Money or winning?

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, philp said:

Long term? Cleveland? Not sure if they do that there. :D

Not for coaches or quarterbacks, at least.

[outlaw4]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

How much money is worth being miserable in your job every day for years?

That's the operative question.

I can speak from experience for my answer: more than anyone would be willing to pay. If I have to spend a great deal of my time doing something, I want to enjoy it. I manage my money well so I can handle a smaller payday.

Money management, unfortunately, continues to be an issue in the league. Even those that get monster paydays find a way to lose it all.

[CRA]

28 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

I just don't understand being an NFL player and not going for a ring every season you play.

If you had an opportunity to ensure financial security for your children's children vs winning an award.....which would you opt for first?

every team technically tries to win every game 

[Goondal]

First FA contract?  Money

After that, if I have never won and have been smart with my investments then I would be looking for a contender.

[thefuzz]

22 minutes ago, d-dave said:

If I'm an above average NFL player, I have to consider the Money to Winning Ratio.

If a bottom dweller offers more more than 30% (or something) than a winner, I have to very strong assess how "winning" that team will be.  Also, the better teams don't tend to pay out the ear for guys as opposed to cap flush teams who haven't sniffed 10 wins in 5+ years.

Like If Jacksonville offered me $20 million, but Carolina/NE/AZ/Seattle offered me $12, I think I'd go for the Jags.  $8 million is a LOT of money...it's hard to turn that down.  Now if the winner comes back at $16 million, it's an easier choice.

Something else you have to consider when looking at contract, and where the teams are located....taxes.

For the really high earners, that can be a pretty big difference.

[jumpman910]

It's been said before but you take the money EVERY time, unless you're an older player and even then if a SB contender is offering 5 mil but a middle of the pack team that could make the playoffs is offering 10 you still may take the money. Because a Superbowl ring isn't going to do ANYTHING for your family down the line but that extra 5 mil a season will. And like I was always told you strike will the iron is hot. Look at Cardale Jones he's never been good but last season after the ship he would've got drafted maybe first 3 rounds and been a millionaire but now he'll probably go undrafted and be lucky to see 6 figures. Kinda like James Michael Mcadoo he should've been 1 and done but he waited and we all saw what happened

[Kakarot]

Like many others on here have said; give me the loot. You never know what'll happen in your career, injury wise, so I'd need to get as much as I could to set my fam and myself up. There would be no hometown discounts. With all that being said, there are some teams where you couldn't pay me enough to play for them. Mainly, those teams up north that go through brutal winters. 

Towards the end of my career, after I've got my bread, then I'd be ok with taking less to go to a contender. 

[Ace Deadbolt]

Sacrificing it all for super bowl glory disappears once most talented athletes balls drop.

When you realise you have a legit shot to make a living playing football, I imagine competitive nature and ego make money the cake and a super bowl victory the icing before most talented athletes leave high school.

 

[R0CKnR0LLA]

[teeray]

Winning.  Winning gets you more endorsement deals, gives yourself higher demand post retirement if you are a multiple champion, food tastes better when you win, jokes are funnier when you win.

Legacy is more valuable than being more ultra rich than you already are in the moment, and especially if once you are done playing everyone forgets about you and the teams you played on.

I probably remember more players on the 2003 team than any other team (other than probably last 5 years just because of recency)

 

 

[teeray]

Having said that I totally understand the mentality of making as much money as they can while they can playing in a violent sport.

I dont begrudge anyone who tries to maximize their paycheck in football.

But that just isnt the way I am wired personally

[R0CKnR0LLA]

Should ask like this, if Apple offers you 60K to work for them, and Blackberry offers you 100K, where are you going to work?

[countryboi]

depends on the role....i could take less and win but I would have an issue taking less and riding the bench or taking a lesser role.

[SmokinwithWilly]

I think a lot of it depends on the position being played. IF I was a lower profile player like a guard, kicker, punter, full back, I might chase the money more than the ring because there are not likely to be many endorsements to be had for my position. However, if I was a WR, LB, CB, Safety, or RB, I might take a lesser amount to get on with a potential SB winner. Endorsements can make up for that 2-3 mill less that you take, and the recognition of playing on a winner can get your name out there. There would probably have to be a lot of discussions with my agent about what I can/can't get before I made a decision on a contract though.