Falcons sign QB Matt Ryan to 6-year, $72M contract
By CHARLES ODUM – 13 hours ago
ATLANTA (AP) — Matt Ryan signed a $72 million, six-year contract with the Atlanta Falcons on Tuesday, ending concerns that prolonged negotiations could threaten his chance to become the starting quarterback as a rookie.
Ryan, the No. 3 overall pick in last month's draft out of Boston College, is guaranteed $34.75 million. His guaranteed money is $4.75 million more than that given to Jake Long, the No. 1 overall choice who also is represented by agent Tom Condon.
The Falcons confirmed the signing and scheduled a news conference for Tuesday night.
Ryan worked behind quarterbacks Chris Redman and Joey Harrington at his first minicamp with the team this month.
Ryan, 6-foot-5, ranked third in the nation with his school-record 4,507 yards passing in 2007 and was the first quarterback taken in the draft. He and general manager Thomas Dimitroff promised to avoid extended talks that could threaten Ryan's status for training camp.
New coach Mike Smith is not opposed to having a rookie start at quarterback.
"If he's the best player, whether he's a rookie quarterback or rookie offensive lineman or rookie linebacker, we want those guys to come in here and compete," Smith said this month. "We're going to put the best player out there on the field."
Ryan is important as the future leader on the field and the immediate new marketing star.
Redman, Harrington and Byron Leftwich shared the starting job last season as Michael Vick began serving a 23-month prison sentence after he confessed to bankrolling a dogfighting ring. Vick has been suspended indefinitely by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.
Leftwich was released after the season. Ryan will join Harrington, Redman and D.J. Shockley in the quarterback competition in training camp.
Redman, who finished the 2007 season as the starter, is the favorite to open 2008 with the job. Redman worked with the first-team offense with newly signed running back Michael Turner in minicamp.
I think he is gonna flop. I just dont see what talent they have over there in Atlanta? Rediculous amount of money as well. The guy hasnt taken one snap in the NFL?
Roddy White had 83 receptions and 1200 yards last season with Atlanta's pitiful QB by committee. The problem is that Atlanta doesn't have much to go with White, since they dumped Alge Crumpler.
Michael Jenkins 53 receptions for 532 yards isn't anything to write home about.
The problem, as I see it, with paying Ryan this much is that he has to have protection and more than one someone to throw to.
We can be damn sure that Ryan won't be sitting on the bench very long, if at all, for that kind of money. The question is: Will he survive the season? I doubt it. Atlanta has a group of no-names on the offensive line.
I also think they could have signed Ryan for less money.
PulpExposure wrote:Matt Ryan got more guarenteed money in his contract (34.75 million) than Peyton Manning has in his most recent contract (34.5 million).
How ridiculous is that?
I can't help but wonder if the Falcons went overboard with Ryan's contract simply in an effort to show the fans and the world that they are moving on without Vick. I don't know, but a cap for rookies suddenly looks like a good idea. With the money that will be wrapped up in Vick and Ryan, if Ryan fails, it seems like that could be the end of the Falcons.
Cappster wrote:Something needs to happen with rookie contracts. Soon, if this keeps up, we are going to be paying 500 for a nose bleed seat and 20 for a beer.
Dan Snyder? Is that you?
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
PulpExposure wrote:Matt Ryan got more guarenteed money in his contract (34.75 million) than Peyton Manning has in his most recent contract (34.5 million).
How ridiculous is that?
I can't help but wonder if the Falcons went overboard with Ryan's contract simply in an effort to show the fans and the world that they are moving on without Vick. I don't know, but a cap for rookies suddenly looks like a good idea. With the money that will be wrapped up in Vick and Ryan, if Ryan fails, it seems like that could be the end of the Falcons.
Why is it a good idea to protect owners from themselves? If Ryan flops, Falcon owners will deserve the consequences.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
PulpExposure wrote:Matt Ryan got more guarenteed money in his contract (34.75 million) than Peyton Manning has in his most recent contract (34.5 million).
How ridiculous is that?
I can't help but wonder if the Falcons went overboard with Ryan's contract simply in an effort to show the fans and the world that they are moving on without Vick. I don't know, but a cap for rookies suddenly looks like a good idea. With the money that will be wrapped up in Vick and Ryan, if Ryan fails, it seems like that could be the end of the Falcons.
Why is it a good idea to protect owners from themselves? If Ryan flops, Falcon owners will deserve the consequences.
From the repercussions this will have on the rest of the league, from the standpoint of other rookies that will hold out for a bigger contracts based on what Ryan got. Agents always use previous rookie contracts as the standard, or at least the benchmark to work off of. I don't really care about the Falcons.
PulpExposure wrote:Matt Ryan got more guarenteed money in his contract (34.75 million) than Peyton Manning has in his most recent contract (34.5 million).
How ridiculous is that?
I can't help but wonder if the Falcons went overboard with Ryan's contract simply in an effort to show the fans and the world that they are moving on without Vick. I don't know, but a cap for rookies suddenly looks like a good idea. With the money that will be wrapped up in Vick and Ryan, if Ryan fails, it seems like that could be the end of the Falcons.
Why is it a good idea to protect owners from themselves? If Ryan flops, Falcon owners will deserve the consequences.
From the repercussions this will have on the rest of the league, from the standpoint of other rookies that will hold out for a bigger contracts based on what Ryan got. Agents always use previous rookie contracts as the standard, or at least the benchmark to work off of. I don't really care about the Falcons.
Whose fault is it that owners lack backbones?
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
SkinsFreak wrote:I don't see it as "owners lacking backbones". It about the principle of perceived market value, predicated on prior sales, in this case, contracts.
So whose fault is it that GM's can't accurately assess value?
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
Who says they're not accurately assessing value? You may think you can sell your house for $500,000, but if the market deems otherwise, your assessment means nothing. Value is predicated off of comparables.
SkinsFreak wrote::roll: Who says they're not accurately assessing value? You may think you can sell your house for $500,000, but if the market deems otherwise, your assessment means nothing. Value is predicated off of comparables.
Those comps, are, in theory based on comparing similar homes & should represent a pattern. If you think your house is worth $500,000 & the market sets its value at $300,000, you aren't accurately assessing its value.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
<sigh> Sounds like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ryan's contract was based off of previous QB rookie contracts, so from an owners or GM's perspective, it is fair market value. But that's not what I was referring to. The NBA went to salary caps for rookies for a reason, and the size of some of these ridiculous NFL rookie contracts is the reason why some feel it would be a good move for the NFL.
SkinsFreak wrote:<sigh> Sounds like you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ryan's contract was based off of previous QB rookie contracts, so from an owners or GM's perspective, it is fair market value. But that's not what I was referring to. The NBA went to salary caps for rookies for a reason, and the size of some of these ridiculous NFL rookie contracts is the reason why some feel it would be a good move for the NFL.
I think it's a philosophical difference. I prefer the free market system.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
Except that it's not a free market system, so while your preference is noted and respected, it's irrelevant when discussing a rookie salary cap. If there was no team salary cap in the NFL, then the free market philosophy would be acceptable and owners could spend whatever they wanted on players. But with a team salary cap, it makes it darn near impossible to pay the veterans decent contracts when the rookies, who have never played a down in the NFL, take up some much of the cap space. Ryan is now getting somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 million a year, almost 10% of the entire cap. . . for one player who has yet to prove anything. That limits what the team can pay their veterans who deserve new contracts.
SkinsFreak wrote:Except that it's not a free market system, so while your preference is noted and respected, it's irrelevant when discussing a rookie salary cap. If there was no team salary cap in the NFL, then the free market philosophy would be acceptable and owners could spend whatever they wanted on players. But with a team salary cap, it makes it darn near impossible to pay the veterans decent contracts when the rookies, who have never played a down in the NFL, take up some much of the cap space. Ryan is now getting somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 million a year, almost 10% of the entire cap. . . for one player who has yet to prove anything. That limits what the team can pay their veterans who deserve new contracts.
I am also philosophically opposed to the team cap & for that matter to the draft.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.
the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.
companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.
Sean, may you always rest in peace and look down on us with the same love that we look up to you.
GSPODS wrote: ...the 2nd draft selection will never be paid more than the first draft selection on the initial contract. There would be no sense in trading up or down if trading up to #2 was more expensive than trading up to #1.
Bob 0119 wrote:http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26819&start=20
GSPODS wrote: ...the 2nd draft selection will never be paid more than the first draft selection on the initial contract. There would be no sense in trading up or down if trading up to #2 was more expensive than trading up to #1.
Never, huh?
What was this kid? Number 3?
You'd have to read the entire thread. I did state back several posts that a QB could be paid more than a tackle. The comment you quoted was based upon a theory of how the CBA could be resolved, not upon how things actually work.
Found It:
If the 1st draft selection is a QB, and the 2nd draft selection is a LT, the QB is perceived to be worth considerably more. If both turn out to be Franchise Players, the QB is worth more. If both turn out to be career backups, the QB is still worth more.
If we reverse the above, the QB at #2 is perceived to be worth an equal or greater amount to the LT taken at #1 because of roster position. In a case such as this, it is possible the #2 pick would get a larger contract than the #1 pick. The talent level in recent years hasn't been deep enough at the top to have such a situation but I'm sure it will come up soon enough.
Of course I was taking your words out of context, from a completely different arguement, but you gotta admit, it seemed too perfect to pass up.
Actually my argument was that if this QB had been taken first, his contract would've been higher because he was a first rounder, and the DL that the 'Fins picked up would've also made more money based on the first rounder being a QB and having such a high contract (provided the 'Fins waited like everyone else to negotiate their contract until after the draft, which they would've being the second instead of the first).
I slowly realized that we were both arguing the same points, and saying basically the same things in the other thread, that's why I dropped it.
So, this was just me having some light-hearted fun at your expense
skinsfano28 wrote:it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.
the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.
companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.
I look at each ream as a business. Agreements among multiple businesses to limit what they will pay is colusion & forbidden by Federal law. Some kids right out of B-school get exorbitant salaries to start.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
skinsfano28 wrote:it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.
the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.
companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.
I look at each ream as a business. Agreements among multiple businesses to limit what they will pay is colusion & forbidden by Federal law. Some kids right out of B-school get exorbitant salaries to start.
As do some kids right out of law school; but in both cases, it's less than people who are in the same firm and have more experience.
Look at the NFL as one giant firm. Paying a first year associate (Matt Ryan) in a lawfirm the same as you'd pay the senior partner (Peyton Manning) is just ridiculous.
skinsfano28 wrote:it sounds as though yupchagee is opposed to logic as well.
the rookie salary cap would make the league just like any other business, and since players can be cut (fired) and signed (hired) on a whim or because of poor performance, it makes sense that a rookie (entry level, just out of college, has not proven himself in the workplace) ought to be paid less than someone who has proven themselves time and time again and is rock solid at their craft.
companies set aside money for their entry-level folks, its called a cap, they just don't put it that way. 34.75 mil to never even step on a football field is rigoddamdiculous.
I look at each ream as a business. Agreements among multiple businesses to limit what they will pay is colusion & forbidden by Federal law. Some kids right out of B-school get exorbitant salaries to start.
As do some kids right out of law school; but in both cases, it's less than people who are in the same firm and have more experience.
Look at the NFL as one giant firm. Paying a first year associate (Matt Ryan) in a lawfirm the same as you'd pay the senior partner (Peyton Manning) is just ridiculous.
But who should make those decisions? I say the team FO's.
Skins fan since '55
"The constitution is not a suicide pact"- Abraham Lincoln
Who says they're not accurately assessing value? You may think you can sell your house for $500,000, but if the market deems otherwise, your assessment means nothing. Value is predicated off of comparables.
