Trevor Lawrence gets PAID

For all non-Bears happenings in the National Football League

Moderator: wab

RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2024 12:17 pm
dplank wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2024 11:16 am Woof, this is brutal and speaks directly to my narrative point

When Acho was talking about Justin's lack of anticipation last year (sorry TMP) and inability to read a defense, was that just a media narrative?

Anything bad ever about Fields was just a narrative to some
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2024 8:26 am
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Sat Jun 15, 2024 5:42 pm Am i the lone Trevor Lawrence defender around here? He was running for his life last year and played through a couple bad injuries. He didnt even miss a game with a high ankle sprain. He's still coming along, and really guilty of playing too much hero ball, but I agree with Florio's take that they're saving money in the long run by not waiting til after the next round of QB contracts (tua/love/dak).
I'm sure this comes off as an attack, it's not meant to be one at all. But this is just wildly inconsistent IMO. Lawrence's stats are almost EXACTLY D. Jones stats, but you think he sux and Lawrence is good? There's zero argument that Jones has had a better support cast than Lawrence, so how is this justified? The inconsistency of it is really something. I thought Jones was an overpay, I think Lawrence is an overpay - but those pesky narratives persist, remarkable.

I'll leave out the obvious JF1 stuff also, a guy who you gave no quarter to and could claim these exact same circumstances and then some - right down to the "he's still developing" and "too much hero ball" comments.

To me, this is the power of narrative showing itself. The media got behind the golden boy and some folks just have that stuck in their heads and that's that, actual performance be damned. Meanwhile Jones came in with a lot of question marks, so when he produces poorly it's an automatic "he sux" mindset. It's really something.
You really have to lean on his Rookie Year though to make it a real comparison though. You kind of just need to ignore 2022 and 2023 (the supposed "bad" year that would be the best year ever for a Chicago QB)

It's basically just cherrypicking to even make it a thing. It's foolhardy

I do like the argument that Lawrence has this AWESOME supporting cast around him - That can show all the Bias in one sentence that way. Christian Kirk?!?!? Wowzers. He's competing for 4th WR on our team
HurricaneBear
Head Coach
Posts: 2483
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am
Has thanked: 2501 times
Been thanked: 491 times

RichH55 wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:57 am
HurricaneBear wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 3:01 pm I think the Lions go and make the stupidest QB move of the off-season and then the Jags go and do this.

Why? Was he holding in? Threatening to? Why now?
The price tag tends to go up not down - Plus looks like some Paper Numbers (https://www.dallascowboys.com/news/mick ... hey-willie)

It is 4th highest in Guarantees though ( But right now its Goff for that deal)

People who think Lawrence has been "bad" are being willfully ignorant
I think the worst QB to have is the good but not elite one that gets paid like he's elite. Aka a Kirk Cousins. A guy who will put up numbers and make you want to keep him but will never get you over the top. How does a GM cut that guy? Half the fan base would revolt. But when you get to the playoffs, your gonna lose to a team with a great defense, a great QB or both.

With that said, I think this is a dumb move because Lawrence hasn't shown enough to warrant that kind of money. If it was the last year of his deal it would be slightly more understandable. But it's not. He should have absolutely been asked to prove it this year. It makes no sense at all, at least to me.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8170
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 360 times

It's the NFL. It is what owners do these days, throw money at QBs. Bears seem to be the only smart team out there, they didn't throw huge $$ at their middling QB. They got rid of him.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7586
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 1166 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
Just so I understand then, if we're purely looking at stats to determine how good a player is, ignoring all other context that comes along with a sport as complicated as football, then you'll agree that Daniel Jones is better than Justin Fields? Higher Completion percentage, higher yards per game, higher td's per game, lower INT%, higher QBR.

Honest question, help me understand.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:29 am
dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
Just so I understand then, if we're purely looking at stats to determine how good a player is, ignoring all other context that comes along with a sport as complicated as football, then you'll agree that Daniel Jones is better than Justin Fields? Higher Completion percentage, higher yards per game, higher td's per game, lower INT%, higher QBR.

Honest question, help me understand.
Right now? Yes. Which is consistent with my take that I would not have paid Fields the contract they gave Jones. I don't think the Giants should have paid Jones that money. And I don't think the Jags should have paid Lawrence that money. None of the 3 deserved it. Fields was the only one that didn't get it and the Bears were the only one IMO that made the right decision.

Second point, when I look at stats I don't cherry pick them. I look at the whole body of work, which for a player like Fields includes rushing obviously. Dishonest people like to create false narratives by stripping those stats away to make a more extreme view to support their position. While you can compare Lawrence/Jones with the stats I posted, you can't compare Fields in the same way - they are just different players and so the comp would need to be adjusted to include the other half of his game if you want to be real about it.

That said, even when you layer in the rushing numbers, Fields still falls short of where he needs to be to justify a 40M pay day and I've never said otherwise. All I said was I'd keep him for 6M and see if he gets better, and I've even come off that since then. And I'd have no issue with D. Jones or Lawrence on a 6M pay check either. But none of the three deserved big deals, and that's where the issue lies for me.

Now I'd like to hear you address your hypocrisy (as I see it) on this, why are the same circumstantial excuses that you put forward for Lawrence ok while none of that mattered one iota to you when Fields - like, literally the exact same excuses the Fields supports were arguing for the last year+ and you swatted away as meaningless.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7586
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 1166 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:52 am
Rusty Trombagent wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:29 am

Just so I understand then, if we're purely looking at stats to determine how good a player is, ignoring all other context that comes along with a sport as complicated as football, then you'll agree that Daniel Jones is better than Justin Fields? Higher Completion percentage, higher yards per game, higher td's per game, lower INT%, higher QBR.

Honest question, help me understand.
Right now? Yes. Which is consistent with my take that I would not have paid Fields the contract they gave Jones. I don't think the Giants should have paid Jones that money. And I don't think the Jags should have paid Lawrence that money. None of the 3 deserved it. Fields was the only one that didn't get it and the Bears were the only one IMO that made the right decision.

Second point, when I look at stats I don't cherry pick them. I look at the whole body of work, which for a player like Fields includes rushing obviously. Dishonest people like to create false narratives by stripping those stats away to make a more extreme view to support their position. While you can compare Lawrence/Jones with the stats I posted, you can't compare Fields in the same way - they are just different players and so the comp would need to be adjusted to include the other half of his game if you want to be real about it.

That said, even when you layer in the rushing numbers, Fields still falls short of where he needs to be to justify a 40M pay day and I've never said otherwise. All I said was I'd keep him for 6M and see if he gets better, and I've even come off that since then. And I'd have no issue with D. Jones or Lawrence on a 6M pay check either. But none of the three deserved big deals, and that's where the issue lies for me.

Now I'd like to hear you address your hypocrisy (as I see it) on this, why are the same circumstantial excuses that you put forward for Lawrence ok while none of that mattered one iota to you when Fields - like, literally the exact same excuses the Fields supports were arguing for the last year+ and you swatted away as meaningless.
Justin Fields averages 6.2 yards a rush while daniel jones averages 5.8. They're actually remarkably similar rushers at the end of the day.

But regarding Justin vs Trevor, they're different players. It's actually really easy to evaluate them differently. Justin's problem is always going to be Justin's problem, he is horrible at anticipating throws, and generally just wont throw to the middle of the field unless someone has no defender within 10 yards. This has been relitigated to death, I dont want to talk about Justin in a thread about Trevor, but you brought it up.

That isnt Trevor's game! They're different players with different strengths and weaknesses!

I guess, at the end of the day, we're getting different kinds of enjoyment out of football. I love the complexity of the game, and enjoy watching all NFL teams, not just the Bears. So I get that I'm getting something different out of football. As long as everyone is enjoying what they're watching, we're all happy!
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

I brought up the blatant hypocrisy is all, the logic is simple (unless I've misunderstood your stance on Jones).

1. You like the Trevor Lawrence deal but disliked the Daniel Jones deal, despite their performance being almost identical. That's the weird thing I'm still trying to understand.
2. Then when asked about that simple headscratcher, you threw out the exact same excuses for Lawrence that you dismissed when people made those excuses for Fields. That's where it gets weirder and seems like more personal hate for a particular player.

And so I'd like to hear your straight forward answer to that, which you haven't given. I gave you an answer to your challenge and didn't sidetrack it, I said very clearly that Fields wasn't worth Jones contract, Jones wasn't worth Jones contract, and Lawrence wasn't worth his contract. Perfectly simple and consistent. No need to dive into patting ones balls, or ANTICIPATION, or whatever word salad you want to distract with - just a simple answer that doesn't conflict with itself. JMO but I think a lot of the hate people had for Justin was because he was OUR failure - but when we see other failures they don't hurt as much. My post isn't a defense of Fields, it's seeking an honest answer to the double standard that is plainly seen here. A simple direct answer like I gave would be awesome.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying as you say...to understand what looks like 2 significant conflicts of thought.

I find it very hard to believe that if Lawrence was a Bear, and he busted out an 88 QB rating and had 21 Turnovers last year that you'd be happy that we signed him to an extension - a year ahead of any need to do so - that pays him more than Patrick Mahomes - that you would be happy about that. And when I say very hard, I mean VERY hard to believe.
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 227 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
Well, you can't just go by stats, but I get your question. And the answer is both deals are bad. The Jones deal, IMHO, was flat-out crazy, but the Lawrence deal makes a little more sense. Yeah, the video was right--Lawrence is getting paid because of what he did at Clemson. But what he did at Clemson was A LOT.
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Heinz D. wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:39 pm
dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
Well, you can't just go by stats, but I get your question. And the answer is both deals are bad. The Jones deal, IMHO, was flat-out crazy, but the Lawrence deal makes a little more sense. Yeah, the video was right--Lawrence is getting paid because of what he did at Clemson. But what he did at Clemson was A LOT.
This was my take also - both deals were bad.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
You got the pure spin part right.

Just missing who is doing the spinning.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:40 pm I brought up the blatant hypocrisy is all, the logic is simple (unless I've misunderstood your stance on Jones).

1. You like the Trevor Lawrence deal but disliked the Daniel Jones deal, despite their performance being almost identical. That's the weird thing I'm still trying to understand.
2. Then when asked about that simple headscratcher, you threw out the exact same excuses for Lawrence that you dismissed when people made those excuses for Fields. That's where it gets weirder and seems like more personal hate for a particular player.

And so I'd like to hear your straight forward answer to that, which you haven't given. I gave you an answer to your challenge and didn't sidetrack it, I said very clearly that Fields wasn't worth Jones contract, Jones wasn't worth Jones contract, and Lawrence wasn't worth his contract. Perfectly simple and consistent. No need to dive into patting ones balls, or ANTICIPATION, or whatever word salad you want to distract with - just a simple answer that doesn't conflict with itself. JMO but I think a lot of the hate people had for Justin was because he was OUR failure - but when we see other failures they don't hurt as much. My post isn't a defense of Fields, it's seeking an honest answer to the double standard that is plainly seen here. A simple direct answer like I gave would be awesome.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying as you say...to understand what looks like 2 significant conflicts of thought.

I find it very hard to believe that if Lawrence was a Bear, and he busted out an 88 QB rating and had 21 Turnovers last year that you'd be happy that we signed him to an extension - a year ahead of any need to do so - that pays him more than Patrick Mahomes - that you would be happy about that. And when I say very hard, I mean VERY hard to believe.
Points for getting word salad wrong.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:29 am
dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 9:13 am I'd like to understand how people can rip on Daniel Jones deal and defend this one when their stats have been nearly identical. Either both are good or both are bad, anything else is pure spin.
Just so I understand then, if we're purely looking at stats to determine how good a player is, ignoring all other context that comes along with a sport as complicated as football, then you'll agree that Daniel Jones is better than Justin Fields? Higher Completion percentage, higher yards per game, higher td's per game, lower INT%, higher QBR.

Honest question, help me understand.
There's not going to be an answer here - in case you were waiting
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12742
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1390 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Why?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:40 pm I brought up the blatant hypocrisy is all, the logic is simple (unless I've misunderstood your stance on Jones).

1. You like the Trevor Lawrence deal but disliked the Daniel Jones deal, despite their performance being almost identical. That's the weird thing I'm still trying to understand.
2. Then when asked about that simple headscratcher, you threw out the exact same excuses for Lawrence that you dismissed when people made those excuses for Fields. That's where it gets weirder and seems like more personal hate for a particular player.

And so I'd like to hear your straight forward answer to that, which you haven't given. I gave you an answer to your challenge and didn't sidetrack it, I said very clearly that Fields wasn't worth Jones contract, Jones wasn't worth Jones contract, and Lawrence wasn't worth his contract. Perfectly simple and consistent. No need to dive into patting ones balls, or ANTICIPATION, or whatever word salad you want to distract with - just a simple answer that doesn't conflict with itself. JMO but I think a lot of the hate people had for Justin was because he was OUR failure - but when we see other failures they don't hurt as much. My post isn't a defense of Fields, it's seeking an honest answer to the double standard that is plainly seen here. A simple direct answer like I gave would be awesome.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying as you say...to understand what looks like 2 significant conflicts of thought.

I find it very hard to believe that if Lawrence was a Bear, and he busted out an 88 QB rating and had 21 Turnovers last year that you'd be happy that we signed him to an extension - a year ahead of any need to do so - that pays him more than Patrick Mahomes - that you would be happy about that. And when I say very hard, I mean VERY hard to believe.
Yes- if Lawrence were a Bear -We would probably overall be happy about the deal and the progression. Remember there are people here who still hold out hope for Fields - and he's not good at QB. So actually having a guy who can play?!?! What a concept (We are going to be very happy when we get to throw money at Caleb IMHO)

But they'd be noting - Reality too - The number of people noting that Christian Kirk is more Cromulent than Excellent - would be legion. Compare that with people making a case (when they dislike Lawrence) that the Jags have some sort of GREAT supporting case (What?)

It would be a QB coming off back to back 4000 Yard Seasons. Who had the worst situation of any QB his Rookie season in the Last 20 Years (mainly due to Urban Meyer)

Was flat out really good his 2nd year. Team that picked him #1 for a reason (they sucked) makes the Playoffs and Wins a Playoff game (*)

(*) I'm sure we wouldn't like a QB that did that when he was basically the main reason for it, right?

And last year he again throws for 4000+ while dinged up - Probably ZERO points awarded for playing through a High Ankle Sprain right?

Can't imagine anyone would point out that before the injuries (especially the Ankle Sprain) that they were:
8-3. Cruising to the division - On Pace for 4500+ Yards passing and only 10 INT

And that Half Lawrence's INT came after the injury in limited games (4 games)

Can't imagine anyone would point that out.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

We'd also probably LOOK at the contract too. Weird. While the whole PAID MORE THAN MAHOLMES !!! thing is fun - It's also misleading

It is still 4th highest in QB guarantees - this is a fair point (By this time next year

But also:
"These are the salary cap hits in the coming years for Lawrence:

2024: $15.03 million
2025: $17 million
2026: $24 million
2027: $35 million
2028: $47 million
2029: $78 million
2030: $74.84 million (Two void years after 2030 for Cap purposes too)
The Jaguars have an out after the 2028 season, when the deal would leave no dead cap money. In other words, they won’t be paying Lawrence if he falls short of expectations and the Jaguars let him go."

2029 and 2030 have $50 and $53 Base Salaries respectively that are NOT guaranteed



QB AAV Based on Practical Guarantees

Lamar Jackson, $51.8M
Jared Goff, $48.4M
Deshaun Watson, $46M
Patrick Mahomes, $45M
Kirk Cousisn, $45M
Joe Burrow, $43.8M
Dak Prescott, $42M
Jalen Hurts, $41.6M
Daniel Jones, $41M
Justin Herbert, $40.9M
Trevor Lawrence, $40.4M
Matthew Stafford, $38M
Kyler Murray, $36.5M
Derek Carr, $33M
Josh Allen, $32.9M
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 697 times
Been thanked: 679 times

dplank wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 1:28 pmWhy?
You know why, @dplank.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

thunderspirit wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:34 pm
dplank wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 1:28 pmWhy?
You know why,
Oh cmon - I take down bad takes - I also post in most threads (for the football ones at least)

If someone posts a ton - they are statically more likely to get a reply.

If someone posts something foolhardy like Trevor Lawrence is bad - they are definitely more likely to get a reply. Thunder - simple question: Do you think Trevor Lawrence is good or bad?

Also - if I happen to disagree with someone alot - When I DO agree with them - I try to go out of my way to quote them to acknowledge that

But sure keep being hung up on Fields Thunder - I am sorry I was correct there almost 100%. Sucks for everyone
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

I hate this thread.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

Teams simply panic when it comes to the QB spot.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:29 pm Teams simply panic when it comes to the QB spot.
This doesn't seem like panic though

There is A LOT of upside built into this contract for the Jags.

It's only panic if you have a fatwa against Lawrence and want to compare him to Daniel Jones - Which no one should really be doing.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9015
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 1089 times
Been thanked: 1500 times

dplank wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 1:28 pmWhy?
Does it feel like this to you too?

Image
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

RichH55 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:18 am
Arkansasbear wrote: Mon Jun 24, 2024 2:29 pm Teams simply panic when it comes to the QB spot.
This doesn't seem like panic though

There is A LOT of upside built into this contract for the Jags.

It's only panic if you have a fatwa against Lawrence and want to compare him to Daniel Jones - Which no one should really be doing.
Pretty much every QB who is a starter gets overpaid as teams panic IMO. The percentage of the cap these guys are taking up hinders teams ability to fill out the roster.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 am
RichH55 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:18 am

This doesn't seem like panic though

There is A LOT of upside built into this contract for the Jags.

It's only panic if you have a fatwa against Lawrence and want to compare him to Daniel Jones - Which no one should really be doing.
Pretty much every QB who is a starter gets overpaid as teams panic IMO. The percentage of the cap these guys are taking up hinders teams ability to fill out the roster.
Ark did you really delve into the contract?

There is 100+ million that are basically team options with no guarantees attached. https://overthecap.com/player/trevor-lawrence/9465

His Cap % by year (Note: this is more than a bit unfair since at the end - if it goes absolute tits up has some dead money to it)
5.6%
6.5%
8.5%
11.1% (2027)

Those % aren't killing the Jags
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30190
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 2168 times

If the Bears have success with Williams, I think more teams will follow the Bears model and start giving up on highly drafted QB's before they have to dish out big money for average performances.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

RichH55 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 pm
Arkansasbear wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 am

Pretty much every QB who is a starter gets overpaid as teams panic IMO. The percentage of the cap these guys are taking up hinders teams ability to fill out the roster.
Ark did you really delve into the contract?

There is 100+ million that are basically team options with no guarantees attached. https://overthecap.com/player/trevor-lawrence/9465

His Cap % by year (Note: this is more than a bit unfair since at the end - if it goes absolute tits up has some dead money to it)
5.6%
6.5%
8.5%
11.1% (2027)

Those % aren't killing the Jags
Looking at that, I have no idea what going on. What is the option? Why would there be team options in void years? If the guys is gone he's not getting that, right?
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:09 pm
RichH55 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 pm

Ark did you really delve into the contract?

There is 100+ million that are basically team options with no guarantees attached. https://overthecap.com/player/trevor-lawrence/9465

His Cap % by year (Note: this is more than a bit unfair since at the end - if it goes absolute tits up has some dead money to it)
5.6%
6.5%
8.5%
11.1% (2027)

Those % aren't killing the Jags
Looking at that, I have no idea what going on. What is the option? Why would there be team options in void years? If the guys is gone he's not getting that, right?
It mainly matters for guarantees - though the "practical" guarantees are relatively low (relatively being a key term) for the contract

It also helps that you can walk away from 100 + million very easily
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

wab wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:18 pm If the Bears have success with Williams, I think more teams will follow the Bears model and start giving up on highly drafted QB's before they have to dish out big money for average performances.
Is having the #1 pick in a Draft with a clear cut option for the position really a model though? :D


Yes, I do get your larger point - and have advocated it in the past (On Goff and R. Wilson) - ESPECIALLY if you can get something for the QB you have - The "model" makes a ton MORE sense when you can trade the guy you are giving up on for Actually Good picks

I think SF is going to be an absolutely FASCINATING version of this
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3706
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:09 pm
RichH55 wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 pm

Ark did you really delve into the contract?

There is 100+ million that are basically team options with no guarantees attached. https://overthecap.com/player/trevor-lawrence/9465

His Cap % by year (Note: this is more than a bit unfair since at the end - if it goes absolute tits up has some dead money to it)
5.6%
6.5%
8.5%
11.1% (2027)

Those % aren't killing the Jags
Looking at that, I have no idea what going on. What is the option? Why would there be team options in void years? If the guys is gone he's not getting that, right?
I think the way Spotrac lays it out is pretty misleading, unless I'm missing something. If they pro rate each of those $35m signing bonuses and then cut at the end of 2028 they'll only have charged $138m of the $202m to the cap, so approx $70m will appear as dead money one way or another.

Now that might be a decent way of doing things. I.e. have a decent QB taking up a manageable amount of cap and then just absolutely tank one year going into a massive rebuild if it doesn't work out...
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
Post Reply