BarleyNY Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm not sure why some are making a distinction between top CBs that are highly paid and those still on their rookie deals in the process of earning a top deal. I'm not being snarky here. Is there a reason? I'd think that a top notch CB is a top notch CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I'm not sure why some are making a distinction between top CBs that are highly paid and those still on their rookie deals in the process of earning a top deal. I'm not being snarky here. Is there a reason? I'd think that a top notch CB is a top notch CB. Yea it seems whether Sherman got paid a few months prior or post doesn't change bandits obvious point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearwater cadet Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I like Gilmore but don't think he is worth top dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure why some are making a distinction between top CBs that are highly paid and those still on their rookie deals in the process of earning a top deal. I'm not being snarky here. Is there a reason? I'd think that a top notch CB is a top notch CB. Yea it seems whether Sherman got paid a few months prior or post doesn't change bandits obvious point When the argument is "top 10 CB salaries are worth it because look how many SB teams won it while paying a CB that much money," how much a CB was paid when they won the SB is the only point of contention. The difference between paying Sherman $500k and $14M (or whatever he makes) easily could be argued as the reason they lost in 2014. Edited June 19, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machine gun kelly Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 That's the problem is the player's side is always looking at the last top contract. Someone will give equal or more to another top CB in the next year. My solution is go lower on the overall deal, but up on the guaranteed money. I read the details of the Norman contract and it is really $36.8 mil guaranteed. If after three years they want to finish off the contract, he gets the rest going to $50 mil. Given he is 29, at 32, they will try and get him to come down or cut him. I'd rather go for $14 mil which is basically the Revis, Peterson, Sherman deals, and a total of $40 mil, for peace of mind. Over 6 years the $40 won't seem bad with the cap going up an avg. of 7% a year. He's crazy not to take it as Washington reverted back to their old ways way over paying for Norman. He's like Sherman playing only one side of the field. Critics point out from Carolina, Norman was good, but had one breakout year which was his last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Talib was the 9th highest paid CB last year, so 2012 would be the answer to my question. The Super Bowl champions of the last 3 seasons think you're wrong. http://overthecap.com/position/cornerback/ http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/cornerback/ Even if you were correct, that would make 3 guys in the top 10 who have a ring instead of 2. Still a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 When the argument is "top 10 CB salaries are worth it because look how many SB teams won it while paying a CB that much money," how much a CB was paid when they won the SB is the only point of contention. The difference between paying Sherman $500k and $14M (or whatever he makes) easily could be argued as the reason they lost in 2014. They needed 13.5 million dollars to spend to figure out to run the ball from the one yard line with the best short yardage back in the NFL? Or was that 13.5 million dollars going to make the Seahawks secondary immune to injuries, didn't they all have surgery after that game? Lane broke his arm and missed 90 percent of the game? Point being the Seahawks had plenty of talent, enough to beat a talented Pats team. That Sherman contract was not detrimental to the talent on that roster. If you can't structure a contract to pay a tier 1 cornerback without destroying your cap/roster then you either have the wrong corner or GM. If you have the right guy you can pay him and get the play on the field to justify the contract. In my eyes Gilmore isn't the guy I'm giving top money too though. He is solid but he is not the game changer that I just can't let walk out the door. He is average in zone, he has one more interception than Leodis does over the past four years, he has been oft injured and banged up even while playing, his tackling leaves a lot to be desired, he doesn't follow number 1's around the field. I'm not flaming Gilmore, i'm just not paying him premium money. He is a plus in press coverage and overall he is an above average CB but I don't see him as a guy I couldn't live without and in return allow him to dictate his price to stay. If they can work out a deal that lets them cut ties after 2-3 years then I'm fine with it. If he walks our cap situation improves and we can focus on the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Just let him play out his contract......franchise him next year.....and draft a corner in the 1st round. We have other players that are coming up that need to be resigned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I don't believe any team would give up a first round pick for a player in the final year of his contract.They might if they were able to sign him to a long term deal, no? This of course IF a team felt he was worth a first round draft choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I'm not sure why some are making a distinction between top CBs that are highly paid and those still on their rookie deals in the process of earning a top deal. I'm not being snarky here. Is there a reason? I'd think that a top notch CB is a top notch CB. Because all players do not stay great after a big contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Yea it seems whether Sherman got paid a few months prior or post doesn't change bandits obvious point When the argument is "top 10 CB salaries are worth it because look how many SB teams won it while paying a CB that much money," how much a CB was paid when they won the SB is the only point of contention. The difference between paying Sherman $500k and $14M (or whatever he makes) easily could be argued as the reason they lost in 2014. Okay. I wasn't sure if that was what was being argued or not. Yeah, it's a very thin argument. Because all players do not stay great after a big contract. True, but why are you assuming Gilmore will be one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I still think $15M a year is insane for a CB CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 At this point, I would rather pay Gilmore than Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 At this point, I would rather pay Gilmore than Taylor Why? Good QB's are much harder to find than a solid to good CB CBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Why? Good QB's are much harder to find than a solid to good CB CBF Because Gilmore is a much more proven commodity. I still think $15M a year is insane for a CB CBF Gilmore won't have a realistic chance to get $15M/year unless he playes 2016 under his option and becomes a FA next offseason. Remember that Norman got that figure as a FA. $15M/year is his asking price at this stage of negotiations, nothing more. From what Whaley has stated the team is at $13M/yr and Gilmore is at $15M/yr. They're fighting over at $2M/yr now. Don't get too wrapped up in it all yet. They haven't gotten down and dirty yet. This is likely to go on until near the start of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Okay. I wasn't sure if that was what was being argued or not. Yeah, it's a very thin argument. True, but why are you assuming Gilmore will be one of them? No, the argument is that the teams that compete for (and win) championships have no trouble paying their elite corners top-5 and top-10 money because they know the value they bring to the table. And to WEO, let's not bang the "where are the rings" drum too loudly; Peterson and Norman both played in the NFC Championship game last year, and Norman's team went to the Super Bowl. In no small part thanks to their play by the way. They might if they were able to sign him to a long term deal, no? This of course IF a team felt he was worth a first round draft choice. The only reason that a team wouldn't deal a 1st for Gilmore (or any other player of his caliber) is that they'd have to part with the pick AND a hefty sum of guaranteed money, whereas drafting a player in the 1st round is a very small monetary investment. If you have any doubts about how he's viewed around the league, we'll revisit them after he signs his next contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 No, the argument is that the teams that compete for (and win) championships have no trouble paying their elite corners top-5 and top-10 money because they know the value they bring to the table. And to WEO, let's not bang the "where are the rings" drum too loudly; Peterson and Norman both played in the NFC Championship game last year, and Norman's team went to the Super Bowl. In no small part thanks to their play by the way. I love this: first it's "Who was the last Super Bowl winner that wasn't paying an elite CB top-10 money when they won the title?", then, when it pointed out to you by multiple posters that there have been several in the past 6 years alone, it becomes: "let's not bang the 'where are the rings' drum too loudly". You should have looked it up before you posted it. Don't blame others if you have to backtrack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 (edited) No, the argument is that the teams that compete for (and win) championships have no trouble paying their elite corners top-5 and top-10 money because they know the value they bring to the table. And to WEO, let's not bang the "where are the rings" drum too loudly; Peterson and Norman both played in the NFC Championship game last year, and Norman's team went to the Super Bowl. In no small part thanks to their play by the way. The only reason that a team wouldn't deal a 1st for Gilmore (or any other player of his caliber) is that they'd have to part with the pick AND a hefty sum of guaranteed money, whereas drafting a player in the 1st round is a very small monetary investment. If you have any doubts about how he's viewed around the league, we'll revisit them after he signs his next contract I agree that that's the conclusion. I was confused about what the argument was. It didn't make sense that people would be arguing that having top CBs is nice only when they're on their rookie deals or otherwise cheap contracts. If having a quality player at a particular position is important, then those players/positions are valuable in terms of cap dollars allocated. I thought maybe the argument was that elite CBs are not worth their huge salaries and that cap space is better allocated elsewhere, but that doesn't seem to be the argument. I just read where someone made that case for OTs and OLmen in general so my mind was on that line of thought. Edited June 20, 2016 by BarleyNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I agree that that's the conclusion. I was confused about what the argument was. It didn't make sense that people would be arguing that having top CBs is nice only when they're on their rookie deals or otherwise cheap contracts. If having a quality player at a particular position is important, then those players/positions are valuable in terms of cap dollars allocated. I thought maybe the argument was that elite CBs are not worth their huge salaries and that cap space is better allocated elsewhere, but that doesn't seem to be the argument. I just read where someone made that case for OTs and OLmen in general so my mind was on that line of thought. I'm arguing exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I still think $15M a year is insane for a CB CBF its like 9% of the salary cap (if you do average value vs current year cap). i dont know if that is out of line with what the top of the market was 10 years ago, but my gut says its not terribly off. from what i have found, most positions havent been drastic shifts when i have looked back after thinking "dear lord how can they pay that position that much" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts