Wenhawk":15xg234p said:
Bigpumpkin":15xg234p said:
Wenhawk":15xg234p said:
All that means is we have less dead money than other teams
Well....I suppose that is how some football fans look at it. Others of us see it as our front office bending over backwards to keep our talent.
There is a salary cap, so it's pretty hard for NFL teams to spend much more than others on their players. But when you are a team who is still paying players (dead $) who aren't on your roster it's much harder to pay the guys who are on your roster.
This is a good thing, it means we are spending our money on guys who are still here so per player our avg pay is higher than teams who lost $$$ paying guys who they cut.
From what I understand, it's a calculation difference in
Mean vs Median.
Basically the article is saying we have less super-sized contracts tied to superstars than other teams, so the overall spending is better spread out to the overall roster than a team spending their majority on big-name players with large salaries.
It makes makes sense as the positions that normally demand large salaries (QB, CB, MLB) are playing with the Seahawks on cheap rookie contracts.