Originally posted by SofaKing:
What's the alternative? Get a new QB every 3-4 years? Just go pluck whoever off the franchise QB tree whenever we need to? Or maybe we should purposely go after mediocre QBs that won't command much money? That doesn't sound conducive to sustained success.
Guys, if you want to lock up a QB, any QB, long term as your franchise guy, you must pay him market rate. That's just the way it is. If we don't, someone else gladly will.
There are maybe 15 teams that don't already have a starting QB under contract long term that could even think about signing another one. Of those Kap probably has no interest in going to the vast majority of them, and of the ones he would be interested in going to they may not be able to make it work. In my estimation Cleavland, Jacksonville, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, and Oakland (maybe the Jets if you think they want to bring on that dram after just drafting Geno Smith) are the only ones with cap space to sign a guy to a huge deal and a lack of the guy they want/are financially committed to under center already. And we have no idea how much the front office of any of these teams like Kap or would offer him.
The dude is going to get paid. But if paying him MAKES THE TEAM WORSE by making it so you cannot retain your best/core players and thins out your dept as well then yes, getting a new QB isn't the worst idea in the world. There is no reason to get stupid with his contract. Just because other teams go Sabean and bid against themselves until Joe Flacco is making $121 million, $52 million guaranteed, doesn't mean they all will make that mistake. Especially when we are not talking about a top 5 or 10 QB in the NFL (he may be one day, but sure as hell isn't today).
You think he wants to go to Oakland for a couple extra bucks?
[ Edited by Gavintech on Jan 22, 2014 at 6:12 PM ]