Cap per position

[min_jn]

I thought some of you might be interested in this.

Below is a table of cap spent per position as a percentage of the total cap spent for each of the NFL teams.

Team		Offense	QB	RB	WR	TE	OL	Defense	DL	LB	DB	ST
Arizona		60.7%	7.4%	14.2%	13.4%	1.0%	24.8%	35.1%	16.5%	4.9%	13.6%	4.1%
Atlanta		52.6%	11.1%	9.0%	11.3%	6.0%	15.1%	46.2%	20.7%	11.0%	14.4%	1.2%
Baltimore	47.5%	6.2%	6.7%	7.8%	4.0%	22.8%	50.7%	13.6%	16.8%	20.2%	1.9%
Buffalo		40.9%	6.1%	4.7%	15.1%	3.0%	11.8%	55.7%	13.0%	20.0%	22.7%	3.4%
Carolina	45.7%	8.5%	8.3%	9.4%	2.6%	16.8%	51.6%	27.3%	10.2%	14.1%	2.7%
Chicago		51.2%	5.2%	9.3%	9.9%	3.0%	23.8%	46.2%	19.0%	10.9%	16.4%	2.6%
Cincinnati	57.3%	14.2%	7.8%	12.2%	2.5%	20.6%	40.1%	14.3%	9.2%	16.5%	2.6%
Cleveland	53.1%	3.6%	8.9%	10.2%	6.2%	24.1%	43.2%	15.7%	10.3%	17.1%	3.8%
Dallas		52.8%	7.1%	1.9%	13.0%	3.9%	26.9%	44.2%	12.2%	13.3%	18.6%	3.0%
Denver		46.3%	9.5%	3.1%	12.9%	3.8%	17.2%	48.7%	11.8%	18.5%	18.4%	4.9%
Detroit		57.1%	13.5%	4.5%	12.9%	4.5%	21.7%	39.9%	15.4%	8.2%	16.2%	3.1%
Green Bay	52.0%	16.1%	5.0%	12.2%	4.6%	14.1%	46.6%	21.4%	6.9%	18.3%	1.4%
Houston		51.0%	12.1%	7.6%	12.8%	4.2%	14.3%	45.9%	18.7%	14.1%	13.1%	3.1%
Indianapolis	55.8%	12.0%	5.7%	16.8%	3.0%	18.4%	40.6%	26.8%	7.1%	6.8%	3.6%
Jacksonville	48.0%	9.0%	7.9%	7.7%	7.9%	15.5%	49.2%	23.1%	7.1%	18.9%	2.9%
Kansas City	51.6%	8.9%	5.3%	8.3%	7.1%	22.0%	47.1%	14.5%	10.6%	22.0%	1.3%
Miami		40.1%	4.8%	5.8%	10.4%	4.1%	15.0%	56.3%	25.0%	13.4%	17.9%	3.6%
Minnesota	59.8%	9.1%	5.4%	8.7%	5.3%	31.3%	38.1%	10.3%	11.6%	16.2%	2.1%
New England	46.6%	16.2%	8.4%	5.9%	4.4%	11.8%	51.1%	18.1%	19.4%	13.6%	2.3%
New Orleans	56.5%	13.4%	12.8%	9.1%	4.5%	16.7%	40.3%	14.6%	9.2%	16.5%	3.2%
New York (A)	51.7%	9.4%	10.2%	13.7%	2.3%	16.1%	46.3%	22.2%	9.0%	15.1%	2.0%
New York (N)	55.6%	8.3%	9.7%	12.7%	5.2%	19.6%	41.4%	16.0%	12.9%	12.4%	3.1%
Oakland		56.0%	9.2%	9.4%	19.3%	1.8%	16.2%	38.9%	19.9%	6.0%	13.0%	5.1%
Philadelphia	49.0%	10.7%	7.7%	7.0%	3.0%	20.6%	47.4%	23.5%	6.7%	17.2%	3.7%
Pittsburgh	54.1%	7.3%	7.8%	11.0%	3.1%	24.9%	42.6%	15.1%	17.3%	10.3%	3.2%
San Diego	49.9%	7.0%	10.4%	7.3%	8.0%	17.2%	47.0%	12.1%	15.7%	19.2%	3.1%
San Francisco	50.1%	5.9%	3.9%	8.9%	6.0%	25.3%	47.2%	13.7%	12.3%	21.1%	2.7%
Seattle		55.3%	8.5%	10.4%	14.8%	4.4%	17.1%	43.0%	17.9%	9.8%	15.2%	1.8%
St. Louis	59.5%	9.6%	6.5%	18.4%	2.9%	22.0%	37.7%	13.5%	12.1%	12.1%	2.8%
Tampa Bay	37.2%	7.1%	8.3%	7.4%	2.8%	11.5%	60.2%	29.6%	14.7%	15.8%	2.6%
Tennessee	58.4%	22.0%	5.3%	8.8%	3.4%	18.9%	38.6%	12.0%	15.7%	10.9%	3.1%
Washington	51.2%	9.1%	7.8%	10.1%	2.3%	22.0%	45.6%	12.0%	17.1%	16.5%	3.2%
											
											
Average		51.7%	9.6%	7.5%	11.2%	4.1%	19.3%	45.4%	17.5%	11.9%	16.0%	2.9%

Patriots cap figures are from www.patscap.com. I used http://www.ianwhetstone.com/football/cap.html for the other teams. I most likely introduced some errors, so don't be surprised if the numbers are different from those of the sources.

Some random observations:
* Patriots spend very little of their cap on WR (5.9%) and OL (11.8%) compared to most teams. Average for these positions are 11.2% and 19.3%, respectively.
* Colts DL is twice as expensive as the rest of their defense.
* Tampa Bay (most defensive spending) and Arizona (most offensive spending) have the worst balance between offensive and defensive spending.
* Arizona should have a better running game given what they spend on RB and OL (39% together).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Very interesting.

Some random observations:
* Patriots spend very little of their cap on WR (5.9%) and OL (11.8%) compared to most teams. Average for these positions are 11.2% and 19.3%, respectively.
* Colts DL is twice as expensive as the rest of their defense.
* Tampa Bay (most defensive spending) and Arizona (most offensive spending) have the worst balance between offensive and defensive spending.
* Arizona should have a better running game given what they spend on RB and OL (39% together).

The most important thing, though, is that this is only ONE year's worth of data. Somehow, I suspect that a somewhat different picture would emerge if the data went further back (say 3-5 years), although it's fairly clear that, for example, the Pats have never spent all that much on WRs. Also, for example, IIRC, the Pats absorb a huge hit for Brady this year, but significantly less in future years.

 

[zippo59]

How is Tennessee spending 22% on the QB position. They have Vince Young and Kerry Collins. Talk about terrible cap management.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Terrific post -- and welcome to the board!

You're absolutely right about the O-line figures. VERY striking. I guess it may diminish with Koppen being signed to a bigger contract. At the other end, quarterback and linebacker are big numbers for us. The latter surely comes from the fact that none of the starters are on their rookie contract (assuming that Seau, not TBC, is a starter).

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Great data, great post! Yeah, the Tennessee number is amazing... you would think Young had a monster signing bonus, or McNair has a ton of dead money on the books, or a combination of the two. Certainly not the price tag for a week or two of Billy Volek, who, as I understand it, is now in the Witness Protection Program.

Some great stuff emerges from this: the Pats' bang for the buck along the OL is awesome, though of course nobody can turn down a Hutchinson or a Roaf at the right price, if they come along at the right price. The Pats tend to build through the draft, and let "graduate class" producers (such as Branch, Givens, Patten et al) walk. Yes, this does reflect the big (but not disproportionately so) hit to Brady, which is in the neighborhood of $13M this year, decreases to $11M next year, then back the following year to $13M again, then down to $10.6 in '09 and lower in 2010 (The numbers come from Miguel's page, and as always, my ignoramous conclusions drawn from the data are never meant as a reflection of his deeper knowledge of the data themselves).

The data also reflect that the Pats just plain spend a lot on Brady; he's one of those QBs worth it to the team (of course, GB spends a lot on Favre, whom I think no longer justifies the expenditure.)

Perhaps you could encapsulate the picture this way: Spend on Brady, he's the best at the position, but you need to pay for it elsewhere. How? Recognize Brady can hit the open man, and get mid-level WRs cheap. You won't bomb everyone else into oblivion, but games aren't likely to get away from you either. Draft your O-line and coach 'em up into respectability. Again, it's assumed you can build a good if not elite unit this way, and that's what the Pats have gone and done (Ryan O'Callaghan's miniscule cap hit comes to mind.) Even the TE hit is modest given the impressive array of weapons coming at that position. But of course, with a spread attack, Watson is no Antonio Gates (not that he necessarily would be in any other offense either.)

Love snapshots like this - welcome to the board, and thanks for putting in the hard work!

PFnV

 

[mgteich]

Great post! Welcome!
I would like to see the rest of the defense broken out, linebackers and secondary broken out. As stated, I think we miss the fact that we spend very little on our secondary.

The DL is a bit understated since it likely does not include the $6.6M just spent on Seymour.

I thought some of you might be interested in this.

Below is a table of cap spent per position as a percentage of the total cap spent for each of the NFL teams.

Team		Offense	QB	RB	WR	TE	OL	Defense	DL	LB	DB	ST
Arizona		60.7%	7.4%	14.2%	13.4%	1.0%	24.8%	35.1%	16.5%	4.9%	13.6%	4.1%
Atlanta		52.6%	11.1%	9.0%	11.3%	6.0%	15.1%	46.2%	20.7%	11.0%	14.4%	1.2%
Baltimore	47.5%	6.2%	6.7%	7.8%	4.0%	22.8%	50.7%	13.6%	16.8%	20.2%	1.9%
Buffalo		40.9%	6.1%	4.7%	15.1%	3.0%	11.8%	55.7%	13.0%	20.0%	22.7%	3.4%
Carolina	45.7%	8.5%	8.3%	9.4%	2.6%	16.8%	51.6%	27.3%	10.2%	14.1%	2.7%
Chicago		51.2%	5.2%	9.3%	9.9%	3.0%	23.8%	46.2%	19.0%	10.9%	16.4%	2.6%
Cincinnati	57.3%	14.2%	7.8%	12.2%	2.5%	20.6%	40.1%	14.3%	9.2%	16.5%	2.6%
Cleveland	53.1%	3.6%	8.9%	10.2%	6.2%	24.1%	43.2%	15.7%	10.3%	17.1%	3.8%
Dallas		52.8%	7.1%	1.9%	13.0%	3.9%	26.9%	44.2%	12.2%	13.3%	18.6%	3.0%
Denver		46.3%	9.5%	3.1%	12.9%	3.8%	17.2%	48.7%	11.8%	18.5%	18.4%	4.9%
Detroit		57.1%	13.5%	4.5%	12.9%	4.5%	21.7%	39.9%	15.4%	8.2%	16.2%	3.1%
Green Bay	52.0%	16.1%	5.0%	12.2%	4.6%	14.1%	46.6%	21.4%	6.9%	18.3%	1.4%
Houston		51.0%	12.1%	7.6%	12.8%	4.2%	14.3%	45.9%	18.7%	14.1%	13.1%	3.1%
Indianapolis	55.8%	12.0%	5.7%	16.8%	3.0%	18.4%	40.6%	26.8%	7.1%	6.8%	3.6%
Jacksonville	48.0%	9.0%	7.9%	7.7%	7.9%	15.5%	49.2%	23.1%	7.1%	18.9%	2.9%
Kansas City	51.6%	8.9%	5.3%	8.3%	7.1%	22.0%	47.1%	14.5%	10.6%	22.0%	1.3%
Miami		40.1%	4.8%	5.8%	10.4%	4.1%	15.0%	56.3%	25.0%	13.4%	17.9%	3.6%
Minnesota	59.8%	9.1%	5.4%	8.7%	5.3%	31.3%	38.1%	10.3%	11.6%	16.2%	2.1%
New England	46.6%	16.2%	8.4%	5.9%	4.4%	11.8%	51.1%	18.1%	19.4%	13.6%	2.3%
New Orleans	56.5%	13.4%	12.8%	9.1%	4.5%	16.7%	40.3%	14.6%	9.2%	16.5%	3.2%
New York (A)	51.7%	9.4%	10.2%	13.7%	2.3%	16.1%	46.3%	22.2%	9.0%	15.1%	2.0%
New York (N)	55.6%	8.3%	9.7%	12.7%	5.2%	19.6%	41.4%	16.0%	12.9%	12.4%	3.1%
Oakland		56.0%	9.2%	9.4%	19.3%	1.8%	16.2%	38.9%	19.9%	6.0%	13.0%	5.1%
Philadelphia	49.0%	10.7%	7.7%	7.0%	3.0%	20.6%	47.4%	23.5%	6.7%	17.2%	3.7%
Pittsburgh	54.1%	7.3%	7.8%	11.0%	3.1%	24.9%	42.6%	15.1%	17.3%	10.3%	3.2%
San Diego	49.9%	7.0%	10.4%	7.3%	8.0%	17.2%	47.0%	12.1%	15.7%	19.2%	3.1%
San Francisco	50.1%	5.9%	3.9%	8.9%	6.0%	25.3%	47.2%	13.7%	12.3%	21.1%	2.7%
Seattle		55.3%	8.5%	10.4%	14.8%	4.4%	17.1%	43.0%	17.9%	9.8%	15.2%	1.8%
St. Louis	59.5%	9.6%	6.5%	18.4%	2.9%	22.0%	37.7%	13.5%	12.1%	12.1%	2.8%
Tampa Bay	37.2%	7.1%	8.3%	7.4%	2.8%	11.5%	60.2%	29.6%	14.7%	15.8%	2.6%
Tennessee	58.4%	22.0%	5.3%	8.8%	3.4%	18.9%	38.6%	12.0%	15.7%	10.9%	3.1%
Washington	51.2%	9.1%	7.8%	10.1%	2.3%	22.0%	45.6%	12.0%	17.1%	16.5%	3.2%
											
											
Average		51.7%	9.6%	7.5%	11.2%	4.1%	19.3%	45.4%	17.5%	11.9%	16.0%	2.9%

Patriots cap figures are from www.patscap.com. I used http://www.ianwhetstone.com/football/cap.html for the other teams. I most likely introduced some errors, so don't be surprised if the numbers are different from those of the sources.

Some random observations:
* Patriots spend very little of their cap on WR (5.9%) and OL (11.8%) compared to most teams. Average for these positions are 11.2% and 19.3%, respectively.
* Colts DL is twice as expensive as the rest of their defense.
* Tampa Bay (most defensive spending) and Arizona (most offensive spending) have the worst balance between offensive and defensive spending.
* Arizona should have a better running game given what they spend on RB and OL (39% together).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Great post! Welcome!
I would like to see the rest of the defense broken out, linebackers and secondary broken out. As stated, I think we miss the fact that we spend very little on our secondary.

Just click on the scroll bar at the bottom of the box.

 

[NE39]

Tennessee is using so much cap on QB because of dead money they are carrying for McNair, which is sizeable.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Great Post! I was curious about these statistics. One thing I noticed was the spending on WR's by the Seahawks (made curious by them signing branch). It was 4th highest at 14.8 percent. It seemed it would be higher considering two big contracts they just handed out, a fairly big one a couple of years ago plus Engram had to be making a modest amount. So I tracked down salaries for their 5 WR's. It very well could be wrong, however, I figured I would give it a shot to see if the percentages were similar.

Engram 1.5M
Jackson 4.33m
Burleson 7M
branch 6.33M
Hackett .4M

Total 19.5 M
Cap 102M
Seahawks WR cap percentage is 19.1

This is using a yearly average of contracts. I did see that Branch's cap figure is higher the first three years than the yearly average of the contract, but I still used the yearly average. I'm thinking if they used actual cap hit in making this full list then the numbers might not accurately reflect a team's commitment to a particular area considering many contracts get back loaded. This is not to say that a contract's yearly average is any more accurate (it's probably much less so). Just additional food for thought.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I agree this is very interesting - thanks for posting! And a heckuva first post at that

However I think one also can't draw any real conclusions from it.

i.e. - while a team priority might be RB, having a rookie at that position might tend to keep the cap percentage low. We have a high percentage at QB for obvious reasons, and a low one at WR.

However had Branch signed longterm we'd be right up in the middle of the pack at WR - and indeed thats an area where we can afford to spend money in free agency.

I like the fact we seem to prioritize Defense, and frankly, the only suprising thing to me is that other teams don't seem to prioritize LBs like we do - but that's a good thing for us I think.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I like the fact we seem to prioritize Defense, and frankly, the only suprising thing to me is that other teams don't seem to prioritize LBs like we do - but that's a good thing for us I think.

Agreed. A rock solid defense is usually puzzle piece #1 in winning a SB. And solid LB's are the backbone of it. The only reason I can think of, regarding not prioritizing defense, is that offense adds excitement and may put more people in the seats and in front of the TV's. Other than that, it flies in the face of many of the most recent winning SB forumlas.

 

[Miguel]

Tennessee is using so much cap on QB because of dead money they are carrying for McNair, which is sizeable.

IIRC, over $14 million.

 

[Miguel]

The DL is a bit understated since it likely does not include the $6.6M just spent on Seymour.

It probably does since I have been including the $6.66 million for awhile now.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Excellent first post & welcome to the board.:rocker:

 

[Miguel]

Great Post! I was curious about these statistics. One thing I noticed was the spending on WR's by the Seahawks (made curious by them signing branch). It was 4th highest at 14.8 percent. It seemed it would be higher considering two big contracts they just handed out, a fairly big one a couple of years ago plus Engram had to be making a modest amount. So I tracked down salaries for their 5 WR's. It very well could be wrong, however, I figured I would give it a shot to see if the percentages were similar.

Engram 1.5M
Jackson 4.33m
Burleson 7M
branch 6.33M
Hackett .4M

Total 19.5 M
Cap 102M
Seahawks WR cap percentage is 19.1

This is using a yearly average of contracts. I did see that Branch's cap figure is higher the first three years than the yearly average of the contract, but I still used the yearly average. I'm thinking if they used actual cap hit in making this full list then the numbers might not accurately reflect a team's commitment to a particular area considering many contracts get back loaded. This is not to say that a contract's yearly average is any more accurate (it's probably much less so). Just additional food for thought.

FWIW - Nate Burleson signed a 7-year $49 million deal. $34.5 million of his deal is due in the last 3 years. The Seahawks can cut Burleson in February, 2010 taking a small dead money hit of $800,000 in 2010. IMO, it is better to consider Burleson's deal a 4-year $14.5 million deal.

 

[min_jn]

Thanks for the welcomes!

The most important thing, though, is that this is only ONE year's worth of data. Somehow, I suspect that a somewhat different picture would emerge if the data went further back (say 3-5 years) [...]

I couldn't find data for all the other teams, but I compiled this from Miguel's pages:

Team	Offense	QB	RB	WR	TE	OL	Defense	DL	LB	DB	ST
2001	45.0%	14.6%	5.3%	10.0%	1.9%	13.2%	51.3%	19.5%	12.7%	19.2%	3.7%
2002	43.5%	13.8%	7.2%	8.5%	4.1%	9.8%	52.6%	19.6%	13.2%	19.8%	4.0%
2003	41.8%	6.5%	6.9%	8.1%	4.1%	16.3%	53.2%	12.2%	19.2%	21.8%	5.1%
2004	35.4%	7.8%	7.0%	8.9%	4.1%	7.6%	59.5%	12.4%	19.7%	27.4%	5.1%
2005	41.2%	11.3%	6.1%	7.7%	4.7%	11.4%	53.5%	14.3%	23.3%	15.9%	5.3%
2006	46.6%	16.2%	8.4%	5.9%	4.4%	11.8%	51.1%	18.1%	19.4%	13.6%	2.3%

There seems to be some trends, but it is not clear to me to if this reflects some long-term strategy, or if it just depends on which players happened to be available. I suspect it is a little of both, but I'm just a glad amateur speculating.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

FWIW - Nate Burleson signed a 7-year $49 million deal. $34.5 million of his deal is due in the last 3 years. The Seahawks can cut Burleson in February, 2010 taking a small dead money hit of $800,000 in 2010. IMO, it is better to consider Burleson's deal a 4-year $14.5 million deal.

Thanks for the additional info. My lookup of the Seatle WR's contract numbers was cursory. Using that new 3.6M figure (14.5M divided by 4 years), it puts Seattle's cap hit for WR's at 16.1 M. It still is statistically high. Further, branch's deal is front loaded... "The contract Seattle is giving branch is $39 million over six years, but it is also front-loaded, and will average $7.7 million over the next three years?" Changing branch's cap hit from his yearly avg. of 6.33 to the first 3 year average of 7.7 moves their percentage up to 17.2 . I suspected Seattle had over extended the WR position's cap hit with the trade of branch and it seems this kind of confirm's it. Of course if they win the SB, it really doesn't matter. Teams with no SB wins likely will mortgage next year and the three after that to win it now (can't blame them either). Seattle's GM on this subject......"We're in good shape right now and will be even when we consummate this deal," Ruskell said of the salary cap, of which the Seahawks reportedly have $10 million available for 2006. "You pay attention to where it is going. You don't want to overload (at one position). As we analyzed it, not only now but in the future, we're in good shape."...... If you believe what he is saying, it must mean one of the higher salary guys will be gone at season's end. That must be Jackson (though I don't know what his cap hit would be if they were to cut him during the offseason). So I guess Seattle sees branch and Burleson as their starting duo for the next several years. At 11+ million for the 2 of them, it will be interesting to see if that is the ver important cap value.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thanks for the welcomes!

I couldn't find data for all the other teams, but I compiled this from Miguel's pages:

There seems to be some trends, but it is not clear to me to if this reflects some long-term strategy, or if it just depends on which players happened to be available. I suspect it is a little of both, but I'm just a glad amateur speculating.

The Special Teams percentage seems to be taken out of the Offense's cut. I'll add my welcome, way to tantalize a bunch of people.

 

[patchick]

Mmm, data! I tried adding some extra columns to the worksheet representing current season on-field stats. A couple of things that struck me:

- All four winless teams in the league are highly unbalanced in offensive/defensive payroll

- There's a weak but consistently positive correlation between offensive payroll and stats like YPP, PPG and winning percentage

Then it occurred to me that payroll stats may be misleading in a curious way...there are two different kinds of "spending" that NFL teams do, and they're probably negatively correlated. When you spend draft picks on a position, you typically reduce payroll at that position. When you don't draft to fill a position, you have to spend $$ on veteran FAs. So for instance, the unusually low payroll for the Pats OL isn't really a sign of neglect of the position, but a reflection of how much of their draft capital they've spent at the position in recent years.

For a total measure of resources that a team allots to each position, you'd need a composite of this dollar spreadsheet with a draft by round/position analysis. Anybody have a few spare hours?

I can't believe I'm geeking out this badly. Bye week blues for sure.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Then it occurred to me that payroll stats may be misleading in a curious way...there are two different kinds of "spending" that NFL teams do, and they're probably negatively correlated. When you spend draft picks on a position, you typically reduce payroll at that position. When you don't draft to fill a position, you have to spend $$ on veteran FAs. So for instance, the unusually low payroll for the Pats OL isn't really a sign of neglect of the position, but a reflection of how much of their draft capital they've spent at the position in recent years.

For a total measure of resources that a team allots to each position, you'd need a composite of this dollar spreadsheet with a draft by round/position analysis. Anybody have a few spare hours?

I can't believe I'm geeking out this badly. Bye week blues for sure.

You really should also do a comparison of the realistic numbers versus the contract number. For any player that just signed a contract, it might be back loaded. So the cap hit in the first year might not truely reflect what a team's investment is in that player and his position. So a true composite spreadsheet may just be a spare day of work instead of a few hours....:bricks:

And yeah, the bye week may be good for the team but it blows for the fans.