Rookie contracts too much?
 

It just seems to me that the rookies that go early get way too much money. Too many of them take too long to develop, and too many of them dont pan out to be close to the worth of the amount that is paid. The draft is devised to even out the differences between teams by having the worst teams pick first, but it seems to me that many teams are actually getting hurt by picking too early because of the amount of money spent on the top picks. Lets examine the top picks from 3 years ago. Not one player picked in the top ten turned out to impact even close to the amount that they got paid. Maybe one day these guys will produce, but the fact is that they are being paid the big bucks now to produce, and for the most part they are not.
1. Alex Smith-OK, but not top pick worthy. If he was drafted a year later, I doubt he would have been in the first round, and definately would have been at least the 4th QB taken.
2. Ronnie Brown-barely got over 1000 yards despite being the workhorse back, and only got 5 tds.
3. Braylon Edwards-Probably has the talent to be this high picked, but due to the lack of talent surrounding him only got under 900 yards and 6 tds
4. Cedric Benson- Was the backup to a guy who got traded for a swap of 2nd round picks. Never got over 700 yds or 6 tds
5. Carnell Williams-Despite being the workhorse back, he averaged only 3.5 yds per carry, got un der 800 yds, and had only 1 td.
6. Adam Jones-Talent might be worth the pick, but is suspended for all next year.
7. Troy Williamson-Didnt always start last year, got no tds, got 455 yds.
8. Antrel Rolle- Didnt turn out to be that good of a corner
9. Carlos Rogers-Might not even start next year.
10. Mike Williams-Is so bad, he was traded with a backup QB for a 4th round pick.

My point being that these guys are unproven, and do not deserve these huge contracts. The nfl should get involved and find out a way to reduce the payments of rookie contracts, because they just seem to be that rising way too fast and are getting to be way to high. I suggest that the league restrict the contracts, but allow for preformance insentives to make the contract huge, so if the players pan out, they get what they deserve, but if they are a bust, the team is not hurt. I think this should be applied to just rookies, not vets as well because when signing a vet, you know what you have evidence of what they can do in the NFL, but rookies have not proven they can play at the NFL level.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

One TWO many threads? PETE AND REPETE

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

Sorry for the two threads, i accidentially posted before i was done, this is the one that i want to keep, delete the other one.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

as long as the salary cap goes up so will the rookie contracts

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

Was Vince Young an impact player?

How about Reggie Bush?

Some guys are overhyped and some are really productive at the NFL level.

Peyton Manning was a #1 pick; he was worth it. That year, Ryan Leaf went #2; he wasn't.

Tim Couch was a # 1 pick and he wasn't worth it. That year, Donovan McNabb went #2; he was.

Has Sean Taylor been worth is lofty draft status for the Redskins? If you like to see big hits on defense as highlight plays, then he has. If you don't like seeing your safety chasing a receiver into the end-zone on a TD pass or arriving a step and half late to break up a TD pass, then he hasn't.

Has Carlos Rogers been worth his "Top Ten status". Certainly not yet...

Was LaVar Arrington worth a #2 overall pick? How about Chris Samuels at #3?

The draft is an inexact science. Remember, every team in the NFL passed over Tom Brady FIVE times because he was a sixth round pick. And so the contracts given to top picks are an equally inexact science...

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;313650]Was Vince Young an impact player?

How about Reggie Bush?

Some guys are overhyped and some are really productive at the NFL level.

Peyton Manning was a #1 pick; he was worth it. That year, Ryan Leaf went #2; he wasn't.

Tim Couch was a # 1 pick and he wasn't worth it. That year, Donovan McNabb went #2; he was.

Has Sean Taylor been worth is lofty draft status for the Redskins? If you like to see big hits on defense as highlight plays, then he has. If you don't like seeing your safety chasing a receiver into the end-zone on a TD pass or arriving a step and half late to break up a TD pass, then he hasn't.

Has Carlos Rogers been worth his "Top Ten status". Certainly not yet...

Was LaVar Arrington worth a #2 overall pick? How about Chris Samuels at #3?

The draft is an inexact science. Remember, every team in the NFL passed over Tom Brady FIVE times because he was a sixth round pick. And so the contracts given to top picks are an equally inexact science...[/quote]

My point was that it is an inexact science, and that is a big reason why i say that contracts are too big. The big money should go to proven players.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;313660]My point was that it is an inexact science, and that is a big reason why i say that contracts are too big. The big money should go to proven players.[/quote]

Well of course it's not an exact science, were aren't doing a math problem. These guys have never played at this level, so it's more of an educated guess. You win some you lose some, that simple.

Don't forget your first rounders are getting the bulk of the nice deals, based on what they've done up to that point in college. When you get in the mid/late rounds they aren't getting "big money"

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

I don't like seeing these rookie contracts get bigger and bigger every year because #1 they haven't earned that money and #2 it usually upsets some veteran who's pissed because a rookie is earning more money than he is. I wish the NFL would start dishing out incentive based contracts with rookies, fill them with incentives that can be earned throughout the length of the contract and if they get that money it's because they earned it. If they grow and become an elite player than the second contract they get will be a hella lot bigger than the first.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

for some reason, sports contracts are based on 2 things. what kind of season you had last year, so the new contract is kind of retro active. or what you have the potential to do. it definitely is a screwy system

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote]I wish the NFL would start dishing out incentive based contracts with rookies, fill them with incentives that can be earned throughout the length of the contract and if they get that money it's because they earned it. If they grow and become an elite player than the second contract they get will be a hella lot bigger than the first.[/quote]
If you want to do that fine, but don't expect the max length of a contract to be for any more than two years, I wouldn't sign anything more than that as a rookie for an incentive laden deal.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote=BeastsoftheNFCeast;313035]It just seems to me that the rookies that go early get way too much money. Too many of them take too long to develop, and too many of them dont pan out to be close to the worth of the amount that is paid. The draft is devised to even out the differences between teams by having the worst teams pick first, but it seems to me that many teams are actually getting hurt by picking too early because of the amount of money spent on the top picks. Lets examine the top picks from 3 years ago. Not one player picked in the top ten turned out to impact even close to the amount that they got paid. Maybe one day these guys will produce, but the fact is that they are being paid the big bucks now to produce, and for the most part they are not.
1. Alex Smith-OK, but not top pick worthy. If he was drafted a year later, I doubt he would have been in the first round, and definately would have been at least the 4th QB taken.
2. Ronnie Brown-barely got over 1000 yards despite being the workhorse back, and only got 5 tds.
3. Braylon Edwards-Probably has the talent to be this high picked, but due to the lack of talent surrounding him only got under 900 yards and 6 tds
4. Cedric Benson- Was the backup to a guy who got traded for a swap of 2nd round picks. Never got over 700 yds or 6 tds
5. Carnell Williams-Despite being the workhorse back, he averaged only 3.5 yds per carry, got un der 800 yds, and had only 1 td.
6. Adam Jones-Talent might be worth the pick, but is suspended for all next year.
7. Troy Williamson-Didnt always start last year, got no tds, got 455 yds.
8. Antrel Rolle- Didnt turn out to be that good of a corner
9. Carlos Rogers-Might not even start next year.
10. Mike Williams-Is so bad, he was traded with a backup QB for a 4th round pick.

My point being that these guys are unproven, and do not deserve these huge contracts. The nfl should get involved and find out a way to reduce the payments of rookie contracts, because they just seem to be that rising way too fast and are getting to be way to high. I suggest that the league restrict the contracts, but allow for preformance insentives to make the contract huge, so if the players pan out, they get what they deserve, but if they are a bust, the team is not hurt. I think this should be applied to just rookies, [B]not vets as well because when signing a vet, you know what you have evidence of what they can do in the NFL[/B], but rookies have not proven they can play at the NFL level.[/quote]

What about Adam Archuletta? What about Brandon Llyod? What about Dana Stubblefield? What about Dan Wilkinson? I can keep going but all of these players were veterans that got huge signing bonuses/contracts by the Redskins and did not perform well. Has acquiring high priced veterans instead of focusing on the draft resulted in a better record for the Redskins because the Front Office had evidence of what these players did in the NFL on other teams?

Instead of just restricting rookie contracts the only way to avoid overpaying for busts is to change contracts that rely on signing bonuses to contracts that rely on performance bonuses, but there a lot of agents and the NFL players association that will fight that to the end so we are stuck to having high priced busts that consist of rookies as you pointed out and veterans as I have pointed out.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote=Bill B;313717]What about Adam Archuletta? What about Brandon Llyod? What about Dana Stubblefield? What about Dan Wilkinson? I can keep going but all of these players were veterans that got huge signing bonuses/contracts by the Redskins and did not perform well. Has acquiring high priced veterans instead of focusing on the draft resulted in a better record for the Redskins because the Front Office had evidence of what these players did in the NFL on other teams?

Instead of just restricting rookie contracts the only way to avoid overpaying for busts is to change contracts that rely on signing bonuses to contracts that rely on performance bonuses, but there a lot of agents and the NFL players association that will fight that to the end so we are stuck to having high priced busts that consist of rookies as you pointed out and veterans as I have pointed out.[/quote]

I wouldnt consider any one of those guys you mentioned a bust. All of those guys showed what they could do in the NFL, and all of them produced what could be predicted of them. We took a risk on Arch knowing that he couldnt cover, Llyod isnt doing that much worse than he did in SF (if he is doing worse at all), Dana Stubblefield got injured and never recovered fully, that could happen to anyone and was just unfortunate, and Dan Wilkinson actually did well for us in the beginning, but he weighs alot, and as a result did worse earlier on in his career than he should have. But all of what I just said is irrelevevent to the fact that we are not forced to pay these guys the money that we pay them. We choose who we give that money to. The rookies who are taken early on have to get paid that money, and teams might not think the rookies are worth that money, but according to what they should get paid, they are paid. Also, we have documented footage of what vets can do, and can predict when they might not produce those numbers. When signing a vet, you make the decision of weather to take a risk on them or not based on their previous preformances in the NFL and the indicators that will predict how well they do with your team and for how long, but that is not true when signing a rookie who you have to sign, and do not know how they will do in the NFL. Also, rookies generally do not make immediate impacts, they take a few years to develop into people worthy of the money that they make, and that is not fair to know that you are probably not going to get full production from a guy for the first few years, but still have to pay him the big bucks.

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

[quote=dmek25;313682]for some reason, sports contracts are based on 2 things. what kind of season you had last year, so the new contract is kind of retro active. or what you have the potential to do. it definitely is a screwy system[/quote]

So basically your saying they look at your history or future. What else would they look for?

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

who can predict how a rookie will perform? to give these guys a wad of money without ever playing a down in the NFL, is just plain stupid

Re: Rookie contracts too much?
 

I completely agree with this.. Rookies means they will make mistakes and everything, def not worth lot of money..

And Rolle, the one in Arizona, he is good.. Def worth what he is getting..