Should rookies have a maximum salary cap?

You Might Like

More Polls By: HammerTime89

Who liked it? 13

Jahiegel (+)
Green Bay Packers

babyg0723 (+)
New York Giants

Powderguy (+)
Green Bay Packers

Peytonrob (+)
Indianapolis Colts

kerron_samuels1 (+)
Italy

Nick S (+)
New England Patriots

fbfan1 (+)
Green Bay Packers

ImmortallEyesz (+)
Arizona Cardinals

jleevegas (+)
Minnesota Vikings

amontag (+)
Cincinnati Bengals

... and 3 other fans

NFL Results Skip to Next Poll »

Like it?

Should rookies have a maximum salary cap? (Edited 08/02/08 11:18AM by Seth)

With all of the hype of the NFL draft and players getting outrageous money straight out of college, should they put a limit on rookie salaries and reward the proven veterans, or dish out big bucks on unproven guys who had a great BCS bowl game.

| Closed on 10/01/08 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | NFL | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll

38 Fans
76%	a. Yes
24%	b. No

	&nbp;
TOP COMMENT
#2 \| 144 days ago vindog (+)	+6 I think they should need to prove themselves in the NFL before their big payday!!! Yes
	Was this comment...? (6)


20 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 144 days ago bobbyc3 (+)	+2 I believe they should. It works in the NBA. You telling me that Matt Ryan should make more than Tom Brady? Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#2 \| 144 days ago vindog (+)	+6 I think they should need to prove themselves in the NFL before their big payday!!! Yes
	Was this comment...? (6)
#3 \| 144 days ago greengoldpack (+)	Spoiled little brats! Yes
	Was this comment...?
#4 \| 143 days ago RichmondSpider (+)	+2 A salary cap with performance bonuses. Yes
	Was this comment...? (2)
#5 \| 143 days ago Pat (+)	+5 They still fall under the team's salary cap. If a team wants to make that financial decision, then it is their choice. I believe it's unwise, but I don't think it's fair to regulate their salaries just because they are new. Adrian Peterson deserved as much money as any other RB in the league last year. Jamarcus Russell was obviously overpaid, but that's no one's fault but the Raiders. It's their decision, they can live with it. No
	Was this comment...? (5)
#6 \| 142 days ago BestofChicago (+)	Pat wrote: They still fall under the team's salary cap. If a team wants to make that financial decision, then it is their choice. I believe it's unwise, but I don't think it's fair to regulate their salaries just because they are new. Adrian Peterson deserved as much money as any other RB in the league last year. Jamarcus Russell was obviously overpaid, but that's no one's fault but the Raiders. It's their decision, they can live with it. Thank you. No
	Was this comment...?
#7 \| 141 days ago HammerTime89 (+)	+1 If a guy does well like Adrian Peterson then he will be rewarded with big money in the future, he proved his worth. But there are so many Jamarcus Russells out there that don't deserve anything until they do something in this league. How about appreciating the guys who have already brought revenue to the league and give them a little extra pay bump. Yes
	Was this comment...? (1)
#8 \| 141 days ago derms33 (+)	+1 Its another issue that defines what is wrong with sports Yes
	Was this comment...? (1)
#9 \| 141 days ago mandisdad (+)	HammerTime89 wrote: If a guy does well like Adrian Peterson then he will be rewarded with big money in the future, he proved his worth. But there are so many Jamarcus Russells out there that don't deserve anything until they do something in this league. How about appreciating the guys who have already brought revenue to the league and give them a little extra pay bump. And if a guy like AP has a great first season under a restricted salary then blows his knee out (career ending) in the last game of the season what happens? He proved himself and never received the benefit (financially) of the great season. Teams have to work within a salary cap...let them decide who gets the biggest slice of the pie. No
	Was this comment...?
#10 \| 141 days ago fbfan1 (+)	Pat wrote: They still fall under the team's salary cap. If a team wants to make that financial decision, then it is their choice. I believe it's unwise, but I don't think it's fair to regulate their salaries just because they are new. Adrian Peterson deserved as much money as any other RB in the league last year. Jamarcus Russell was obviously overpaid, but that's no one's fault but the Raiders. It's their decision, they can live with it. They have no choice. The player will simply refuse to sign if they don't give him a new record contract. It's ridiculous. Out of the 31 players in the first round this year that got paid millions of dollars and never even seen a snap in the pros, probably half of them will actually be worth their contracts. A new rule should come into effect over this. It puts teams in financial trouble for years when the player doesn't pan out. The NFL Draft should not be like the stock market. Yes
	Was this comment...?
#11 \| 141 days ago Pat (+)	fbfan1 wrote: They have no choice. The player will simply refuse to sign if they don't give him a new record contract. It's ridiculous. Out of the 31 players in the first round this year that got paid millions of dollars and never even seen a snap in the pros, probably half of them will actually be worth their contracts. A new rule should come into effect over this. It puts teams in financial trouble for years when the player doesn't pan out. The NFL Draft should not be like the stock market. If the players have a choice between making less than they wanted, or making zero dollars that year, and risk ruining their image, most will choose to sign with their team... especially if other owners aren't offering rookies a ton of money either. No
	Was this comment...?
#12 \| 139 days ago dippy796 (+)	they need to work and show they should get all that many 000000 and i think there should be a set a side amount like 5 or 10% that should go to a fund for players that are retired and to pay for medcial for them for life and like a retirement fund for them.it would not break them .whem your getting some like 53million dollars please they can afford to give.dont you think!!!!!! Yes
	Was this comment...?
#13 \| 139 days ago bboymaestro (+)	+1 How about this... They need to set a specific dollar amount across the board per position. If at the end of the season they(the players) reach their goals or exceed them determined in their previous contract, then they will get mega-bonuses. I don't know about you, but I would assume if they did this then there would be a lot less "DL" or "IR" lists and a lot more guys out there trying to prove they are capable of playing ball!!! Pay-to-play boys, PAY-TO-PLAY!!! Yes
	Was this comment...? (1)
#14 \| 139 days ago Boski93 (+)	+1 Oh, Hell yes! It is the agents ruining it. Look I have no problem with a player wanted to get paid, but till you have proved it on the field. Look right now a lot of decent veteran players get screwed because of it. Yes
	Was this comment...? (1)
#15 \| 139 days ago mandisdad (+)	Boski93 wrote: Oh, Hell yes! It is the agents ruining it. Look I have no problem with a player wanted to get paid, but till you have proved it on the field. Look right now a lot of decent veteran players get screwed because of it. They're not getting screwed...they're getting paid what the team thinks they are worth relative to other players. I'll take the money that those that are getting "screwed" are making! No
	Was this comment...?
#16 \| 138 days ago fbfan