What would Andy's contract look like...

[BipRoberts]

(08-04-2015, 02:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: For the life of me, I will never understand the urgency shown in inking that deal a year early.  It made no sense.  You could have let him play out the final year and then franchise tagged in back to back years, for almost an identical amount of money over those three seasons.

The sad truth is they reserved themselves to extending him after year 1.  Their mind was made up after seeing a decent rookie year that they needed a fund set aside for this guy.  Not only that, they openly talked about it all the time.  They had no choice to lock him up at some point because they wouldn't shut up about needing money for it.

It's funny, I was listening to a show on ESPN radio yesterday and Russel Wilson's deal came up.  They were discussing the current rookie pay scale and the unbelievable value of a QB's rookie contarct.  Basically, they said that even if you only have a decent starter, that if he's a rookie then there is no better time "to pounce" on the opportunity to win a title.  That, because of the exorbitant cost of veteran contracts, having to pay a rookie deal leaves you with the ability to go all in and spend elsewhere.

What did we do?  We just set a bunch of money aside, unspent, and then inked Sir Oodles of Noodles as soon as we could.  

Yeah, I agree and did not get the move either.  This is a Franchise that had not won a playoff game in 24 years.  Of Course, the homers were all preaching 'Well If Andy comes out and Pulls a Flacco or Wilson (And wins a superbowl) he will cost more!

And of course...'Andy will play so much better and relaxed if he has a deal in place!'


But you know...both of those were hilarious rationals