Dalton gets 6 yrs, $115 mil

[Smelly McUgly]

I think Wilson is worth 22M. You're paying for future predicted production, not past production. It's reasonable to project RW as a potential top-three QB going forward. Combine that with a growing salary cap, and 22M/yr is probably what Wilson is actually worth. If we extend him for anything less than that, I will think it to be a great deal.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Sure enough, per Rotoworld...

Updating a previous item, the actual value of Andy Dalton's six-year extension is $96 million with a $12 million signing bonus.

He also gets a $5 million roster bonus in three days. The guaranteed money is just $17 million -- the roster bonus and Dalton's signing bonus. Dalton was already under contract for a little over $1 million this year, so across seven seasons the base value of his new contract is essentially $97.09 million -- $13.87 million annually. Dalton can earn another $19 million through escalators, per PFT. People, on Twitter, at least, freaked out about the initially-reported worth, but this is going to end up being a front-loaded, team-friendly deal.

Well that sounds far more sensible given he is a middle of the road type quarterback and 13-14 million is just the going rate for non elite quarterbacks these days.

 

[chris98251]

You are all looking at this year, next year is the year we really look at extending him, how much value does he have if we repeat?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You are all looking at this year, next year is the year we really look at extending him, how much value does he have if we repeat?

I am comfortable accepting that will be between 18-22 million and probably at the high end if (when) we repeat.

 

[huskylawyer]

I just don't understand why teams negotiate against themselves. It's not like there would be a bidding war for Dalton if they decided not to franchise him in two years (Well, you have the Raiders in the league, so I suppose anything is possible). I feel like owners say to themselves, "you know, he's a QB, so we SHOULD spend a boatload of money on him, because, hey, he's a QB."

His deal doesn't appear to be bad as Ryan's, Cutler's and Stafford, so they got that right.

SF and KC are really the only teams that have a brain with respect to QB compensation (we don't count because we can't extend RW). KC is smartly saying to Smith, "we think you are good, but we aren't going to over-pay" and they are just letting him play out his contract. Not sure why more teams don't do that.

 

[Anthony!]

I just don't understand why teams negotiate against themselves. It's not like there would be a bidding war for Dalton if they decided not to franchise him in two years (Well, you have the Raiders in the league, so I suppose anything is possible). I feel like owners say to themselves, "you know, he's a QB, so we SHOULD spend a boatload of money on him, because, hey, he's a QB."

His deal doesn't appear to be bad as Ryan's, Cutler's and Stafford, so they got that right.

SF and KC are really the only teams that have a brain with respect to QB compensation (we don't count because we can't extend RW). KC is smartly saying to Smith, "we think you are good, but we aren't going to over-pay" and they are just letting him play out his contract. Not sure why more teams don't do that.

I can name a bunch of reasons, the top of which is if you have a Franchise QB you keep him, period. Obviously if you are not sure they are a franchise QB you can play hardball. Do you want the Hawks to tell Rw next year just play out you contract we are not going to pay you the market value for a SB winning QB who ha set records and is amongst the tops it the league'? If so great, I get it, I will be prepared for a few years of mediocrity till we find another franchise QB which I guess grows on tress since it only took us over 10 years to find one. You mention KC and SF but you forget both teams have questions about their QBs, we have no questions about RW at this point at all. I would be very surprised if RW signed a contract like Kap. Kap signed a we are not sure about your contract, same as Dalton, and KC is saying we are not sure about Smith. We are sure about Rw already.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Yeah, but I think that's what HuskyLawyer is saying. Dalton, Flacco, and Cutler aren't really franchise QBs. I think we have too wide a definition of what makes a "franchise QB," and so do front offices.

At this point, QBs are a bit more fungible in the sense that with the new rookie scale, teams that don't have a top-eight QB should be more willing to roll the dice on rookie QBs in the first two rounds and force their current QBs to prove that they can consistently play as a top-eight guy or lose his job to the rookie QB. Rookie QBs should be played as soon as there is an opening for them as a starter, and if they fail, teams should just move on and draft the next guy.

 

[IronSaint]

Looks like you guys are on deck. You like baseball right? Ya'll are on deck...

:lol:

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Looks like you guys are on deck. You like baseball right? Ya'll are on deck...

:lol:

I love baseball, brother, but baseball don't love me.

 

[Anthony!]

Yeah, but I think that's what HuskyLawyer is saying. Dalton, Flacco, and Cutler aren't really franchise QBs. I think we have too wide a definition of what makes a "franchise QB," and so do front offices.

At this point, QBs are a bit more fungible in the sense that with the new rookie scale, teams that don't have a top-eight QB should be more willing to roll the dice on rookie QBs in the first two rounds and force their current QBs to prove that they can consistently play as a top-eight guy or lose his job to the rookie QB. Rookie QBs should be played as soon as there is an opening for them as a starter, and if they fail, teams should just move on and draft the next guy.

Well that depends on what the criteria for top 8 is, if it is performance than Brady was not top 8. You can have 20 guys perform at a great rate but someone has to be 9. I do not think it is that simple as top 8. If you open up stats in ESPN on QBs it is by yards and RW is 16th. Are we really going to roll the dice on a rookie QB when you have RW? The question is do you think you have a QB you can build around and win an SB with. Obviously for SF and Cincy they are not sure. We are.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Any GM basing his evaluation of top QBs on total yards thrown for is a Saints fan at CSC, a Colts fan, a Broncos fan, or just a moron.

There are better and multiple metrics which we can use to quantify the top QBs. If you don't like my offhand "Top 8" distinction, that's fine, but I was using it as an example. We can group QBs into tiers through a combination of metrics and tape that is fairly definitive.

I think we mostly agree here, though.

 

[kearly]

That average QBs are getting paid 90% as much as elite QBs is a nice perk for teams that actually have a top QB. Pretty nice for Hawks fans even after Wilson gets paid.

 

[Popeyejones]

Any GM basing his evaluation of top QBs on total yards thrown for is a Saints fan at CSC, a Colts fan, a Broncos fan, or just a moron.

There are better and multiple metrics which we can use to quantify the top QBs. If you don't like my offhand "Top 8" distinction, that's fine, but I was using it as an example. We can group QBs into tiers through a combination of metrics and tape that is fairly definitive.

I think we mostly agree here, though.

I basically agree with you, but I think you're giving stats like yards short shrift. It's far from the best way to evaluate the native ability of different QBs, but it does tell us a bit more about how important a QB is to his team (e.g. not even debating who's better or worse, but Luck and Brees are much more important to their teams' success than Wilson or Kaepernick; I think the Hawks and 9ers could both go .500 or better with their backups, whereas the Colts and Saints wouldn't be close).

 

[Popeyejones]

You're paying for future predicted production, not past production.

In theory, yeah, but that's not the way the world works. Like Flacco, Russ is going to make more because his team won one. If the 9ers had beat the Ravens two years ago or the Hawks and Broncs last year Kap would certainly be getting paid more than he is. Heck, just look at the price premium on non-essential FAs from Super Bowl winning teams, or how squads like the Hawks get raided on the FA market after winning the Super Bowl. It's all irrational for sure, but it's also the norm.

 

[Anthony!]

Any GM basing his evaluation of top QBs on total yards thrown for is a Saints fan at CSC, a Colts fan, a Broncos fan, or just a moron.

There are better and multiple metrics which we can use to quantify the top QBs. If you don't like my offhand "Top 8" distinction, that's fine, but I was using it as an example. We can group QBs into tiers through a combination of metrics and tape that is fairly definitive.

I think we mostly agree here, though.

I basically agree with you, but I think you're giving stats like yards short shrift. It's far from the best way to evaluate the native ability of different QBs, but it does tell us a bit more about how important a QB is to his team (e.g. not even debating who's better or worse, but Luck and Brees are much more important to their teams' success than Wilson or Kaepernick; I think the Hawks and 9ers could both go .500 or better with their backups, whereas the Colts and Saints wouldn't be close).

Your sentiment is understood, not sure I agree though. Given our o-line Rw is just as important to us as Brees or Luck. Both of whom have more offensive talent around them.

 

[Anthony!]

You're paying for future predicted production, not past production.

In theory, yeah, but that's not the way the world works. Like Flacco, Russ is going to make more because his team won one. If the 9ers had beat the Ravens two years ago or the Hawks and Broncs last year Kap would certainly be getting paid more than he is. Heck, just look at the price premium on non-essential FAs from Super Bowl winning teams, or how squads like the Hawks get raided on the FA market after winning the Super Bowl. It's all irrational for sure, but it's also the norm.

I agree except as it relates to Kap the reason he would be paid more and on a different contract would be they would no longer have questions about him. Lets remember Kap is a career 59.8 complt% that is below the Mendoza line for avg. Add to that in the playoffs he is 58% complt, 7 tds, 5 ints, 87 qb rating, and last year he was aweful with 54% compl, 3 tds, 3ints, and qb rating of 74.

Compared to Rw who is 63.6% complt %, and in the playoffs is 63% complt%, 6 tds 1 int, and a 102 QB rating.

And remember Kap has way more talent around him on offense then Rw does.

 

[RolandDeschain]

And remember Kap has way more talent around him on offense then Rw does.

Kaep would probably look like a deer in the headlights every game behind our O-line as it was last year at pass pro.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Any GM basing his evaluation of top QBs on total yards thrown for is a Saints fan at CSC, a Colts fan, a Broncos fan, or just a moron.

There are better and multiple metrics which we can use to quantify the top QBs. If you don't like my offhand "Top 8" distinction, that's fine, but I was using it as an example. We can group QBs into tiers through a combination of metrics and tape that is fairly definitive.

I think we mostly agree here, though.

I basically agree with you, but I think you're giving stats like yards short shrift. It's far from the best way to evaluate the native ability of different QBs, but it does tell us a bit more about how important a QB is to his team (e.g. not even debating who's better or worse, but Luck and Brees are much more important to their teams' success than Wilson or Kaepernick; I think the Hawks and 9ers could both go .500 or better with their backups, whereas the Colts and Saints wouldn't be close).

I don't even think this is true. QBs are still doing important things when not throwing (shifting the OL, running convincing PA ball fakes, etc.). Only someone with a very narrow view of a QB's responsibilities would hang their hat on total yards alone to tell them anything useful about how important the QB is to their team.

I also think that Seattle could go 8-8 without RW, but not because RW is not important to this team; rather, this is because I have seen Tarvaris Jackson lead teams to .500 records before. My confidence is in the backup being good for a backup, not in the idea that the QB position is inherently less important to us. Heck, The QB position is extremely important in Trestman's offense in terms of passing volume, but Josh McCown is a very high-level backup, so he went over .500 in his time running the offense last year.

You're paying for future predicted production, not past production.

In theory, yeah, but that's not the way the world works.

It is the way that good front offices work. FOs making poor decisions to pay for past production do not invalidate the good decisions of FOs that refuse to do so (see Kansas City and Alex Smith right now).

 

[Tical21]

The Bengals just ensured themselves of not winning a championship over the next few years, way to go! The correct answer in this scenario is that you do not re-sign Daulton. You let him walk and try somebody else.

 

[Scottemojo]

The Bengals just ensured themselves of not winning a championship over the next few years, way to go! The correct answer in this scenario is that you do not re-sign Daulton. You let him walk and try somebody else.

Well, technically the answer is they should have drafted a QB of some sort every one of the past 3 years, or signed Free Agents, should have been churning that number 2 spot looking for a guy to take his place.

I have maintained for years that the only thing worse than having a terrible QB is having a slightly above average guy like Dalton or Schaub or Fitzpatrick. Teams end up losing 2 or 3 extra years tying themselves to those just not quite good enough players with premium deals.