Matt Ryan and Falcons agree to contract extension first 30 million a year QB

[Nabbs4u]

4 minutes ago, El ramster said:

He isn’t worth that. At what point do teams just trade their QBs? 

Unfortunately both the Rams and Eagles will be asking that exact question in a few years when $35M becomes the norm.

Doesn't matter if he's worth it, that's the Current Market. Rediculous but the Market.

[SteelKing728]

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Lol, OMG, Falcons never winning a Super Bowl with Ryan. 

Who's stopping them from doing it?

[El Ramster]

1 minute ago, Nabbs4u said:

Unfortunately both the Rams and Eagles will be asking that exact question in a few years when $35M becomes the norm.

Doesn't matter if he's worth it, that's the Current Market. Rediculous but the Market.

Yeah and it’ll cripple you as it with the Ravens. And somewhat the Seahawks.. The eagles made it happen the Rams have 2 years because if not were screwed. I would only pay that to Peyton Manning or Tom Brady because they don’t need a number 1 or 2 Wr to be great. 

[KhanYouDigIt]

22 minutes ago, HTTRG3Dynasty said:

Lol. And I thought I was pushing it by saying something similar about Smith earlier in the thread. Nah, I’m good. 

26M GTD for an ascending 25 year old QB or 100M GTD for a 32 year old QB

[Uncle Buck]

Let's hope Rodgers holds out for every penny he thinks he's worth.  Best of luck to him! 

[GSUeagles14]

1 hour ago, KhanYouDigIt said:

Not really.

yea, really, bortles isnt as bad as people like to say be hes average. Ryans a top 5ish qb. not only that bortles hasnt really shown signs of consistent improvement. Hes kinda young, theres no reason to assume hes ascending. hes been up and down and if he follws the same pattern this is gonna be a down year.

[I <3 Faulk]

6 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said:

 Thanks, Matt Ryan.

He's no Flacco. Look at the bright side, the Dolphins have to draft a QB worthy of a huge deal before they even have to think about paying them.

[Ty21]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

Unfortunately both the Rams and Eagles will be asking that exact question in a few years when $35M becomes the norm.

Doesn't matter if he's worth it, that's the Current Market. Rediculous but the Market.

Wish the market would get back to being blueiculous

[Tugboat]

I don't even think i want a good QB anymore.  At least, not off of their Rookie deal.  It's just insane.  How are you supposed to build a deep, contending team around these sort of contracts...other than a lot of luck in the draft?  It's one thing if you're talking about the absolutely elite cream of the crop who can consistently elevate mediocre surrounding casts to greater heights of achievement.  But i'm not sure Matt Ryan fits that category.  He's a good QB for sure...just...not absolutely elite.  You still have to surround him with a lot of quality pieces, and he's also getting up there in age.

It's a lose-lose situation for these teams though.  Either you lose the stability of your franchise QB and willfully enter the wasteland that is searching for a guy to win with under center (and doing so without a high pick for at least a year, because your current QB keeps you out of that draft range).  Or you tie yourself to a guy at a figure that severely inhibits your ability to put an adequate supporting cast around them to win.

It's gross.

[JAF-N72EX]

This only further shows the impact of the last CBA and just how much the NFL has changed because of it.

Prior to 2011, teams would try and build around a QB who they believed in but would also take much smaller steps that required less risks in the process due to the heavy investment at one position.

Now, teams with QB's who are still on rookie contracts are using that 4-year time span as sort of a SB window by utilizing the lower investment and using it as an opportunity to be able to be more aggressive and take higher risks with their moves in hopes of winning a title. 

This will eventually even out but right now, teams who already had/have established QB's prior to the CBA are at a major disadvantage. 

[diamondbull424]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

You've got the right statement, but the wrong side - the team with the top 3 pick is the one that hangs up.  There are have no examples of a top 15 pick being traded for any QB, let alone a 30M QB.     You keep making statements that have only been shown the opposite since the 2011 CBA came into place.    

Teams want the cheap cost controlled QB if they are spending a top 10 pick, let alone a top 3 pick.  There are plenty of examples of this - you're just choosing to keep your belief system despite the overwhelming evidence that shows rookie deals are what teams go after.  That's ok, we don't have to agree - but your position isn't supported but in fact contradicted by the post-2011 cap reality of rookie contract values.   I know which side I'll stick on. 

IF this is true then why are more teams not dumping their starters for drafted QBs? The fact of the matter is you listed two examples of where QB needy teams gave up pick #17 for average to below average starters. Yet act like your viewpoint is omnipotent regarding teams not wanting to trade for franchise QBs or elite QBs with a top 3 first round pick.

I’m sorry, it doesn’t work like that. Logic stands to reason that if two different teams were willing to trade a first round pick for the chance of proven QB play, then if a truly franchise QB became available they would trade even more capital to obtain that.

You’ve yet to dispute this point. You instead continue to spout nonsense that “because it hasn’t happened, clearly that’s proof that teams in the top 3 wouldn’t do it”, which using the same logic I can use the lack of evidence as proof that the team with the franchise QB would never do it and that’s the true reason it hasn’t been done. Only I can actually point to evidence of desperate teams trading a 1st round pick for average to below average QB play, whereas you can’t point to evidence that a desperate team would turn down franchise QB play if given the chance.

[FalconFan13]

2 hours ago, SteelKing728 said:

Who's stopping them from doing it?

Luckily the person who stopped us from winning the last one is now in San Fran although he is a great OC in general.  He for 1 1/2 quarters called the dumbest game of his life at the most important time.   2 or 3 runs total up by 25 points with a quarter left just doesn't make any sense at all and never will.    Even then Ryan still put us in a position to win quite a few times only to have Freeman completely whiff on a block to cause a sack fumble.  Even more Ryan still put us in play to win the game with an amazing throw to julio and another throw to Sanu that once again got called back by Jake Matthews on a hold call.    I felt so bad for Ryan in that game the man literally played one of the top 3 or 4 games of all time in the superbowl and it still wasn't enough.  I don't know wtf more people could have asked of him that season honestly.  He did more than enough to win the SB based on what he gave the team that year.

[Pugger]

2 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Let's hope Rodgers holds out for every penny he thinks he's worth.  Best of luck to him! 

I don't think a player under contract until after the 2019 season can hold out.  Sorry.  

[diamondbull424]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Tom Brady at 30M wouldn't.   Tom Brady when he was 15M or less per year, multiple years?   Of course.   But again, it's Matt Ryan at 30M.   The lowest of the franchise QB's, at the highest value.   At least in your reality, we know strawman arguments exist.     

We have teams making 8 trades to move up into the top 15 to get the rookie QB and cost-controlled contract, and no trades for a top 15 pick since the CBA.   All by different teams, and 7 of those 8 in the last 2 years.     We can choose to disagree, that's fine - but you only have strawman arguments and opinion pieces.  I'll go with the hard data, thanks.

???

You have no hard data. It would be hard data if we were given news about a team being interested in moving their franchise QB, but not receiving high round compensation for it.

If anything the fact that the only long time starting QBs with some value that teams were willing to trade away got 17th pick value... as non-franchise QB options is more hard evidence than the opposite.

Of course teams are willing to give up multiple future picks to get a top QB. You’re acting like they never did this before the CBA. The Giants did this for Eli Manning with the Phillip Rivers trade. We also saw the Chargers give up a lot of picks to obtain QB, Ryan Leaf back in the day. Teams trading away draft picks and players for top picks isn’t something new to the current CBA rookie contracts like you make it seem. Your logic is flawed and your “hard data” has been found wanting.

[Broncofan]

21 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

???

You have no hard data. It would be hard data if we were given news about a team being interested in moving their franchise QB, but not receiving high round compensation for it.

If anything the fact that the only long time starting QBs with some value that teams were willing to trade away got 17th pick value... as non-franchise QB options is more hard evidence than the opposite.

Of course teams are willing to give up multiple future picks to get a top QB. You’re acting like they never did this before the CBA. The Giants did this for Eli Manning with the Phillip Rivers trade. We also saw the Chargers give up a lot of picks to obtain QB, Ryan Leaf back in the day. Teams trading away draft picks and players for top picks isn’t something new to the current CBA rookie contracts like you make it seem. Your logic is flawed and your “hard data” has been found wanting.

As opposed to you who have zero hard data.    Mine is the ONLY data since the new CBA.    And it's consistent.  Yours is just skewed by your delusional belief that Matt Ryan at 30M a year would fetch a top 3 pick.   Which you are truly alone there.  But that's OK you're entitled to your opinion.  It's just not supported by any actual data.