Seriously...someone confirm the rookie cap rule...that's been your whole argument.

this is going to cost him millions, Herbstreit supports his decision.

Hamp89 wrote: 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..

Nope. He's a football player.

"Locker also turned down chances to play pro baseball out of high school and again last summer that likely would have paid him millions. He did sign a contract with the Angels last summer after the club took him in the 10th round, paying him a reported $300,000. But that was done largely to give the Angels his rights for six years should he decide he wants to play baseball. He has no plans to do so anytime soon."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2010506165_locker15.html

Still nothing?

SQ_Crazies wrote: 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.

Most of them also agree with the rest of us that there will be a rookie cap in 2011.

There's no way to confirm it because it hasn't been officially confirmed yet. But the owners want it AND the veteran players want it. When they are both on the same side of an issue it almost always gets done.

Then your whole argument is an assumption. How many times have we heard things like this from professional leagues and then it doesn't happen in the final hour of discussion?

How can he make his decision based on something that isn't even known yet?

Sure the potential rookie cap is part of the reason he should go, but the biggest reason is risk. i.e. injury risk, poor-play next season hurting his stock, another QB passing him up in the hype category, etc.

Do you really think that QB coach at Washington is going to be more of a help to him than a NFL QB coach? Please.

Again, you have yet to prove me wrong on the FACT that the VAST majority of successful careers in the NFL come from players who stayed 4 years in college. It's a trend, too many examples for it to be a coincidence. I do really think that I'll take the word of NFL QB's who say they improved and learned a lot by staying that extra year.

Not to mention your entire argument against me was based on an assumption--care to keep playing?

I think it is clear that playing another year of college won't hurt him professionally, heck it may help him. (I still think standing on the sideline for a while and practicing with pros would be just as helpful) My argument is about the financial decision and the amount of risk he is taking. If I were his parents I'd be taking out an insurance policy here soon.

Ok and your argument has NOTHING behind it because the rookie cap isn't even a sure thing. Practicing with the pros certainly wouldn't hurt him but it clearly isn't JUST as helpful because 4 year guys are proven to be better off than 3 year guys.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Ok and your argument has NOTHING behind it because the rookie cap isn't even a sure thing. Practicing with the pros certainly wouldn't hurt him but it clearly isn't JUST as helpful because 4 year guys are proven to be better off than 3 year guys.

You're dense. see my previous threads about the rookie salary cap. Once again that isn't the main risk for him.

You think injury is the main risk, ok. Cite someone who had a career ending injury and wasn't able to play at the next level after they got all kinds of hype and decided to go back. I'll name 100 players who didn't get injured. Sam Bradford DID get injured and he's still going to be rolling in money in a matter of months. Is it a risk? Yes. But it is not as big a risk as him leaving early and not being ready and that possibly killing his CAREER. I'M dense? That's a good one--you're the one talking down on the guy for not running for the money because he wants to be something more than the money could ever buy.

The career ending injury is certainly something that is possible, but I mainly am just talking about a run of the mill injury. Before this past draft Bradford was considered the top (or one of the top QBs) he injured his shoulder and now probably won't throw for teams. You'd have to be a dreamer to think he will still be drafted where he would have been last year. He'll probably still be a mid to late 1st rounder, but the difference in money is substantial.

Leinart also lost a ton of dough by coming back, and the bad thing for him is that he hasn't been good either. His next contract will be backup QB money

You're right about Leinart. But it doesn't change the fact that the best QB's in the NFL and the VAST majority or starters were 4 year guys. Quite a few guys still think Bradford might be the 1st QB taken--and he's still for sure one of the top QB's--he'll go in the first 15 picks. Like I said, all you can do is cite Sam Bradford and he's still going to sign for millions. There are hundreds of guys that came back senior year and didn't get injured.

Do you think Cameron Heyward should leave because there is no guarantee that he won't get injured?

No one plays the game with injuries in their mind--if they do they'll never make it anyways.

Count me in with jordo on this one. Its stupid to turn down the guaranteed dough, especially when you're not a top end prospect. IMO Locker has more to lose by coming back than by leaving early.

I'm done with this topic. You guys aren't seeing it from the right angle and I really believe I've already won this argument. And I find it hilarious that in an era of bitching about how much money pro athletes make that everyone is telling him to run for the money. LMAO!

SQ_Crazies wrote: I'm done with this topic. You guys aren't seeing it from the right angle and I really believe I've already won this argument. And I find it hilarious that in an era of bitching about how much money pro athletes make that everyone is telling him to run for the money. LMAO!

You'll never see me complain about how much money players make. Who should make the money? If the players don't get it, who does? Do people want owners to take even more money?

SQ_Crazies wrote:
Do you think Cameron Heyward should leave because there is no guarantee that he won't get injured?

If you are a 1st rounder, you should go. That's just me...

SQ_Crazies wrote: I'm done with this topic. You guys aren't seeing it from the right angle and I really believe I've already won this argument. And I find it hilarious that in an era of bitching about how much money pro athletes make that everyone is telling him to run for the money. LMAO!

You've won with yourself, and that's about it. Congrats!:-/

Yeah, well, if I were arguing about nuclear fission with a bunch of 4th graders, just because they didn't agree wouldn't mean I didn't win the argument.

SQ_Crazies wrote: You think injury is the main risk, ok. Cite someone who had a career ending injury and wasn't able to play at the next level after they got all kinds of hype and decided to go back. I'll name 100 players who didn't get injured. Sam Bradford DID get injured and he's still going to be rolling in money in a matter of months. Is it a risk? Yes. But it is not as big a risk as him leaving early and not being ready and that possibly killing his CAREER. I'M dense? That's a good one--you're the one talking down on the guy for not running for the money because he wants to be something more than the money could ever buy.

There are only 32 starting quarterback jobs in the NFL. Since you seem to like the odds game so much (odds are a player isn't going to suffer a career ending injury, odds are that a rookie cap isn't put in place), what are the odds that a guy like Jake Locker is ever going to be a starting franchise quarterback? His most likely destination is going to be a career backup, why not enter the draft now and cash in on an extra year of the period of his life where he is going to make his peak earnings?

SQ_Crazies wrote: I'm done with this topic. You guys aren't seeing it from the right angle and I really believe I've already won this argument. And I find it hilarious that in an era of bitching about how much money pro athletes make that everyone is telling him to run for the money. LMAO!

Why do you assume that I (or anyone on my side of the argument) am the same person who complains about how much money athletes make? Once again, my angle isn't about his future abilities as an NFL QB. It is about his financial decision. On "The Herd" this week, Colin stated that the new proposed rookie cap would allow for around 8-10 million guaranteed for a top pick. When you compare that to the 50 million Locker could get this year, it is a no brainer decision (financially). Further, as I have stated before, the rookie contract Locker would get this year would be comparable to the RECORD extension EM received earlier this year - making him the highest paid NFL player.

But I'm done with this topic, as this post is just repetitive of my others within this thread. By the way, I've won the argument anyway, so no point in continuing...

Key word being proposed. You're rotating your entire argument around a proposed idea. I've seen countless ideas, ESPECIALLY involving money, get talked about for a long time in any pro sport and never get put in place. Not saying it won't happen, but you're saying he should base his decision on a proposal--if people based every decision on proposals there would be some pretty stupid fucking decisions made. The only thing we know FOR SURE is that staying 4 years is a better path to long term success in the NFL. Long term success in the NFL=more money no matter how you want to look at it. He could match Eli's record contract, be a flop and never make shit from the NFL the rest of his life. He could stay 4 years, get a big fat contract anyways (maybe match Eli's if your proposed idea that you're pretending is set in stone doesn't go through) and end up being a great player and sign an even bigger extension. 100 million and then a 130 million extension=a hell of a lot more money than 100 million and a 3 million dollar extension. Again, I've said it a million times, nothing is certain--he could be a flop anyways but he's setting himself up for a more lucrative, lengthy career. It's not that I don't get what you're saying--I'm just arguing the other side and you absolutely can't say I don't have a damn good point.

And yes, this is my last post--maybe you guys can pull your glasses out long enough to pay attention.

SQ_Crazies wrote: Not to mention your entire argument against me was based on an assumption--care to keep playing?

Kind of like how someone else is assuming that playing another year in college is going to benefit him more than an NFL quarterbacks coach would, and assuming that it will be a smart financial decision in the long term?

Mulva wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Not to mention your entire argument against me was based on an assumption--care to keep playing?

Kind of like how someone else is assuming that playing another year in college is going to benefit him more than an NFL quarterbacks coach would, and assuming that it will be a smart financial decision in the long term?

It is an assumption, but not nearly as big an assumption--it's been proven over and over and over again.