Wow. Locker had a GREAT shot at being the #1 QB coming out this year. Big surprise by this - especially when you consider the fact that there will be a rookie salary cap after this season. Big mistake.

Why is it such a bad choice? Look at the QB's in the NFL that were 4 year players--they tend to do much better. No way he was ready. Is it really worth it to go in and get the shit kicked out of you and not be ready just to sign that big rookie deal? He'll sign a big one next year, maybe not as big, but if he's more NFL ready then it bodes well for him down the road as far as money goes.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Why is it such a bad choice? Look at the QB's in the NFL that were 4 year players--they tend to do much better. No way he was ready. Is it really worth it to go in and get the shit kicked out of you and not be ready just to sign that big rookie deal? He'll sign a big one next year, maybe not as big, but if he's more NFL ready then it bodes well for him down the road as far as money goes.

Do you realize how "not as big" this is though.

He could be losing out on close to 50 Million guaranteed.

Plus, he isnt likely to get much better. At least not imo. You are NEVER ready for the NFL, no matter how long you stay in school. The best way to be ready is to sit a few years. He has as much a chance as that this year as he does coming out next. Seriously, I dont think people (especially the players) realize HOW MUCH MONEY they are losing out on.

Do you realize what I'm saying? It's not a coincidence that the guys that stay 4 years tend to do better in the NFL. And this guy is getting all the hype because if his physical ability. How's Jamarcus Russell doing? He was the same way. Locker isn't ready and another year will help him tremendously. It's a smart long term decision. 50 million--yahoo, what if he flops and ends up being a career back up or worse, out of the league. Of course he might not flop, but the trends say he should stay in school--there is much more money for him to make with a long career rather than just a rookie deal.

I'm glad he's staying. He wasn't quite ready yet.

Well, he did sign a $300,000 amateur draft baseball contract with some MLB team (the team escapes me at this moment..), so he's not hurting for money...

I do think it's a bad idea though. Sam Bradford is the prime example.

LTrain23 wrote: Well, he did sign a $300,000 amateur draft baseball contract with some MLB team (the team escapes me at this moment..), so he's not hurting for money...

I do think it's a bad idea though. Sam Bradford is the prime example.

How? Bradford very well may be the first QB picked. Many of the "experts" still think that.

Yeah, he very well may be the first QB taken now that Locker has backed out, HOWEVER, last season he was talked about as being a TOP 5 pick... Not happening this year.

Also, instead of coming back to college and getting injured, he'd be in the NFL right now making millions..

Again, look at the QB's in the NFL and how many of them were 4 year guys. It's not a coincidence, it's a trend. They get better at some of the intangibles. And as easily as you can say Sam Bradford (a guy that WILL be a top 5 pick if he's the first QB taken--will be top 10 still anyways) I can point out 100 other guys that didn't get injured.

Go when you aren't ready and sign a big rookie deal, suck and end up as a career back up or out of the league in 5 years. Stay another year, finish your degree, go when you're ready, sign a big rookie deal anyways and go on to have a longer and more successful career. Jamarcus Russell signed a big ass rookie deal too--I bet he never makes as much money as Tom Brady, who I'm SURE made the league minimum when he came into the league. And let me stress that I realize neither path is for sure--but the more certain path seems to be staying 4 years.

lol, bro, Tom Brady is an exception, not the rule.. He hardly played in college and was a 7th round draft pick. He was also placed into a great situation.

However, Sam Bradford isn't really getting four years of playing time, is he?

Also, Jamarcus Russell was a GENIUS by leaving early. He was NOT a good QB, but had a very good year for LSU... He made a lot of mistakes, but had the talent around him to make up for those mistakes..

Terrible, terrible financial decision. He is looking at a guaranteed 50 mil contract compared to a guaranteed 5 to 8 mil deal. Why not learn on the job and get paid to do so?

I think he made an emotional decision to stay and will eventually come to his senses.

Two words: Sam Bradford.

LTrain23 wrote: lol, bro, Tom Brady is an exception, not the rule.. He hardly played in college and was a 7th round draft pick. He was also placed into a great situation.

However, Sam Bradford isn't really getting four years of playing time, is he?

Also, Jamarcus Russell was a GENIUS by leaving early. He was NOT a good QB, but had a very good year for LSU... He made a lot of mistakes, but had the talent around him to make up for those mistakes..

Actually, if you look at the NFL, it's about 50/50. You look at guys like Brady, Romo, and even Favre (who was kind of "known" coming out of college, but not a threat to go in the top 5...he went second round) and a lot of the "better" QB's still playing in the league, weren't the guys that were top 5 picks, or hell, even guys who were top 5 QB's in their class. Then you look at all the guys who have been taken highly recently (in the last decade or so) and you start realizing just how many look or have looked absolutely terrible. The three that jump out as definately WORKING OUT are Donovan Mcnabb, and the Manning brothers (and honestly, with Archie as their dad, that's not even fair lol). Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco are also good for their teams. But you look at guys like Tim Couch, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Alex Smith, Brady Quinn, Jay Cutler, Jamarcus Russell. Then you look up, and a 7th round pick (Gradkowski) is starting over your so-called "franchise pick" because he's thrown 2 TD's and 10 picks. I think the point SQ is trying to make is that I would rather be drafted in the 2nd-7th round as a QB, because first round QB's have such a high tendency to fail early in their careers, AND they're so scrutinized and it is so magnified when they do fail. I think that he (and I) feel the same way, that with the recent trend in college QB prospects, I would much rather take a guy in the 2nd or 3rd round, let him play for a few seasons, and prove that he's good, since if he IS good, he's going to make a TON of money, and for a lot longer time, than guys that bust are. I'd be willing to be that guys like Russell will not have a chance to make another dime in the league when they buy out his contract or just let it expire. If I were Locker, and I seriously wanted to be a good QB in the league for a long time, I'd hope my draft stock fell to like a 2nd or 3rd round pick. Sure, he will make a lot less his first few years, (even less now with the rooking cap), but he'll have a chance to make all that back and more if he really is a great QB. If he winds up playing in the leage for 10+ years as a starter (meaning he ends up being good), he'll make way more money than the high draft picks who bust ever will.

Football wise Locker's return will probably help him. He wasn't ever a great throwing QB. Frankly I am shocked that his name is being mentioned as a 1st rounder, but hey what do I know. I could be wrong.

But financially this is a dumb decision. At the end of the day the odds of you succeeding and making it to your 2nd and 3rd contracts in the NFL is slim. Therefore you need to get as much $$$ up front. Locker was said to be a top pick.... so you have to go. Especially because of the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. There is a lot of noise that there will be a rookie salary cap. Locker's return will cost him dearly.

No, that isn't the point I'm trying to make Red_Skin. Has nothing to do with what round you're taken in. Let me say this again for those of you ignoring it: CHECK OUT THE QB'S IN THE LEAGUE, THE MAJORITY OF THE GOOD ONES STAYED 4 YEARS. LTrain, guys that don't stay and are good are exceptions to the rule.

My point is, how do LTrain know Russell was a genius for coming out early? Because he made a bunch of money? Alright, that's fine. You tell me who is going to make more money--Russell or either one of the Mannings? Each question, I know. That's my whole point--guys are clearly better off by staying 4 years. It isn't a coincidence when there are THAT many examples in the league--it's a trend. So go early, don't be ready and sign a fat deal like Russell did. What happens when that contract runs out? He'll be making government cheese compared to what he was making. Go back to school, go the route that seems to churn out the better NFL players, sign a fat contract in the first round anyways and then when it runs out you're set to keep getting paid because you were ready. I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up Sam Bradford--he is not the poster child for your argument. It takes a career ender to fit what you guys are saying--he's still going to be a top 10 pick and he is the exception--like I said, I could name 100 other guys that didn't have season ending injuries when they came back for every one you could name that did. Clearly, no one knows which path is going to work out better for any player but staying 4 years clearly seems to be working for most guys. So he's smart because he'll be more NFL ready and he's NOT dumb financially because you're set to make WAY more money as a career starter than you are with just a rookie deal.

Matt Leinart, anyone? Clearly that 4th year and dropping down 10+ spots in the draft did wonders for him.

However, this isn't your typical "should x QB stay all four years" argument. Locker is set to lose a ton (40 million!) by staying for his senior year. If next year wasn't a capped year, then your argument would be legitimate. But there is no way he should be concerned about a deal 6-8 years down the road when he can lock up a monster deal now. Makes no financial sense at all.

dat dude wrote: However, this isn't your typical "should x QB stay all four years" argument. Locker is set to lose a ton (40 million!) by staying for his senior year. If next year wasn't a capped year, then your argument would be legitimate.

+1.

dat dude wrote: Matt Leinart, anyone? Clearly that 4th year and dropping down 10+ spots in the draft did wonders for him.

However, this isn't your typical "should x QB stay all four years" argument. Locker is set to lose a ton (40 million!) by staying for his senior year. If next year wasn't a capped year, then your argument would be legitimate. But there is no way he should be concerned about a deal 6-8 years down the road when he can lock up a monster deal now. Makes no financial sense at all.

LOL, wow good job dude you pulled out one name.

I think I made it clear that there is no textbook path for any guy--but staying 4 years seems to be the way to go and you absolutely can not argue that. Try, please.

I'm not arguing what is going to make him become a better NFL QB. Clearly, maturing and honing your skills another year would be a benefit. That is rather obvious.

I'm arguing that turning down 50 million is ridiculous and a terrible financial decision. Let's compare last year's No. 1 (Matthew Stafford) to the recent Eli Manning record deal:

Stafford: 6 year 72M deal = average of 12M year
Manning: 7 year 106.4M deal = 15.2M year

So, in comparing a recent uncapped rookie year contract to a RECORD extension deal, Locker could earn an additional 3.2M a year upon a future (pure speculative) contract extension similar to Eli Manning's? But to do so, he would have to turn away 40M now. Where is the fiscal sense?

That's fine, are you totally ignoring my point? What if he goes and signs a big rookie deal, isn't ready and after his rookie contract is up he's just a career back up? Where is the fiscal sense? LOL, it's fucking hilarious how so many of you guys want to say he's being stupid when he's CLEARLY displaying that he's in it for the GAME and not the money. He'll make enough money if he becomes a superstar in the league to make his rookie deal look like chump change.

Did you just see the comparison to recent No.1 pick Stafford and Eli Manning's record deal? Does it look like "chump change?" So what if he becomes a career backup? He would have 45M guaranteed.

You can also say, "what if he comes out next year, is a flop, and becomes a career backup?" Then he loses out on 35M+.

I'm not saying he is "stupid." I'm saying it is a terrible financial decision. I admire his loyalty to his school, the "GAME," etc., but it doesn't mean that he isn't making a big financial mistake.

It's purely subjective of course, but I personally feel he's making a mistake based soley on the fact that nothing is gauranteed till you get in the league. Being one play away from selling insurance in Olympia would give me enough reason for pause, but that's just me.

Short term financial mistake, good long term financial decision assuming it all works out well for him.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Short term financial mistake, good long term financial decision assuming it all works out well for him.

There should be no "assuming". If he comes out now, he's made it big financially whether he becomes a star, or flipping pancakes in 5 years.

Terrible decision.

LOL, you guys are ridiculous. It isn't a terrible decision, the guy wants to play the game--period. For all the people that bitch about how much money these guys make I can't believe what I'm reading.