Which NFL player is worth the highest salary?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
Which NFL player is worth the highest salary?
By Around The League Staff


Time for another organic email chain from the Around The League team:

From: Rosenthal, Gregg
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Wesseling, Chris; Patra, Kevin
Subject: ORGANIC EMAIL CHAIN #16

So LeBron James opted out of his contract on Tuesday. It got the folks on NFL Total Accessthinking: What NFL player would make the most money if he were available on the free-agent market?

We liked the idea so much that we stole it for an organic email chain. I'll let you guys answer it first, but we might as well rephrase the question: Which quarterback would make the most money as a free agent? Right?

KP: Young, franchise quarterback with no red flags, playoff experience and turns everything he touches into gold? Yeah, Andrew Luck will break the bank.

CW: No question we can narrow this down to quarterbacks, which eliminates Calvin Johnson and J.J. Watt. As Vince Lombardi once lamented, football would be the perfect team game if the quarterback wasn't so overwhelmingly important.

GR: I wouldn't take Luck; Aaron Rodgers is far more proven and in his prime. We're all assuming that Luck will be a top-five quarterback, if not the best quarterback in the league. But he's not there yet. Rodgers is playing at his peak and should still be in his prime for another three-five years.

The question makes me wonder: What would Rodgers or Luck get in the open market without a salary cap? They would have to be worth north of $50 million per season. If Everson Griffen can get $8 million per season, isn't Rodgers worth 10 times that?

KP: Can you really go wrong there if it were only, say, a six-year contract? Still I'd settle on Luck because I believe he still has room to grow. NFL players get paid for what they will bring to the table, not what they already did. I'll take Luck for the next decade.

And to answer your extremely hypothetical question: All the money. They would get all the money.

CW: I don't question that. With no salary cap, quarterbacks would shatter the professional sports' salary structure.

Knowing the way football executives operate, Luck might do even better than Rodgers. He has the prototypical quarterback's build, no history of injuries and has already shown the ability to put his teammates on his back and lift them to victory. Not to get overly wonky here, but Luck's 15-2 record in games decided by seven points or fewer is destroying the predictability of the Pythagorean expectation. He's a magician in close games (cue "The Final Countdown").

Considering Luck's age advantage and Rodgers' concussion history, I think Luck is the closest the NFL has to LeBron.

GR: Easy there. There is no NFL version of LeBron, but Rodgers or even Tom Brady would be closer than Luck. They have won MVPs and titles. It's weird that this debate is putting me in the position of picking on Luck. But we are still projecting with him. We're assuming he's going to be an all-time great. Rodgers already is one, so the decision isn't that hard for me.

I'd take Luck over Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin III, Cam Newton or anyone else from his era. But there's no need to bet on potential in this exercise. This question would have been a bit tougher a few years ago, when Peyton Manning and Tom Brady were in their primes. It's tough to pick them now.

CW: Unlike the NBA and MLB, NFL teams tend to share Jurgen Klinsman's philosophy that it's foolish to pay players based on what they have done in the past. Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback in the game. I just think many NFL general managers would deem Luck the safer choice to build around for the next decade.

KP: To spin the LeBron analogy another way -- since in his last deal he actually took less money and could do so again if he wants to play with another star -- if someone like Rodgers or Luck hit the open market and teams were clearing space just for a shot at them, which teams would be in the race?

GR: That question hurts my brain. But I think the right answer would be: Every team that isn't already paying their quarterback $15 million per season.

If we go non quarterbacks here, are there are any good options other than Calvin Johnson and J.J. Watt? I'd take Watt and it's not that close. He's the Andrew Luck of defensive tackles except he's already at his peak.

CW: I agree. Give me Watt over Megatron. Watt is just 25 years old and he's just one year removed from the best season I've ever witnessed from a defensive lineman.

KP: Poor phrasing on my part in that previous email. My point is that the premise of "most money" is pretty much moot when it comes to LeBron. He can decide where he plays and if the contract number hits the max or not. If LeBron wanted to play in Seattle, Adam Silver would ask him which team he wanted moved there.

Since we were playing make believe anyway, I figured why not open the door to a wildly irresponsible game of connect the imaginary dots. Like, say, for instance, toying with the fragile hearts of Oakland Raiders fans by suggesting Rodgers might decided to join former Packers exec Reggie McKenzie, come home to the Bay Area and play out his years wearing Silver and Black.

But that's fine. You make the rules, boss.

I'll stand for Megatron, since you two agree on Watt. In the two games without Calvin last year the Lions were pathetic in the passing game, magnifying his importance. Watt is the best at his position, but he was on the field producing and the Texans still lost 14 straight games (leaves self open for "Calvin went 0-16" counterpunch).

We constantly harp on the fact that quarterbacks make a team. Well, there is an argument that Matthew Stafford is only a top 15 NFL quarterback because he has Megatron to throw to. If the quarterback is the head chef of a football team then he needs a good sous chef. There is no better sous chef than Calvin Johnson.

Final tally:

GR: Aaron Rodgers, QB, Green Bay Packers

CW: Andrew Luck, QB Indianapolis Colts

KP: Luck
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
I'd pay Rogers. He's the best dang QB in football. "Kurt Warner with legs," I beleive Farr or Savard said that.
 

Bluesy

Reppin' the Rams since 2000
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
1,018
Name
Kyle
Lol Luck deserves to be paid more than Rodgers? That's ridiculous haha. Not saying he's bad at all, but he's only been around two years and hasn't done anything to deserve THAT big of a pay day. When talking QB's it's obviously Rodgers. I think it's hard to debate that.
 

DCH

Madman with a box.
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
3,354
Name
Dewey
No talk of Quinn alongside Watt?
 

PolarBear

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
163
Lol Luck deserves to be paid more than Rodgers? That's ridiculous haha. Not saying he's bad at all, but he's only been around two years and hasn't done anything to deserve THAT big of a pay day. When talking QB's it's obviously Rodgers. I think it's hard to debate that.
Rodgers is 30, Luck is 24. Luck's on the rise, Rodgers is heading into a decline.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Rodgers is 30, Luck is 24. Luck's on the rise, Rodgers is heading into a decline.

You can't really say that just because of his age. You still have Brady (36) and Manning (38) playing at high levels well into their 30s. You could see Rodgers playing like this for another 6-8 years.
 

PolarBear

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
163
You can't really say that just because of his age. You still have Brady (36) and Manning (38) playing at high levels well into their 30s. You could see Rodgers playing like this for another 6-8 years.
Could you imagine what Luck will command in an open market with his potential and low age?
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
I'm loathe to admit it, but right now I would say Sherman.

He was the catalyst for their championship and made the biggest difference on their team. Seattle doesn't win the Bowl without their defense, and they don't play defense the way they do without Sherman.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Could you imagine what Luck will command in an open market with his potential and low age?

Not as much as Rodgers. Tell me Luck's accomplishments thus far. He turned them around to the playoffs in one year, but that could be several other things as well. He has no awards, no championships. Maybe at the end of his rookie deal he will, but as of right now, Rodgers gets the bigger contract.
 

PolarBear

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
163
Not as much as Rodgers. Tell me Luck's accomplishments thus far. He turned them around to the playoffs in one year, but that could be several other things as well. He has no awards, no championships. Maybe at the end of his rookie deal he will, but as of right now, Rodgers gets the bigger contract.
Luck is considered a once in a generation QB talent. He has already played at a very high level and is considered by many as the next Manning. Luck will be coveted more because he has more talent and potential and is younger, so he can be a franchise QB longer for a team. You give Luck more money than Rodgers for the future not the past.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Luck is considered a once in a generation QB talent. He has already played at a very high level and is considered by many as the next Manning. Luck will be coveted more because he has more talent and potential and is younger, so he can be a franchise QB longer for a team. You give Luck more money than Rodgers for the future not the past.

Proven players get paid these days. You don't get paid on what if's anymore.
 

Jorgeh0605

You had me at meat tornado.
2023 ROD Fantasy Champion
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,787
Proven players get paid these days. You don't get paid on what if's anymore.
The only reason proven players get paid nowadays is because of the rookie wage scale which they had to implement because of the NFL's tendency to pay rookies based of projections. You put Luck in the market without the rookie wage scale next to Aaron Rodgers, I think most teams take Luck no questions asked. I do think it is funny the they mentioned Rodgers going to the Raiders, as I think that is the only team that would stray from the normal and maybe prefer Rodgers over Luck. But I digress, you can argue the Rodgers is still in his prime and has proven himself, but at the end of the day you want the player who has the potential to be around longest. Luck would give a team QB stability for 15 years. Like it was said earlier, Rodgers gives you a QB for another 6-8 years in comparison. It isn't even close.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
The only reason proven players get paid nowadays is because of the rookie wage scale which they had to implement because of the NFL's tendency to pay rookies based of projections. You put Luck in the market without the rookie wage scale next to Aaron Rodgers, I think most teams take Luck no questions asked. I do think it is funny the they mentioned Rodgers going to the Raiders, as I think that is the only team that would stray from the normal and maybe prefer Rodgers over Luck. But I digress, you can argue the Rodgers is still in his prime and has proven himself, but at the end of the day you want the player who has the potential to be around longest. Luck would give a team QB stability for 15 years. Like it was said earlier, Rodgers gives you a QB for another 6-8 years in comparison. It isn't even close.

No way......I can't see any GM selecting Luck over Rodgers.
 

Bluesy

Reppin' the Rams since 2000
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
1,018
Name
Kyle
Definitely Aaron Rodgers. Luck is crazy overrated right now, imo.

Not sure that he's overrated, he's still a good qb, just not the best.

Luck is considered a once in a generation QB talent. He has already played at a very high level and is considered by many as the next Manning. Luck will be coveted more because he has more talent and potential and is younger, so he can be a franchise QB longer for a team. You give Luck more money than Rodgers for the future not the past.

What's to say that Rodgers won't play another 8-10 years like Peyton, Farve, or Brady? How is Rodgers not considered a once in a generation talent? Luck has not played at as high of level as Rodgers. Rodgers is better than Manning. You give more money to Rodgers because he is better than Luck, period.