Also, people don't pay for the future in my opinion. They pay for performance now and what you have done recently. Look at Flacco when he got his contract, and Romo (course he never really did much except stats). Same could be said for Kaepernick, does anyone really think he's going to be incredible some day?
Which NFL player is worth the highest salary?
- Thread starter Prime Time
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
I hope your right for two reasons:
1. his contract cripples the Shithawks ability to sigh FA's
2. watching his demise will be that much sweeter. and it will happen.
The Colts went from 0-2 to making the the playoffs 2 years after Luck was drafted. That's proven.
Let us compare Luck's 2013 and Rodgers 2012 seasons (Rodgers was hurt in 2013).
stats Luck Rodger
completions 343, 371
Percent 60, 67
Yards 3,822, 4,295
Rodgers is better, but Luck isn't too far behind. Rodgers has been in the nfl for 6 more years, he should be better. Lets just agree to disagree, because its obvious neither of us will change our minds.
Last edited:
Than why did they have to implement a rookie wage scale if these teams, in your opinion, don't pay for the future?
Whose to say Luck won't play 16 more years, he's only 24 years old. The point is Luck is improving rapidly and should catch up to Rodgers very quickly. Luck has been in the nfl for 2 seasons, Rodgers has been in it for 9 years. Rodgers should be better.
Wait, you just mentioned "proven". Now you're circling back around on your own argument of proven-ness (pretty sure that's not a word lol) vs. potential. If Luck is "proven" for taking a team to the playoffs, then I would sure think Rodgers would be as well...
And don't try to play the "Luck came to a bad team" card. They weren't bad. He came to a team that had gone to the playoffs 9 times in 10 years. The reason they were 2-14 in 2011 was because they didn't have a decent QB to play for them.
Not sure what you're getting at. The rookie wage scale lowered the price rookies were getting paid (did it not?), which would mean teams didn't want to shell out 17M a year for some unproven rookie.
So then why wouldn't you want the better QB? lol. Any given season someone can suffer a career-ending injury, so why rank players on what they might do? Yeah it's a factor, but that's like saying you'd take Blake Bortles over Tom Brady...or Andrew Luck over Tom Brady. The only argument against Tom Brady is you don't know how long he'll be around.
Warner4Prez
Hall of Fame
Well except that's essentially the way the Whiners structured Kaepernick's contract. A lot escalators and clauses to make get to his big money. For his career he's passed for just over 5,000 yards and 31 TDs, which is what Drew Brees and Peyton Manning do in a single year. I mean he's doing little more than what Alex Smith did before he got injured in 2011. Next year when they lose a couple of those key pieces as result of Kaep's big payday; things will be really entertaining.
Fair enough. But I think the "fine print" of his deal helps to prove my point about how people want performance over potential. Looking at stats only tells part of the story as well. Drew Brees and Petyon are in a completely different style of offense. By no means would I say Kaepernick has played bad the last couple years, but not great either. He has played well enough to help the team make it deep in the playoffs. The same could be said for Flacco.
Luck will be better within 3 years imo and be better for the rest of their careers.
The rookie wage scale was negotiated as part of the CBA by the NFLPA and the owners in no small part because veterans felt like they were getting shafted since the owners put all their money into unproven talent. So what I am trying to get at is, there is already a precedent for owners and FO people to pay more for unproven talent. But i guess that point more aims at the comment that "people don't pay for the future" and not towards the overall topic of Luck vs. Rodgers.
Don't you mean "there was a precedent..."? because they can't really do that anymore. A rookie can't make 17M a year no matter what, unless there's something I'm missing. Maybe a 4th or 5th year player could make that much when their rookie deal is up, but at that point they're pretty much a "veteran" and they have proven what they need to prove to earn a pay day. Not trying to be a jackass, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say haha.
Guess we'll find out, only time will tell. FWIW, I don't think Luck would fare near as well if you put him in a different division. The AFC South has been pretty crummy lately.
No worries, I understand what you are getting at. But your reasoning for why the rookie wage scale is different then mine. Teams (meaning front office decision makers) didn't mind paying 17 mil for the future, the rookie wage scale came more from the NFLPA and vets not deeming it fair that unproven talent got paid before they did, so they negotiated the wage scale into the CBA. I look at the wage scale being put in place by the NFLPA, whereas you are looking at GMs and owners wanting that scale to be put there. I guess it may be a mixture of both now thinking about it, which really doesn't help my point.
But, my point was that teams are still willing to go all in on future projections. In this hypothetical (and impossible) situation Luck is on the open market as a 3rd year player and would most definitely still command that type of money, if you did this last year as he was in his 2nd year he would have commanded that type of money do you agree?
If you do, that proves that teams will indeed pay for the future.
Yeah I'm looking at it from the perspective of a veteran who thinks it was unfair to pay an unproven rookie more than an established veteran. I don't understand who would want to do that but opinions obviously differ.
And yes, I'm sure Luck would bring loads of money as a free agent, but I still don't think teams would offer more for him than for Rodgers. If I want to win a game right now I want Rodgers on my team.
fearsomefour
Legend
What a silly argument. If Luck and Rodgers were free agents at the same time, which got more money would be defined by which signed first. The other would make it easy for teams to set his price by pointing at the first's contract and saying "add ten percent." See Sherman and Haden.
In time yes. But as the article said, Luck isn't anywhere near being worth the highest paid player in the NFL. Still holds an incredibly average completion rate and still turns the ball over way more than you want with his TD rate.
I consider 2012 as Bradford's REAL sophomore year (because, let's face it, Spags fucked Bradford up in 2011 and Sam had no business playing even the 10 games he finished starting.) Luck's year last year wasn't much better than Sam's year in 12'. Luck's probably above average right now, but he has no business being in the elite QB category yet.
Megatron is definitely the bet.
Rodgers is the best QB in the game still. And he's done it all behind one of the worst o-lines in the league. At least, it certainly seems that way. Always seems like he's getting sacked multiple times a game with no time.