-
Welcome!
Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!
Or simply create a new Huddle account.
Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!
-
-
-
-
Topics
-
-
-
-
Posts
-
Really, I think that is where negotiations come in. If you've got a QB getting you to 10 wins but statistically he's not a great performer, then you say look you can take $22 million or you can try it on the market. Because let's face it, out there, any leadership skills that we're seeing aren't going to be on the table, it's just going to be performance and that lands him in the QB2 market, which is much, much less lucrative (although any of us would love that money). No one is saying that Bryce will be a $50 million QB, barring something short of a miraculous jump. I'm just saying that if we are winning somehow with him at the helm, then it would be fuging stupid to dive back into the rookie pool all over again. Let's say we do hit the 10 win mark, heck, let's call it 11 and a second round in the playoffs. I think we can all say that would be a really uplifting result and one that should be doable if we have good play. What do we do then? Here's what I would offer if I were Morgan and Tepper. $25 million a year for 3 years, each year with up to $10 million in incentives for touchdowns, wins, playoff depth, being under 10 interceptions, completing a full season, passing yardage milestones, taking less than 15 sacks. Look, Bryce isn't a Ferrari, he isn't a Corvette, or a mid-level BMW. He's probably a new Toyota Sienna that will definitely get you somewhere and bring the whole team along with it, no fuss but not a lot of pizazz. And really, it's about the destination, not about what drove you there. -
Good response. In reference to your second paragraph, many Huddlers are just haters when it comes to certain people. -
Anything is possible, but neither guy was as special as Luke whose superpower was diagnosing plays pre-snap. He was the best to ever do that. I'll argue with anyone who tries to tell me otherwise. But if Morgan, whose reputation for hard hits and high production, and particularly Beason, who was markedly more productive than Morgan than Morgan, hadn't caught prolific cases of the injury bug, they would've certainly been in legitimate Hall of Fame discussions. With the injuries, they're in "the best to never make it" discussions. Luke's injuries did not knock his career of kilter. Luke was simply more consistent during his playing career than both Beason and Morgan, and, like I said, he had that uber-ability to diagnose plays which transcended even many if not most or all of his fellow Hall of Fame brethren at the position (i.e., he was on another level).
-
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.