QB contracts can cripple a franchise?

[Soth]

We gave Romo $100m with $55m guaranteed. A contract like this means he HAS to perform for multiple years or you can cripple the franchise.

My question is: Is this the going rate for a QB? Is this something teams simply must do these days to retain a good QB?

Forget about his performance or whether you like Romo or not. My concern is with regards to injuries. Do teams simply need to play the dice and hope the QB does not get hurt?

For example, you sign a QB for a $30m bonus and he gets hurt the following year. Let's say it is a career ending injury. So you just need to take the $30m hit (or whatever the second year dead money is)??

I am trying to understand if we simply messed up this contract or if this is the cost of doing business in the NFL today. Romo was a good QB when we gave him the contract. We did not know he would get a nasty back injury.

 

[bodi]

3/29/2013: Signed a seven-year, $119.5 million contract.

The deal contains $55 million guaranteed, including a $25 million signing bonus and Romo's base salaries in years one and two.

2014: $1 million (+ $12.5 million "signing" bonus),
2015: $17 million,
2016: $8.5 million,
2017: $14 million,
2018: $19.5 million,
2019: $20.5 million, 2020: Free Agent

Good golly what GN we have

 

[CyberB0b]

So we can cut him in 2016?

 

[Venger]

I think the way the signing bonus and everything works, 2017 is the first year you can think about moving him...

 

[cowboyvic]

Romo never should have been given that contract in the first place.. and i said it on here at the time it happen. should have let him play out that last year of his contract.but leave it up to GM Jerry to pay him like he's a super star. now look at what the franchise is left with. a 34 year old QB with a bad back, that's in a bad decline.this mess was created by Jerry Jones and his son. really sad.

 

[The Natural]

for a franchise QB, yes that is the going rate. The problem is it's the type of contract you give to a young QB who has shown promise, or a veteran QB with substantial success. You don't give that contract to a 30+ year old, 8 year starter with one playoff win. You just dont do it.

 

[WestCoastQB]

We gave Romo $100m with $55m guaranteed. A contract like this means he HAS to perform for multiple years or you can cripple the franchise.

My question is: Is this the going rate for a QB? Is this something teams simply must do these days to retain a good QB?

Forget about his performance or whether you like Romo or not. My concern is with regards to injuries. Do teams simply need to play the dice and hope the QB does not get hurt?

For example, you sign a QB for a $30m bonus and he gets hurt the following year. Let's say it is a career ending injury. So you just need to take the $30m hit (or whatever the second year dead money is)??

I am trying to understand if we simply messed up this contract or if this is the cost of doing business in the NFL today. Romo was a good QB when we gave him the contract. We did not know he would get a nasty back injury.

No way that Jerruh made a bad move as GM! No way...I can't believe that he would cripple this team...

 

[CF74]

Yes Jerry has been crippling us since he ran Jimmy out of town and this contract is on par with just that...

 

[craig71]

Carolina signed Jake Delhomme to a 5 year 42.5 mm deal in March 2009 with 20mm guaranteed and was cut the following April. Although it should be noted that 2010 was an uncapped year.


Craig

 

[Super_Kazuya]

It's funny, in the offseason when the worthless Romo-hating trolls were crying about the contract, I said can we at least wait until he has played ONE GAME under the contract before we judge it? Me and my big mouth...

 

[cowboyvic]

It's funny, in the offseason when the worthless Romo-hating trolls were crying about the contract, I said can we at least wait until he has played ONE GAME under the contract before we judge it? Me and my big mouth...

Giving Romo that contract at that age,will go down as one of the worst moves in franchise history. it never should have happen. and i said it at the time. so i am not saying it after the fact.

 

[Wood]

We gave Romo $100m with $55m guaranteed. A contract like this means he HAS to perform for multiple years or you can cripple the franchise.

My question is: Is this the going rate for a QB? Is this something teams simply must do these days to retain a good QB?

Forget about his performance or whether you like Romo or not. My concern is with regards to injuries. Do teams simply need to play the dice and hope the QB does not get hurt?

For example, you sign a QB for a $30m bonus and he gets hurt the following year. Let's say it is a career ending injury. So you just need to take the $30m hit (or whatever the second year dead money is)??

I am trying to understand if we simply messed up this contract or if this is the cost of doing business in the NFL today. Romo was a good QB when we gave him the contract. We did not know he would get a nasty back injury.

The Romo contract is the reason Dallas will not contend. Its not so much as the numbers (and they are ridiculous) but more about the thought process of GM/Owner. They reward a guy because he sells tickets not because of 'real' on-field production. Most sane GMs would never dole out that contract for a player with 1 playoff victory. That contract is for super bowl winning QBs. But again, this has nothing to do with tangible football production and everything to do with marketing. As long as GM/Owner work in spirit of franchise market cap and little attention to football production accountability nothing will change and nor should it.

 

[Jenky]

Is this really news? You know, it used to be worse in the past right? Try spending the #1 overall pick on a rookie QB and spending 50-70 mill. See what that does to your franchise for years to come.

 

[noshame]

It's funny, in the offseason when the worthless Romo-hating trolls were crying about the contract, I said can we at least wait until he has played ONE GAME under the contract before we judge it? Me and my big mouth...

Agreed.

 

[noshame]

Now, if Tony retired and returned a portion of his bonus we'd be OK. Tony?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Giving Romo that contract at that age,will go down as one of the worst moves in franchise history. it never should have happen. and i said it at the time. so i am not saying it after the fact.

And when you are proven to be wrong, you will be nowhere to be found, so who cares?

Besides, it's a silly thing to say anyway. Worst moves in franchise history? What does that even mean? As if this team is being held back from some great destiny by poor QB play or something. You can't fix this team with the meager amount of money you would save by replacing Romo with a cheaper, probably worse QB. You certainly can't trust the guy who would be charged with spending it.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Now, if Tony retired and returned a portion of his bonus we'd be OK. Tony?

Hey look, it's the noshame troll. I bet you are so happy, you leaped out of bed this morning with a grin on your face. Do you still have the sig saying this is the last year Tony will be the QB? I can't see, I'm on mobile.

 

[waving monkey]

3/29/2013: Signed a seven-year, $119.5 million contract.

The deal contains $55 million guaranteed, including a $25 million signing bonus and Romo's base salaries in years one and two.

2014: $1 million (+ $12.5 million "signing" bonus),
2015: $17 million,
2016: $8.5 million,
2017: $14 million,
2018: $19.5 million,
2019: $20.5 million, 2020: Free Agent

Good golly what GN we have

are you suggesting that those number other GM's will not give out to QB's?

 

[noshame]

Hey look, it's the noshame troll. I bet you are so happy, you leaped out of bed this morning with a grin on your face. Do you still have the sig saying this is the last year Tony will be the QB? I can't see, I'm on mobile.

Keep making a fool of yourself, glad to see you're good at something. Now run off and pick out a new set of jammies cause your Tony Romo's are falling apart. As soon as the school bus stops you can hop off and check the laptop in your backpack.

lol

 

[big dog cowboy]

We gave Romo $100m with $55m guaranteed. A contract like this means he HAS to perform for multiple years or you can cripple the franchise.

My question is: Is this the going rate for a QB? Is this something teams simply must do these days to retain a good QB?

I am trying to understand if we simply messed up this contract or if this is the cost of doing business in the NFL today.

Kansas City just gave Alex Smith a 4 year $68M deal guaranteed $45M. He is 30 years old.