grigs cap master?

[BlueShoe]

I understand your logic, and agree with it. But Luck wouldn't be #1 on that list. That would be Aaron Rodgers, followed by Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, in some order. Luck would probably be 5th.

 

I disagree. I believe NFL teams wouldn't even need a second to think about it either. Luck is young and will bring several years of success. He also is multidimensional. A team that has to begin building a franchise today would want the younger player for the long haul. 

 

Manning, Brady, Brees, and so on; where will they be in 5 years? Players don't help win games in broadcast booths.

 

And I believe teams would take Luck over Rodgers right now just based on skill level.

 

I know where Andrew will be. Winning football games.

[Superman]

I disagree. I believe NFL teams wouldn't even need a second to think about it either. Luck is young and will bring several years of success. He also is multidimensional. A team that has to begin building a franchise today would want the younger player for the long haul. 

 

Manning, Brady, Brees, and so on; where will they be in 5 years? Players don't help win games in broadcast booths.

 

And I believe teams would take Luck over Rodgers right now just based on skill level.

 

I know where Andrew will be. Winning football games.

 

Luck over Rodgers on skill level? Yeah, no. I'm a huge Luck fan, but Rodgers does everything as well as Luck does, a lot of it better, with the exception of shrugging off tacklers. And Rodgers is just young enough that you'll get a prolonged period of play before his game begins to decline. To me, he's #1 and it's not close.

 

You have an argument about age with the other three. I think, for the next three years, they're all better QBs, and do so much for their teams that you embrace their shorter window of opportunity like Denver is doing. Don't have to worry about development, reaching potential, etc. You know exactly what you're getting, and you know it's enough to win.

[BlueShoe]

Luck over Rodgers on skill level? Yeah, no. I'm a huge Luck fan, but Rodgers does everything as well as Luck does, a lot of it better, with the exception of shrugging off tacklers. And Rodgers is just young enough that you'll get a prolonged period of play before his game begins to decline. To me, he's #1 and it's not close.

 

You have an argument about age with the other three. I think, for the next three years, they're all better QBs, and do so much for their teams that you embrace their shorter window of opportunity like Denver is doing. Don't have to worry about development, reaching potential, etc. You know exactly what you're getting, and you know it's enough to win.

 

Disagree, but I do appreciate you opinion. ;)

 

I was thinking about the Luck and Rodgers debate last year, and gave it careful thought. I believe that teams would choose Luck over Rodgers right now. Then Colin Cowherd had a long rant about it as well (which does not make either of us correct by any stretch of the imagination). If you can find it in the ESPN News radio archive then it is a very good argument Colin puts up for Luck as well.

[Narcosys]

No, what i'm saying is (without seeing the exact contract details) that the broncos most likely handed out big signing bonuses to be able afford these big contracts in the first place. So even if these players don't deteriorate enough to get cut for their presumably high salaries towards the end of their contracts, the total cap hit from their signing bonuses plus their salaries will be quite hefty. This will restrict their ability to re-sign their own players in the future ( Von Miller, possibly even Brock Osweiler?) and force them to make very tough decisions. Unless one can draft extremely well, there will undoubtedly be positions lacking talent and depth that they cannot afford to fix.

Thus, 'cap hell'

so youre telling me that when they are gone the team will still be paying these guys?