Quote
cool_hand_luke
I agree with you but I dont think you are understanding my point. Whether or not the QB gets the long term market rate deal is not the issue. The point is if the Qbs performance is deserving of the moneys received from the second contract. Teams often overpay for consistency and lack of a comparable substitute. But based solely on performance is the money well spent?
QBs deserve 45% plus of the cap easily is you go by how important they are to a team's ability to win.
Thanks for the clarification. Anyway you didn't mean the 45% number seriously, but, as of right now top qb contracts are in the 16-18% range. That 's the really big contracts, meaning the big lucrative 3rd and 4th contracts like the one Wilson just signed. That includes guys like Wilson, Roethlisberger, Ryan, and Rodgers. (Wilson plus the 3 Rs.) If a guy is cheaper than that (like Brees or Luck) it's because they signed earlier than those 4.
In terms of "overpaying," I don't know what measure there is to say definitively what a guy is worth. It seems to me the market sets that. In fact if you're paying for consistency and lack of an alternative, then since the other choice is basically no qb or a rookie, then, that sounds like it's worth it to me. Nowhere though is there an objective, real measure that says your starting qb is worth x amount based on production.
So what is "overpaying"? Sounds like what you call "overpaying" is what I call "paying."
....