Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

He got a huge pay increase. Taking less money to play for "the defending champs" would have been letting his emotions get the best of him. Seems like he made a sound and logical financial decision. 

My point though is that we don't know that he got a huge pay increase. If the Broncos were really offering $16M/year they may have been at or near Houston on guaranteed money also. Brock likely did make the best financial decision, but we can't be sure. He didn't make the best on-field choice however, we'll see how those options play out but I just hope for Brock's sake he didn't discard the Broncos offer because he was angry about being benched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Will he need that next contract though?

Think of it this way. If he sucks? Well he sucks. No one's going to pay him a big money contract if that happens. So instead he's decided to take the big money contact when teams are willing to offer him one.

 

This is a sport where careers can be over in an instant and you run the risk of dealing with serious health issues when you retire. I don't blame him for making as much money as he can in as short a time as possible. You or I would do the same thing in his position. 

I'm not blaming Denver for not offering him that much money. I'm just saying Brock was smart to take it when another team did offer it.

 

Exactly right.  I didn't see him play much but what I saw certainly didn't warrant anything close to the contract he got. Unless Denver saw something over the past few years that made them think they had an Aaron Rogers / Brett Favre situation (in which case you do whatever it takes to keep him) you let him walk.  Can't blame either side.

 

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

I think the average NFL career is, what, 3 to 5 seasons? You wanna maximize your current pay as much as you can in an industry like that.

 

I think that's very misleading.  You have a lot of guys (linemen, good and even backup QBs) that play 10+ seasons averaged out against fringe guys who only play a year because they suck.  I'd like to see how many careers actually fall in the 3-5 year range.  Sure guys get hurt, but for the most part you're either good and play for a while, or suck and don't.

 

49 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

He was offered $16M by Denver.  It's not like they were half way below Houston. 

 

He took the money now, but that doesn't mean he made the right finical choice.  Denver is much better organization than Houston and would have been set up better for future pay days as well. 

 

Oh wells.  Like I said I wasn't even a fan.  Hopefully they draft Cook!!

 

You know what the difference between 16 and 18 million is?  TWO FREAKING MILLION US DOLLARS.

 

Bro - it's the NFL.  Teams have tons of money and have to spend it.  Losers like Ryan Fitzpatrick get paid.  Hell - look at Sam Bradford.  By all accounts, the Eagles under Howie Roseman (pre and post Kelly) are very fiscally sound and sign team-friendly contracts, and they gave SAM FREAKING BRADFORD $25M guaranteed.  He'll get paid whether he's in Denver or Houston or even Jacksonville.  Your point stands for players in his former situation - being a young backup on a team like Denver sets you up more than it does than being a backup on a crappy team.  But once your'e in position to get paid it simply doesn't matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kcchiefsfan said:

My point though is that we don't know that he got a huge pay increase. If the Broncos were really offering $16M/year they may have been at or near Houston on guaranteed money also.

No, we know he got a pay increase. As BBTV said, that's $2 million. That's not nothing. You want as much money as you can get as a pro football player. And Brock took the bigger contract. I don't blame him for that. Even if the competing offer was "just" $2 million less. That's $2 million less he has in his bank account when his body is beat to hell and he can't do the one thing he's good at for a living anymore.

All of that's assuming that the Broncos' offer really was that close. We don't know how much of that $16 million/year (if Denver's offer really was that high) contract was guaranteed compared to how much of Houston's $18 million/year was guaranteed. $2 million is a lot of money. The practical difference could have been even greater.

 

15 minutes ago, kcchiefsfan said:

Brock likely did make the best financial decision, but we can't be sure.

No, we can. Even if he straight up chose $18 million/year over $16 million/year (which he likely didn't)? He made the best financial decision. And I don't blame anyone for doing that if they have the opportunity. Especially in a sport as brutal and punishing as NFL football.

 

15 minutes ago, kcchiefsfan said:

He didn't make the best on-field choice however, we'll see how those options play out but I just hope for Brock's sake he didn't discard the Broncos offer because he was angry about being benched.

Given all we know about the long-term affects of playing professional football? Taking the money over a ring is probably the smart and sound decision. I would rather have a couple more million in the bank than a shiny ring if I'm beat to hell and have a brain turning to mush at the age of fifty-five.

As for being benched? I refer you to what I said above. It's not like Peyton Manning played at an elite level for that playoff run. He game managed while a monster defence stifled some of the best offences in the league. I don't know if Brock thinks he was robbed at a shot at Super Bowl glory, but I wouldn't blame him if he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, but if retiring young (and with your brain in tact) becomes a trend, then it makes even more sense to worry about your first big contract, and nothing later.

 

For all we know, some of these guys are going to play out their guarantees and then retire at 28 with $40M in the bank (but with their brains and knees still working.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Not only that, but if retiring young (and with your brain in tact) becomes a trend, then it makes even more sense to worry about your first big contract, and nothing later.

 

For all we know, some of these guys are going to play out their guarantees and then retire at 28 with $40M in the bank (but with their brains and knees still working.)

 

Exactly. 

The game hurts and take so many years off their lives.

 

Their gameplans are:

1- Accrue three seasons on an active roster to become fully vested in the pension program.

2- Get to a second contract for the bigger contract bonuses (signing, roster, offseason workout).

3- Invest in the league 401(k) plan, as it offers a annual matching contribution of up to 200% up to the IRS maximum of $53,000.  For players with four seasons or more of service, there is also a $65,000 annuity bonus.

 

Players, from those with big contracts like Calvin Johnson, to rookies like Chris Borland are doing their best to leave the game on their terms as opposed to being forced out due to age and the team's thoughts regarding their performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like Houston is some dumpster fire....they did make the playoffs last year and had a winning record, in spite of their revolving door of crap at QB.  Oswiler can't do much worse than what the Texans threw out there last year.  Nor can Oswiler do much worse than the league-lowest QB rating Peyton put out there in 2015.  He just has to be semi-competent and that should be enough for the Texans...especially with their other free agent signing of the day.

 

Plus, have you seen the crop of available QB's?  Couple that with the seemingly-weak QB draft pool, and suddenly Oswiler looks like a prized commodity.  Show a hungry man a bologna, he thinks it's a ribeye.  Same reason why the Eagles signed Bradford....it's better to have an option you at least know you've got over the unknown.

 

It's going to be interesting to see what the Broncos do at QB.  Not many good options out there.  Not having $15+ million tied up at QB now gives them some flexibility to retain whoever they're trying to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Not really.  

 

If he sucks and under performs he won't get that next contract.   He was set up to succeed with Denver. 

 

Yeah, Denver has shown that they can be a championship team despite mediocre quarterback play.  But he could get absolutely killed in Houston, with that team around him. 

 

I dont fault him him for taking the money.  But the choice seemed clear - maximize the payday or chase another ring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, Denver has shown that they can be a championship team despite mediocre quarterback play.  But he could get absolutely killed in Houston, with that team around him. 

 

I dont fault him him for taking the money.  But the choice seemed clear - maximize the payday or chase another ring. 

 

Yeah I get why he left, just don' think he made a good career choice.  And to let the emotions of being benched for Manning influence your decision is a little childish.  Good for him getting that dough but he probably threw away his chances of winning again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Yeah I get why he left, just don' think he made a good career choice.  And to let the emotions of being benched for Manning influence your decision is a little childish.  Good for him getting that dough but he probably threw away his chances of winning again.  

 

Meh, he just got a Super Bowl ring while mostly sitting on his ass. In some cases, that may be even better than being the dude who takes a beating to win that championship. 

 

He mildly contributed to a Super Bowl winning team without having to kick his ass to do so, and he just got paid close to $100 million for about a half a day of work. I'm sure he's not too broken up about it. 

 

And really, who's to say that Denver's defense will be able to sustain from here on out long term? They just lost a fairly big piece or two, and that team dramatically shifted from being a record-breaking offense with a solid defense, to a barely serviceable offense carried by a GREAT defense in the course of two seasons. Nothing is set in stone long term with NFL teams. There have been plenty of all-time great defenses in the NFL that haven't been able to lead teams to multiple championships for one reason or another. 85 Bears, 02 Bucs, 01 Ravens were all downright terrifying defenses, and they didn't win more than once. And it's not like the Texans defense doesn't at least have the potential to do similar things. I think people are VASTLY overrating the "winning" aspect here. The Broncos won the Super Bowl this past season, but if you remember, they were considered a pretty overrated #1 seed coming into the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Meh, he just got a Super Bowl ring while mostly sitting on his ass. In some cases, that may be even better than being the dude who takes a beating to win that championship. 

 

He mildly contributed to a Super Bowl winning team without having to kick his ass to do so, and he just got paid close to $100 million for about a half a day of work. I'm sure he's not too broken up about it. 

 

And really, who's to say that Denver's defense will be able to sustain from here on out long term? They just lost a fairly big piece or two, and that team dramatically shifted from being a record-breaking offense with a solid defense, to a barely serviceable offense carried by a GREAT defense in the course of two seasons. Nothing is set in stone long term with NFL teams. There have been plenty of all-time great defenses in the NFL that haven't been able to lead teams to multiple championships for one reason or another. 85 Bears, 02 Bucs, 01 Ravens were all downright terrifying defenses, and they didn't win more than once. And it's not like the Texans defense doesn't at least have the potential to do similar things. I think people are VASTLY overrating the "winning" aspect here. The Broncos won the Super Bowl this past season, but if you remember, they were considered a pretty overrated #1 seed coming into the playoffs.

 

You are missing one thing:

 

The Denver franchise is first-class with a winning tradition.  Houston, eh not so much.

 

Denver will be just fine without Brocko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

You are missing one thing:

 

The Denver franchise is first-class with a winning tradition.  Houston, eh not so much.

 

Denver will be just fine without Brocko

Then why are you coming off as so butt-hurt over it?

 

I don't blame him one bit for taking the money in Houston and financially he's a lot better off (especially not having to pay state income tax for half of the games he plays in.)  Time will tell whether it's an overall better move for him but when you're an NFL player you have to take the money when you can and Houston's team isn't as bad as you make them out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tp49 said:

Then why are you coming off as so butt-hurt over it?

 

I don't blame him one bit for taking the money in Houston and financially he's a lot better off (especially not having to pay state income tax for half of the games he plays in.)  Time will tell whether it's an overall better move for him but when you're an NFL player you have to take the money when you can and Houston's team isn't as bad as you make them out to be.

 

I am not butt-hurt....   

 

I think its funny how he cited being snubbed by PEYTON MANNING as a reason for leaving.   Instead of being gracious of the chance to work with PFM for four seasons, he gets mad at being replaced by him?  Grow up kid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rickyISking said:

Tradition doesn't win games, take the Lakers as an example. 

 

No, tradition alone doesn't.  But it sure helps getting new talent in the door and having the right coaching staff to produce winning teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

I am not butt-hurt....   

 

I think its funny how he cited being snubbed by PEYTON MANNING as a reason for leaving.   Instead of being gracious of the chance to work with PFM for four seasons, he gets mad at being replaced by him?  Grow up kid.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

I am not butt-hurt....   

 

I think its funny how he cited being snubbed by PEYTON MANNING as a reason for leaving.   Instead of being gracious of the chance to work with PFM for four seasons, he gets mad at being replaced by him?  Grow up kid.

 

 

Hmm, with the way you're responding in this thread, 9 out of 10 doctors would recommend a butt-ointment because you're a little butt-hurt.

 

Which is okay, by the way, I was really butt-hurt over DeMarco Murray leaving for the Eagles last year. That ointment actually really helped me get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.