Video: Deion Sanders Is not a Fan of Big Quarterback Contracts

[Captain43Crash]

Not to demean you but you sound like an agent.

That would be demeaning. Regarding why QB’s get paid more, it’s simple. They are valued way more than any other position because of the difficulty of playing the position at a high level AND because there are so few available.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

I think 20 is fair to both sides
But we shall see
To me a 3 yr out is pretty important

Just me but this would be the most important part of his contract....absolutely critical. Even if I had to guarantee a large portion of his money. I have no problem paying him market value.....whatever that is. He's worked his azz off and started every NFL game only making pennies but he's obviously still developing. So any contract, like you said, would have a 2-3 year out....

 

[Hawkeye0202]

That would be demeaning. Regarding why QB’s get paid more, it’s simple. They are valued way more than any other position because of the difficulty of playing the position at a high level AND because there are so few available.

+1
Lots of them out there.......but how many can consistently play at high level and handle the pressure that comes with the position.

 

[JoeKing]

That would be demeaning. Regarding why QB’s get paid more, it’s simple. They are valued way more than any other position because of the difficulty of playing the position at a high level AND because there are so few available.

I agree with you about QBs, the really good ones are rare. That's not Dak, Wentz, or Goff. Their numbers don't reflect paying them top dollar.

 

[starcity214]

Plenty of mediocre QBs have won SBs. Foles, Dilfer, Hostetler...

95% of the Super Bowls have been won by elite Quarterbacks.

Also , those teams that won "in spite of their QB" were legendary defensive teams and they only managed one SB win each. That's a terrible way to build a team. An elite QB gives you a chance each and every year as opposed to the short lived "elite team, average QB" types..

Bottom line, you need a top 10 QB if you want to have real success in this league.

 

[TwentyOne]

Dak doesn't deserve a big contract. He isn't even a top 10 player on the Cowboys. This could be a Blake Bortles situation.

Deion is not a fan of giving bad QBs big contracts.

I can understand that some people dont like Deion, i cant stand some of his attitude too. But this guy knows some things about football. Its not an coincidence that back in his playing days he helped defense and even offensive coordinator how to read tendencies of a team.

So i will listen to him when he says something about a QB. Especially because he played CB and so had to defend his passing abiltiy.

To defend a WR is also to know what passes the QB can throw. Dez was great at the backshoulder fade. But Dak couldnt throw it. Knowing this you need not care about Dez biggest strength.

Deion knows his stuff.

 

[DallasEast]

I must be honest. The older I get the more Sanders' commentary gets on my last <expletive> nerve.

Sanders, like most people, has a good to excellent understanding about money matters or solid financial quotient (FQ). Most people associate greater compensation solely on performance (e.g. greater talent equals more cha-ching).

Unfortunately, matters involving professional athletes' contracts have far less to with merit compensation and much more to do with perceived value compensation. This explains why most people, like Sanders, share a fair or low economics quotient (EQ).

Simply put, owners PAY for what they see grants the greatest value to them and their franchise. It is an old perception. In 1965, eventual Hall of Famer Jim Brown was pulling $60K per year in Cleveland. Snot nosed rookie Joe Namath got $100K from the Jets at jump. At that point, Namath had zero performance value compared to Brown. However, the Jets conceived Namath as an irreplaceable cog that would help New York win championships.

Not sure why economics intelligence has not expanded the past half-season but whatever. Moving on to Sanders diatribe (graphs courtesy of spotrac.com/click graphics for website link):



Sanders says outfielders, left fielders, shortstops and catchers make equivalent money--presumably because of merit pay based on talent. Okay. MLB average salaries do not really match what he says but where is Sanders outrage for disparities in first basemen salaries? Or closers' salaries? Why is he not trippin' over designated hitter salaries? Whatever. Moving on.



NBA has fewer positions. Naturally, average salaries are not as skewed but do all of the positions really make the same amount of money? Nope. In a league where modern play is dominated by talented point guards, shooting guards plus small and power forwards, why are centers (the bench minority) commanding a larger share of compensation on average? And with a notable differential? Next:



Made this one from scratch since spotrac did not post one . Sanders is on a rampage against quarterbacks he does not find worthy of contracts they will get anyway but... pray tell? Where is the anguish over left tackles for instance? Their compensation is pretty darn high despite how a few sometimes look like subway turnstiles. Tyron Smith's longevity is showing. Yet, he is still pulling in almost $4 1/2 mil more than Julio Jones. Why is THAT, Mr. Sanders?

Oops. My bad.

 

[MyFairLady]

He may be right but he is still a brain dead moron.

 

[Captain43Crash]

I agree with you about QBs, the really good ones are rare. That's not Dak, Wentz, or Goff. Their numbers don't reflect paying them top dollar.

They shouldn’t be paid like the top 5-10 QB’s unless they step up there play over the next year.

 

[Captain43Crash]

I must be honest. The older I get the more Sanders' commentary gets on my last <expletive> nerve.

Sanders, like most people, has a good to excellent understanding about money matters or solid financial quotient (FQ). Most people associate greater compensation solely on performance (e.g. greater talent equals more cha-ching).

Unfortunately, matters involving professional athletes' contracts have far less to with merit compensation and much more to do with perceived value compensation. This explains why most people, like Sanders, share a fair or low economics quotient (EQ).

Simply put, owners PAY for what they see grants the greatest value to them and their franchise. It is an old perception. In 1965, eventual Hall of Famer Jim Brown was pulling $60K per year in Cleveland. Snot nosed rookie Joe Namath got $100K from the Jets at jump. At that point, Namath had zero performance value compared to Brown. However, the Jets conceived Namath as an irreplaceable cog that would help New York win championships.

Not sure why economics intelligence has not expanded the past half-season but whatever. Moving on to Sanders diatribe (graphs courtesy of spotrac.com/click graphics for website link):



Sanders says outfielders, left fielders, shortstops and catchers make equivalent money--presumably because of merit pay based on talent. Okay. MLB average salaries do not really match what he says but where is Sanders outrage for disparities in first basemen salaries? Or closers' salaries? Why is he not trippin' over designated hitter salaries? Whatever. Moving on.



NBA has fewer positions. Naturally, average salaries are not as skewed but do all of the positions really make the same amount of money? Nope. In a league where modern play is dominated by talented point guards, shooting guards plus small and power forwards, why are centers (the bench minority) commanding a larger share of compensation on average? And with a notable differential? Next:



Made this one from scratch since spotrac did not post one . Sanders is on a rampage against quarterbacks he does not find worthy of contracts they will get anyway but... pray tell? Where is the anguish over left tackles for instance? Their compensation is pretty darn high despite how a few sometimes look like subway turnstiles. Tyron Smith's longevity is showing. Yet, he is still pulling in almost $4 1/2 mil more than Julio Jones. Why is THAT, Mr. Sanders?

Oops. My bad.

Excellent point!

 

[Idgit]

Quiet Deion is at least tolerable. It’s the screeching and posturing that that I can’t take.

I disagree with him here, though. It’s a free market. The value of a free agent QB is what another team will pay. Incremental improvement at that position for a team with no options is worth way too much. You have to pay mediocre players at that position to upgrade over bad ones.

 

[Mannix]

What does her know about contracts....he tried to stiff a car garage who was owed thousands of dollars.

 

[dfense]

I cannot bring myself to even watch 2 seconds of Celine. Clown.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Dak doesn't deserve a big contract. He isn't even a top 10 player on the Cowboys. This could be a Blake Bortles situation.

Deion is missing the point of market prices. It's not who is the "best player". It's not who deserves what. It's supply and demand.

The QB is in on every pass. By tilting the league toward the pass, they've increased the value of a marginal improvement at QB.

Teams could treat QBs more like RBs. Keep them coming from the mid rounds until you find one that sticks. Use an extra roster spot or two. I think that would be a winning strategy, particularly if you go after running QBs who can give you that extra dimension while you're hoping to hit on a passer.

 

[eastsideboy]

You don’t think the reason QB’s get paid more than other positions has anything to do with Supply and Demand?

they do but the problem is in the real world of supply and demand you get what you pay for if you go to McDonald's pay a dollar you get a chicken sandwich you go to a nice restaurant sit down for $30 have a nice steak dinner in the NFL world you sit down at the restaurant pay $30 and you get a dollar chicken sandwich