm guessing that's not enough - or the guaranteed money isn't where he wants it. Dez and DT are going to push the bar to that 15M+ range, and TY isn't going to be far behind in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the likelihood that we can get away with paying Hilton $8-10 mil per year?  His agent, Rosenhaus, certainly won't make things easy.  But if Dez Bryant gets $13 mil a year, I don't think it would be difficult to make a case for $8-10 mil for Hilton.  What do you think?

 

I'm thinking he should get a deal similar to Jeremy Maclin, at $11m/year. That's pretty much what my contract above is. But lately, everyone's been talking about how the new money averages, so I calculated that for the $13m/year. Still, it's basically five years, $10.8m/year. 

 

Whether that's enough or not, I don't know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the likelihood that we can get away with paying Hilton $8-10 mil per year?  His agent, Rosenhaus, certainly won't make things easy.  But if Dez Bryant gets $13 mil a year, I don't think it would be difficult to make a case for $8-10 mil for Hilton.  What do you think?

 

 

I think there's zero chance of signing Hilton to $8-10 Mill per.     I think Hilton's closest comparison is Green Bay's Randall Cobb, and he got 4/40.       That means Hilton wants at least that,  and very likely more.    Maybe even much more.

 

Once Cobb got 4/40, I don't think there's any argument for Hilton getting less than that.

 

If you think there is,  by all means,  share it.....   because I don't see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard Dez might sign for $13 million. If he does, we may get Hilton for $11-$12 million instead.

 

ESPN reports (TV,  not the website)  that Dez wants 17 mill per.     I don't think he'll get that,  but he's going to get a lot.     And that means more dollars for TYH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's zero chance of signing Hilton to $8-10 Mill per.     I think Hilton's closest comparison is Green Bay's Randall Cobb, and he got 4/40.       That means Hilton wants at least that,  and very likely more.    Maybe even much more.

 

Once Cobb got 4/40, I don't think there's any argument for Hilton getting less than that.

 

If you think there is,  by all means,  share it.....   because I don't see that.

If Rosenhaus wants to get greedy with TY's contract then we need to let him walk. That's what the 

Dorsett pick was all about......insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rosenhaus wants to get greedy with TY's contract then we need to let him walk. That's what the 

Dorsett pick was all about......insurance.

 

Well....   you view it as greedy,  and I'm sure many others do too.    And I'm sure Dorsett being insurance was part of the equation, but how big I'm not sure we'll ever know.

 

That said,  Superman has started this thread showing we can comfortably afford Hilton in the 12/13 mill per range and still do ALL of our other signings and STILL have MORE money left other for additional signings.

 

So,  there's no need to worry....   yet.

 

Perhaps sometime down the road,  maybe....   but now now.

 

And personally,  I think we'd use the franchise tag on Hilton for at least one year before we'd let him walk......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....   you view it as greedy,  and I'm sure many others do too.    And I'm sure Dorsett being insurance was part of the equation, but how big I'm not sure we'll ever know.

 

That said,  Superman has started this thread showing we can comfortably afford Hilton in the 12/13 mill per range and still do ALL of our other signings and STILL have MORE money left other for additional signings.

 

So,  there's no need to worry....   yet.

 

Perhaps sometime down the road,  maybe....   but now now.

 

And personally,  I think we'd use the franchise tag on Hilton for at least one year before we'd let him walk......

Good post, but if Dorsett and Carter show a lot of promise then TY may need to come off of his

asking price if he wants to stay on a contending team. We still have to sign Allen and Fleener

so I'm sure the brass has a limit they want to pay on ball catchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN reports (TV,  not the website)  that Dez wants 17 mill per.     I don't think he'll get that,  but he's going to get a lot.     And that means more dollars for TYH.

That's just disgusting. Hopefully it's less than that, because you are correct, it will affect TY's salary next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of angst over how we can afford to keep all our guys together. How can we pay Luck like he deserves, and pay Hilton what he apparently wants, and pay the TEs, and AC? And can we still manage the cap once those guys are extended? And will we still have money for free agency afterward?

 

I've done these projections several times, but never posted them. This isn't perfect, but it's a reasonable idea of how the math can work. I'm posting it now so people can see how the numbers can work. First, I'm assuming the cap increases each year until 2021 by a modest 8% per year (it increased an average of 9.2% the last two seasons). By 2021, the cap is at $228.5m. I'm also using some generic contract structures with gradually increasing cap hits for each player, to varying degrees. 

 

AC: Five years, $46m.

Allen: Five years, $33m

Fleener: Five years, $33m

Hilton: Five years, $54m, new money is $13m/year

Luck: Six years, $126m, new money is $22m/year

(I'm not sharing all the contract structure, because it's really rudimentary, and it's not like anyone could really predict the contract structure. I just used numbers that I think are sensible and fair, and you can assume that the structures are somewhat team friendly in the long term.)

 

The spoiler tag contains the year to year caps, individual cap hits for those five players, combined cap hits for those five, and percentage of total cap for those five.

144 155.5   168.0   181.4   195.9   211.6   228.52015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021AC 7.5 8.5 9 10 11 Allen 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Fleener 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Hilton 4.9 9.7 10.7 13.7 15.2 Luck 7 13 18 20 23 26 25.425.2 43.6 52.1 60.1 65.6 26 25.418% 28% 31% 33% 34% 12% 11%

 

 

That probably seems like gibberish, but long and short, the cap hits of those five players never account for more than 34% of the cap. That's with no cap rollover (which we ought to have in 2016, for sure, and likely every year), modest cap increases, and no restructures. In 2016, we'd have $28m in cap space going into the offseason, including $10m projected rollover. Not including new contracts for 2016 draft picks, we'd go into 2017 with $54m in cap space, with no rollover. 

 

(FYI: I'm releasing Cherilus and Thomas right now, and releasing D'Qwell after 2015, so I gain some extra cap space through those moves.)

 

This is with Luck making $22m/year, and Hilton making $13m/year. The only year that things might even feel tight is 2016, and even then, not really. Potential cap casualties could be Walden and Irving, who could save another $7m against the cap. We'll have other free agents, of course: Toler, Freeman, Chapman, Herron, the 2013 draft class, etc.

 

It may be that no one finds this remotely interesting but me, but I continually see people thinking that if we re-sign our guys, we'll be completely messed up on the cap, and I just want to show why that's not the case. If you're so inclined, follow the math, and you'll see what I mean.

 

/rant

1. Pay Luck because he is impossible to replace as far as being able to snag a franchise QB of this caliber.

2. Pay Costanzo because he is insurance for your franchise QB. Gotta keep the Huns from storming the castle.

3. Allen or Fleener could be expendable with Doyle being a decent #2 TE if one were to leave.

4. Not a penny more at 13 mil for TY, especially if Dorsett and Carter can play well and be serviceable. 

 

The bottom line is do we pay all of these guys top dollar and forsake the lines and defense, and are these

guys good enough talent to mask weaknesses that will crop up due to bargain shopping at other positions?

 

Inquiring minds want to know. Good post BTW Superman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, but if Dorsett and Carter show a lot of promise then TY may need to come off of his

asking price if he wants to stay on a contending team. We still have to sign Allen and Fleener

so I'm sure the brass has a limit they want to pay on ball catchers.

Not necessarily...

 

TY could sign with an opposing contender who might be willing to shell out the bucks for him. The Patriots would probably be willing to pay him. They have done it before with big name free agents. Even if it is only a short tenure... (Moss, Talib, Revis...) I would NOT want to be facing TY in the playoffs.... no thank you.

Other teams who could be contenders and may be willing to sign him:

 

Baltimore

San Diego

Saints

Cardinals

9ers (you never know with them - they could bounce right back...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

6.6m per year is a bit steep for both TEs. That may be their market value, but I don't see us locking up 13.2 a year at the TE position. I would move on from Fleener if thats his asking price, bring along Doyle and Swoope as the backups and draft another in the 3rd or 4th rd next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the likelihood that we can get away with paying Hilton $8-10 mil per year?  His agent, Rosenhaus, certainly won't make things easy.  But if Dez Bryant gets $13 mil a year, I don't think it would be difficult to make a case for $8-10 mil for Hilton.  What do you think?

 

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

 

In other words, no

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be a little on the small side for Luck.  

 

Rodgers is at 22 million and while Luck can't claim to be better then Rodgers, Rodgers signed his contract like 2 or 3 years ago.  

 

Luck's gonna probably want to set the market.  So I think you are looking at a bare min of 23 mil per year.  It could go as high as 25 mil.  

 

Conservatively I think it's gonna take another million per year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be a little on the small side for Luck.

Rodgers is at 22 million and while Luck can't claim to be better then Rodgers, Rodgers signed his contract like 2 or 3 years ago.

Luck's gonna probably want to set the market. So I think you are looking at a bare min of 23 mil per year. It could go as high as 25 mil.

Conservatively I think it's gonna take another million per year.

Not a big deal. It's a miniscule percentage of the cap. The powers that be can haggle over that when the time comes. I'm just showing how the numbers would work.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Pay Luck because he is impossible to replace as far as being able to snag a franchise QB of this caliber.

2. Pay Costanzo because he is insurance for your franchise QB. Gotta keep the Huns from storming the castle.

3. Allen or Fleener could be expendable with Doyle being a decent #2 TE if one were to leave.

4. Not a penny more at 13 mil for TY, especially if Dorsett and Carter can play well and be serviceable.

The bottom line is do we pay all of these guys top dollar and forsake the lines and defense, and are these

guys good enough talent to mask weaknesses that will crop up due to bargain shopping at other positions?

Inquiring minds want to know. Good post BTW Superman.

What's all this "forsake the lines and defense" business?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's zero chance of signing Hilton to $8-10 Mill per.     I think Hilton's closest comparison is Green Bay's Randall Cobb, and he got 4/40.       That means Hilton wants at least that,  and very likely more.    Maybe even much more.

 

Once Cobb got 4/40, I don't think there's any argument for Hilton getting less than that.

 

If you think there is,  by all means,  share it.....   because I don't see that.

 

 

 

Agree...less than 10 is not realistic. I think as we speak today , we would be very lucky to sign him to the 4/40 deal Cobb received. I would think more like 4/46.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of angst over how we can afford to keep all our guys together. How can we pay Luck like he deserves, and pay Hilton what he apparently wants, and pay the TEs, and AC? And can we still manage the cap once those guys are extended? And will we still have money for free agency afterward?

 

I've done these projections several times, but never posted them. This isn't perfect, but it's a reasonable idea of how the math can work. I'm posting it now so people can see how the numbers can work. First, I'm assuming the cap increases each year until 2021 by a modest 8% per year (it increased an average of 9.2% the last two seasons). By 2021, the cap is at $228.5m. I'm also using some generic contract structures with gradually increasing cap hits for each player, to varying degrees. 

 

AC: Five years, $46m.

Allen: Five years, $33m

Fleener: Five years, $33m

Hilton: Five years, $54m, new money is $13m/year

Luck: Six years, $126m, new money is $22m/year

(I'm not sharing all the contract structure, because it's really rudimentary, and it's not like anyone could really predict the contract structure. I just used numbers that I think are sensible and fair, and you can assume that the structures are somewhat team friendly in the long term.)

 

The spoiler tag contains the year to year caps, individual cap hits for those five players, combined cap hits for those five, and percentage of total cap for those five.

144 155.5   168.0   181.4   195.9   211.6   228.52015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021AC 7.5 8.5 9 10 11 Allen 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Fleener 2.9 6.2 7.2 8.2 8.2 Hilton 4.9 9.7 10.7 13.7 15.2 Luck 7 13 18 20 23 26 25.425.2 43.6 52.1 60.1 65.6 26 25.418% 28% 31% 33% 34% 12% 11%

 

 

That probably seems like gibberish, but long and short, the cap hits of those five players never account for more than 34% of the cap. That's with no cap rollover (which we ought to have in 2016, for sure, and likely every year), modest cap increases, and no restructures. In 2016, we'd have $28m in cap space going into the offseason, including $10m projected rollover. Not including new contracts for 2016 draft picks, we'd go into 2017 with $54m in cap space, with no rollover. 

 

(FYI: I'm releasing Cherilus and Thomas right now, and releasing D'Qwell after 2015, so I gain some extra cap space through those moves.)

 

This is with Luck making $22m/year, and Hilton making $13m/year. The only year that things might even feel tight is 2016, and even then, not really. Potential cap casualties could be Walden and Irving, who could save another $7m against the cap. We'll have other free agents, of course: Toler, Freeman, Chapman, Herron, the 2013 draft class, etc.

 

It may be that no one finds this remotely interesting but me, but I continually see people thinking that if we re-sign our guys, we'll be completely messed up on the cap, and I just want to show why that's not the case. If you're so inclined, follow the math, and you'll see what I mean.

 

/rant

 

 

Your point is correct . we can sign everyone if we so choose. Imo , it's mostly due to the way Grigson structured the free agent deals. I'm not sure they will feel both TE's would be smart or affordable , but I agree with everything you have. Hilton will be no problem as long as his demands are in line with where the Cots value his worth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has to give in cap space if all these guys get paid top dollar. Not saying some of them

don't, just saying other guys will have to take less across the board to be on the team.

Some hard choices are coming for Grigs and it's not a bad thing.

The whole point of this post is to show that there's no reason to forsake anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is correct . we can sign everyone if we so choose. Imo , it's mostly due to the way Grigson structured the free agent deals. I'm not sure they will feel both TE's would be smart or affordable , but I agree with everything you have. Hilton will be no problem as long as his demands are in line with where the Cots value his worth. 

 

I've been saying that I think there's a chance the staff will choose one TE over the other, especially if one of them separates themselves either in terms of performance or contract demands, or both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying that I think there's a chance the staff will choose one TE over the other, especially if one of them separates themselves either in terms of performance or contract demands, or both. 

 

That is why I think this Erik Swoope experiment is an interesting follow this training camp and into the season should he make the roster.  If he shows anything at all, it strikes me as likely that one of Fleener or Allen won't be here next year regardless of their financial demands. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something has to give in cap space if all these guys get paid top dollar. Not saying some of them 

don't, just saying other guys will have to take less across the board to be on the team.

 

Some hard choices are coming for Grigs and it's not a bad thing.

tumblr_mmcwbufLmC1r5xzspo1_400.jpg

 

As Superman said, he's been able to show time and time again that we can afford to sign these guys, still build a competitive roster AND have cap space to play with. It's one of the worse misconceptions here on the forum that once Luck is signed we've missed our SB windows because we're back to the days of Manning where it's the QB and 52 JAGS (another really bad misconception). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

tumblr_mmcwbufLmC1r5xzspo1_400.jpg

 

As Superman said, he's been able to show time and time again that we can afford to sign these guys, still build a competitive roster AND have cap space to play with. It's one of the worse misconceptions here on the forum that once Luck is signed we've missed our SB windows because we're back to the days of Manning where it's the QB and 52 JAGS (another really bad misconception). 

We will see what our high flying offense can do this season. Grigs and Pags are trying to

break the mold of typical SB champions by going with a potent offense instead of controlling

the lines. It's gonna be a fun year regardless.

 

To your point, just because we can afford to sign these guys, does it mean we need to?

If the off season changes mean we can run the ball and stop the run then I'm good with it.

If not, then the lines should be priority #1 instead of skill positions.

 

Read in red below. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will see what our high flying offense can do this season. Grigs and Pags are trying to

break the mold of typical SB champions by going with a potent offense instead of controlling

the lines. It's gonna be a fun year regardless.

 

To your point, just because we can afford to sign these guys, does it mean we need to?

If the off season changes mean we can run the ball and stop the run then I'm good with it.

If not, then the lines should be priority #1 instead of skill positions.

 

Read in red below. 

 

Well yes... that's how you build a successful long term franchise, draft well and resign your own rather than free market FAs. Only decisions will be whether we keep both TEs and it Hilton prices himself out of staying here. 

 

It's a disservice to say the FO hasn't tried to build the trenches, they've invested numerous draft picks and FA pickups.. they've not just worked out too well. I'd be willing to gamble that in terms of FA we've spent far more on the the O and D line positions than the skill positions. 

 

In terms of the Draft: 

 

Picks on O-Line/D-line: 1 x 1st, 1 x 2nd, 2 x 3rd, 1 x 4th, 1 x 5th, 1 x 6th, 3 x 7th

Picks on "Skill" Positions: 1 x 1st, 1 x 2nd, 2 x, 3rd, 3 x 5th, 3 x 7th

 

Hard to judge whether you include the OLBs in this as although not Trench warriors per say they are going to be going up against Tackles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes... that's how you build a successful long term franchise, draft well and resign your own rather than free market FAs. Only decisions will be whether we keep both TEs and it Hilton prices himself out of staying here

 

It's a disservice to say the FO hasn't tried to build the trenches, they've invested numerous draft picks and FA pickups.. they've not just worked out too well. I'd be willing to gamble that in terms of FA we've spent far more on the the O and D line positions than the skill positions. 

 

In terms of the Draft: 

 

Picks on O-Line/D-line: 1 x 1st, 1 x 2nd, 2 x 3rd, 1 x 4th, 1 x 5th, 1 x 6th, 3 x 7th

Picks on "Skill" Positions: 1 x 1st, 1 x 2nd, 2 x, 3rd, 3 x 5th, 3 x 7th

 

Hard to judge whether you include the OLBs in this as although not Trench warriors per say they are going to be going up against Tackles. 

:worthy: Good post and I agree in red above^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rosenhaus wants to get greedy with TY's contract then we need to let him walk. That's what the 

Dorsett pick was all about......insurance.

 

No, it wasn't. 

 

The Dorsett pick is to put two guys like TY on the field so that the Patriots can't just manhandle TY and bog our offense down. If they do to TY what they did to him last year, great. Dorsett will run all over you. You try to shut them both down? Johnson has a field day in the middle. 

 

Dorsett wasn't tangible insurance for TY. It doesn't work like that. Just saying that a guy has the same measurables and skill set doesn't mean that he is going to be the same. Hell, look at Andrew Luck and Blake Bortles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wasn't. 

 

The Dorsett pick is to put two guys like TY on the field so that the Patriots can't just manhandle TY and bog our offense down. If they do to TY what they did to him last year, great. Dorsett will run all over you. You try to shut them both down? Johnson has a field day in the middle. 

 

Dorsett wasn't tangible insurance for TY. It doesn't work like that. Just saying that a guy has the same measurables and skill set doesn't mean that he is going to be the same. Hell, look at Andrew Luck and Blake Bortles. 

If our run game was serviceable last season then we wouldn't have had to rely on our passing

attack so much last season. With that being said, we should have a decent run game and our

passing attack is tons better with Moncrief in his second season and the additions of Johnson

and Dorsett.

 

Also, subtractions of T Rich  :peek: Nicks and an 'sorry to say' an aging Wayne will help the

offense be more efficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will see what our high flying offense can do this season. Grigs and Pags are trying to

break the mold of typical SB champions by going with a potent offense instead of controlling

the lines. It's gonna be a fun year regardless.

To your point, just because we can afford to sign these guys, does it mean we need to?

If the off season changes mean we can run the ball and stop the run then I'm good with it.

If not, then the lines should be priority #1 instead of skill positions.

Read in red below.

It's not an either/or proposition. They want to have a potent offense (probably more accurate to say a consistent and dependable offense) AND control the lines. Not one or the other, the two can coexist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • No insult, I know Philly is one of the rare areas with its extremely high passion for one sport above all the others. I feel Philly and Green Bay are those areas for football. Everything else is just something to kill some time.   I cant count last year because of the pandemic which is an extreme rarity and skews the numbers. But yes a small drop the last few years for the SB BUT still a huge amount and way above any other sport. When your still looking at 98-111 million viewers for the SB your talking elite numbers.    Finals- Baseball avg around 10-12 mill , Basketball 13-18 mill, Hockey 3-8 mill. Im not even counting 2020 numbers due to the pandemic.    Reg season- So yes last year it was down a ton, but all sports were down a ton. In 2019 they were on a big upraise actually increasing 1.9 mil. to a  avg viewers a week. The highest year ever 2015 for viewers was only 1 mill more then the 2019 number. So it really was not on the decline 3-4 years. 2015 the high point at 17.9 avg a week then it drops 2 years to 3 mill less a week from 2016-2017, then back up again two years in a row 2018-2019 to record numbers again to 16.5 mill a week avg and then the pandemic happens. So they were actually on a upraise again.    Lets also not forget overall TV ratings have dropped almost 10% as well. Not sports rating, overall ratings. So its not a football issue or a sports issue.    So even in a "down" slide it by far destroys every other sport. The NFL reg season avg per week is higher then most of any other sports finals viewer numbers. Maybe this does not get more money in a contract, but it will not get then much less. Once this pandemic is over, I see this jumping up dramatically and I think the NFL will use that in there favor. 
    • He responded already, but the key is $67m in "new money," divided by four additional years = $16.75m average. That's how these contracts get reported and ranked, even though it doesn't work that way on the cap.
    • I've thought this many times 
    • Why would Kelly restructure. Who is better than him in the league? 
    • The Colts will keep Eason because he is on a rookie contract.  Ballard traded for Brissett to be a back up so it stands to reason he values the back up QB position more than some fans do. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...