A. Schefter: Skelton the Favorite to Win Job
- Thread starter Pariah
- Start date
CardsFan88
ASFN Addict
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 7,512
- Reaction score
- 4,470
The thing about the Kolb extension is how likely would he have been to come in and tear it up so much that he would have warranted more than what he got? Because that's the reason to sign him so early, and it's really not a good reason.
The contract we signed him for are similar to guys with the promise to consistently put up say roughly 3800+ yards a season every season and 25+ td's a year. Not that they actually do that, but that any season they have the talent to do that. He never EVER could be considered to eventually get to Drew Bradyarino status. Which is what the 'fear' was. If he was merely good, then you pay him an extra few million on a contract, and it's money well spent.
In order for the Cards to really be in a bind, he would of had to had such a stellar season, and even then you're talking about risking a 60 million dollar mistake for saving under the life of a contract 5-10 million. 5-10 million more (maybe 20) he only would have gotten if he posted 4000+ yards, 30 td's and basically did as well or better than Kurt Warner ever did. It just wasn't going to happen.
It's the epitome (NFL version) of picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.
If the 'fear' was he'd get 5000 yards and 40 td's, and we'd need to pay him 17-20 mill a season, then our front office are idiots.
We should have let him play out his contract and signed him to a similar one like we did if he performed. It wouldn't of been much more. If he was that good, then it'd still be a good investment. Our front office was too cute by half and risked a ton of money on an unknown for the expected result of saving money on the long run. Instead we wasted a ton of money in the short and long run because the expected result was merely a large leap of faith. Horrible front office rationale.
I wouldn't of even minded a year extension for 10 million. If they wanted to do something, they could of done that. Give Kolb more security, while giving us the chance to see what we have. If signs are good, then get it done earlier in the process rather than later. So while playing out the contract would have been best, doing a short extension like this wouldn't of been too horrible either. That's the range of approach we should have taken with Kolb.
It was an asinine decision to pay him what we did. Especially when he already was knocked out of the starting lineup in game one because of a concussion. All the question marks were already there. It wasn't just unproven, the durability issues were already there. He'd of had to be a hell of a QB in order to outplay the contract we gave him. It's one thing if we gave him say Flynn's contract. But we didn't need to because by trading for him, we already had him under contract.
We gave him established QB money, with durability issues, moving to a new system, and somehow thought we had to because otherwise in his first season in a new system he might light it up and be top 5 QB? Saving a few million in cap space potentially turned into wasting a ton actually.
Our front office will be hard pressed to get anywhere consistently if it is always making decisions based on being scared of paying more later. Trying to identify young core talent already on the team in a known quantity is one thing. Paying outrageous sums to inexperienced QB's that have suffered a concussion in limited playing time and are being asked to switch to a completely new system because they might perform better and you might have to pay them a bit more is a completely different thing.
If we had asked him to play out his contract. We'd already be off the hook. Or re-signed him to a deal for a couple of million or so a year. Had he lit it up, we'd be successful, and he'd get a bit more. No way was he ever going to command 15 million a season. No matter WHAT he commanded, if he's as good as a large contract suggests, then we're a good team, playoffs bound, and it's a small issue. If they're wrong on the large leap of faith on an unknown, the downside is huge. Our position was a High risk/low reward type of move. Horrible decision.
Anyways, Skelton has the leg up imo. This Raiders game I do believe like others is very important for Kolb if he wants to remain in the starter discussion, and perhaps in Arizona at all. We still have three more games, and while I'd much prefer giving Skelton the largest possible timeframe to get ready to start the regular season, if Kolb were to be cut, it might not be until right before or after the last preseason game. But that might not happen at all of course.
I do also think like others that if Kolb has to play an extended time he is at high risk to injury thus settling the QB controversy. I've always said he can go down on any play and his career finished. Yes of course you can say that about any player. But with Kolb you can see it, and know it to be wholly true. I think he'll be lucky if he can play four games without injury at this point. So imo if he plays three quarters against the Raiders, he definitely could get injured.
I thought Hass would have been a better move. Hass/Skelton would have been fine by me. It should have been clear to the front office that Skelton was a type of QB that had potential starting ability, so unless you were getting a proven QB, adding another unproven one to go alongside Skelton, wasn't exactly the best move.
The contract we signed him for are similar to guys with the promise to consistently put up say roughly 3800+ yards a season every season and 25+ td's a year. Not that they actually do that, but that any season they have the talent to do that. He never EVER could be considered to eventually get to Drew Bradyarino status. Which is what the 'fear' was. If he was merely good, then you pay him an extra few million on a contract, and it's money well spent.
In order for the Cards to really be in a bind, he would of had to had such a stellar season, and even then you're talking about risking a 60 million dollar mistake for saving under the life of a contract 5-10 million. 5-10 million more (maybe 20) he only would have gotten if he posted 4000+ yards, 30 td's and basically did as well or better than Kurt Warner ever did. It just wasn't going to happen.
It's the epitome (NFL version) of picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.
If the 'fear' was he'd get 5000 yards and 40 td's, and we'd need to pay him 17-20 mill a season, then our front office are idiots.
We should have let him play out his contract and signed him to a similar one like we did if he performed. It wouldn't of been much more. If he was that good, then it'd still be a good investment. Our front office was too cute by half and risked a ton of money on an unknown for the expected result of saving money on the long run. Instead we wasted a ton of money in the short and long run because the expected result was merely a large leap of faith. Horrible front office rationale.
I wouldn't of even minded a year extension for 10 million. If they wanted to do something, they could of done that. Give Kolb more security, while giving us the chance to see what we have. If signs are good, then get it done earlier in the process rather than later. So while playing out the contract would have been best, doing a short extension like this wouldn't of been too horrible either. That's the range of approach we should have taken with Kolb.
It was an asinine decision to pay him what we did. Especially when he already was knocked out of the starting lineup in game one because of a concussion. All the question marks were already there. It wasn't just unproven, the durability issues were already there. He'd of had to be a hell of a QB in order to outplay the contract we gave him. It's one thing if we gave him say Flynn's contract. But we didn't need to because by trading for him, we already had him under contract.
We gave him established QB money, with durability issues, moving to a new system, and somehow thought we had to because otherwise in his first season in a new system he might light it up and be top 5 QB? Saving a few million in cap space potentially turned into wasting a ton actually.
Our front office will be hard pressed to get anywhere consistently if it is always making decisions based on being scared of paying more later. Trying to identify young core talent already on the team in a known quantity is one thing. Paying outrageous sums to inexperienced QB's that have suffered a concussion in limited playing time and are being asked to switch to a completely new system because they might perform better and you might have to pay them a bit more is a completely different thing.
If we had asked him to play out his contract. We'd already be off the hook. Or re-signed him to a deal for a couple of million or so a year. Had he lit it up, we'd be successful, and he'd get a bit more. No way was he ever going to command 15 million a season. No matter WHAT he commanded, if he's as good as a large contract suggests, then we're a good team, playoffs bound, and it's a small issue. If they're wrong on the large leap of faith on an unknown, the downside is huge. Our position was a High risk/low reward type of move. Horrible decision.
Anyways, Skelton has the leg up imo. This Raiders game I do believe like others is very important for Kolb if he wants to remain in the starter discussion, and perhaps in Arizona at all. We still have three more games, and while I'd much prefer giving Skelton the largest possible timeframe to get ready to start the regular season, if Kolb were to be cut, it might not be until right before or after the last preseason game. But that might not happen at all of course.
I do also think like others that if Kolb has to play an extended time he is at high risk to injury thus settling the QB controversy. I've always said he can go down on any play and his career finished. Yes of course you can say that about any player. But with Kolb you can see it, and know it to be wholly true. I think he'll be lucky if he can play four games without injury at this point. So imo if he plays three quarters against the Raiders, he definitely could get injured.
I thought Hass would have been a better move. Hass/Skelton would have been fine by me. It should have been clear to the front office that Skelton was a type of QB that had potential starting ability, so unless you were getting a proven QB, adding another unproven one to go alongside Skelton, wasn't exactly the best move.
crisper57
Open the Roof!
So now what happens when he torches our D with his 33-40 passing (for 82 yards) performance this week? How do we talk about it?
ASUCHRIS
ONE HEART BEAT!!!
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Posts
- 16,504
- Reaction score
- 14,665
So now what happens when he torches our D with his 33-40 passing (for 82 yards) performance this week? How do we talk about it?
Ha, we don't.
Jetstream Green
Kool Aid with a touch of vodka
So now what happens when he torches our D with his 33-40 passing (for 82 yards) performance this week? How do we talk about it?
no way he gets just 82 yards, he should get around 88 LOL
Denny Green Fan
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,964
- Reaction score
- 188
