Jump to content

Disappointed 49Ers Gave Kaepernick The Matt Ryan Treatment


Recommended Posts

You don't have a choice in the NFL but to overpay the quarterback, if you don't pay the QB someone else will.

You're paying for potential not for production nowadays with the QB position, good luck letting your QB walk then having a decade of Jacksonville type quarterbacking.

Edited by ClamChowdah
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nah man they think guys like Ryan grow on trees or something

How long have the falcons been around something like 40+ years? it took them quite some time to find a real franchise QB in Ryan so they must not have been falcon fans for long or there just trolloing which is more likely.

there's a value for everything. Adrian Petersons don't grow on trees either but would you pay adrian peterson 100m a year? Nope

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a value for everything. Adrian Petersons don't grow on trees either but would you pay adrian peterson 100m a year? Nope

Ok so when Andrew Lucks agent demands 6 years @ $25m a year and 70m of it guaranteed, you let him walk if you're the Colts?

He's never won a Super Bowl and has 1 playoff win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a value for everything. Adrian Petersons don't grow on trees either but would you pay adrian peterson 100m a year? Nope

The fact that you can propose absurd ideas doesnt eliminate the reality of market value and the decisions that drive those values. So not paying Adrian Peterson 100m a year is basically irrelevant.

If you want to discuss the question reasonably, you get to tougher decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you can propose absurd ideas doesnt eliminate the reality of market value and the decisions that drive those values. So not paying Adrian Peterson 100m a year is basically irrelevant.

If you want to discuss the question reasonably, you get to tougher decisions.

market value does not equal fair or intrinsic value

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so when Andrew Lucks agent demands 6 years @ $25m a year and 70m of it guaranteed, you let him walk if you're the Colts?

He's never won a Super Bowl and has 1 playoff win.

I'll take the wait and see approach like I would with any QB. Luck still has 2 years. I'll let him do the 2 years, maybe pick up the 5th year option. Then tag him. By 4/5th year, you have a good idea what you have in luck. I can't say what I'd do right now. Ask me in 2015.

What I wouldn't do is resign him early like we did Ryan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so when Andrew Lucks agent demands 6 years @ $25m a year and 70m of it guaranteed, you let him walk if you're the Colts?

He's never won a Super Bowl and has 1 playoff win.

Same with Russell Wilson. You think Seattle lets him walk? Not a chance.

No matter how you sort them, theres about 12-14 better than adequate starting QBs in the NFL. Those guys are going to get large deals. Some will be bigger than others (closely correlated to the point in time that they're signed) but all will be substantial. It's not really that interesting.

What IS interesting is how the borderline cases are handled. Dalton, Smith, Bradford. Maybe Locker if he has a decent year. How do those guys get dealt with. One of their ilk has already been overpaid. Do those teams decide to do the same thing or do they go to the well and hope they can find an adequate replacement?

If Cincinnati were smart, they would have just taken Bridgewater in the 1st and prepared to move on from Dalton. ****, maybe you trade him for a couple 2nd round picks. Maybe a 1st. The havenots will always pay for stability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same with Russell Wilson. You think Seattle lets him walk? Not a chance.

No matter how you sort them, theres about 12-14 better than adequate starting QBs in the NFL. Those guys are going to get large deals. Some will be bigger than others (closely correlated to the point in time that they're signed) but all will be substantial. It's not really that interesting.

What IS interesting is how the borderline cases are handled. Dalton, Smith, Bradford. Maybe Locker if he has a decent year. How do those guys get dealt with. One of their ilk has already been overpaid. Do those teams decide to do the same thing or do they go to the well and hope they can find an adequate replacement?

If Cincinnati were smart, they would have just taken Bridgewater in the 1st and prepared to move on from Dalton. ****, maybe you trade him for a couple 2nd round picks. Maybe a 1st. The havenots will always pay for stability.

Well Wilson won a ring, so they can afford to cripple the franchise, and rebuild 10 years later. That's assuming Wilson's not a good QB. I personally think he can be elite but I'd say the same thing with Ravens and Flacco and I don't htin Flacco will ever be eliete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take the wait and see approach like I would with any QB. Luck still has 2 years. I'll let him do the 2 years, maybe pick up the 5th year option. Then tag him. By 4/5th year, you have a good idea what you have in luck. I can't say what I'd do right now. Ask me in 2015.

What I wouldn't do is resign him early like we did Ryan.

The QB isn't playing under a franchise tag, that's unrealistic and will never happen, he will hold out and force the issue.

You have no choice but to pay him if you don't and you turn from an 11 win team into a 3 win team and he goes elsewhere and wins everyone is fired in the organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

market value does not equal fair or intrinsic value

1) We're talking about football......none of the players we're talking about have intrinsic value (aside from the value derived from being a human....which is questionable). At best, we're talking about instrumental value.

2) Market value is certainly "fair" value as its freely given out with consent of the paying party. Absent economic or physical duress, you'd have a terribly difficult time arguing that any two consenting parties with high powered representation are engaging in unfair negotiations.

3) Because YOU think a given player is overpaid does not mean he's actually overpaid. Especially considering the fact that you probably couldnt give us a wholly internally consistent breakdown of what drives compensation and what a party SHOULD pay for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pay a QB just for a championship, you are paying the top flight quarterbacks to take you to the playoffs every year.

The most important thing a franchise QB gives you is consistant playoff oppertunities because the more often you get in the better you chances and the more $$$$ for your owner.

Not to win a Super Bowl then be 7-9 for the next 6 years, you have such a short sighted view of this whole "championship or bust", try asking Cleveland or Jacksonville if they'd mind 10 years of 10 win football and no ring.

Edited by ClamChowdah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Wilson won a ring, so they can afford to cripple the franchise, and rebuild 10 years later. That's assuming Wilson's not a good QB. I personally think he can be elite but I'd say the same thing with Ravens and Flacco and I don't htin Flacco will ever be eliete.

Given the decisions made by the Seahawks FO lately, I don't think they agree with the idea that A) They "can afford" to cripple the franchise or B) that they are crippling the franchise.

Paying a high salary to your most important on-field piece isn't "crippling" a franchise. Thats not reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The QB isn't playing under a franchise tag, that's unrealistic and will never happen, he will hold out and force the issue.

You have no choice but to pay him if you don't and you turn from an 11 win team into a 3 win team and he goes elsewhere and wins everyone is fired in the organization.

11 win team to 3 win team? I doubt the Colts would turn into a 3 win team if they draft an ok Qb in 2 years or sign a stop gap QB for cheap. Plus with Kaep's contract which is basically a series of franchise tags, the colts can do the same thing. If Luck holds out, that looks bad on his part and aliennates him from fans.

Additionally, You do realize the Falcons had their supplsed 'franchise' QB and turned into a 4 win team. Use any excuse you want but when you have your 'franchise' QB and only muster 4 wins, it just shows that a 'franchise' QB is over rated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pay a QB just for a championship, you are paying the top flight quarterbacks to take you to the playoffs every year.

The most important thing a franchise QB gives you is consistant playoff oppertunities because the more often you get in the better you chances and the more $$$$ for your owner.

Not to win a Super Bowl then be 7-9 for the next 6 years, you have such a short sighted view of this whole "championship or bust", try asking Cleveland or Jacksonville if they'd mind 10 years of 10 win football and no ring.

100%.

Super Bowls are great. I'd guess by two weeks afterward, any Super Bowl winner becomes focused on winning the next one. Just as there are sunk costs, there are also sunk benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 win team to 3 win team? I doubt the Colts would turn into a 3 win team if they draft an ok Qb in 2 years or sign a stop gap QB for cheap. Plus with Kaep's contract which is basically a series of franchise tags, the colts can do the same thing. If Luck holds out, that looks bad on his part and aliennates him from fans.

Additionally, You do realize the Falcons had their supplsed 'franchise' QB and turned into a 4 win team. Use any excuse you want but when you have your 'franchise' QB and only muster 4 wins, it just shows that a 'franchise' QB is over rated.

The Colts won 2 games in the year between Manning and Luck, they can't run the ball and their defense is flat out bad.

How many games do you think they'd win with a rookie QB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 win team to 3 win team? I doubt the Colts would turn into a 3 win team if they draft an ok Qb in 2 years or sign a stop gap QB for cheap. Plus with Kaep's contract which is basically a series of franchise tags, the colts can do the same thing. If Luck holds out, that looks bad on his part and aliennates him from fans.

Additionally, You do realize the Falcons had their supplsed 'franchise' QB and turned into a 4 win team. Use any excuse you want but when you have your 'franchise' QB and only muster 4 wins, it just shows that a 'franchise' QB is over rated.

No it doesnt. This statement shows that you misunderstand the reality of how the league works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pay a QB just for a championship, you are paying the top flight quarterbacks to take you to the playoffs every year.

The most important thing a franchise QB gives you is consistant playoff oppertunities because the more often you get in the better you chances and the more $$$$ for your owner.

Not to win a Super Bowl then be 7-9 for the next 6 years, you have such a short sighted view of this whole "championship or bust", try asking Cleveland or Jacksonville if they'd mind 10 years of 10 win football and no ring.

Yeah, except you don't need a top flight QB to take you to the playoffs if you have a good team. Look at Alex Smith in 49er and Chiefs. Look at the New York Jets with Sanchez. Those are consistent playoff teams without top QBs.

Then you have teams with Romo and Rivers who have franchise QBs but can't make it to the playoffs. My argument is, instead of keeping a guy like Romo, Rivers, Dalton, Ryan, etc.. you build a team and get a guy like Smith to hold you over until you can draft a cheap rookie with talent like Russel Wilson.

I'll take a team like Seahawks, 49ers, over Chargers, Cowboys any day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Colts won 2 games in the year between Manning and Luck, they can't run the ball and their defense is flat out bad.

How many games do you think they'd win with a rookie QB?

Because Manning is elite and whoever the back up was, Painter or whatever, is not a starting calliber QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, except you don't need a top flight QB to take you to the playoffs if you have a good team. Look at Alex Smith in 49er and Chiefs. Look at the New York Jets with Sanchez. Those are consistent playoff teams without top QBs.

Then you have teams with Romo and Rivers who have franchise QBs but can't make it to the playoffs. My argument is, instead of keeping a guy like Romo, Rivers, Dalton, Ryan, etc.. you build a team and get a guy like Smith to hold you over until you can draft a cheap rookie with talent like Russel Wilson.

I'll take a team like Seahawks, 49ers, over Chargers, Cowboys any day.

Those defenses have a short shelf life only ever last 3-4 years because some guys want paid and have to go elsewhere the quarterback lasts 15 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pay a QB just for a championship, you are paying the top flight quarterbacks to take you to the playoffs every year.

The most important thing a franchise QB gives you is consistant playoff oppertunities because the more often you get in the better you chances and the more $$$$ for your owner.

Not to win a Super Bowl then be 7-9 for the next 6 years, you have such a short sighted view of this whole "championship or bust", try asking Cleveland or Jacksonville if they'd mind 10 years of 10 win football and no ring.

It's almost impossible to win a Superbowl and then do well the next 6 years unless you have an elite QB or coach. Most teams drop off afterwards.

Those defenses have a short shelf life only ever last 3-4 years because some guys want paid and have to go elsewhere the quarterback lasts 15 years.

And what has 15 years of Romo/Rivers gotten those teams?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't pay a QB just for a championship, you are paying the top flight quarterbacks to take you to the playoffs every year.

The most important thing a franchise QB gives you is consistant playoff oppertunities because the more often you get in the better you chances and the more $$$$ for your owner.

Not to win a Super Bowl then be 7-9 for the next 6 years, you have such a short sighted view of this whole "championship or bust", try asking Cleveland or Jacksonville if they'd mind 10 years of 10 win football and no ring.

Cleveland will get their 10 years of winning here shortly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your view is so short sighted let Matt Ryan walk and go play for the Bengals or someone on his $20m a year, how do your players feel when you tell your WR's and veterans sorry guys we're letting our QB walk because we don't want to pay them but don't worry we're just going to find an all pro QB in the draft cause it's that easy, Hello EJ Manuel/Geno Smith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...