Like I said it is subjective, and a risk that he is willing to take.

I wouldn't, and it's far from ridiculous to consider future earnings and financial stability for the remainder of your life, which on averege, consists of approximately 60 years.

Wasn't he drafted in baseball a couple of years ago? Might he still possibly be considering the MLB route? Much longer career possibilities in baseball compared to the NFL. Just a thought..

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

LOL, ok and if Stafford never signs an extension because he isn't good enough (I think he will be) then what you're leaving out is Eli's rookie deal--so yes, chump change.

Jamarcus Russell signed a 68 million dollar deal with 31.5 million guaranteed. When that's up he's going to be making back up money--so compared to Eli Manning, chump change.

Eli has 106.4 million coming his way on top of the tens of millions he made from his rookie deal. Not to mention the millions he makes from superstar level endorsements. Just proves my point though--look at that extension he got. If you're good then you'll make your money down the road. Staying four years gives you a hell of a lot better chance of success.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

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

LOL, ok and if Stafford never signs an extension because he isn't good enough (I think he will be) then what you're leaving out is Eli's rookie deal--so yes, chump change.

Jamarcus Russell signed a 68 million dollar deal with 31.5 million guaranteed. When that's up he's going to be making back up money--so compared to Eli Manning, chump change.

Eli has 106.4 million coming his way on top of the tens of millions he made from his rookie deal. Not to mention the millions he makes from superstar level endorsements. Just proves my point though--look at that extension he got. If you're good then you'll make your money down the road. Staying four years gives you a hell of a lot better chance of success.

Damn you're passionate about this..the only problem is that the Eli deal is a definite exception, not the rule. In no way is Locker sitting back saying, "gee I'm going to be making that money and having all kinds of endorsements since Eli did". It's still dumb to pass the UP FRONT, GUARANTEED cash. He will learn just as much as a backup in the NFL for a year or two - one more year in college will do very little, if anything, to improve his abilities.

Hamp89 wrote: one more year in college will do very little, if anything, to improve his abilities.

LOL, FALSE!

SQ_Crazies wrote:

Hamp89 wrote: one more year in college will do very little, if anything, to improve his abilities.

LOL, FALSE!

I see you left out part of my comment - you don't think being a backup for a year or two, learning how to be an NFL QB would suffice? If anything you could argue the quicker he gets in the draft, the quicker he'll be a starting NFL QB. The scouts have spoken, and have seen all they need to decide locker is a potential #1 pick. What more is there to prove in college?

Come on, try to debate this with me. QB's who stay in college for 4 years seem to have more success in the NFL than guys who come out early. Go ahead, debate it, I'll wait...

SQ_Crazies wrote: Come on, try to debate this with me. QB's who stay in college for 4 years seem to have more success in the NFL than guys who come out early. Go ahead, debate it, I'll wait...

I'm not arguing what level of success he might have. In all honesty, who cares? He's turning down a shitload of guaranteed money to stick around and "hope" he has success so he can make money on the back end? It's a ludicrous argument you're trying to make. Start a poll, I think you'll find youself in the minority by a large margin.

Yeah I've posted on this thread several times, and I've been saying what most of the others have been saying. Anybody with half a clue knows that FINANCIALLY this is ludicrous. Its a crazy gamble.

SQ Crazies, you are in the minority dude

If you don't care what kind of success he has then why do you care whether or not he's turning money down?

And I don't really care if I find myself in the minority on FREEHUDDLE LOL! Most of the guys who know better than any of us seem to agree with me.

It isn't a ludicrous argument that I'm trying to make, but what I'm saying is the risk he is taking isn't any greater than the risk he'd be taking if he left early. Might seem like it to some of you because you see the big dollar signs, but he's going to see them anyways. People brought up Sam Bradford to try to tear my argument up--funny because that just helps my argument. He went back, happened to get injured (which doesn't happen to most of the guys who come back--sure it is a risk you take) and he's still going to see the big dollar signs. Fact is, nothing is certain at all, so you can't be certain that I'm wrong and I can't be certain that anyone else is--but I'm not trying to be like that. I'm just defending his decision because some people are talking about this like they are certain he's making a big mistake. And I have the only certain point in the whole argument--guys that stay 4 years tend to have longer, more successful careers and make more money in the long run. That's the trend.

jordo212000 wrote: Yeah I've posted on this thread several times, and I've been saying what most of the others have been saying. Anybody with half a clue knows that FINANCIALLY this is ludicrous. Its a crazy gamble.

SQ Crazies, you are in the minority dude

LOL, I don't care. Why does that matter? I was in the minority for the last presidential election too--think I was wrong? lmao

what if he gets hurt next year and doesn't get to play in the NFL at all?

SQ_Crazies wrote:
LOL, I don't care. Why does that matter? I was in the minority for the last presidential election too--think I was wrong? lmao

Crap, a few minutes ago you were saying "come on debate this with me"

Now that everybody has basically tore your argument to shreds, you don't care?

That's a risk you take. It could happen, but it more than likely won't.

jordo212000 wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote:
LOL, I don't care. Why does that matter? I was in the minority for the last presidential election too--think I was wrong? lmao

Crap, a few minutes ago you were saying "come on debate this with me"

Now that everybody has basically tore your argument to shreds, you don't care?

You haven't come close to tearing my argument to shreds. You tore it to shreds by saying I'm in the minority? I don't care if I'm in the minority.

SQ_Crazies wrote: If you don't care what kind of success he has then why do you care whether or not he's turning money down?

Because success in the NFL isn't guaranteed, but the money is. This is what we're talking about here, correct? It's a job, and he's doing it to make money. Your advice is to wait a year, take a smaller contract, and then hope to become a great player so you can make your money. You'd be a terrible financial advisor/agent. There's a reason every major sports network is killing him on the decision.

There's also a reason why former players are applauding his decision and saying it will help him in the long run and make him more NFL ready.

I'm not trying to be an agent. I'm just defending his decision and some of the points I've made you can't really argue with. I'm not trying to debate that he's turning down a lot of money. But he's trying to become a better player for the long run--you can make a hell of a lot more money with a long successful career and you can not debate that 4 year guys tend to have longer, more successful careers. Some of you are tearing him apart for his decision to want to get better at the game, not run for the money and stay in school. Something that most "fans" would love to see from more players--apparently until the situation actually comes up and then a lot of people turn hypocritical. But his decision will look genius if he ends up being a superstar for 10-15 years won't it?

And aren't you guys assuming quite a bit anyways? Did I miss something or did they lock in the smaller rookie contracts? I thought it was just being discussed, didn't think it was for sure yet.

SQ_Crazies wrote:
You haven't come close to tearing my argument to shreds. You tore it to shreds by saying I'm in the minority? I don't care if I'm in the minority.

You don't get it, or aren't willing to get it.

Now that everybody has basically tore your argument to shreds, you don't care?

How does everybody = me?

BTW, there are a ton of 4 year players succeeding in the NFL because it was asinine up until a few years ago to leave early. Id like to know how many 3 year players are even in the NFL as QBs.

SQ_Crazies wrote:

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

LOL, ok and if Stafford never signs an extension because he isn't good enough (I think he will be) then what you're leaving out is Eli's rookie deal--so yes, chump change.

Jamarcus Russell signed a 68 million dollar deal with 31.5 million guaranteed. When that's up he's going to be making back up money--so compared to Eli Manning, chump change.

Eli has 106.4 million coming his way on top of the tens of millions he made from his rookie deal. Not to mention the millions he makes from superstar level endorsements. Just proves my point though--look at that extension he got. If you're good then you'll make your money down the road. Staying four years gives you a hell of a lot better chance of success.

Are you serious? That doesn't prove your point at all. That proves that Eli's RECORD extension is similar to what Locker would make if he came out now! That is without all the credentials Eli has earned over the years. Haven't you ever heard the commentators or current players complain about rookie contracts? That is because the top rookies make just as much as the established vets. Eli's rookie contract is completely irrelevant to this argument. You were arguing he would make more money by taking a 40M (yes 40 million!) hit now and wait for the big bucks to roll in later. When in reality, those big bucks that may or may not roll in later, and, if he is even good enough to get an Eli-like extension, it would be similar to what he would be getting paid for coming out this year.

Btw, if you have a link to someone in the industry who believes this makes financial sense, please post it.

Have they capped rookie deals for sure? I'm seriously asking, I never heard that they did. I know it was being discussed, but talking about it will be easier than getting it done and it's been discussed for years.

dat dude wrote: Btw, if you have a link to someone in the industry who believes this makes financial sense, please post it.

No one has come out and said "it makes more financial sense" but they've said it increases his chances of success at the next level a lot because he'll improve on those intangibles and the rest of his game and be more NFL ready. More success=more money no matter how you want to spin your argument.

So can no one confirm the rookie cap rule?

BAD CALL on his part. The new cap will cost him MILLIONS.

bo shemmy3337 wrote: BAD CALL on his part. The new cap will cost him MILLIONS.

Don't get sq crazies going again.