On June 22, 2017 Derek Carr was signed a 5-year $125m contract extension

[jaythecowboy]

You also compared him to Wilson, in his abilities. When you say he can play that same style, you are basically saying that he is at a level to be able to be successful playing like Wilson. Well, that's wrong. He can't do the same things Wilson has done because he isn't as good a natural passer. I get what you are trying to say but it's not true and further, it doesn't change the truth of the statement. Dak has not shown or proven that he is Russell Wilson or can play at his level. That's still a true statement.

The contract is your story, you tell it. There is no disconnect. I understand exactly how it works. Go read up on some of my posts discussion the Wentz contract. It will be clear to you that I do understand it. If you don't want to do that then I guess go ahead and continue to believe that it's my lack of understanding but I guarantee you, the poster on this board know that I already know that Wentz's deal is not a 4 year, 32 mil deal. It's a 6 year 26 and change deal and the reason for that is because it's basically an extension so no, I get it. Doesn't change the fact that Wentz's deal is only relevant to Dak if he signs this year. Doesn't change the fact that the Eagles, by signing him with two more years left helped themselves out a great deal because they can spread it out over more time. Doesn't change the fact that it will cost us significantly more money to do that same kind of deal with Dak, then it did Philly. Also doesn't change the fact that he doesn't want Wentz money. He wants Russell Wilson money. He ain't getting it, not this year, IMO so basically, you can't do the Wentz deal.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make at this point. Their deals are structured the same way. Wilson 's just has one year as opposed to two.

And i didn't say Dak was at the level to be a successful as Wilson. I said he could one day get there . Two different things.

 

[jaythecowboy]

double post

 

[ClintDagger]

It is. You have probably about 5 franchise qbs...when you get past those guys you have a bunch of question marks. I don’t believe a lot of teams are confident in their quarterback position.

Oh man there are way more than 5. Wilson, Jimmy G, Goff, Brees, Newton, Ryan, Rodgers, Stafford, Wentz, Mahomes, Rivers, Luck, Watson, Ben, Mayfield, Brady. None of those guys are going anywhere. Then Dalton, Foles, and Cousins are safe for another at least 2 years I’d say.

Then you have the young guys that will get a few years like Allen, Darnold, Jackson, Haskins (eventually), Trubisky, and Murray.

You have a few situations that are a maybe like Miami with Rosen, and the Giants with Jones.

The only guys on the hot seat are probably Winston, Carr, Flacco, and Mariota. And those guys might be ok. Then you factor in three hot prospects coming in. I just don’t see a QB starved league.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make at this point. Their deals are structured the same way. Wilson 's just has one year as opposed to two.

And i didn't say Dak was at the level to be a successful as Wilson. I said he could one day get there . Two different things.

You just said that you have never seen the offer so you have no clue what that deal is structured like. I'm telling you right now, it can not be structured the same because the years are different. It's impossible. I can't put it more clearly then that.

 

[jaythecowboy]

You just said that you have never seen the offer so you have no clue what that deal is structured like. I'm telling you right now, it can not be structured the same because the years are different. It's impossible. I can't put it more clearly then that.

I am simply referring to the fact that the deal is added onto the current contract. Every contract signed has been done that. Whether one year left or two. Obviously if he is a free agent he doesn't have a contract to add onto. Confused why you even bringing that up.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am simply referring to the fact that the deal is added onto the current contract. Every contract signed has been done that. Whether one year left or two. Obviously if he is a free agent he doesn't have a contract to add onto. Confused why you even bringing that up.

I don't really know how to explain it any better. We all get that. We've known that since before you ever got here. I guess I must just come off as stupid to you. I told you that this is not new. We literally spent months talking about this. I'll say it one more time, we understand how the contracts work. This deal can not be the same as Wentz's. It can not be because if the money is the same, which is what has been reported as Dak's team wants, then the deal can not be the same. The numbers are very different. One year or two? Try no years, it's not even kinda the same at that point. In fact, it's completely different. Why do I bring this up? Because it effects the point I was trying to make before. The point you jumped in on and said that I didn't understand. Well, that's not true. Now you are trying to say that you were only talking about whatever money he makes when he signs, well we all know that. We don't need you to come in and explain that to us because we know that. But, you don't want to admit the simple fact that he has a shelf life and the longer it takes him to hit big money, the less opportunity he has to capitalize on his prime years. Once that Money is gone, you can never get it back. That's the truth, no matter how you want to argue the point. That's the truth and that's why all of this was brought up and that's why all of this is central to the discussion. The rest is yours but what I've said here is absolutely the truth of it.

 

[jaythecowboy]

I don't really know how to explain it any better. We all get that. We've known that since before you ever got here. I guess I must just come off as stupid to you. I told you that this is not new. We literally spent months talking about this. I'll say it one more time, we understand how the contracts work. This deal can not be the same as Wentz's. It can not be because if the money is the same, which is what has been reported as Dak's team wants, then the deal can not be the same. The numbers are very different. One year or two? Try no years, it's not even kinda the same at that point. In fact, it's completely different. Why do I bring this up? Because it effects the point I was trying to make before. The point you jumped in on and said that I didn't understand. Well, that's not true. Now you are trying to say that you were only talking about whatever money he makes when he signs, well we all know that. We don't need you to come in and explain that to us because we know that. But, you don't want to admit the simple fact that he has a shelf life and the longer it takes him to hit big money, the less opportunity he has to capitalize on his prime years. Once that Money is gone, you can never get it back. That's the truth, no matter how you want to argue the point. That's the truth and that's why all of this was brought up and that's why all of this is central to the discussion. The rest is yours but what I've said here is absolutely the truth of it.

He is playing out the last year of his rookie deal whether he gets a new deal or not so the money is the same. Assuming the extension is for 4 years, his money for the next 5 years is the same either way. The only difference is the money would be more spread out with the extension. Otherwise he's getting his $2 million this year with a more drastic increase in salary for the last 4 years.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Yeah, I don't agree at all. Currently, the NFL cap is at 188 Mil. We do not know what the next TV contract will bring so we do not know what increases may be down the road. However, we do know that between Dak's 35, Zeke's 15, Cooper's 17 (we hope) and DLaw's 21 annually, that has effectively eaten up approximately 47% of the existing cap. Now, while I understand that you believe there is no chance of going bankrupt, that's not really the argument I've heard anybody present, including me. This is not about a team going bankrupt. This is about the amount of cap available to field a team. So yes, we all know how big the pie is and right now, I'm telling you that what is being proposed is nearly half of that amount on 4 players. Never mind that we have several players coming due very soon, that will also want record deals, never mind that we still have other significant contractual commitments, the real problem here is that you can't manage a cap that way. The money does run out, that's why they call it a hard cap, and the result of this practice, as we have seen in the past, is that you end up with a crappy team for years and have to dig your way out of cap prison. No thanks, I don't agree.

It's entirely on the owner(s) to decide what they are willing to pay, if they are willing to pay that type money then it's on them. It's not the players responsibility to manage the cap or to take less money if they want/can make more elsewhere. Fans want/expect that the players should take less for the sake of the team, but it's just as much a business to them as it is to the owners. Every good team has had or will have the same problem in retaining the players they would like to keep. The Seahawks had the same issue when their young team had several ending contracts and guys wanting bigger paydays especially on the defensive side of the ball. I'm sure their fans wanted all of their players to take less to stay with the team, but it doesn't work that way. The fans don't decide who stays or who goes or what each player should be paid, the onus is on the owners/GM's to make those tough choices. The system is the same for all the teams, the real issue is that, as it sounds like, is that you're not sure Jerry is going to make the right choices.

No one is forcing these teams to pay those salaries and they say no all the time. Gruden wasn't willing to pay Mack. Seahwaks weren't willing to pay Thomas, etc. We weren't willing to pay Hurns, Hitchens, Church, Parnell, etc.

 

[TNCowboy]

And I’d take Dak over at least 5 guys on that list right now, maybe 6 depending on which version of Matt Ryan shows up.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Not trying to be "that guy", but should Derek Carr really be the poster child for why we should back up the brinks truck for Dak?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He is playing out the last year of his rookie deal whether he gets a new deal or not so the money is the same. Assuming the extension is for 4 years, his money for the next 5 years is the same either way. The only difference is the money would be more spread out with the extension. Otherwise he's getting his $2 million this year with a more drastic increase in salary for the last 4 years.

The money is not the same but I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. You don't want to get it, that's cool.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's entirely on the owner(s) to decide what they are willing to pay, if they are willing to pay that type money then it's on them. It's not the players responsibility to manage the cap or to take less money if they want/can make more elsewhere. Fans want/expect that the players should take less for the sake of the team, but it's just as much a business to them as it is to the owners. Every good team has had or will have the same problem in retaining the players they would like to keep. The Seahawks had the same issue when their young team had several ending contracts and guys wanting bigger paydays especially on the defensive side of the ball. I'm sure their fans wanted all of their players to take less to stay with the team, but it doesn't work that way. The fans don't decide who stays or who goes or what each player should be paid, the onus is on the owners/GM's to make those tough choices. The system is the same for all the teams, the real issue is that, as it sounds like, is that you're not sure Jerry is going to make the right choices.

No one is forcing these teams to pay those salaries and they say no all the time. Gruden wasn't willing to pay Mack. Seahwaks weren't willing to pay Thomas, etc. We weren't willing to pay Hurns, Hitchens, Church, Parnell, etc.

That's true but what is your point? Is your argument that RBs are a bad investment so we should go out and reward outs with the biggest contract ever? I mean, I'm probably not down for that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make at this point. Their deals are structured the same way. Wilson 's just has one year as opposed to two.

And i didn't say Dak was at the level to be a successful as Wilson. I said he could one day get there . Two different things.

I'm not surprised. You won't even admit that the deals are different. I mean, you need to stop right now. You are being disingenuous with the fact that you will not admit that the basic structure of the deals are different. You will not admit that the money is different. You will admit that the longer he fails to land a big money contract, the bigger the impact is in his career. At this point, this is not about not understanding on your part. It's about not wanting to admit you are wrong. Don't admit it but stop wasting my time. It's more valuable to me then wasting it on you.

 

[Roadtrip635]

That's true but what is your point? Is your argument that RBs are a bad investment so we should go out and reward outs with the biggest contract ever? I mean, I'm probably not down for that.

The point is, Jerry and Co. are going to have to prioritize who they really want to sign and keep and what they are willing to pay each of those players. If a player(s) is hellbent on resetting the market, then the team has to determine if that's within their comfort range, if it's not, then they let him walk. While we or the team would like to keep everyone, it's just not always possible. Some of what we're hearing, numbers wise could simply be negotiating tactics. It's not like these tactics weren't used before, but we hear more of it now with the explosion of social media, bloggers and anyone else with internet access wanting to add their perception/opinion/rumor to the mix. With the age of information overload people are quick to act or overreact to every report or rumor.

I think too many overreact when they hear the yearly average and play less attention to how the contract is structured and the guaranteed money.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Not trying to be "that guy", but should Derek Carr really be the poster child for why we should back up the brinks truck for Dak?

HE wasn't the poster child his contract was. I could've used Jimmy G or Andrew Luck or Cousins as a example.

 

[mardwin]

So because another not good QB got overpaid, we should overpay our average QB even more?

Yeah, makes total sense

That's the logic of poor management...

 

[MyUserName]

Hes not a mediocre talent. LOL

More pathetic analysis from a troll that doesnt understand the game.

Okay, slightly above average...and that's being generous.

 

[InTheZone]

That's fine. I'd love Mahomes or Aaron Rodgers myself. But I don't see a better qb out there and the one we have is pretty damn good.

you know, just because other QBs are flat out bad does not mean ours is good

 

[BigCatMonaco]

No way. Matt Ryan played like an MVP last season. He is and always has been better than Dak.

Ryan has played 11 seasons.
Dak has played 3.

Dak has 28,28 and 29 total TD.
Ryan has 7 seasons with fewer TDS scored than that.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

you know, just because other QBs are flat out bad does not mean ours is good

Well did I say that is what made Dak good?