Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Packers sign LB Clay Matthews to 5-year, $66M extension
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AtariB20


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The Real Titletown, USA
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If he can stay healthy for a full season, we will see what he is really capable of. Love this signing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mattwaukee


Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 4003
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boom. I've seen him him DESTROY lts in this league.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
49ers Finest


Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 8981
Location: San Jose
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's one of the sexiest dudes in the league


.... there i said it
_________________
***WE RUN THE WEST!***
SB AT HOME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

new sig... sorry alex
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22422
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite a hefty extension, but that's the market these days. They couldn't afford to lose him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tom cody


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 8525
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
_________________
Where's my Burrito? Where's my Burrito?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7963
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jakuvious


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 9033
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Well, in fairness, Mario was paid WAY too much. So making less than Mario doesn't say too much.
_________________

Adopt-a-Chief: Travis "Better Than Tony Moeaki" Kelce
7 catches, 130 yards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7963
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jakuvious wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Well, in fairness, Mario was paid WAY too much. So making less than Mario doesn't say too much.
It's not like he even sniffed that contract though. In the NFL world of over inflation where Paul Kruger got $40 million and has never had a double digit sack regular season, the Matthews deal is pretty team friendly IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheKillerNacho


Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 9638
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jakuvious wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Well, in fairness, Mario was paid WAY too much. So making less than Mario doesn't say too much.


It's substantially less than Mario got, though.

Personally I think the value is just right. I don't view this as overpaid or underpaid, but rather, right where Matthew's value is at. Good signing for the Packers and Matthews, kudos to both his agent & the Packers FO for getting a fair deal done to lock up this defensive star long-term.
_________________
With much cheese,

Nacho Simulation Football League
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Jakuvious


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Posts: 9033
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
Jakuvious wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Well, in fairness, Mario was paid WAY too much. So making less than Mario doesn't say too much.
It's not like he even sniffed that contract though. In the NFL world of over inflation where Paul Kruger got $40 million and has never had a double digit sack regular season, the Matthews deal is pretty team friendly IMO.


Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Mathews was overpaid. I think it sounds about right. I was just saying using Mario as a frame of reference isn't quite appropriate.
_________________

Adopt-a-Chief: Travis "Better Than Tony Moeaki" Kelce
7 catches, 130 yards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packer70


Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 3237
Location: Vancouver
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope there's wording in there that protects us from his hammy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22422
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Honestly, not picking on you, but I hate the "with the extension" and then throwing in the last year of their deal into it to make the yearly average come down.

If that's the case, let's just do it with every player who re-signs with their team. I mean, in Flacco's case -- if he signed the same exact deal he just did, but a year before his SB MVP people would shout overpaid -- but that would average out to $18.2m/year instead of $20.1 and people would magically think that's a fair average now.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare extensions the same across the board -- by what they are, not what they average out to be when you factor in years from a previous contract.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7963
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jakuvious wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Jakuvious wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Well, in fairness, Mario was paid WAY too much. So making less than Mario doesn't say too much.
It's not like he even sniffed that contract though. In the NFL world of over inflation where Paul Kruger got $40 million and has never had a double digit sack regular season, the Matthews deal is pretty team friendly IMO.


Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Mathews was overpaid. I think it sounds about right. I was just saying using Mario as a frame of reference isn't quite appropriate.
The first guy said that we overpaid. I don't think we stole him either. I would say it is fair. Had he hit the open market he would have gotten a quite a bit more IMO. So we saved money by locking him up before a bidding war in Free Agency but he didn't take a huge discount to stay either. But if people are going to say we over paid, what is he worth then? You know. I used the Mario contract, because IMO that is overpaying, but I wouldn't doubt Matthews would see that contract on the open market...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31129
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Honestly, not picking on you, but I hate the "with the extension" and then throwing in the last year of their deal into it to make the yearly average come down.

If that's the case, let's just do it with every player who re-signs with their team. I mean, in Flacco's case -- if he signed the same exact deal he just did, but a year before his SB MVP people would shout overpaid -- but that would average out to $18.2m/year instead of $20.1 and people would magically think that's a fair average now.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare extensions the same across the board -- by what they are, not what they average out to be when you factor in years from a previous contract.


Well that's not how it works. A player is going to see more money if he doesn't have a full year left on his current deal.

Thus, extending a player before imminent free agency is going to be a better deal for the team. Had GB waited til next offseason, he would have gotten more than 5 for 66.

So it's absolutely fine to include the entire length of the deal since the remaining year has a pretty big impact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22422
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Honestly, not picking on you, but I hate the "with the extension" and then throwing in the last year of their deal into it to make the yearly average come down.

If that's the case, let's just do it with every player who re-signs with their team. I mean, in Flacco's case -- if he signed the same exact deal he just did, but a year before his SB MVP people would shout overpaid -- but that would average out to $18.2m/year instead of $20.1 and people would magically think that's a fair average now.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare extensions the same across the board -- by what they are, not what they average out to be when you factor in years from a previous contract.


Well that's not how it works. A player is going to see more money if he doesn't have a full year left on his current deal.

Thus, extending a player before imminent free agency is going to be a better deal for the team. Had GB waited til next offseason, he would have gotten more than 5 for 66.

So it's absolutely fine to include the entire length of the deal since the remaining year has a pretty big impact.


My point is when comparing it to other contracts, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Again, with the Flacco example -- if the Ravens signed him to the same 6 years, $120m contract but it was considered an "extension" because his contract hadn't expired yet, and so it was essentially a 7 year, $128.6m contract ($18.4m a year), would that change your view of the contract as a whole compared to a 6 year, $120.6m that he got?

That's the only point I'm making -- if a guy signs his "new contract" a year early, when comparing to anyone's contract (extension or FA), to make it a valid comparison, only the extension portion should be what's use. None of the "well yeah, it's 5 years, $66 million, but if you include the last year of his other one, it averages to X". Just because he signed it a year early doesn't change the value of the new deal, unless you're going to add in the last year for guys who signed theirs once their original one expired. That's all. I'm all for taking it all into account on its own, but in comparisons, it shouldn't be factored in.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group