Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfaninok
Yeah but do they value him as a top 5 QB? That's the Q
|
That's really not the question because the contract inflation rate for NFL QB's is astronomical. The contracts of the top QB's would somehow need to be converted into today's NFL QB contract dollars to make a comparison of their contracts with Kirk's projected contract numbers.
In addition, the Skins bucked convention by not negotiating a long-term contract with Kirk before he proved himself over more than one season. I can hardly blame Skins management for that because they must have been appalled by the big deals signed by unproven QB's turned turds like Kaepernick and Osweiler. Nevertheless, they could have had Kirk at a more reasonable price if they had signed him to a long-term deal prior to last season.
My primary point here is that the Skins have waited longer to sign Kirk to a long-term deal than others have done in the past and so, due to runaway inflation in the cost of NFL QB's, they necessarily opened themselves up to having to pay Kirk much more than they would have if they had taken the conventional approach. They had to know he would cost more this season and they must have decided that it was worth the cost of waiting to find out for certain whether or not Kirk was the right QB to lead this team into the future.
If Kirk had signed a long-term contract last season, how reasonable would that deal look right now, a year from now, two years from now?