QB contracts can cripple a franchise?

[birdwells1]

at best this is an hypothesis
a lot of which I agree

You're right it is but have you noticed that both of those teams have college coaches. The significance of that is that in college you will probably change qbs every 2 years or so. Even if they have a manning or rogers he's not there for 10 years so they cant just hitch their wagon to the outstanding qb, they have to build a strong team.

I just think that paying elite qb money, no matter who the qb is, is going to weaken your team somewhere else.

I felt the Raven should've let Flacco walk after the super bowl.

 

[CCBoy]

You're right it is but have you noticed that both of those teams have college coaches. The significance of that is that in college you will probably change qbs every 2 years or so. Even if they have a manning or rogers he's not there for 10 years so they cant just hitch their wagon to the outstanding qb, they have to build a strong team.

I just think that paying elite qb money, no matter who the qb is, is going to weaken your team somewhere else.

I felt the Raven should've let Flacco walk after the super bowl.

One can follow the logic here. But there is more than gravity on the issues that have given rise to desiring to maintain job security with your own chosen quarterback, now. The binding between Jason Garrett and Tony Romo is much more than what jumps out for one to easily see.

 

[waving monkey]

You're right it is but have you noticed that both of those teams have college coaches. The significance of that is that in college you will probably change qbs every 2 years or so. Even if they have a manning or rogers he's not there for 10 years so they cant just hitch their wagon to the outstanding qb, they have to build a strong team.

I just think that paying elite qb money, no matter who the qb is, is going to weaken your team somewhere else.

I felt the Raven should've let Flacco walk after the super bowl.

its serious money and Jones seems snake bit with his later contracts
we will ride the Romo pony for three years and in two we'll draft a new one is my guess
if the stars eligne we get a John Elway type finial

 

[Austin 3-16]

The contract is not the biggest issue. Its Tony bad back. As long as Antonio stays healthy,we will just about get away with it.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Boy people love blowing things out of proportion. It's a four year deal in reality, if Romo continues to decline this year the team can draft a QB and have him under a rookie deal for three/four years which means Romo will have been released by the expiration of said rookie contract.

QB contracts may cripple a franchise but not having a franchise QB is worse. Let's hope Romo finds his groove.

 

[Nightman]

Boy people love blowing things out of proportion. It's a four year deal in reality, if Romo continues to decline this year the team can draft a QB and have him under a rookie deal for three/four years which means Romo will have been released by the expiration of said rookie contract.

QB contracts may cripple a franchise but not having a franchise QB is worse. Let's hope Romo finds his groove.

Denver, NO, New England, Baltimore, Green Bay, Atlanta, SanFran, Cincy and SD all have expensive QBs and don't appear to be crippled. Romo's contract is right in line with the others.

 

[RS12]

just stating the numbers

we will never win with ROMO

I came to that conclusion years ago.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

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

Anyone remember Randy Galloway was his biggest fan boy and rubbed it in he could have signed with the Cowboys until he "found" Romo in a manger?

 

[Soth]

Denver, NO, New England, Baltimore, Green Bay, Atlanta, SanFran, Cincy and SD all have expensive QBs and don't appear to be crippled. Romo's contract is right in line with the others.

I know, but my question is about risk of injury. Romo is not the same QB now than he was prior to the injury. What are teams supposed to do if you hand your QB $50m guaranteed and he gets injured in years 2-4. You have to take a HUGE hit with the dead money. That is what I mean when I said "crippling a franchise". Sure, if you give $100m to a QB in decline, then that's your problem. But nobody can predict injuries. Seems to me like teams take a huge risk giving big contracts to these vet QBs. Maybe the only way to be safe is to use young QBs in their rookie contracts or leaving enough cap space to deal with these types of situations. We have definitely failed to do the latter.