Hukos Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, lolsurebro said: Paraphrasing Dave Chapelle: “At a certain point you’ve got 30 million dollars in the bank and you’re sitting next to the guy with 100 million in the bank and you’re both sitting in the same restaurant and eating the same $500 steak dinner. You have to ask yourself do you really need more money?” Professional athletes compare themselves to other athletes, not regular joes. If Dak Prescott gets a deal that breaks the bank, you don't think Mahomes looks at that at and goes, "well damn if he's worth that much, then I want x", because he feels he's worth that much. Patricks busts his butt being in the best physical and mental shape of his life in this game, you think he doesn't want to make the most of that? Taking less money does not guarantee a championship. It's totally possible that Patrick takes a discount, the Chiefs stack up in Free Agency, and then proceed to go one and done for the next 4-5 years because of flukey events happening in the other team's favors. Then Patrick and people in his group are going to think "wow I can't believe we didn't take the money since we lost anyway". Y'all are acting like if Patrick takes a paycut the Chiefs are a guaranteed dynasty. It's also totally possible that the Chiefs give Mahomes 40 mil/year and they still somehow manage to win another title or two. The playoffs are so random that things get kind of stupid. This is America, you get yours, because no one is going to give it to you. It's a dog eat dog country. I have absolutely zero issue with guys wanting to get paid. Do you think if Patrick suffered a career ending injury that the Chiefs wouldn't cut bait as fast as possible? There's no loyalty in the NFL and you're kidding yourself if you think there is - If I'm Patrick I'm getting my money now just in case I suffered a horrible injury and couldn't play again. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, Matts4313 said: NAbbsy is right. Brady was regularly one of the top paid QBs early. Including, as I said, the biggest contract in the NFL in 2010. The NFL is trying. The problem is he is not Cam/Brady attractive, has a weird voice and puts ketchup on his steak. The first 2 are forgivable, but the 3rd makes him less marketable. Attractive like handsome? He’s not an ugly man according to my wife. I laughed pretty hard at the steak comment. Nicely done. Hell ketchup on steak got a man elected PRESIDENT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: Attractive like handsome? He’s not an ugly man according to my wife. I laughed pretty hard at the steak comment. Nicely done. Hell ketchup on steak got a man elected PRESIDENT. 1. Your wife married a Redskins fan. Her taste in men is questionable at best. (kidding) 2. I dont know which president you are talking about, but I now hate them. Its probably Trump. For some reason I can see him ordering a $100 filet and then opening a Ketchup packet and dumping it on there. Edited February 5, 2020 by Matts4313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 53 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: 1. Your wife married a Redskins fan. Her taste in men is questionable at best. (kidding) 2. I dont know which president you are talking about, but I now hate them. Its probably Trump. For some reason I can see him ordering a $100 filet and then opening a Ketchup packet and dumping it on there. Trump eats his steak well done with ketchup. my wife asks me all the time “can’t you just switch teams?” She knows I’m miserable too. She likes the Caps and the Nats at least. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntonChigurh Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 4 hours ago, lolsurebro said: Paraphrasing Dave Chapelle: “At a certain point you’ve got 30 million dollars in the bank and you’re sitting next to the guy with 100 million in the bank and you’re both sitting in the same restaurant and eating the same $500 steak dinner. You have to ask yourself do you really need more money?” I think for someone like Mahomes who is competitive first (and likely to receive utter truckloads of endorsements and the like) it’s entirely possible that he takes a 20-30% cut to benefit the team and create a legacy. Its all speculation and probably a little bit of my own anticipation/hope projected into it a little bit but if that happened it absolutely would not surprise me. Why do people always want to project this point on view on young athletes but never on themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) On 2/3/2020 at 11:12 PM, incognito_man said: They should trade him for a windfall of 1st round picks and find another QB after sucking for a year or two. There is a lot of (practical) things wrong with this idea though. Let's look at this logically, and realistically. Now I assume (based on your post) that you acknowledge that the only way the Chiefs would give up a player like Mahomes --coming off their very first SB title since the merger-- would be for a bare minimum of two 1st rd picks, correct (at least I would hope so)? Let's throw in 1 second-round pick this year, and additional early picks next year. That's MINIMUM-- but we'll stick with that just for the sake of argument. So you are saying the Chiefs should give up a once in a generation talent at QB (and a good chance to win at least 1 more SB) in exchange for a hope and prayer that those draft picks pan out AND get them to the same level that they're at right now? Yeah, no. That has a strong probability of going down as the worst mistake in NFL history. Because very few draft picks actually pan out in the way they are projected to be, and even very fewer turn out to be a MAhomes. Besides, it wouldn't make sense for the other team to take the trade since they would have the same opportunities as KC without giving up anything. Not only that but, as we have established, it would take a boatload of high value picks from another team to even meet the extremely high asking price for a QB like Mahomes and there are not many teams that even have that many resources at their disposal. This year, there are only 3 teams with at least 2 first-round picks-- Dolphins, Raiders, and Jaguars. This doesn't leave the Chiefs many options (nor would it for any other team in any given year either), and in turn, ultimately lowers the value of Mahomes due to the less number of teams who are in the bidding for him. And the Raiders don't even have a 2nd round pick this year to offer so they don't even technically qualify by the hypothetical standards that were set. That only leaves two teams. Furthermore, if any team owner in their right state of mind would even begin pondering the idea of trading a QB like Mahomes they would NO DOUBT be asking a team with a top-3 pick in this year's draft and none of those three qualifying teams even have that going for them, which muddy's the water even more. At this point, this doesn't leave much leverage left for the player's agent during negotiations regardless of how good he is. So not only has the KC's FO caused massive turmoil within the locker room by even trying to trade away a young star player who just got them to the SB, but there is no real guarantee that it's even possible to trade him to begin with WITHOUT taking much lesser than expected. Like I said earlier in the thread. I can see where the OP (and you) is coming from in a sense. I can def see the league eventually evolving to a point where every team will draft a rookie QB, then selling the farm during his rookie cap years in order to try to get a title out of it and then trading the QB when his rookie contract is up. I can see that. Hell, we're already seeing it. But there isn't even enough data yet to prove or disprove either side at this point. However, that said, the idea that getting so many high drafts picks will automatically fix everything and suddenly make a team a contender is not realistic either. Because ULTIMATELY It will still not stop the real underlying problem that still plagues many teams today that keep them from being a consistent threat and that is poor scouting and poor draft choices. Hell, I'm convinced that if you gave the Bears (McCaskey) the option to pick ALL FIVE top-5 QB in the draft they would still choose the wrong one. Edit: Jason at OTC addressed this btw. https://overthecap.com/paying-the-great-qb-should-never-be-a-problem/ Edited February 5, 2020 by JustAnotherFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolsurebro Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 9 hours ago, AntonChigurh said: Why do people always want to project this point on view on young athletes but never on themselves I specifically said, and I quote: "Its all speculation and probably a little bit of my own anticipation/hope projected into it..." It probably happens because it's more noble than pulling a Le'Veon Bell and being a turd about your money. 13 hours ago, Hukos said: Professional athletes compare themselves to other athletes, not regular joes. If Dak Prescott gets a deal that breaks the bank, you don't think Mahomes looks at that at and goes, "well damn if he's worth that much, then I want x", because he feels he's worth that much. Patricks busts his butt being in the best physical and mental shape of his life in this game, you think he doesn't want to make the most of that? Taking less money does not guarantee a championship. It's totally possible that Patrick takes a discount, the Chiefs stack up in Free Agency, and then proceed to go one and done for the next 4-5 years because of flukey events happening in the other team's favors. Then Patrick and people in his group are going to think "wow I can't believe we didn't take the money since we lost anyway". Y'all are acting like if Patrick takes a paycut the Chiefs are a guaranteed dynasty. It's also totally possible that the Chiefs give Mahomes 40 mil/year and they still somehow manage to win another title or two. The playoffs are so random that things get kind of stupid. This is America, you get yours, because no one is going to give it to you. It's a dog eat dog country. I have absolutely zero issue with guys wanting to get paid. Do you think if Patrick suffered a career ending injury that the Chiefs wouldn't cut bait as fast as possible? There's no loyalty in the NFL and you're kidding yourself if you think there is - If I'm Patrick I'm getting my money now just in case I suffered a horrible injury and couldn't play again. I don't think anyone is going to be mad if Pat gets his cut. I agree with everything you just said for the same reasons. I guess me saying this stems from the fact that I see Pat as a true competitor and not some dude looking to make his buck and walk. Again, not disagreeing. I am just saying if Pat took less because he wanted his team to succeed, don't count me as one of the surprised people on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Here's an article from OTC talking about paying a QB. In this article, they suggest that paying a superstar like Mahomes top dollar isn't the issue, its paying an average QB like a superstar that hamstrings your title chances https://overthecap.com/paying-the-great-qb-should-never-be-a-problem/ "The problem in the NFL is when they pay the average QB as if he is a great QB. The salary sometimes creates the perception that the player is great. Matt Stafford, Derek Carr (and I was a big Carr guy so I fell into that camp), Jared Goff, Jimmy Garoppolo, Kirk Cousins, Jacoby Brissett, etc… are not great players, yet they all have been near the top of the market at some point and that feeds into the same market issues " 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 I think it's overblown because the cap isn't a real issue for teams anymore. Colts paid Luck and then had over $50 million to spend in cap space 3 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 17 minutes ago, BofaDeez54927 said: I think it's overblown because the cap isn't a real issue for teams anymore. Colts paid Luck and then had over $50 million to spend in cap space 3 years later Because: 1. They front-loaded Luck's contract to pay him 30, 27, 18, 12 million. 2. The Colts have no talent on their team, thus they have not needed to re-sign anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Id love to see the numbers on the last 20 years how many QBs were on second contracts that made championship game. I did it once before and it was like 65%. Thus disproving this entire thread. But I am too lazy to do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 BTW: Basing it on how much money was paid in any one given year is an absurd way of looking at it. All it proves is that sometimes teams restructure contracts, sign some FA's and win a 'Bowl. It in absolutely, 0, no possible way proves you shouldnt pay a QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 39 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Because: 1. They front-loaded Luck's contract to pay him 30, 27, 18, 12 million. 2. The Colts have no talent on their team, thus they have not needed to re-sign anybody else. Didn't Minnesota extend quite a few of their players after signing Cousins? Sure didn't seem to hamstring them at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 minute ago, BofaDeez54927 said: Didn't Minnesota extend quite a few of their players after signing Cousins? Sure didn't seem to hamstring them at all. Lol. They have negative cap space entering 2020. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jameson_Neat Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Just now, Outpost31 said: Lol. They have negative cap space entering 2020. Lol. Which means what? What's the real price if they were able to make the bottom line and be a contender last year and are poised to do it again this year? Who are they losing? Rhodes BTW, with $55 million in cap space, do you think the Colts could have handled signing a few high priced FAs? Or extended their own if they chose to? LOL at negative cap space. Oh no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.