(07-02-2016, 11:42 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure what you mean.  Are the Colts stupid for paying him so much?  Is Luck stupid for wanting so much money in a salary-cap sport and reducing the chance the rest of his team will be adequate to help him win?  Is this country stupid for making QBs so popular that they get paid absurd amounts?  Is the NFL stupid for making the passing game so protected that QBs are gods among men?

Again, it's "stupid" to give a QB a giant contract and yet every time a QB gets paid we hear people act like they are shocked.  At any rate, Luck is going to be the highest paid player until the next big contract, I assume.  I will say that it looks like Dalton's per-year salary is the lowest for actual starting QBs at $16 million, though in all fairness we did get that done after his not so pretty 2014 season, but maybe the Colts should have attempted to use 2015 as leverage against Luck.


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/quarterback/

Andy's contract is cap friendly even if he wins the Super Bowl. It maxes out at 18 million per and Luck is 18 million this year with no performance requirements, and it just zooms up after that. It is the kind of contract that cap cripples a team which is where the Joe Flacco comparison comes from. 

Glad I passed on Luck last year for my fantasy team. I understand he had injuries, but he was not very good when he did play. The Colts are counting on him to bounce back this year. Could be a $139 million mistake. I would take Dalton over him any day.

I'm not saying they should not have paid him, but that they should have looked at the structure of Andy's deal and drawn on that for Luck, namely front loading and also creative use of incentives to flatten out the cap number.

(07-03-2016, 05:47 PM)Joelist Wrote: Andy's contract is cap friendly even if he wins the Super Bowl. It maxes out at 18 million per and Luck is 18 million this year with no performance requirements, and it just zooms up after that. It is the kind of contract that cap cripples a team which is where the Joe Flacco comparison comes from. 

I get that, but is it really fair to compare Luck and Flacco's contracts to Dalton's?  Or do you think if Dalton was a SB MVP prior to getting the contract that he wouldn't have asked for more?

It is very fair to compare the contracts. Luck is not a SB MVP and has not appeared in one. He has won in the playoffs but when you look at the couple of wins they have in common being against teams literally crippled with injuries. And he has posted some of the worst games in both the regular season and postseason seen in recent history (like his 23 passer rating masterpiece against New England).

The question is about the contracts - Andy's was well thought out and not only settled a lot of money on him but did it in a way that does not cap cripple the team. Luck's contract resembles Flacco's, with a year where it isn't too onerous but rapidly becoming a major cap issue. And as we saw the Rats have had big problems for two seasons now making offseason moves because of the huge Flacco cap hit - so the Colts with a very similar deal are looking at the same problem.

(07-04-2016, 05:35 AM)Joelist Wrote: It is very fair to compare the contracts. Luck is not a SB MVP and has not appeared in one. He has won in the playoffs but when you look at the couple of wins they have in common being against teams literally crippled with injuries. And he has posted some of the worst games in both the regular season and postseason seen in recent history (like his 23 passer rating masterpiece against New England).

The question is about the contracts - Andy's was well thought out and not only settled a lot of money on him but did it in a way that does not cap cripple the team. Luck's contract resembles Flacco's, with a year where it isn't too onerous but rapidly becoming a major cap issue. And as we saw the Rats have had big problems for two seasons now making offseason moves because of the huge Flacco cap hit - so the Colts with a very similar deal are looking at the same problem.

Meh, I'm just going to remain optimistic yet skeptical on this one.  I'm not sure post-2014 Dalton was as pricey a prospect as a SB MVP Flacco or Andrew Luck, but that's just me.  Maybe Mike Brown will eventually convince a SB MVP QB to take a super team-friendly contract and I'll see the light.

(06-30-2016, 06:20 PM)Joelist Wrote: Meanwhile, back to giving Andrew Luck a Joe Flacco type deal which will kill them under the cap starting next year...

If you're referring to the post Super Bowl deal, they're actually very different in terms of cap distribution. 

Flacco's was low for a few years and ballooned to unreasonable amounts in the last few years. The idea was you get a discount early on to fill other needs and deal with the big hit later.

Luck's is fairly stable the whole life of the deal (his cap hit never strays more than $5m from the per year average).

The number gets wacky starting in 2017.

I feel like Luck has regressed since his rookie season simply because their GM is not putting a good team around him.

Luck is the kind of QB that would benefit with a AJ Green or DHopkins kind of receiver, yet all they do is draft guys who are 5'10 and run 4.3 fortys.

On top of that, they tried to fill holes by getting Andre Johnson and Gore (that didn't work out) and haven't drafted well for his protection or on defense either.

So even if Luck IS getting better, I believe the Colts as an organization have made a lot of terrible moves, detracting from his overall growth.

Throw this giant non team friendly contract on top of it, and the problem was just made bigger imo.

Something tells me that we're going to see a lot of "restructuring" that Peyton Manning seemed to do every year in Indy.

Is it a good deal for the Colts no but what were they supposed to do? You have to pay the guy or else he leaves.

(07-09-2016, 02:10 AM)J24 Wrote: Is it a good deal for the Colts no but what were they supposed to do? You have to pay the guy or else he leaves.

That's the question isn't it? Is Andrew Luck worth it? Or is your team better off just franchising him for a year whilst working up a draftee and using the huge amount of freed up cap to actually build a team?

(07-09-2016, 11:47 PM)Joelist Wrote: That's the question isn't it? Is Andrew Luck worth it? Or is your team better off just franchising him for a year whilst working up a draftee and using the huge amount of freed up cap to actually build a team?

Just wondering which QB the Colts would have selected in 2015 to take over when Luck leaves town in 2017.

wow....he's basically the highest paid QB in the league. And I agree he's not nearly that good - at least until Brees, Ben, Rodgers and Brady retire. But those guys are HOFers.

He's a winner (sort of), I'll give him that. But IMO the accuracy and decision-making is not there.

That Cutler contract is shocking and ridiculous. Otherwise I'd probably take Cam and Wilson over Luck...and possibly Dalton as far as the young crew. Maybe throw Kaepernick in there. ...That's a sad, sad list - are we heading for another ice age at QB?

(07-10-2016, 01:27 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Just wondering which QB the Colts would have selected in 2015 to take over when Luck leaves town in 2017.

Well. You know that kid from the Dakotas that nobody has actually seen looks pretty good.

Andrew Luck has never had a decent o line, defense, or running game. His receivers are meh. Last year aside, he's done a pretty good job. I think he's done the closest thing to carrying a team on his back in the NFL the last few years.

(07-10-2016, 12:12 PM)jason Wrote: Well. You know that kid from the Dakotas that nobody has actually seen looks pretty good.

There is always someone out there who could be totally good.

I wouldn't compare Luck to Osweiler, but it is interesting that the Broncos and Colts went in opposite directions during the 2015 off-season.  The Colts sold the farm to keep their QB and the Broncos let their QB get overpaid elsewhere, signed a vet QB that makes most NFL fans sick to their stomach to even imagine taking a snap for their team, and traded up to get an unknown QB who is apparently super not ready for the NFL.

Well, at least the rest of the Broncos team will look good while Sanchez shows what a bargain bin QB can do until Lynch gets thrown out there in what might look like a high-elevation version of a Browns QB.

(07-10-2016, 06:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: wow....he's basically the highest paid QB in the league.  And I agree he's not nearly that good - at least until Brees, Ben, Rodgers and Brady retire.  But those guys are HOFers.

He's a winner (sort of), I'll give him that.  But IMO the accuracy and decision-making is not there.

That Cutler contract is shocking and ridiculous.  Otherwise I'd probably take Cam and Wilson over Luck...and possibly Dalton as far as the young crew.  Maybe throw Kaepernick in there. ...That's a sad, sad list - are we heading for another ice age at QB?

Exactly. He just is not all that good. He plays in a weaker division and generally has not played top defenses a whole lot (albeit more often than Cam does) and even with that his numbers are not all that. 

(07-10-2016, 03:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There is always someone out there who could be totally good.

I wouldn't compare Luck to Osweiler, but it is interesting that the Broncos and Colts went in opposite directions during the 2015 off-season.  The Colts sold the farm to keep their QB and the Broncos let their QB get overpaid elsewhere, signed a vet QB that makes most NFL fans sick to their stomach to even imagine taking a snap for their team, and traded up to get an unknown QB who is apparently super not ready for the NFL.

Well, at least the rest of the Broncos team will look good while Sanchez shows what a bargain bin QB can do until Lynch gets thrown out there in what might look like a high-elevation version of a Browns QB.

The thing is, if you build a sound team you can if needed simply have your QB operate as a game manager and still succeed. When you hamper building the team to overpay a QB you basically put winning on his shoulders. 

(07-10-2016, 03:22 PM)Joelist Wrote: The thing is, if you build a sound team you can if needed simply have your QB operate as a game manager and still succeed. When you hamper building the team to overpay a QB you basically put winning on his shoulders. 

It worked for Trent Dilfer, that guy on Tampa Bay that I can't name, and 2015 Peyton Manning, I guess.  

Kapernick, Grossman, Hasslebeck, McNabb, and Delhomme are the only ho-hum QBs that have even made the SB in the past 12 years or so and they all lost.  I'm not saying that paying a QB $785,000,000 is the key to success BUT it also seems like winning it all with a game-manager is a bit of a pipe dream these days.

If you talk price tags, Kapernick and Wilson were both super bargains for their price when they were in the SB...until they had to get paid.