Top five cap percentages, 2015

[Superman]

This is the first season in which QBs drafted under the new CBA are playing on veteran contracts. Newton, Dalton, Tannehill, Wilson... Kaepernick is kind of an outlier because he signed in 2014, but his cap hit didn't shoot up until this season. 

 

So I went through the payrolls of each team in the league because I'm curious how top heavy most teams are. In other words, are good teams paying a handful of players a big portion of their cap? The following list shows what percentage of each team's cap was accounted for by their five highest paid players in 2015. All based on Spotrac's numbers. 

 

Cardinals: 37.89%         Rams: 36.52%

Falcons: 34.35%           Dolphins: 31.66%

Ravens: 32.46%           Vikings: 32.57%

Bills: 33.97%                Patriots: 29.51%

Panthers: 41.88%         Saints: 33.1%

Bears: 33.51%              Giants: 34.34%

Bengals: 34.84%          Jets: 35.69%

Browns: 32.05%           Raiders: 29.88%

Cowboys: 33.55%         Eagles: 29.1%

Broncos: 41.16%          Steelers: 33.82%

Lions: 40.25%              Chargers: 37.62%

Packers: 41.6%            Niners: 32.53% 

Texans: 36.38%           Seahawks: 30.34%

Colts: 28.15%              Bucs: 33.33%

Jaguars: 25.09%          Titans: 25.93%

Chiefs: 31.81%            Washington: 30.42%

 

High: 41.88%  |   Low: 25.09%  |   Average: 33.60%

 

The bolded are players that have starting QBs on rookie contracts for the next two seasons. They are a little bit of an outlier. This year's final four teams are in italics. 

[SuperJoe33]

I guess it's interesting but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you explain your thought process more?

[Superman]

I was wondering to what extent teams are concentrating their firepower at the top of their rosters, and where the Colts figure. Between the rookie wage scale and the natural pay discrepancy between established vets and lower level roster players, it's obviously going to be weighted toward the top paid players. It would probably be better to do top 15 to get a real feel for how weighted it is across the league.

 

As it pertains to the Colts, I didn't save the number, but assuming AJ, Cole, Jackson and Jones are gone, the Colts top five in 2016 will account for something like 32% of their cap. The two SB teams were above 40% this year. Freeman or Allen or Fleener might influence that slightly. 

 

It's possible no one else finds this interesting at all. I'm a cap nerd. But I figured I'd share.

[SP_21]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

I was wondering to what extent teams are concentrating their firepower at the top of their rosters, and where the Colts figure. Between the rookie wage scale and the natural pay discrepancy between established vets and lower level roster players, it's obviously going to be weighted toward the top paid players. It would probably be better to do top 15 to get a real feel for how weighted it is across the league.

 

As it pertains to the Colts, I didn't save the number, but assuming AJ, Cole, Jackson and Jones are gone, the Colts top five in 2016 will account for something like 32% of their cap. The two SB teams were above 40% this year. Freeman or Allen or Fleener might influence that slightly. 

 

It's possible no one else finds this interesting at all. I'm a cap nerd. But I figured I'd share.

Wouldn't dropping the players with expensive contracts( AJ, Cole, Jackson,etc) lower the percentage spent on the top five?

[Superman]

Just now, SP_21 said:

Wouldn't dropping the players with expensive contracts( AJ, Cole, Jackson,etc) lower the percentage spent on the top five?

 

Yes. But other players would move into the top five, obviously. I mentioned the free agents that are likely to command the biggest contracts. 

[SP_21]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yes. But other players would move into the top five, obviously. I mentioned the free agents that are likely to command the biggest contracts. 

So how would the percentage go up from 28% to 32%?

[Superman]

Just now, SP_21 said:

So how would the percentage go up from 28% to 32%?

 

The chart reflects 2015 numbers. The 32% is based on 2016 numbers. The biggest difference is Luck going from $7m to $16m. Hilton and AC also join the top five next season.

[loudnproudcolt]

Sup-

Would it not be direct correlation if you have a lot of cap space, that the percentage spent on the top 5 players is going to be lower for the teams who have cap space. The 5 teams highlighted have an incredible amount of cap space next year, plus their QB's are all on rookie contracts. It seems more a process of who is spending and who is not.

OT, I was reading the article of the 5 teams who have cap space, Jacksonville having somewhere close to 60-70M next year, and wondering if it truly was a blessing. I used to think it was nice to have the cap space, but I now think it shows two things. The first one is the most important, you have lots of holes you need to fill. Second, you can look at the Colts or any other team who has tried to build teams through FA, and it just does not seem to work. Players who work with one team usually work because of the scheme. I think Cris Carter on Mike and Mike said one morning 90% of players who are stars with their teams are because of the scheme they run. I really believe the percentage may be high, but he is right. It is the reason FA is not a panacea, and has not really helped the Colts over the last 4 years. In fact, when you look at what they have done in spite of some of the signings, and it looks more impressive. I know we have plenty of cap space this year even after we sign Luck and our other FA's, I just hope we concentrate on a few quality players, maybe 2 OL, guard and center, a cornerback, and go as much defense in the draft to get younger on that side of the ball. The off topic was a littler longer than I thought!!! Thoughts welcome!

[Superman]

13 hours ago, loudnproudcolt said:

Sup-

Would it not be direct correlation if you have a lot of cap space, that the percentage spent on the top 5 players is going to be lower for the teams who have cap space. The 5 teams highlighted have an incredible amount of cap space next year, plus their QB's are all on rookie contracts. It seems more a process of who is spending and who is not.

OT, I was reading the article of the 5 teams who have cap space, Jacksonville having somewhere close to 60-70M next year, and wondering if it truly was a blessing. I used to think it was nice to have the cap space, but I now think it shows two things. The first one is the most important, you have lots of holes you need to fill. Second, you can look at the Colts or any other team who has tried to build teams through FA, and it just does not seem to work. Players who work with one team usually work because of the scheme. I think Cris Carter on Mike and Mike said one morning 90% of players who are stars with their teams are because of the scheme they run. I really believe the percentage may be high, but he is right. It is the reason FA is not a panacea, and has not really helped the Colts over the last 4 years. In fact, when you look at what they have done in spite of some of the signings, and it looks more impressive. I know we have plenty of cap space this year even after we sign Luck and our other FA's, I just hope we concentrate on a few quality players, maybe 2 OL, guard and center, a cornerback, and go as much defense in the draft to get younger on that side of the ball. The off topic was a littler longer than I thought!!! Thoughts welcome!

 

The bolded is true. If you have a lot of cap space, it probably means you don't have very many highly paid players. You probably don't have a franchise QB, and if you do, he's probably still on a rookie contract. You haven't drafted star players, and if you have, you haven't retained them. 

 

And it's the same for the most part when you have a lot of cap space. Over a period of years, you haven't retained a lot of good players, and like you say, you probably have a lot of holes.

 

I disagree with the characterization of the Colts as being a team that has tried to build through the draft. Semantics, for sure, but the Colts were a team with a bunch of holes and a lot of cap space, and they added players in free agency to fill those holes. Free agency isn't a panacea, and you're not going to get them all right, but the Colts' free agent signings absolutely helped them over the last four years. Redding, Jackson, Walden, Toler, Adams, Cherilus, Langford, etc., all have helped the team. They haven't all worked as well as we hoped, and there have been some stinkers for sure -- Landry, Satele, etc. But the team's approach in free agency has really been necessary.

 

They probably overdid it in 2015 with free agency, but I don't think the objective was building the team through free agency. They have still put a premium on building through the draft, with only two significant departures, trading for Davis and Richardson, and that's 50/50. 

 

I don't think they'll be adding as many players in free agency moving forward. I am assuming they move on from some veteran players, but we'll see. My free agency wishlist is short, but the players I really want will be expensive. I doubt that happens, but on the topic of the thread, if we did add a $10m/year guy, the top five percentage would still be around 40%, which is in line with what good teams did in 2015. 

 

It also helps that there's not currently a lot of guaranteed money on the books, so the team maintains it's cap flexibility moving forward.