... unless he sucks. Regardless, everything you said does not change the fact that Nicks got $3 mil/year less and is a far better value.
I think it's interesting that Decker's peak in college was 84 catches and in his 3rd and 4th years in the NFL he caught 85 and 87. He's not a fluke. He might have been the Broncos #2 or even #3 but he was able to have a very productive 2 year stretch anyway. With the Colts Peyton Manning's 2nd receivers (WR-only) averaged 58.6 catches for 765.1 yards and 5.6 TD's. The peak seasons by his 2nd WR's were 2006 (Reggie Wayne) with 86 catches for 1,310 yards and 9 TD's, 2005 (Marvin Harrison) with 82 catches for 1,146 yards and 12 TD's and 2004 (Reggie Wayne) with 77 catches for 1,210 yards and 12 TD's. As a #2 WR Eric Decker stacks up very well with the Colts high-quality #2's when Manning played there. He stacks up well TWO years in a row. As a #3 WR, well that dog just won't hunt. Peyton's #3's averaged 39.6 catches a year with a high of 68 catches and no other year over 60. I think the Jets got a good deal with the Decker signing. If they can find a consistent QB (including Geno becoming consistent) the odds are he's good for 75-85 catches a year. He was playing with QB Adam Weber at Minnesota when he caught 84 balls for 1,074 yards and 7 TD's. The next highest receptions total by a WR that year was 31 by Ben Kuznia. The next highest TD total was 1.
This is inaccurate. The only way this could be accurate would be if Decker got $3.5 million guaranteed and was cut during the preseason. Decker's cap hit is twice Nicks' cap hit - it's the entire premise of my point.
Okay hows this: If one's goal is to have an able and cheap WR for one season and move on for any particular reason, Nicks deal is better. If one's goal is to have an able WR and have them for a long time, Decker's is better. This is because not only is there no assurance that Nicks will return to Indy should they desire for him to but its likely that they will have to pay a considerable amount in order to retain him, since if he is a success other WR needy teams will want him too. that said the only reason Nicks has it so low for such a short amount of time is presumably to reach this end and drive up his value as a result, likely leading to a worse overall value than what the jets payed an Eric Decker over a similar period of time in their careers. Its that long term flexibility the Jets have that makes deckers deal better in the long run. The only benefit to Nick's deal that doesn't exist with Decker's is that they can move on with no consequence if he's terrible after a year, which even the Jets still have as an option after two years. But Decker being outright terrible seems unlikely... point being the only benefit that exists is in a short term worse case scenario. Deckers deal is better in the long run, for sure.
Yes, but if he gets cut after a year (thus approximating Nicks' one year contract) the rest of Decker's bonus and guaranteed money gets accelerated against next year's cap. That's $12.5 million on top of his $2.5 million base for this year - or $7.5 mil a year. So let's just call it what it is (since he's not getting cut after a year, or two) - he's getting $7.5 million a year. And Nicks is getting $3.5 million a year. Even if Nicks had a Pro Bowl season this year (a result we'd do backflips over if we had signed him) ... he'd have to sign a one year deal for $11.5 million next year, just to be making the same as Decker over the two year period. Nicks' current contract is a steal; just as I said it was. It would be almost impossible for him to underperform his contract. The same cannot be said of Decker.
Yes I am. And citing per year values is pretty much the only way to do so - I'm not sure how it makes "little" sense. And my numbers are correct. Over the next two years Decker makes $15 million. You know how I know this? Because if you cut him the day after the 2015 season, he gets $15 million from the Jets. The rest is semantics. This year Nicks makes $3.5 million. That means the Colts would have to re-sign him to a $11.5 million contract in 2015 to essentially have paid him the same for two years as the Jets must pay Decker for two years. That means either the Colts got a Pro Bowl season out of Nicks (encouraging them to offer $11.5 for 2015), or Nicks is going to make significantly less than Decker over the next two years - either way, that's a benefit for the Colts, not a detriment. And that's completely ignoring Decker's performance (good or bad). You're not paying $4 million for Decker; you're paying $7.5 million this year for Decker minimum.
If Decker was cut today, he'd make $12.5 million for a week of work. If he gets cut the day after the 2014 season, he gets $12.5 million for one year. If he gets cut the day after the 2015 season, he gets $15 million for two years. Your suggestion that he is costing (or earning, or making) $4 million this year is comical ... and semantics. Yes that's accurate. If the Colts sign Nicks to $12 million+ for 2015, he ends up costing them more than Decker is costing us over two years. That's not "semantics" it's math.
I just can't call a deal with NO long term value a steal, if one player is very good guess which one is the bigger steal between the two? the one where player is locked in for the long haul! A real steal would be to have him on the same deal he has now this year, but with maybe 4 years of money at a higher yet un-guaranteed fixed rate down the pipe. as is, its kind of a poor deal overall if any intention of maintaining his services is expected, and will wind up costing more down the line than Deckers if thats the case. its only a better value if they both suck out loud, leaving the jets stuck with a piss poor player for another year that they have to pay 11 million to if they want gone instead of being outright free from him. what are the chances of that even happening?
Here's a great write-up about Decker: http://thejetsblog.com/bga/bga-scouting-eric-decker/ Fun fact - he scored a 43 on the Wonderlic. Not sure if that helps him at all in football, but that's insanely high. Smart guy.
I'd rather have Desean Jackson. Hopefully we get both. I will like Decker a lot better in that scenario.
I don't want to be a thread policeman but why did you dredge up a 12 day old thread to post something you could have put in one of three hot Desean Jackson threads?
Thread policeman! It is very relevant and extremely interesting to me to see if Jackson's availability changes opinions on Decker just 12 days old.
No matter of the Jets draft or sign a receiver it's going to change opinions on Decker but I guess I understand where you're coming from. But you best cool down or I'll tase your ass
Decker was an excellent sign by Idzik but if we fail in getting a deep wide threat it will all be for naught.
