MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK

That's my point, though. A Super Bowl win, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything. There has to be more qualifications. So you can make the argument that the first win against the Pats was contextually more important than someone like Dilfer's, but saying, "Add on the second" just doesn't cut it. That's the point. A Superbowl win, without context or additional qualifiers, is not by default a credit to getting into the Hall of Fame (nor should it be, by default, a detractor if a player doesn't have one).

 

Being 7th place in yards and touchdowns is a product of longevity. And an indicator of how much the game has changed recently. Not of greatness.

Jay Cutler is #28 in yards and #32 in touchdowns. Not because he's the 28th or 32nd best ever....but because of the era he played in.

 

Nobody ahead of him on the list has played less seasons. And I never said it makes him the 7th best QB. It puts him in the company of other HOF QB’s and those thought of as certain to enter once they retire.

 

A Super Bowl win in and of itself might not mean anything but multiple sure do.

 

It doesn’t put him in their company. It’s a product of the era he played in.

Had some great QBs from the eras before Eli played today he would be significantly lower down the list on those totals.

 

Team accomplishments. Not individual.

 

Report: Dak Prescott rejected $33 million per year in new money in September



Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott bet on himself in September, and he’s about to cash in. One way or the other.

Clarence E. Hill, Jr. of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the Cowboys and Prescott “came close to deal in September on a contract that would have paid him roughly $33 million annually.” Talks broke down when Prescott wanted more.

Here’s the thing to remember regarding any talks from 2018. Prescott’s paltry salary of $2 million for 2019 would have dragged down the total value at signing of any new contract. If, for example, the Cowboys had offered a five-year extension worth $33 million per year, the average value at signing on the six-year deal would have been $27.8 million per year, halfway between to total value at signing of the contracts signed by Jimmy Garoppolo (five years, $27.5 million per year) and Kirk Cousins (three years, $28 million per year).

Hill reports that Prescott wants a deal that will pay him as much or more than Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson. But there’s a big difference between Wilson’s new-money average of $35 million per year and his total value at signing of $31.4 million per year. Since Prescott currently has no contract, Prescott’s total value at signing and new money will be the same.

So will it be $35 million per year or $31.4 million per year or somewhere in between?

Here’s the more important reality regarding the value of Dak’s next deal. Once the Cowboys apply the franchise tag, the market at the position doesn’t matter. What matters is the projected payout under the tag. If the Cowboys risk exposing Prescott to an offer sheet from another team (which if not matched would give the Cowboys a pair of first-round picks), the starting point would be the non-exclusive tag of roughly $27 million for 2020, along with a 20-percent bump in 2021 to $32.4 million. And then comes 2022, where Prescott would be entitled to a 44-percent increase, to $46.65 million. That’s a year-to-year payout of $106 million over three years, an average of $35.35 million.

If the Cowboys apply the exclusive tender, things get much more expensive. It’s $33.4 million for 2020 (for now) then $40.08 million for 2021 then $57.71 million for 2022, a three-year payout of $131.19 million, or $43.73 million per year.

That’s a huge amount of leverage, if Prescott is willing to play on a year-to-year basis. And he has shown over the past year a stubborn reluctance to bow to the wishes of the Joneses, holding firm for the contract he believes he deserves.

Prescott has even more leverage, given that under the rules of the tag he has the right to stay away from all offseason, training-camp, and preseason activities while still making the full amount of the tender if he shows up in early September. The Cowboys can’t afford to not have Prescott around for the preparations for the first season of Mike McCarthy’s tenure as coach, and if Dak is willing to continue to hold firm it puts maximum pressure on the Cowboys to pay up.

NBC

 

Wow, the Prescott deal could get ugly... Either ugly for the McCarthy and the Cowboys being without him... or ugly in the sense of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

We're basically talking about a difference of $4M in the first year. The vast majority of people don't make $4M in their lifetime !

And the NFL and NFLPA wonder why they're losing fans.

 

I remember when Brett Favre signed the first $100M contract... It was for 10 years... Now $100M only gets you 3 years worth of contract for a QB.

 

Yea some QB’s would be higher on the list. Probably bump Eli down a few notches. But not enough to dismiss him from contention. How many of those QB’s would also have on there resume winning 2 Super Bowls with 4th QTr comebacks against the greatest HC/QB combo in history.

 

Bull shit. Within the team accomplishment of winning a Super Bowl are individual accomplishments that lead to that win. Winning A Super Bowl is not enough. How much you contribute to that win is what separates.

 

Not trying to be argumentative here, but . . .

How many of those 4th quarter comebacks did the Giants' defense play a hand in? My point is, and always has been, Super Bowl wins are a team effort whereas induction into the HoF is an individual honor.

 

Unless you're the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer, a team with a shitty QB won't even get to the Super Bowl.

Or a team with shitty WR's . . .
Or a team with shitty D-backs . . .
Or a team with shitty [insert position group here] . . .

It takes talent across all positions to get to and win a Super Bowl.

 

Eli Manning to the HOF is a hard call, to me, but it is the Hall of 'Fame', not stats or accomplishments. He threw for over 56,000 yards because of his longevity which should be in his favor not a detriment... he was able to stay healthy.

Beating The Pats twice and have a last name of Manning should get him in. He has some good stats and some average stats, but if I had a vote, id put him in... there is plenty of room.

 

Eli is in between Dan Marino and John Elway on the yards list. And he isn’t in the same league with either of them.

The Giants defense played a rather crucial role in both those SB wins as well. Let’s stop pretending Manning won all by himself.

 

Yeah and without the Giants defense, which was average in the regular season but dominant at times in the postseason, Eli has zero rings.

Eli didn’t shut down the Patriots offense. Didn’t force Brady into an early safety in the first SB they played. Didn’t suffocate Brady at times with the pass rush. The defense did.

winning a SB is a team accomplishment.

 

Longevity isn’t a detriment....but longevity by itself doesn’t make you a Hall of Famer.

Gale Sayers is one of the greatest ever and his career was over before you could blink. Frank Gore has been around for a very long time but he’s levels below Sayers in terms of greatness.

 

I get it. Football is a team sport. If that is your argument then get rid of the hall of fame. Get rid of the pro bowl and any other individual awards. No need for a Superb bowl MVP. It’s a team win.

 

That has to be one of the more ignorant responses I have ever received.

"Within the team accomplishment of winning a Super Bowl are individual accomplishments that lead to that win" <--- those are your words, not mine.​

My point remains that using Super Bowl wins to justify induction in the HoF is ridiculous. Dan Marino is in the HoF with zero (0) Super Bowl wins. Why? Because his individual play warranted his induction.