Titans Payroll Ranked #32 In 2005

how the heck is washington so low?

I wonder where the Colts rank.

 

Here's a link to a USA Today chart with all the teams 2005 salariies

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005

 

Texans rate more then the Colts.

Interesting.

 

That's actually a really interesting chart.

Look at the top ten teams on there. 5 made the playoffs, 2 had top ten picks.

Look at the bottom ten teams on there. 4 made the playoffs, on 2 had top ten picks.

If anything, I'd say that that chart says that salary cap hell does not play that big a role in the success of a football team.

 

Maybe not a single year, but I'll bet there is a trend if we were to plot out 2003, 2004, 2005.

 

If anyone can find those numbers, I'd love to see them.

It's not that I don't believe that the salary cap has effects on a team's ability to win, but those numbers really surprised me. I feel pretty good saying that there are other much bigger factors. There are teams every year who could change their record by three or four wins with minor adjustment, additude change, whatever. Some teams are in for a bad year, some teams are built for a good one, but I don't think it's as much about the salary cap as is promoted, and I think that chart is decent evidence at least.

 

but for a proffesional football team to have an average of 400,000 something dollars is horrible

 

The chart is basically meaningless. The more money paid up front in players contracts will reduce the amount paid in salary and visa versa. Thats why there are good and bad teams at both ends of the chart. All NFL teams basically pay out the same amount of money to players on average and use most of their CAP.

 

That's true, but doesn't that mean that the teams on the high end are the teams with the smallest amount of money invested in past bonuses? And the teams at the bottom are those with the most "dead money" from old players and paid bonuses for current players?