Here are the numbers and links provided. Matt Ryan : Avg. Annual Salary 20.75 million http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/atlanta-falcons/matt-ryan-3983/ Tom Brady: 20.5 million http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-england-patriots/tom-brady-4619/ Aaron Rodgers : 22 million Ni http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/aaron-rodgers-3745/ Ben Roethlisberger: 21.85 million http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/ben-roethlisberger-3595/ Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
And? I don't think you understand how much each QB is making. I think you're looking at one season average salary and nothing else.
You can have that opinion, absolutely. It might even be valid, but the issue is no, you couldn't have likely gotten him for less. Because that's the going rate for QB's now, and at the time his deal was due. Timing has a lot to do with it. What was our other option? It was either letting him walk which they obviously weren't prepared to do. Or, you could go the Washington route and tag him. Kirk Cousins is a nice example. He's not performed anywhere near elite levels, or the levels of Brady, Rodgers etc, etc. He was given 21 million last year, and 24 million this year. On the franchise tag, yes. But that's in a way what sets the values here. So if you are Kirk now, you're tagged at 24m. What incentive is there for you to do a deal? Would you like the stability of long term? Absolutely. But how much money are you going to sacrifice to get that stability? He's like going to get a deal if they extend him off this tag that's going to be in the $20m range. Overpaid compared to production? Asbolutely. Overpaid? Absolutely not. That's what it costs. There's no way around that. When that deal comes due, that's the cost. The deals everyone made before Tanny's deal, help set his salary. They keep going up, it's out of control. So, when a QB comes off his rookie deal, if he's getting extended, he's automatically going to slot into this argument higher than some established elite guys. Because, the cap has increased. The tag values have increased, and that's the leverage he has. Because it's simple for the QB to say... pay me 20 million. Or tag me at 22. Or let me go. The team often has no choice but to pay. That rate increases every single year regardless of what guys like Brady, Rodgers or whoever are getting paid on deals that were done before, but nobody is going to let a QB walk out the door that they think can play. The fact of the matter is, contracts increase annually regardless of anything else. That's a given in a world where the cap is growing. Especially at the QB position. So, yes, the new deals for players who haven't proven as much are likely to exceed those "elite" guys, because those deals were done at different times, when the deals weren't as expensive. You can't slot these guys in underneath other guys on the pay scale as much as you'd like to. I agree, you should be able to look at it and go... well... we believe you're #10 in the league, so we'll pay you as #10. It doesn't work that way. The player is going to get paid at the QB position. If not with you, elsewhere. If not by an extension, you'll tag him. Why? Because you won't let a competent QB walk, and the player really has all the leverage. Even with the increased cost, the team knows it's not easy to find a replacement for a competent QB, so... they pay. Sure, by the textbook definition of overpaid... you're correct. By the NFL definition of it... I'd say you aren't, because the two realities just aren't the same. It's true, but it's not. Because that's what it's going to cost and there's no choice but to pay him.
Average annual salary throughout the contract. Tannehill is right there with the elites of the legue in terms of average compensation. However if you look at his production and level of play compared to the elites he is not even in the same ball park. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I get your point the current market value drives up the price to the point where you are overpaying someone in relation to their actual production but not in relation to what other teams would be willing to pay him. Sent from my F3111 using Tapatalk
No, he is not right up there with the elites in compensation. You don't understand the contracts. RT had the 13th best passer rating last season when you look at QB's that attempted at least 100 passes. He's being paid 14th highest in regards to average base salary.
RT's GUARANTEED average per season is just over $5 million. Brady- $14 mil Brees- $24 mil Rodgers- $10 mil Luck- $9 mil Ryan- $8 mil Newton- $8 mil Stafford- $11 mil Bradford- $11 mil Flacco- $14 mil Rivers- $9 mil Goff- $7 mil Wentz- $7 mil Mariota- $6 I could gone on and on... RT is paid average in regards to QB pay.
But, it doesn't matter what other teams are willing to pay him. If you're the team that owns the player, you dont' care about that, because you need him. You need a QB. He's your QB. Clearly the team felt the need to re-sign him, and if you think that if we didn't extend Tannehill and he hit the open market that he'd have gotten a lesser deal, I think you're fooling yourself. That's just the going rate for them. You can't change that. Hell, if Garoppollo gets traded, just wait and see the compensation for him. Is that over paying? You're damn right it is because he hasn't proven anything. But... that's what teams play for what they feel is competent QB play that can win you games. It's just the cost of doing business.
Qb's are going to command ridiculous dollars....why? THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION IN FOOTBALL!
Exactly. Production becomes an after thought a lot of the time. It's still important, sure, but ultimately if you can start, and be effective, and not completely Ray Lucas a game, you're going to get paid quite well, and more than likely get paid more than someone who's more deserving or productive elsewhere who signed 3 years before you.
Why do you continue to ignore that those deals are several seasons old, and in no way reflect the current value of QBS? You will "overpay" a QB today, because if he signs a 5 or 6 year deal, then in 3 years he'll actually be a bargain, relative to the QBS getting contracts that season.
If I remember correctly, CK's post on contract values and the cap etc. is a useful thread to probably refer to in this case as well.
The justification is very simple. What would have happened if Tannehill hadn't signed? They'd be in exactly the position the Redskins are in now - paying over the top money on one year rentals.. Every report was that Tannehill's contract was very team friendly, giving the Dolphins the option to pick up his contract on a yearly basis. If you want a contract like that as the team you can't just impose it. The price or including that language is higher salary in future years. If we didn't want that language the price would have been more guaranteed money in earlier years. Also what reason did Tannehill have for giving the team a discount? Was it Philbin's great coaching? Was it having studs like Dallas Thomas and Billy Turner keeping his jersey clean? Was it years of proven ongoing success in the system? Was it the adoration of loyal fans? Was it that no other team would be interested in his services? (The Ryan Fitzpatrick argument) Was it working with HoF caliber recievers?
What is really interesting here is the amount of guaranteed money in RTs contract, especially compared tp other under 30 QBs. In absolute numbers and percentages RT is doing far worse on guaranteed money than any other QB at his salary level, (Cousins and Palmer are effectively on rotating 1 year deals that are guaranteed for the year) How do you persuade someone to accept lower guaranteed money? I'll give you a hint it isn't done by offering them lower base salaries in the future.
guys, we have bigger issues than qb at the moment. what will Miami do on Thursday to stop the run? because if we don't get a couple defensive linemen and some LB's to plug holes, it won't be another 10 win season
Ryan will be well worth his pay if he plays like he did the 2nd half of the season. If he plays like he did in the first half then he should be cut. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok.... Should we give Ajayi credit for Ryan playing better? Or Ryan himself? Combination of both on all accounts? I agree. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These contact comparisons are useless. Leaving aside the insight in the 'capflation' thread, there are so many factors that go into contract figures year on year that making direct comparisons is almost always useless. Can someone be overpaid? Absolutely. But that's always a reflection of the how the individual team's expenditures are managed and the results they get from their players. Comparing contracts across teams, and especially across years, is just a good way to breed dissatisfaction. Nothing else.
Sure. Ajayi should get some credit. So should other offensive players who finally started being able to execute the playbook. All of that could easily make a QB look better than he had earlier in the season, even if that QBs play wasn't significantly different than in the beginning. The preceding sentence is an HYPOTHETICAL example, not a statement about Tannehill.
I don't think Ryan played any better during the second half compared with the first half. Other than the TN and Baltimore games, he had a great season.
I guess some people are forgetting that our offense instantly improved the second Dallas Thomas and Billy Turner were no longer on the field. It's almost as if the line had been the problem all along....and that those same people who forgot about that change had been arguing for quite awhile the line wasn't really the problem.
Not sure what you guy's watch on Sundays, but there was a CLEAR change in the way he played QB. And the Bengals game was the worst Ive ever seen him look, even worse than Baltimore. Better surroundings, comfort in the system, competent coaching....you can make a case for all of it. But Ryan personally played at a much higher level (even when the blocking was bad, even when Jay was bottled up) the second half of the season. To blame a QB's play solely on his Guards is quite hilarious and typical of the "whoa-is-me" mindset.
Not really. He still had a passer rating over 80, I believe. And if not for the garbage time INT it would have been close to 100. By no means am I saying he had a great game, but I didn't really see any big differences in his play.
I just didn't see it. RT, when he has good blocking, can and does play at an elite or near elite level. And frankly, other than maybe Rodgers or Wilson, no QB plays at an elite level with the same kind of blocking the Dolphins had. When the blocking is putrid his play suffers. However, I didn't see him as having some sort of magical uptick in his playing. He was probably more comfortable and relaxed in the 2nd half of the season (mainly due to the newness of the offense and better blocking) but his skills didn't really get any better. In fact, if the Dolphins had won the Seattle game I don't think anyone would say he played better in the second half of the season. Which is crazy because if not for a dropped perfectly thrown bomb, they would have won.
Kirk Cousins has absolutely played at top levels the past two years. And yes, they are overpaying due to their own lack of wanting to get a deal done, long term. His rating took a slight dip this year, but was still 8th in the league. 3rd in yardage, 3rd in YPA. Nobody thought he'd repeat a great year and he did. Redskins are dumb for not signing him after last year.
His arm talent is what it is, he's always had that. But in that 2nd half you saw him move quite well in the pocket alluding rushers, making plays and throwing with confidence under fire. Forget the first 'X' amount of games, he has NEVER looked that comfortable at the position under stress or not.
I've been in Tanny's corner the whole time, but I clearly felt he looked much more confident and in control after Ajayi's emergence. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
