Texans pay Watt 10%. they are damn good. Cardinals pay Patrick Peterson 10% they are damn good. Cowgirls pay Dez Bryant. They are a good team.
Yeah the the financials are ridiculous. I think year 2 would be like $18m and the next year is like $22m
One thing that really good teams do is to let players go when they are not cost-effective. For some teams it's a year early instead of a year late. For some teams it's organizational discipline about containing the impact of contracts in certain areas of the field. For some teams it's about trading good veteran players before they hit 30 when they seem like they're at peak value. All really good teams have a plan and they don't deviate from it unless a huge talent comes their way at a position of need. Of all the team drafting from 21 onwards only the Texans and Chiefs had a player not at QB making as much as Mo is said to asking. Of all the teams drafting from 21 onwards there were only 9 players making what Mo is asking and 7 of them were QB's. I'm adding Tom Brady to the list despite the Pats not having a 1st round pick and not adding Brock Osweiler because he wasn't making that much last season. Justin Houston, one of the two players not at QB, is a questionable add to the list because although he is averaging close to $17M a year the deal was just signed last year and his cap number last year was $5.1M. History suggests that the Chiefs will have trouble carrying his much higher cap figures moving forward. Basically, the NFL results tell us that paying a non-QB 10%+ of your cap is a losing proposition unless you also have a QB making that amount. Nothing is going to change that fact. Signing Mo to a huge deal right now is locking in a 9 or 10 win ceiling until that deal is up and we'll have some bad years in there also. I do think the salary cap should have a location adjustment built into it to reflect local and state taxes. I don't think teams should be hindered in making offers because their locality has a higher tax rate than other areas. You can argue that a COLA should be included also but I'd be satisfied if the next CBA just recognized that a player playing in the NY/NJ metro area is paying about 10% more in taxes than a player playing in Miami.
maybe. but we'll see. I bet they end up in the playoffs again this year. "damn good" is a subjective term anyway but I think back to back playoff appearances would qualify them if they do deliver on my guess
I'd pay the guy market value for a 2x All-Pro 3-4 DE in his prime Seems like Wilk wants too much and we are low-balling....hopefully they can find the middle ground
They are in an awful division though and were pretty much the team every other AFC team wanted to play (for good reason). But, yeah, they are respectable.
market value for a 2X all-pro 3-4 DE in his prime is a lot though. possibly "too much." Marcell Dareus: 2x all-pro 3-4 DE in his prime: 6 years, 100 million, 60 mill guaranteed. like it or not, that's market value now and probably what Wilkerson is asking for if he's smart.
Well if that's what it is, I'd pay it We aren't going to be paying a QB from the looks of it for a while unless we luck into an established franchise QB soon somehow so we can afford it.....We have a ton of space next season as well and Wilk is a perfect player for our team in every way
Texans are not damn good. They went 9-7 last year and that's their ceiling since signing the Watt deal 2 years ago. Cardinals have a QB making more than Peterson. Cowboys suck and they have a QB making more than Dez Bryant.
I've been singing the same song since the Revis holdover days. [And I've been told I am dumb and stupid for such a ludicrous claim. One such poster happened to be a Revis fanboy. I don't know what he's doing these days - haven't seen him on the forum for some time now.] Paying 10% of the cap of the salary to a non-QB is a losing proposition if your goal is to contend deep into the playoffs consistently. After QBs, essentially every roster spot will get an average of 5m/yr. Your job as a GM is to move that around to fit in the structure, but know that if you shell out 10% of that pie to one player, the rest will have to take that much less. [Less than 5m/yr average, mind you.]
Want me to go through the list of non qb players that have made 15 million a year or more and contributed massively to a playoff contender... very large list... like Larry Fitzgerald, JJ Watts, Von Miller will this year... as will Justin Houston... your statement is false... you pay your people. That's how it works.
The goal is to keep supreme talent, not get rid of it.....someone's giving our homegrown talent a ton of money and we don't even have a QB so why not us? You can always shift money around and make things work....Wilk is worth it to pay market value, not overpay
Survey says 12-4 in 2014 with 3 straight 8-8's before that. They're not very good with Romo healthy. They have a chance to be very good but historically a healthy Tony Romo has been worth 6 to 8 wins. The last season before 2014 in which they were above .500 was 2009.
Wilkerson will be here this year and at least franchised and traded next year. No doubt about it... if the Jets play like shit this year he maybe traded before the deadline. If not then a long term contract will be reached.
Point to the team that has been successful over time doing what you are suggesting. Even then Mo is not supreme talent, he's a very good 3-4 DE.
I don't necessarily disagree with you guys on paying Wilkerson. If fact if we let him walk it might be the right decision. I just would rather hear the argument for NOT paying Muhammad Wilkerson himself 10% of the cap vs. a blanket statement about any non-QB. I don't agree with that argument as a principle. The thing is- if we're ever going to get that great, proverbial "franchise" QB that we all want and need its going to come through the draft, which would be cheap anyway. These players don't come available in FA. So basically what I'm saying is- What has paying Darrelle Revis 10% our cap even cost us? A shot at Brock Osweiler? oh heavens! If and when we ever get a damn good QB, obviously I would say let Wilkerson walk to pay the QB, easy decision. If we had a QB right now that we knew is going to cost us some money in a year or two to keep, obvious no brainer, you let Wilkerson walk. But we don't have either, we dont have either even on the horizon. So what would paying a player like Wilkerson or Revis that much money cost us? some replaceable players? a shot at a Brock Osweiler? a chance at overpaying Ryan Fitzpatrick? who cares
Yeah, but they weren't the same team for those three 8-8 seasons that they were in 2014. Teams evolve. They arguably have the best offensive line in football with a (top 5?) WR and a top 5 QB. As currently constructed, they are very good and probably the best team in their division, assuming Romo can stay healthy (which, admittedly, is a huge if)
