PDA

View Full Version : How much is a guard worth?


Hawk Believer
03-16-2006, 09:17 PM
So most of you have probably heard that the Vikings have offered Steve Hutchinson $49 mil over 7 years with 16 million guarenteed. By far the sweetest deal for a guard ever.

So the question is...... What is the most that you feel is reasonable to pay for a guard under any circumstance? Even if he is arguably the best in the game with a lot of years in front of him. Or maybe the better way to look at is what percentage of your cap money would you be willing to spend on a guard?

What position would you spend the least on (besides a kicker...)?

Suitanim
03-16-2006, 09:22 PM
Well, the best OG in the game is Alan Faneca, and he will make 3.7 million for the 2006 season. Make of that what you will...

tony hipchest
03-16-2006, 09:24 PM
So most of you have probably heard that the Vikings have offered Steve Hutchinson $49 mil over 7 years with 16 million guarenteed. By far the sweetest deal for a guard ever.

So the question is...... What is the most that you feel is reasonable to pay for a guard under any circumstance? Even if he is arguably the best in the game with a lot of years in front of him. Or maybe the better way to look at is what percentage of your cap money would you be willing to spend on a guard?

What position would you spend the least on (besides a kicker...)? if he does have lots of years ahead of him and if he is the best guard, in 6 years, 7 mil/ year will probably be cheap.

going by the steelers giving back up t.e. tuman over 1 mil / year while not even entertaining c. hope i would say safety is the position id give the least to. unless its polamalu and then i make him the highest paid safety in the game.

Hawk Believer
03-16-2006, 09:34 PM
if he does have lots of years ahead of him and if he is the best guard, in 6 years, 7 mil/ year will probably be cheap.

going by the steelers giving back up t.e. tuman over 1 mil / year while not even entertaining c. hope i would say safety is the position id give the least to. unless its polamalu and then i make him the highest paid safety in the game.

I guess that is a good way to look at it. The cap hit will be smaller as the cieling gets raised each year. I almost feel like we should suck it up and pay him. No sense in paying Alexander big bucks if we don't keep the line solid.

Probably not fair to compare a Polamalu contract against other safeties since he seems to play every position.....

hardwork
03-16-2006, 09:56 PM
So most of you have probably heard that the Vikings have offered Steve Hutchinson $49 mil over 7 years with 16 million guarenteed. By far the sweetest deal for a guard ever.

So the question is...... What is the most that you feel is reasonable to pay for a guard under any circumstance? Even if he is arguably the best in the game with a lot of years in front of him. Or maybe the better way to look at is what percentage of your cap money would you be willing to spend on a guard?

What position would you spend the least on (besides a kicker...)?


I wouldn't pay Jim Parker or Hog Hannah that kind of money. Unless you got the two of them together. Imagine those two on the same line?

MattsMe
03-17-2006, 12:00 AM
When I first heard of the Viking's offer I thought it was insane. But then I thought of Shaun Alexander.

My conclusion? Any guard who can get that many yards for a back like Alexander, priceless.

Before I'm accused of attacking Alexander or not giving him the 'respect' he deserves, I'll add this:

Shaun is a good back, maybe even a great one. Obviously, he had an outstanding year. But he seems to me like a 12-1300 yard back during his good years, and just under 1000 when things aren't set up perfectly for him like they were this year. (great line, fairly weak schedule, pact with the devil, etc.) Just kidding..............his schedule wasn't that weak.

BB2W
03-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Not to be a homer, but... back in 2002 when the Steelers resigned Alan Faneca it was for 26 million over six years with 6 million guaranteed. Faneca has been recognized as one of the best gaurd in the NFL, but that contract was signed a long time ago. His contract was a decent size for a gaurd back then... especially for the Steelers. Considering inflation, I would want to see may team pay more than 5-6 million a year for one of the top gaurds in the NFL.

This also goes back to Tony's point about how in six years it may seem like a good deal for one of the best gaurds.

Hawk Believer
03-17-2006, 06:12 PM
Not to be a homer, but... back in 2002 when the Steelers resigned Alan Faneca it was for 26 million over six years with 6 million guaranteed. Faneca has been recognized as one of the best gaurd in the NFL, but that contract was signed a long time ago. His contract was a decent size for a gaurd back then... especially for the Steelers. Considering inflation, I would want to see may team pay more than 5-6 million a year for one of the top gaurds in the NFL.

This also goes back to Tony's point about how in six years it may seem like a good deal for one of the best gaurds.

Now I hear that the NFL is challenging the Vikings offer as a violation of the players agreement and the Seahawks don't need to match it under the transition tag rules. An arbitrater is going to sort it out. Hmmm.

tony hipchest
03-17-2006, 06:21 PM
Now I hear that the NFL is challenging the Vikings offer as a violation of the players agreement and the Seahawks don't need to match it under the transition tag rules. An arbitrater is going to sort it out. Hmmm.yeah, thats wierd, i dont understand. what i was hearing is that seattle was ready to match the offer which, going back to the point in this thread, i think seattle would be making the right move. hopefully you get to keep him even cheaper. with moss and culpepper leaving minn. theres noone on that team i even care to watch.

besides if dallas strikes gold with a semi-sane t.o. i will be looking to the seahawks to knock them of the high horse theyre so used to riding.

MagicHawk
03-17-2006, 11:50 PM
It has to do with only matching the principal terms of the offer and the rumor is there is a poison pill clause in the contract that would garantee the whole contract throughout its life and he would have to be the highest paid lineman on the team. The same thing happened to Indianapolis in 1993 and the language was altered to disallow such manuevering so I guess the NFL stepped in and filed a grievence on the behalf of the Seahawks. Either way it seems a bit shady.