1. #157731
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Westside, Bankhead
    Posts
    23,205
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    To be honest I hadnt seen the structure of the contract, its not as bad as I thought. But your contradicting yourself Greg. You say the 2.5 mill is commensurate to his production this year, then youre saying hes worth the 45 mill. Or are you saying hes worth the 15.5 hes guaranteed? If thats the case, I agree.
    It's not contradictory at all. I stand by everything I've said as they're all mutually exclusive assessments.

    Cruz's 2.5 million dollars, while relatively low, is somewhat fair considering he didn't even hit 1K. Not a lot of money, not a lot of production. That's not to rationalize his performance, it's just to point out that we didn't get ripped off in year 1.

    The 45 million means nothing to me. If Cruz sees every penny of that deal, he'll be worth it. Just like if Shawn Andrews saw every penny of his NYG deal, he'd have been worth it, too.

    The 15.5 he's guaranteed makes it a sound signing. If Cruz ****s the bed next year and the Giants cut ties, they'll save money overall (though it'd be worth going to year 3 unless Cruz gets significantly injured this season).

    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    And are you trying to convince me that since Nicks had 3 more catches and 200 more yards he wasnt as terrible as the previous year, give me those 3 tds over those 3 catches and 200 yards any day.
    Take whichever you'd like. It's really an irrelevant point to my argument. Nicks improved statistically in every category except for TDs. But like 2012, he struggled to get open, and was generally ineffective vs. single or double teams.

    Overall, though, it's Cruz who's the topic of conversation. And as you saw by the numbers, it's a fairly low-risk deal with a lot of upside for all parties involved.

  2. #157732
    Hall of Famer Rudy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    woof arf bark woof
    Posts
    50,555
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    Yes, this is your level of expertise. Looking up half naked photos of Kate Upton and or women in general.
    Stay in that vicinity, please.
    Mood: WOOF!

  3. #157733
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    38,993
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    It's not contradictory at all. I stand by everything I've said as they're all mutually exclusive assessments.

    Cruz's 2.5 million dollars, while relatively low, is somewhat fair considering he didn't even hit 1K. Not a lot of money, not a lot of production. That's not to rationalize his performance, it's just to point out that we didn't get ripped off in year 1.

    The 45 million means nothing to me. If Cruz sees every penny of that deal, he'll be worth it. Just like if Shawn Andrews saw every penny of his NYG deal, he'd have been worth it, too.

    The 15.5 he's guaranteed makes it a sound signing. If Cruz ****s the bed next year and the Giants cut ties, they'll save money overall (though it'd be worth going to year 3 unless Cruz gets significantly injured this season).

    Take whichever you'd like. It's really an irrelevant point to my argument. Nicks improved statistically in every category except for TDs. But like 2012, he struggled to get open, and was generally ineffective vs. single or double teams.

    Overall, though, it's Cruz who's the topic of conversation. And as you saw by the numbers, it's a fairly low-risk deal with a lot of upside for all parties involved.
    If its irrelevant to your argument, why bring it up?

  4. #157734
    Hall of Famer Rudy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    woof arf bark woof
    Posts
    50,555
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    If its irrelevant to your argument, why bring it up?
    Because you mentioned it first, duh.
    Mood: WOOF!

  5. #157735
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    38,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    Yes, this is your level of expertise. Looking up half naked photos of Kate Upton and or women in general.
    Stay in that vicinity, please.
    Not a big fan of hers, she has no butt. But those tatas in zero gravity look nice.

    dont be jealy.
    Last edited by dezzzR; 02-19-2014 at 03:29 PM.

  6. #157736
    All-Pro dezzzR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    38,993
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    It's not contradictory at all. I stand by everything I've said as they're all mutually exclusive assessments.

    Cruz's 2.5 million dollars, while relatively low, is somewhat fair considering he didn't even hit 1K. Not a lot of money, not a lot of production. That's not to rationalize his performance, it's just to point out that we didn't get ripped off in year 1.

    The 45 million means nothing to me. If Cruz sees every penny of that deal, he'll be worth it. Just like if Shawn Andrews saw every penny of his NYG deal, he'd have been worth it, too.

    The 15.5 he's guaranteed makes it a sound signing. If Cruz ****s the bed next year and the Giants cut ties, they'll save money overall (though it'd be worth going to year 3 unless Cruz gets significantly injured this season).

    Take whichever you'd like. It's really an irrelevant point to my argument. Nicks improved statistically in every category except for TDs. But like 2012, he struggled to get open, and was generally ineffective vs. single or double teams.

    Overall, though, it's Cruz who's the topic of conversation. And as you saw by the numbers, it's a fairly low-risk deal with a lot of upside for all parties involved.
    Im still not crazy about giving a slot wr close to 9 million a year. But thats just my opinion...

  7. #157737
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Westside, Bankhead
    Posts
    23,205
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    If its irrelevant to your argument, why bring it up?
    Because one of your biggest reasons for Cruz being overpaid, which you've hopefully now reconsidered since you actually took a look at the contract's structure, was Nicks drawing double coverage.

    And like I said before:
    -Every WR benefits from a dominant presence on the other side of the field.
    -Cruz had huge games without Nicks, too.
    -Nicks was not getting many double teams in 2012; he was effectively handled with single coverage, sometimes even by safeties.
    -Despite Nicks' improvements in 2013 with health and statistics, Cruz still regressed, which dampens any sort of causal dependence you may have wished to demonstrate. Furthermore, it goes to show that the premise that Cruz needed a dominant outside receiver to put up his 2012 stat line is false, because, well, Nicks wasn't dominant nor commanding double teams with any regularity in 2012.

    But it's irrelevant now because you've actually seen the numbers and realize that Cruz's deal is actually a 3 year, 18-20 million dollar deal that requires him to play at a very high level in order to see all the money. His contract has been the focal point of the discussion, and its viability has been the crux of my argument.

  8. #157738
    Hall of Famer Rudy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    woof arf bark woof
    Posts
    50,555
    Quote Originally Posted by dezzzR View Post
    Not a big fan of hers, she has no butt. But those tatas in zero gravity look nice.

    dont be jealy.
    There's nothing to be jealous about.
    Mood: WOOF!

  9. #157739
    Hall of Famer Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    61,090
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen0820 View Post
    Because one of your biggest reasons for Cruz being overpaid, which you've hopefully now reconsidered since you actually took a look at the contract's structure, was Nicks drawing double coverage.

    And like I said before:
    -Every WR benefits from a dominant presence on the other side of the field.
    -Cruz had huge games without Nicks, too.
    -Nicks was not getting many double teams in 2012; he was effectively handled with single coverage, sometimes even by safeties.
    -Despite Nicks' improvements in 2013 with health and statistics, Cruz still regressed, which dampens any sort of causal dependence you may have wished to demonstrate. Furthermore, it goes to show that the premise that Cruz needed a dominant outside receiver to put up his 2012 stat line is false, because, well, Nicks wasn't dominant nor commanding double teams with any regularity in 2012.

    But it's irrelevant now because you've actually seen the numbers and realize that Cruz's deal is actually a 3 year, 18-20 million dollar deal that requires him to play at a very high level in order to see all the money. His contract has been the focal point of the discussion, and its viability has been the crux of my argument.
    Cruz' worst game last season (2 catches 27 yards) came in the one game that Nicks didn't play.
    "Typical Morehead!"..................and he didn't even mean that as a compliment..

  10. #157740
    All-Pro gmen0820's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Westside, Bankhead
    Posts
    23,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Morehead State View Post
    Cruz' worst game last season (2 catches 27 yards) came in the one game that Nicks didn't play.
    So what are you suggesting?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts