There's a difference between discounted and team friendly. Patrick Mahommes signed a ten year, half a billion dollar deal as his first extension. Between that and endorsements, he's set for life, as are his kids and grandkids. The initial numbers appeared to be staggering at the time, but by spreading that out over ten years, he gave the team financial flexibility to move money around to sign players and increase his chance at winning Super Bowls. We know how that worked out.
You can complain about this becoming a Dak thread all you want, but his contract is the crux of most of our financial problems right now. He signed a 4 year, $160m deal. Annual average is $10m less than Mahommes, but he gave the team limited financial flexibility, and the product on the field has shown as much. A few extra bucks and we could've addressed the run defense more adequately going into the season. Interior linebackers and defensive tackles aren't expensive, but we were in a position to decide whether to go all in, and risk the consequences, or save some cap to resign CeeDee Lamb and Micah Parsons. We chose to play for the future and fell short.
Tyron Smith signed a record 10 year contract awhile back that allowed for similar financial flexibility the we see from Mahommes. Tom Brady regularly took discounted contracts to win the big dance. HE IS A 7 TIME CHAMPION. Selfishness vs selflessness. Do they want to cement their legacies as all-time greats, or do they want to pile cash into their bank accounts? I'm not suggesting it's wise to always take a discounted rate. Brady was set for life, much like Dak is, before he started taking lesser contracts. Micah and Lamb both deserve to be the highest paid at their positions, but how do they want to be remembered after they've made their money? What legacy does Dak want to leave behind? Now you tell me, is it wise to take one for the team and sign a lesser contract?
