A good perspective of giving Tee the big money extention
|
A good perspective of giving Tee the big money extention
|
02-14-2024, 02:04 AM
(02-14-2024, 12:02 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd venture to say their paths to getting a franchise deal were not similar. We know they weren’t. Lamar’s was pretty rocky. Still got done in the end though because teams have no choice when it comes to franchise QB’s. ![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png) 
02-14-2024, 02:46 AM
(02-14-2024, 02:02 AM)007BengalsFan Wrote: 21-25 percent is not close to 31-34 percent. A 10% difference over a 2 year period of a ~280 million dollar cap is 56 million dollars. That also does not account for the loaded backend of Tee's contract to even get it to the mid 30s range that Perrotta suggested. I said they were close and they are the closest example of a highly paid trio of QB and 2 WRS. It's not that difficult, even for someone that wants to trade Tee Higgins for 2025 draft picks.
02-14-2024, 03:54 AM
(02-14-2024, 02:46 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I said they were close and they are the closest example of a highly paid trio of QB and 2 WRS. Marvin Harrison in 2007: 20 catches, 247 yards, 1 TD Marvin Harrison in 2008: 60 catches, 636 yards, 5 TDs Colts 2007: 1-and-done Colts 2008: 1-and-done 2009 when Harrison comes off the books? AFC Championship and Dallas Clark and 4th round rookie Austin Collie both put up career high in yards and 6th round 2nd year player Pierre Garcon breaks out. I'm with 007 on this Caesar, 10% isn't particularly close. That's $26m according to what's projected to be the 2025 cap, which is a ton. ____________________________________________________________
![[Image: 99q141.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/99q141.jpg) 
02-14-2024, 08:52 AM
(02-14-2024, 01:28 AM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Burrow + Chase + Higgins would eat up a much larger percentage of the cap than Manning + Harrison + Wayne. I already pointed this out in another thread: It's not that I don't like Tee Higgins, I just feel that investing into two high dollar WRs is not an efficient strategy for building a roster to maintain a championship level of play for any extended period of time. When Indy went that route, it resulted in one Lombardi and a lot of broken heartedness at losing to the Patriots in a few AFCCGs... Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations -Frank Booth 1/9/23
02-14-2024, 11:14 AM
(02-14-2024, 03:54 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Marvin Harrison in 2007: 20 catches, 247 yards, 1 TD I dont think the stats argument has any merit whatsoever. All three were paid to produce. Burrow, Chase and Tee have all missed several games and their stats impacted. Also, they did win a Super Bowl, expecting them to be SB winners, or even very successful in the playoffs every season that all 3 are highly paid should not be a consideration either. I do not find the 10% being that much of a difference maker when positions such as RB were paid much higher back then, and the WR position group salaries have exploded in today's game. The entire premise of the debate was the question, has a QB and 2 highly paid WRs won a Super Bowl? The Colts absolutely meet this criteria and the numbers are absolutely close enough percentage-wise when taking into account that the game has changed with the massive increase in WR contracts. My argument is not that we should be paying all 3 massive contracts, simply that it has been done in the past with a Super Bowl win. 
02-14-2024, 01:09 PM
(02-14-2024, 11:14 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I dont think the stats argument has any merit whatsoever. All three were paid to produce. Burrow, Chase and Tee have all missed several games and their stats impacted. 1. A highly paid trio has won a superbowl not long ago. Stafford, Kupp and Allen Robinson accounted for 38% of the 2022 rams cash spend. Let’s make this very simple: Cash is real money; cap is simply accounting. Cash is what a player will actually receive in a contract. Cap is a mechanism of compliance, a way NFL teams account for a contract over the life of the deal. 2. Comparing old Reggie Wayne to in his prime tee higgins is silly. 3. This is the last year before burrows contract hampers us. Tagging tee is the right first move. Trading or keeping him is what the team needs to decide. A year of tee, with burrow in his prime, has value. Obviously trading him has value. Extending him has value. Letting him walk for nothing has no value.
02-14-2024, 01:47 PM
(02-14-2024, 01:09 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: 1. A highly paid trio has won a superbowl not long ago. No one is comparing Higgins to Wayne in regards to ability. What are you talking about? This not a cash debate it is literally a cap discussion. This also has nothing to do with wether we should or shouldnt tag/extend Tee. The initial question was; has any team won a Super Bowl with a highly paid QB and two WRs taking up so much cap space. Good catch on the Rams assuming your numbers are correct.
02-14-2024, 01:52 PM
(02-14-2024, 08:52 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It's not that I don't like Tee Higgins, I just feel that investing into two high dollar WRs is not an efficient strategy for building a roster to maintain a championship level of play for any extended period of time. When Indy went that route, it resulted in one Lombardi and a lot of broken heartedness at losing to the Patriots in a few AFCCGs... I wouldn't have a huge issue with it if I felt Tee warranted the contract folks are talking about. Like, if the Bengals traded for Justin Jefferson, I would be all for paying both him and Chase. People get hung up on production, which is important, but lose sight of the impact a player has on the other team and their game plan. As an example, Chase's rookie year, teams wanted to play single high, load the box, and come after Burrow. The following year, teams were sitting with 2 high safeties all game because of the ridiculous number of TD bombs Chase came down with. Mixon has had one of the highest %'s of carries against light boxes. He can't do anything with them because he's washed up, but we can see how the defense is affected. Higgins doesn't bring anything to the table that dramatically affects the defense. That's why, Chase or not, I'm against paying him top end money. 
02-14-2024, 02:08 PM
(02-14-2024, 01:09 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: 1. A highly paid trio has won a superbowl not long ago.And Tampa had Brady, Evans, and Godwin in 2020. So since 2019 3 teams have derailed the KC dynasty (Rams/Bucs/Bengals) and they all had something in common. A franchise QB and 2-great WRs. I get folks want to keep throwing money at the oline, but our money may be better spent maintaining our strengths. ![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png) 
02-14-2024, 02:31 PM
(02-14-2024, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And Tampa had Brady, Evans, and Godwin in 2020. or throw draft picks at them. the 21 rams and 20 bucs were what I consider a "mercinary team" there's sometimes one of them per year that do these ridiculous signings. It shouldnt be replicated unless the team is already loaded at nearly every position, and a bunch of players are on their final year of a contract tag Higgins this year, im all for it. But I think it would be bad to sign him for a big 3+ year deal It's because you are of such profound wisdom, Frank Booth. - SunsetBengal 
02-14-2024, 02:57 PM
(02-14-2024, 01:52 PM)Whatever Wrote: I wouldn't have a huge issue with it if I felt Tee warranted the contract folks are talking about. Like, if the Bengals traded for Justin Jefferson, I would be all for paying both him and Chase. Interesting thought on trading Tee to the Vikes for JJ. Actually could be possible yah never know. Very true on how teams were affected by what Chase brought to the league and how they adapted. Chase is the WR we need to keep this just goes without saying. The top end money should be going to Chase and the trenches now that Burrow is locked up. We can draft skill players to compliment the rest.
02-14-2024, 04:46 PM
(02-14-2024, 11:14 AM)casear2727 Wrote: I do not find the 10% being that much of a difference maker when positions such as RB were paid much higher back then, and the WR position group salaries have exploded in today's game. The entire premise of the debate was the question, has a QB and 2 highly paid WRs won a Super Bowl? The Colts absolutely meet this criteria and the numbers are absolutely close enough percentage-wise when taking into account that the game has changed with the massive increase in WR contracts. The Colts in 2006 had a rookie Addai on a $2.1m/yr deal, and Dominic Rhodes on a $2.75m/yr deal. They weren't spending some magically large amount on a RB, they actually had to let their Hall of Fame RB walk that previous offseason. 10% of the cap is a huge difference, even more so when you're talking 20% to 30%. Think of it this way... you're trying to say a ~50% increase is negligible. Saying the 2006 Colts and the 2025 Bengals in this situation would be the same would be like saying Joe Burrow ($55m/yr) and Derek Carr ($37.5m/yr) are being paid basically the same. (02-14-2024, 01:09 PM)Bengalbug Wrote: 1. A highly paid trio has won a superbowl not long ago. The Rams won the SB in 2021. They were 5-12 in 2022. Allen Robinson was on the Bears when the Rams won the SB. Cash spend is pointless to compare because you're not forced to be limited in cash spend and it's always going to be a matter of "who signed a contract or extension this year" will be at the top because of signing bonuses. You are forced to be limited in cap. The accounting is more important than the real money because the accounting is what determines if you're penalized or not. ____________________________________________________________
02-14-2024, 04:58 PM
02-14-2024, 05:53 PM
(02-14-2024, 04:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Colts in 2006 had a rookie Addai on a $2.1m/yr deal, and Dominic Rhodes on a $2.75m/yr deal. They weren't spending some magically large amount on a RB, they actually had to let their Hall of Fame RB walk that previous offseason. I am not trying to say anything of the sort. You guys are spiraling down into obtuse findings, like player stats and other absolutely non relevant items. I was not referring to the Colts paying a RB, but AT THAT TIME, RBs were receiving much more then than they are today and the opposite is true of WRs. I NEVER said 50% was the same as anything. I posted the numbers exactly as Perotta stated them, as they are relatively close. These weird attempts of taking the basic premise of the debate out of context is absurd and not necessary. This started as a simple question: Has a very expensive QB and two WRs ever won a SB? The answer is yes, multiple times. Colts, Rams, Bucs
02-14-2024, 06:34 PM
(02-14-2024, 05:53 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I am not trying to say anything of the sort. If you think ~20% of the cap and ~30% of the cap are "relatively close", then yes you are saying exactly that sort. Those are vastly different. You're just hand-waving away a top-30 paid player in the NFL's worth of difference. That 10% difference in 2025 is Logan Wilson + Alex Cappa + Germaine Pratt's contracts with us.... combined. That's not "relatively close". - - - - - No it's not. Neither Stafford or Kupp were top-10 paid players at their positions in the NFL in 2021 (and the Rams traded for Stafford, so they didn't have to account for his signing bonus either). Robert Woods was technically the 10th but his contract was completely fake inflated numbers with $0 signing bonus and heavily backloaded. We're not getting Higgins or Chase to sign for $0 signing bonus and heavily backloaded so that we can cut them before we actually have to pay them, so that's not comparable either. The Bucs, Tom Brady was middle-of-the-pack in QB pay (4-way tie for 14th) and Chris Godwin was still on his 3rd round rookie deal when they won the SB in '20. ____________________________________________________________
02-14-2024, 07:23 PM
(02-14-2024, 05:53 PM)casear2727 Wrote: I am not trying to say anything of the sort. It's framing like this that makes me wonder if you're troling sometimes. Ironic, I know. The framing of this question is bad as hell. The question needs to be "Has a team ever had an expensive QB and two Expensive WRs on their payroll, and did they win a SB?" Godwin wasn't expensive when the Bucs won. Robinson, Woods, and Kupp; only one of those receivers are explosive. These comparisons are just bad and you should feel bad.
02-14-2024, 07:25 PM
(02-14-2024, 02:57 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Interesting thought on trading Tee to the Vikes for JJ. Actually could be possible yah never know. Very true on how teams were affected Would never happen. If someone is willing to take Tee's asking price with his history, they'd have no problem with paying a little extra for JJ, who has a much better history.
02-14-2024, 07:56 PM
(02-14-2024, 07:23 PM)NotBigzo Wrote: It's framing like this that makes me wonder if you're troling sometimes. Ironic, I know. I'm a troll? Lol with your rep on here that's funny. It interesting that you would call someone else's question "framing", it wasnt mine by the way. You go on to say that their question was "bad as hell", and then proceed to say it needs to be.... wait for it.... exactly what the original question referred to, an expensive QB & 2 WRs (it is assumed the WRs are expensive as well since that has been the topic of conversation for several posts). And nobody gives a sh!t if any of these receivers are explosive, that has NOTHING to do with the conversation. How do you NOT know this? These comparisons have nothing to do with ability, the conversation that you jumped into without understanding is simply large amounts of cap space taken up by a QB and 2 WRs. I kinda feel bad that you cant comprehend the conversation, maybe talk about the Cowboys some more?
02-14-2024, 08:06 PM
(02-14-2024, 06:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you think ~20% of the cap and ~30% of the cap are "relatively close", then yes you are saying exactly that sort. Those are vastly different. This was simply a reply to a question regarding a team having an expensive QB and 2 expensive WRS, this entire counter argument is not valid whatsoever. The 50% number you used earlier makes no sense to me, all of these replies by you and others comparing the playing ability of the receivers has ZERO to do with the conversation. Year 1: 9.9% difference Year 2: 9.15% difference Year 3: 0.35% difference These are similar enough to have the conversation. If you want them to be within 1-2% every year to be considered compatible, well that is your opinion but the changing emphasis of the cap and numerous other reasons over the last 17 years should be taken into account. Some variance must be allowed, in my opinon. This isnt difficult, in Perotta's example he showed:
WHY ARE YOU SAYING ALL OF THIS? (below) "Neither Stafford or Kupp were top-10 paid players at their positions in the NFL in 2021 (and the Rams traded for Stafford, so they didn't have to account for his signing bonus either). Robert Woods was technically the 10th but his contract was completely fake inflated numbers with $0 signing bonus and heavily backloaded. We're not getting Higgins or Chase to sign for $0 signing bonus and heavily backloaded so that we can cut them before we actually have to pay them, so that's not comparable either." Nobody cares about bonuses or structure, this is beyond insane. Simply cap impact. The conversation is about 3 expensive players and their impact on the cap? Has an expensive QB and 2 expensive QBs won a SB, thats it... they have. Your attempt to go down some crazy rabbit hole is beyond my understanding.
02-14-2024, 08:10 PM
(02-14-2024, 07:56 PM)casear2727 Wrote: This level of ignorance is embarrassing. The Bucs won the SB in 2020, not 2021. Godwin was on the final year of his 4yr/$3.3m rookie contract in 2020. ____________________________________________________________
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
