Randall Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 On his new NFL.com blog, Jason La Canfora recently passed along some interesting expenditure numbers from the NFL Management Council. Here's the upshot: Minnesota spent more cash on player salaries and bonuses than all but four NFL teams during the five-season period from 2004-08. But Chicago and Green Bay were significantly more efficient in their spending based on victories per dollar spent. I'll explain more, but first look at the chart below: The NFC North was a microcosm of a league-wide trend: The highest-spenders weren't always the most successful. (It's a fact NFL types don't mind publicizing with negotiations looming for a new collective bargaining agreement.) To be clear, these figures should not be confused with salary cap numbers. The numbers in this chart are the actual amount of cash the teams paid to their players -- not the manipulated numbers used to account for the salary cap. While NFL teams must all abide by the same cap total, there are many ways to maneuver different cash expenditures and remain in compliance. These cash figures also provide specific documentation for something that has been intuitively true for some time. The Vikings have been free spenders since Zygi Wilf purchased the team in 2005, paying premium contracts to guard Steve Hutchinson, defensive end Jared Allen, defensive tackle Kevin Williams, and left tackle Bryant McKinnie, among others. The Packers, on the other hand, have mostly eschewed the veteran free agent market since general manager Ted Thompson's arrival in 2005. In the end, both teams won 41 games over the five-year stretch -- but it cost the Vikings nearly $70 million more to do it. The Bears ranked slightly ahead of the Packers as the NFC North's most efficient team over this period, paying $11.01 million per victory over that stretch. That ranked them ninth overall in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Off the top of my head, I think that the Vikings have spent some of their money with Roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses. Roster bonuses count immediately off their cap while signing bonuses are pro-rated. I don't think that the Vikes have mortgaged their future as much as other teams have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 On his new NFL.com blog, Jason La Canfora recently passed along some interesting expenditure numbers from the NFL Management Council.Here's the upshot: Minnesota spent more cash on player salaries and bonuses than all but four NFL teams during the five-season period from 2004-08. But Chicago and Green Bay were significantly more efficient in their spending based on victories per dollar spent. I'll explain more, but first look at the chart below: The NFC North was a microcosm of a league-wide trend: The highest-spenders weren't always the most successful. (It's a fact NFL types don't mind publicizing with negotiations looming for a new collective bargaining agreement.) To be clear, these figures should not be confused with salary cap numbers. The numbers in this chart are the actual amount of cash the teams paid to their players -- not the manipulated numbers used to account for the salary cap. While NFL teams must all abide by the same cap total, there are many ways to maneuver different cash expenditures and remain in compliance. These cash figures also provide specific documentation for something that has been intuitively true for some time. The Vikings have been free spenders since Zygi Wilf purchased the team in 2005, paying premium contracts to guard Steve Hutchinson, defensive end Jared Allen, defensive tackle Kevin Williams, and left tackle Bryant McKinnie, among others. The Packers, on the other hand, have mostly eschewed the veteran free agent market since general manager Ted Thompson's arrival in 2005. In the end, both teams won 41 games over the five-year stretch -- but it cost the Vikings nearly $70 million more to do it. The Bears ranked slightly ahead of the Packers as the NFC North's most efficient team over this period, paying $11.01 million per victory over that stretch. That ranked them ninth overall in the NFL. So, the shorter version of this story is 6-10 does'nt cost very much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 So, the shorter version of this story is 6-10 does'nt cost very much? Much less than failing to win a playoff game in over 4,000 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 So, the shorter version of this story is 6-10 does'nt cost very much? 0-16 costs the same as 13-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.