Andrew Luck likely waiting until 2016 for contract extension.

[Brooklyn Bully]

Hi. I'm here to read people discredit Luck and talk some inane garbage about the kid. Am I in the right place? I haven't read the thread yet. It's just a hunch.

[Frizzy350]

You bring to mind one of my biggest pet peeves about the current NFL climate.

Who gets the biggest payday generally has far less to do with who's done the best and much more to do with who gets paid last.

Hypothetical Example: Let's say Newton goes out and quarterbacks the team to a Super Bowl win this season. Then, after the Super Bowl, he and the team strike a deal for 120 million dollars. Cool, right?

But let's say that same season, Luck or Wilson or whomever is due a new contract experiences a losing season.

Chances are that guy will still wind up making more than Newton because their agent will push for better than Newton got, and the team will ultimately probably give it. Thus, even with the disparity in accomplishment, the guy who gets paid last will be the one who makes the most money.

This is how you end up with guys like Matt Stafford and Tony Romo making more money than guys who've actually won something.

(and here I thought the whole reason the league instituted a rookie wage scale was so that teams wouldn't have to kep paying big contracts to guys who hadn't accomplished anything yet)

 

Agreed for the most part.  I don't think those are best examples (I'm look at you, Jay Cutler).

 

The reality is good quarterbacks are really, really hard to find and are thus really expensive to retain.  Eli Manning was the highest paid player in NFL history at one point, and it was before he ever did ANYTHING.  Minimal postseason work with no success, no eye gouging stats except an awful lot of interceptions thrown.

 

I think the Eli example also illustrates the fact that football is a complete team game, and you can't strictly pin wins/losses/championships on a quarterback despite them having the single biggest impact on a game.

 

If you have a quarterback with the required tools to win games for you, you keep him.  You can figure everything else out afterwards or you risk becoming one of those teams in a spiraling awful cycle of ineptitude constantly clawing at anything that even resembles a real quarterback year after year after year (See: Oakland, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Jacksonville, the Jets, Washington, etc).

 

[Mr. Scot]

Agreed for the most part. I don't think those are best examples (I'm look at you, Jay Cutler).

The reality is good quarterbacks are really, really hard to find and are thus really expensive to retain. Eli Manning was the highest paid player in NFL history at one point, and it was before he ever did ANYTHING. Minimal postseason work with no success, no eye gouging stats except an awful lot of interceptions thrown.

I think the Eli example also illustrates the fact that football is a complete team game, and you can't strictly pin wins/losses/championships on a quarterback despite them having the single biggest impact on a game.

If you have a quarterback with the required tools to win games for you, you keep him. You can figure everything else out afterwards or you risk becoming one of those teams in a spiraling awful cycle of ineptitude constantly clawing at anything that even resembles a real quarterback year after year after year (See: Oakland, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Jacksonville, the Jets, Washington, etc).

Agree with you that Cutler and Eli are probably better examples to illustrate the point (thanks).

I am gonna be very interested to see what Seattle does with Wilson's contract. If it really is the kind of game changer they're hyping it to be, things could get real interesting.

[Frizzy350]

Hi. I'm here to read people discredit Luck and talk some inane garbage about the kid. Am I in the right place? I haven't read the thread yet. It's just a hunch.

 

Andrew Luck punches baby cows to death to make the most tender veal in the world as a pre game ritual.

 

He's overrated.

 

I find his neckbeard outlandish and offensive. SHAVE IT OR GROW A REAL BEARD YOU PUSSY.

 

Did I mention he's overrated?

 

He's also a cheater with a robotic arm that operates exclusively on live dynamite as a fuel source.

 

His penis isn't as big as you'd think it is.  It's not exactly small, just kind of meh.

[PanthersUnited]

Honestly, this year is a perfect barometer for the contract we should give Cam.

He is a young, superstar franchise QB in his prime going into a contract year. There is really no excuse for him to not put up career-best numbers as long as our offensive line plays like they did the back half of last year, and the receivers play competently.

If he is going to gamble by waiting on a contract, the gamble sure as hell better be on himself and NOT on what Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are doing.

Agreed. Basically what I'm saying, I think this is the THE year we see what kind of QB Cam his

[Frizzy350]

Agree with you that Cutler and Eli are probably better examples to illustrate the point (thanks).

I am gonna be very interested to see what Seattle does with Wilson's contract. If it really is the kind of game changer they're hyping it to be, things could get real interesting.

 

It's kind of odd, and maybe I'm a wizard or some poo, but I've been reading lately that he is going to get the type of contract I suggested we offer Newton.

 

Fully (or nearly) guaranteed, but the year to year cap hit would be lower than what had been handed out to Rodgers, Manning, Stafford, etc.  You run into the risk of injury, but if your QB of that magnitude gets hurt you are pretty screwed anyway.

 

Basically instead of having a cap hit of ~23 million per year it would be a hit of 14-18 mil per year, but all guaranteed.

[Mr. Scot]

It's kind of odd, and maybe I'm a wizard or some poo, but I've been reading lately that he is going to get the type of contract I suggested we offer Newton.

Fully (or nearly) guaranteed, but the year to year cap hit would be lower than what had been handed out to Rodgers, Manning, Stafford, etc. You run into the risk of injury, but if your QB of that magnitude gets hurt you are pretty screwed anyway.

Basically instead of having a cap hit of ~23 million per year it would be a hit of 14-18 mil per year, but all guaranteed.

Would you call that less of a gamble than current contracts, or a greater one?

[pantherclaw]

You bring to mind one of my biggest pet peeves about the current NFL climate.

Who gets the biggest payday generally has far less to do with who's done the best and much more to do with who gets paid last.

Hypothetical Example: Let's say Newton goes out and quarterbacks the team to a Super Bowl win this season. Then, after the Super Bowl, he and the team strike a deal for 120 million dollars. Cool, right?

But let's say that same season, Luck or Wilson or whomever is due a new contract experiences a losing season.

Chances are that guy will still wind up making more than Newton because their agent will push for better than Newton got, and the team will ultimately probably give it. Thus, even with the disparity in accomplishment, the guy who gets paid last will be the one who makes the most money.

This is how you end up with guys like Matt Stafford and Tony Romo making more money than guys who've actually won something.

(and here I thought the whole reason the league instituted a rookie wage scale was so that teams wouldn't have to kep paying big contracts to guys who hadn't accomplished anything yet)

100% agree.

it sucks, as long as there is free agency, any team that wants to retain a talented starting QB, is going to have overpay to due so, or some other QB hungry team will. This goes for other valuable positions as well.

[Moorgan]

You bring to mind one of my biggest pet peeves about the current NFL climate.

Who gets the biggest payday generally has far less to do with who's done the best and much more to do with who gets paid last.

Hypothetical Example: Let's say Newton goes out and quarterbacks the team to a Super Bowl win this season. Then, after the Super Bowl, he and the team strike a deal for 120 million dollars. Cool, right?

But let's say that same season, Luck or Wilson or whomever is due a new contract experiences a losing season.

Chances are that guy will still wind up making more than Newton because their agent will push for better than Newton got, and the team will ultimately probably give it. Thus, even with the disparity in accomplishment, the guy who gets paid last will be the one who makes the most money.

This is how you end up with guys like Matt Stafford and Tony Romo making more money than guys who've actually won something.

(and here I thought the whole reason the league instituted a rookie wage scale was so that teams wouldn't have to kep paying big contracts to guys who hadn't accomplished anything yet)

I agree with all of that except Romo is good. He has never been their problem. Sure a mistake here and there but he is a solid QB.

[Mr. Scot]

I agree with all of that except Romo is good. He has never been their problem. Sure a mistake here and there but he is a solid QB.

We'll have to disagree on that one, dude.

(and I'd guess I'm not the first o say that to you)

it sucks, as long as there is free agency, any team that wants to retain a talented starting QB, is going to have overpay to due so, or some other QB hungry team will. This goes for other valuable positions as well.

Gettleman has pretty strongly committed to not overpaying anyone.

Do you believe he'll ultimately blink on that when it comes to Cam or Luke?

[pantherclaw]

Gettleman has pretty strongly committed to not overpaying anyone.

Do you believe he'll ultimately blink on that when it comes to Cam or Luke?

he'll have to pay Each of them in the top 5% is the league at their respected positions, just to retain them.

Can easily be argued, that they both deserve to be the highest paid players at their respected positions, at the time of their signings.

Do you consider that to be over paying them?

I know what Gettleman preaches,but he has to pay his star players or lose them.

[Mr. Scot]

he'll have to pay Each of them in the top 5% is the league at their respected positions, just to retain them.

Can easily be argued, that they both deserve to be the highest paid players at their respected positions, at the time of their signings.

Do you consider that to be over paying them?

I know what Gettleman preaches,but he has to pay his star players or lose them.

Honestly, my best answer here would be that I believe Gettleman is way better at assessing players' value than I am.

[pantherclaw]

Honestly, my best answer here would be that I believe Gettleman is way better at assessing players' value than I am.

i agree with that for myself to.

Let's start with Luke.

I consider him to be the best MLB in the game.

What's your opinion?

[Mr. Scot]

i agree with that for myself to.

Let's start with Luke.

I consider him to be the best MLB in the game.

What's your opinion?

I'd agree.