Originally Posted by :
According to NFL Network's Ian Rapoport, "it is very possible" Carr could be the first quarterback in the NFL to make $25 million annually.
2018 is going to be crazy for the Raiders. Carr and Mack alone will make up close to $50 million.
Time to find out how good Reggie McKenzie really is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
The anti-homers on CP are ****ing hilarious.
I can only imagine the shit I'd catch if it were the other way around and the Chiefs lost 4 straight to the Raiders, and I was saying that we would've won the division if we had our starting QB in week 17
Originally Posted by RunKC:
It depends on the numbers. Backloading the deal could be worse bc they will be paying Mack and Cooper elite money with their new deals by that time.
But they have no choice. No way did Carr do this deal without structuring it to save millions with the move to Nevada.
Holy jesus.
A 13.3% income tax rate for all earnings over $1 million in the state of California. By not having a state income tax in Nevada, he'll save roughly $1.6 million/yr as athletes are taxed by the state they earned their money in (so 8 home games; 1/2 of his 13.3% on $25 million).
Now obviously that can change a bit based on how its structured, but I don't figure the big money was kicking in until 2018 anyway given that he's already under contract for this year. So you'd have to figure that the entire extension is going to take place in Nevada.
The money he saves more than covers the standard agent fee. That's not an insignificant draw. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pawnmower:
Yes there would be a few dipshits who would try and argue that losing your starting QB didnt matter.
What would you argue if your team lost their QB for the final divisional game and lost via the tie break?
Your a hypocrite and dishonest...getting outraged over simple observations..your letting some homer Alex smith love taint your reasoning...
And we lost one of the best defensive players and one of the best offensive players in the league for basically the whole season and still won. I don't want to hear shit about other teams not winning because of an injury.
If you want to talk about injuries and how we've only won one playoff game, you should talk about us losing Charles, Houston, Flowers, and Davis in a playoff game we were leading by 4 scores. I think that's much worse than what happened to the raiders. Posted via Mobile Device [Reply]
Oddsmakers admittedly give west coast teams (and especially teams with Vegs ties) a boost because they know the money is going to come in on them anyway. They do the same with the Cowboys (and used to do so with the Steelers but I'm not sure if they still do).
So citing oddsmakers in a conversation about the Raiders isn't entirely appropriate. That's an approximation of how much money they can extract from the betting public, not a true statement of how good they think the Raiders will be. For a lot of things, I think the market is a good place to look (I love baseball money lines for determining fantasy baseball pitchers), but when it comes to football teams, notably the Raiders and the Cowboys, it's not a real good barometer. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Raiders are damn good but we have just have their number head to head. That happens in sports.
Matchups make fights.
For whatever reason, recent history says we have the better side of the matchup. Honestly, when I look at the rosters, I can't tell why since we tend to beat Carr even without much of a contribution from Houston (who would seem to be the big chess piece for us).
Some coordinators seem to have a knack for some quarterbacks. Belichick isn't a coordinator but he runs that D and for whatever reason he was generally able to just fluster the hell out of Manning. Maybe Sutton's just dialed into Carr's weaknesses. [Reply]
