You are using playoff clutchness as a precursor to a good contract when no gm in the league does that. As long as the QB is a franchise QB as Cam is he will get paid. There are plenty of qb's in the top15 right now who have no playoff clutchness in their resume but still got paid. I don't know why this point is not making it across to you but you need to acknowledge reality. Cam may again lose in the playoff first round this year but it won't affect his contract at all. If you want that to change you need to try your hardest to get a job as a gm and put a requirement for year 4 qb's to be clutch in the playoffs to get a contract otherwise you are speaking a whole lot of nothing lol.
Post the three biggest QB contracts. Every one of those QBs have multiple playoff wins. Yes, playoff wins (as evidenced by flacco) have a very large determination on the qb's contract. To say otherwise is wrong.
Look, I get it. I think Cam is head and shoulders the best of the young QBs. I believe Luck is his only peer, and even still, Cam is proven to be (at least statistically*) better than all of them (Wilson included).
But, there's all of this talk of how te salary cap will rise and QB contracts will as well. I agree with that. But, as the job market indicates, other positions contracts will rise, too. That includes LT, WRs, MLBs, etc.
To me, Luke is just as important to the team as Cam. So, do you think his agent would say, "well, Luke is great and potentially one of the best ever. And I see Cam got this 150m+ contract, but my client, being the generous man he is, will take 40% of that number"? No, he won't.
So, the team becomes a balancing act of how much do you pay Luke and how much do you pay Cam, because, in the end, the two will need huge contracts, demanding of their elite status.
*i say statistically because I know someone is going to come in and say, "Wilson is better. He has Super Bowl ring!"
Always made me wonder why we didn't offer him a multi year deal when we signed him. I realize he was JAG until he got here, but he would have been a cheap sign.
Then again, they didn't ask me.
I agree. I would think signing a player like Mitchell (who you think has talent + is still young) to a 2-year, small deal would be the best bet. I know those signings could be risky, but it seems like a risk/reward scenario.