The Foolishness of Big Contracts after Age 30

[DFWJC]

So when a QB turns 32 he should just retire?

Yeah...just hang them up: Brady, Brees, P Manning, E manning, Roethlisberger (march), Romo, etc.

 

[noshame]

Do you think when Kurt Warner's Cards lost a few years ago it had anything at all to do with his play? He had one of the best SB performances in years.

Do think Peyton Manning, Brees, Eli Manning, Roethlisberger and Brady are all good enough to lead their teams to a Super Bowl right now? I sure do. They would all be 32 or older.

I just listed many of the game's best QBs and you fail on every one of them.

Based on what you think? They aren't there are they.

 

[DFWJC]

Based on what you think? They aren't there are they.

Well, that IS what I said. You even bolded it....so what are you cracking yourself up about?


Hey, if you don't think Tom brady, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Peyton manning are not good enough to win another Super Bowl......I'd say you're outnumbered about 10 million to 1.
But feel free to have you independence!

 

[Ultra Warrior]

Here you go...last 13 Super Bowl winners. See any quarterbacks older than 32?

Kurt Warner- 28
Trent Dilfer- 28
Tom Brady- 24
Brad Johnson- 34 <~ This one?
Tom Brady-26
Tom Brady-27
Ben Roethlisberger-23
Peyton Manning-30
Eli Manning- 27
Ben Roethlisberger - 26
Drew Brees - 32
Aaron Rogers - 27
Eli Manning - 31

*Ahem*

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

At that point, I just quit reading those links. It was obvious that you were googling with confirmation bias and demonstrated poor reading comprehension.

Further your OP is based off of fantasy points.

Yea that point was just silly. I didn't even feel the need to reply to that basketball comment. Big Men don't even enter their prime until they are 29 to 30 years old. MJ didn't win his first championship until he was 28 and didn't become "MJ" until about 30 or 31.

 

[T-RO]

So when a QB turns 32 he should just retire?

Have you ever heard of argumentum absurdum? What you just did...is a perfect example. In debate circles it's viewed as lame and hollow.

As has been discussed already, a declining Romo might still be better than a lot of quarterbacks. But the bigger question is...do you pay him based on how he has previously performed or on how he projects to perform.

I'd rather have 2 or 3 extra high picks, $100+ million more in the war chest than risk Romo can stay at a high level.

 

[T-RO]

*Ahem*

Exactly. There has been one out of the last 13.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Have you ever heard of argumentum absurdum? What you just did...is a perfect example. In debate circles it's viewed as lame and hollow.

As has been discussed already, a declining Romo might still be better than a lot of quarterbacks. But the bigger question is...do you pay him based on how he has previously performed or on how he projects to perform.

I'd rather have 2 or 3 extra high picks, $100+ million more in the war chest than risk Romo can stay at a high level.

In all your conjecture you have somehow convinced yourself that making this move will be successful, its a given. But no matter how good you are with the rest of the roster it all depends on the QB. I don't know how old you are but those of us who lived through the mid to late 80's and early 2000,s are a little less willing to start over and we've been damn lucky. Teams like Cleveland, Seattle, Detroit, KC, Oakland, Buffalo, Washington, Miami, the Jets have literally gone decades without a great QB.

So you're gonna blow it up and start over instead of playing out a top ten QB and pretty good surrounding talent for 3-5 years in a three point league? (remember that one foot and three inches this year?)

That's like folding with three Jacks because you really want four and you don't even wait for the draw. Good luck with that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Have you ever heard of argumentum absurdum? What you just did...is a perfect example. In debate circles it's viewed as lame and hollow.

As has been discussed already, a declining Romo might still be better than a lot of quarterbacks. But the bigger question is...do you pay him based on how he has previously performed or on how he projects to perform.

I'd rather have 2 or 3 extra high picks, $100+ million more in the war chest than risk Romo can stay at a high level.

The only thing worse than making an absurd argument is just dropping another. Your inability to refute is noted, Dr. Fantasy Google.

You're ability to understand the information that you read is terrible.

Romo is 32 going on 33. Look at the line of players that are 32 years old and then look at the percent that improves at age n+1. Think about it.

 

[T-RO]

In all your conjecture you have somehow convinced yourself that making this move will be successful, its a given. But no matter how good you are with the rest of the roster it all depends on the QB. I don't know how old you are but those of us who lived through the mid to late 80's and early 2000,s are a little less willing to start over and we've been damn lucky. Teams like Cleveland, Seattle, Detroit, KC, Oakland, Buffalo, Washington, Miami, the Jets have literally gone decades without a great QB.

So you're gonna blow it up and start over instead of playing out a top ten QB and pretty good surrounding talent for 3-5 years in a three point league? (remember that one foot and three inches this year?)

That's like folding with three Jacks because you really want four and you don't even wait for the draw. Good luck with that.

On the contrary I don't see any certainties no matter how we manage this. I concede that we could find ourselves in a quarterback-less hell, though that risk may now be declining as the draft offers a wider quarterback pool-- both traditional QBs and then the type of quarterback you'd want in a pistol offense. (This year's crop might be a dud I admit.)

Let's assume we did give Romo his 18-20 mil per year for 5 extra years...what then?
1. We would have a hermetically-sealed lid on doing anything in free agency for years. We might have to jettison a good player or two even beyond Spencer. We'd be likely drafting in the middle of each round, with no prime opportunity to reload.
2. We'd risk age-related injury and age-related decline as Romo enters mid-thirties.
3. What if Tony, against the odds, beats back Father Time, and continues to be a top 10 qb...only to witness the FO continue to be unable to put the pieces necessary around him?
4. What if we enjoy good QB play and good overall team play but the choke factor enters in... Either Tony does lay a big-game egg or the team--by failing to believe in him anymore--lays it for him?

I'm at a point where I think Romo needs a fresh start. And so does the franchise. When I look at all the possible scenarios...I think RADPLAN is the better choice.

 

[T-RO]

The only thing worse than making an absurd argument is just dropping another. Your inability to refute is noted, Dr. Fantasy Google.

You're ability to understand the information that you read is terrible.

Romo is 32 going on 33. Look at the line of players that are 32 years old and then look at the percent that improves at age n+1. Think about it.

Fuzzy if you want me to respond to you...start by having something meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

No, off the cuff, I can't think of any quarterbacks that improve after age 32.

 

[Risen Star]

Have you ever heard of argumentum absurdum? What you just did...is a perfect example. In debate circles it's viewed as lame and hollow.

As has been discussed already, a declining Romo might still be better than a lot of quarterbacks. But the bigger question is...do you pay him based on how he has previously performed or on how he projects to perform.

I'd rather have 2 or 3 extra high picks, $100+ million more in the war chest than risk Romo can stay at a high level.

You shouldn't ever pay a player for past performance. Resigning these over 30 guys is risky and something you really should look to avoid doing very often.

A franchise QB might be the exception though.

 

[T-RO]

You shouldn't ever pay a player for past performance. Resigning these over 30 guys is risky and something you really should look to avoid doing very often.

A franchise QB might be the exception though.

Trading Romo would be like amputating my favorite limb. But he's not just 30. He'll be 33 going into this next season. He would be age 34 when he starts into his next contract (or extension).

Do you really want to give Romo a 20-50% raise...a $100 million commitment when history is replete with injury and decline at that age?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy if you want me to respond to you...start by having something meaningful to contribute to the discussion.

No, off the cuff, I can't think of any quarterbacks that improve after age 32.

Ahh the blanket dismissal.

Your link says that of 24 QBs age 32, 17 or 71% of them improved at age 33.

32 24 17 7 71

Romo was 32 last year and 32 + 1 = ?

It's not my fault your reading comprehension or ability to interpret a chart sucks. You clearly do not understand the information that you are citing and that is meaningful to this discussion.

 

[DFWJC]

Trading Romo would be like amputating my favorite limb. But he's not just 30. He'll be 33 going into this next season. He would be age 34 when he starts into his next contract (or extension).

Do you really want to give Romo a 20-50% raise...a $100 million commitment when history is replete with injury and decline at that age?

As much as I think Romo is capable, this is a legit debateable topic.

I think we should extend him if it's not a preposterous contract. I mean, you pay your franchise QB if that's what you think you have. If you don't think he's good enough, well, this is not really even a thread to be involved in because the decision is totally clear. Dumb him asap.

But I can atill see the argument--assuming there's a ton to be had via trade--for not extending. That is especially true if you think in the next three years that this franchise as no chance of making a deep playoff run.
I don't think that. IF they upgrade the lines some and get better depth, I do think they can really compete in the time window

 

[T-RO]

Ahh the blanket dismissal.

Your link says that of 24 QBs age 32, 17 or 71% of them improved at age 33.

32 24 17 7 71

Romo was 32 last year and 32 + 1 = ?

It's not my fault your reading comprehension or ability to interpret a chart sucks. You clearly do not understand the information that you are citing and that is meaningful to this discussion.

In the study after age 32, only 42% improved relative to the previous season. And from that point there is decline (for the majority of quarterbacks) every single season.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

So now I guess the latest thing for these weird Romo haters to focus on is his age now... lol. I can't think of a single QB in the NFL who would be less affected by age than Romo. Everything that's great about Romo is based on non-physical abilities... from his timing, his ability to hit receivers as they come out of their breaks, his instincts in the pocket... it's all between the ears. Romo doesn't have a cannon, he's slow (ran something like a 5.00 in the 40 coming out of college) and totally non-physical. The only thing slightly physical that he relies on is his quick release, but I doubt that will ever go anywhere. I see no problem with Romo playing out a 5 year contract, taking him to 37 a la Steve Young (a player who is very comparable to Romo who threw 36 TDs at age 37).

 

[DFWJC]

So now I guess the latest thing for these weird Romo haters to focus on is his age now... lol. I can't think of a single QB in the NFL who would be less affected by age than Romo. Everything that's great about Romo is based on non-physical abilities... from his timing, his ability to hit receivers as they come out of their breaks, his instincts in the pocket... it's all between the ears. Romo doesn't have a cannon, he's slow (ran something like a 5.00 in the 40 coming out of college) and totally non-physical. The only thing slightly physical that he relies on is his quick release, but I doubt that will ever go anywhere. I see no problem with Romo playing out a 5 year contract, taking him to 37 a la Steve Young (a player who is very comparable to Romo who threw 36 TDs at age 37).

Steve Young was outrageously athletic. Really fast and mobile.

I also think you underestimate Romo's athleticsm. He's not fast, but he's pretty athletic.
I do think Romo can play many more years at a high level though....just had to say something there.

 

[T-RO]

So now I guess the latest thing for these weird Romo haters to focus on is his age now... lol. I can't think of a single QB in the NFL who would be less affected by age than Romo. Everything that's great about Romo is based on non-physical abilities... from his timing, his ability to hit receivers as they come out of their breaks, his instincts in the pocket... it's all between the ears. Romo doesn't have a cannon, he's slow (ran something like a 5.00 in the 40 coming out of college) and totally non-physical. The only thing slightly physical that he relies on is his quick release, but I doubt that will ever go anywhere. I see no problem with Romo playing out a 5 year contract, taking him to 37 a la Steve Young (a player who is very comparable to Romo who threw 36 TDs at age 37).

Romo is a very quick player with ultra-fast reflexes. If he loses that quickness or gets stiff in the hips (which happens in mid thirties) he will lose some of his ability to evade rushers.

And by the way, Super_Kazuya...did you notice my handle, T-RO? Can you guess what it stands for? If you've been around over the past 5+ years you will remember me alternatively defending or then outright celebrating Romo as a quarterback. Being called a "weird Romo hater" is just...weird.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Steve Young was outrageously athletic. Really fast and mobile.

I also think you underestimate Romo's athleticsm. He's not fast, but he's pretty athletic.
I do think Romo can play many more years at a high level though....just had to say something there.

I know that Young was a good athlete... I was comparing them as throwers though. Young didn't have a strong arm, he was similar sized to Romo, and his calling card was accuracy. The main difference was that Young actually did a lot of designed runs and was also a huge threat to score around the goal line. Tony is a good athlete -- the Romo spin itself is actually a lot trickier than it looks -- but he doesn't rely on anything that I think is going to fall off a cliff like these weird Romo haters hope. All I'm saying is that I think Tony can replicate the throwing part of Steve Young's career... I don't expect him to rush for 450 yards and 6 TDS like Young did at 37 (pretty amazing).