Haven't seen it yet, but I bet it has something to do with how he is screwing over other QBs because he didn't bend KC over with his contract. Sounds like a Florio type of thing. [Reply]
This is nothing new. He's been doing this ever since the deal was done.
When it was Brady, nobody gave a fuck. In fact, they praised him and the Pats for it.
Even more annoying, I've noticed that in every single Veach PC I've watched this offseason, the local guys are also asking about Pat's contract. Will those dudes just :-) already? [Reply]
What’s screwing over qb contracts is that other teams and QBs are comfortable with a qb taking up way way too high a % of the cap. That’s a them problem. And this is really disingenuous after hearing for decades about what a great team player Brady was. I don’t think I ever once heard anyone criticize him for taking a lesser contract.
The chiefs were rewarded for taking a 10 year risk on mahomes. Mahomes was rewarded for a contract that sets him for life. Other teams are welcome to do the same but my guess is most would not because they don’t want a qb under contract for that long [Reply]
Originally Posted by The Franchise:
Brady took deals so he could have a better team around him. Apparently that’s not okay for Mahomes to do.
This is true, I also don't see how anyone else has suffered because of Mahomes contract. There are 5 or 6 guys making more than Pat now. He didn't "hurt the market" at all. [Reply]
Yeah it's annoying as fuck. He won't :-) about it. The metric he uses is bullshit. Basically, if Pat doesn't re-up his contract every three years to stay on top of the market, the Chiefs are cheap.
Pat is going to get paid again, everyone and their momma knows he's gonna get a salary bump, likely after Burrow and Herbert get paid.
If the goal is to argue for the player, pay him more for the sake of being in line with market value, why the fuck would they do it BEFORE Herbert and Burrow's contract? [Reply]
