They are paying Hurts 50 million mostly for his "intangibles" and his "leadership" and not his arm. Only way he gets replaced is if he starts losing.

18 hours ago, brkmsn said:

I love that cliche!

I mean sometimes it's just true. I said the same thing about Carson Wentz in 2017 because the majority of his production came because he was Captain Third Down. And that just wasn't sustainable. Lol.

7 hours ago, opa-opa said:

They are paying Hurts 50 million mostly for his "intangibles" and his "leadership" and not his arm. Only way he gets replaced is if he starts losing.

If Hurts keeps playing like he did all season next year, he will be replaced in 2026 when they have a out on his contract. 

Lurie has said it many times, he wants a dominate passing offense. With the talent on this team with the receivers and line there is zero reasons for Hurts to be struggling this way. It's clear he does not want to run Moore's real offense. Sooner or later the FO and coaching staff will get tired of his BS and move on. 

The best part is, if he does have the wins on his belt due to Barkley,  the Line and Defense then that helps his trade value come 2026. 

1 hour ago, AmericanEagle77 said:

I mean sometimes it's just true. I said the same thing about Carson Wentz in 2017 because the majority of his production came because he was Captain Third Down. And that just wasn't sustainable. Lol.

A prediction isn't truth, though, If you have 10 dollars in a piggy bank and take out 30 cents per day and only deposit $1 per week, that's not sustainable. The math proves it. But if someone is doing something in a sport and someone else says that's not sustainable, it's just an opinion or claim at best. 

It's probably the second most used cliche on this forum, only behind "Historic / historically" which has been the most overused cliche in the country the last year and a half. What's funny about that one is that everything that has already happened is history, thus "historic." It's not even the word people should be using. They are trying to use it in place of a word such as "monumental' that actually means what they think "historic" should mean. 

On 1/18/2025 at 9:58 PM, xxeaglesfanxx said:

I just want them to win. But I’d like to see Hurts play better. He’s due for a stinker.

The objective with Hurts appears to be limiting the turnovers/protecting the football and managing the game with an efficient, but less aggressive passing attack. Or maybe it is an aggressive passing attack to which Hurts is playing it too safe and falls into lapses where he lacks vision, fails to run through his progressions, and/or generally panics for whatever reason. Who knows, but I believe it’s a compatibility issue with Moore’s scheme and his inability to tailor a passing attack that works with Hurts QB type/style. Of course, Hurts needs to be better, or at the very least, stop taking unnecessary sacks for no good reason. He needs to read and react better and get in a zone. Maybe they need to play more uptempo to get him going, cause our D is going to run into some offensive juggernauts and we may need to keep up or play keep away offensively to win  

 

 

9 hours ago, Southparkeagles said:

The objective with Hurts appears to be limiting the turnovers/protecting the football and managing the game with an efficient, but less aggressive passing attack. 

the number one cliche all commentators use when commenting how to beat an 'athletic QB'. If Hurts can manage the game, and if he's explosive in either run or pass........we are set for the next two games. personally i think the Eagles have been lulling defenses to sleep and will explode with both attacks, not just running on Sunday and hopefully again in three weeks. 

Latest on Hurts knee?

17 hours ago, brkmsn said:

A prediction isn't truth, though, If you have 10 dollars in a piggy bank and take out 30 cents per day and only deposit $1 per week, that's not sustainable. The math proves it. But if someone is doing something in a sport and someone else says that's not sustainable, it's just an opinion or claim at best. 

It's probably the second most used cliche on this forum, only behind "Historic / historically" which has been the most overused cliche in the country the last year and a half. What's funny about that one is that everything that has already happened is history, thus "historic." It's not even the word people should be using. They are trying to use it in place of a word such as "monumental' that actually means what they think "historic" should mean. 

I mean people can always be outliers so of course it's not 100%. Would you prefer "probably not sustainable"?

The Eagles have just won the SB now let's check in with the fans.

Fan 1. Hurts sucked today, he couldn't even throw a pass to his WR's. He only had a 150 yards passing. Just awful.
Fan 2. The field goal kicker missed an extra point but made 3 fg's. He needs to be cut. this can't continue.
Fan 3: Vic Fangio's defense is overrated. The tackling was just poor.
Fan 4. Howie will continue to blow the draft. Remember Jefferson. 

Let's just enjoy the SB victory.

Fan 5. It's my right to complain. Free speech. 

6 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

The Eagles have just won the SB now let's check in with the fans.

Fan 1. Hurts sucked today, he couldn't even throw a pass to his WR's. He only had a 150 yards passing. Just awful.
Fan 2. The field goal kicker missed an extra point but made 3 fg's. He needs to be cut. this can't continue.
Fan 3: Vic Fangio's defense is overrated. The tackling was just poor.
Fan 4. Howie will continue to blow the draft. Remember Jefferson. 

Let's just enjoy the SB victory.

Fan 5. It's my right to complain. Free speech. 

Look man. Some of us want sustained success. We've done this before. Back when we won the first SB, the first thing out of my mouth was 'I'm so glad we won, but our defense really needs to get better, they didn't stop anything...'

They talked about the 'new norm' and things like that, like they were going to create a dynasty. But then our defense never achieved that level of play again, and so the 'new norm' didn't happen, at least not within that group. Here on the other hand, we have a team that looks poised to be perennial contenders, and we want that to come true. So of course we're going to be critical of Hurts seemingly relying on our #1 defense so much, because it's pretty hard to be this good multiple years in a row.

The Eagles found a good formula to win in the post season - good defense, dominate in the trenches, don't turn the ball over.  There's no crime in having to punt.  Up and down the roster, the Eagles have the better team.  If the defense steps up, stay with a conservative, ball control offense and wait for Saquon to have his explosive plays.  The key to this game is to control the tempo.  Try to wear them down.  We're not playing in a dome this weekend.  It'll be another cold day at the Linc, and team with the more dominant line has an advantage.

There's a potential possibility here that the league may be trending toward. Unless a QB proves themselves as a top guy deserving a huge contract, teams might trend toward drafting new guys instead of overpaying for someone (Eagles were ahead of the curve on the QB factory). There are QBs with big contracts getting benched or cut like Daniel Jones, Cousins. There are cheap QBs performing well like Darnold. There are teams in QB purgatory like the Cowboys with Dak. You have Trevor Lawrence who was supposed to be the next great QB. Then you have young QBs performing and NFL offenses adjusting to college QB schemes and strengths.

The way the Eagles team is currently built with strong lines on both sides, a top defense and Defensive Coordinator who isn't going to leave for a HC job, and a top running game they could potentially be plug and play at QB. This is not a knock on Hurts specifically. In limited time we saw both Pickett and McKee have success. 

If a team has an elite QB, that's always great. If not, don't overspend on a QB. Teams will learn to move away from that trend and instead keep trying to find the long-term guy. Or keep rotating QBs and build out a solid roster.

14 hours ago, Procus said:

The Eagles found a good formula to win in the post season - good defense, dominate in the trenches, don't turn the ball over.  There's no crime in having to punt.  Up and down the roster, the Eagles have the better team.  If the defense steps up, stay with a conservative, ball control offense and wait for Saquon to have his explosive plays.  The key to this game is to control the tempo.  Try to wear them down.  We're not playing in a dome this weekend.  It'll be another cold day at the Linc, and team with the more dominant line has an advantage.

 

Thats great and all. Except for the fact the Eagles basically have  2#1 WRs and a great TE.  Dotson is also pretty good. 

 I'm assuming you're okay then with trading  Smith or Brown in the offseason?

On 1/19/2025 at 12:17 PM, Talonblood said:

I think you need to let people have their opinions. That adds the spice to the board/life. But I also agree. When you have the number one D and a runnings game like they have, all Hurts needs to do is manage the game nicely, pick up a couple of 1st downs with his feet, and NOT turn the ball over. He is doing that. I already know Hurts isn't a great QB and never fell for the hype. Do what you can to help this team win it all. That's enough for me these days.

People would rather be fan police

At the risk of surrendering any online credibility I may have accumulated, I stand with opa-opa on this. 

One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand- THROW.

2 hours ago, NOTW said:

There's a potential possibility here that the league may be trending toward. Unless a QB proves themselves as a top guy deserving a huge contract, teams might trend toward drafting new guys instead of overpaying for someone (Eagles were ahead of the curve on the QB factory). There are QBs with big contracts getting benched or cut like Daniels, Cousins. There are cheap QBs performing well like Darnold. There are teams in QB purgatory like the Cowboys with Dak. You have Trevor Lawrence who was supposed to be the next great QB. Then you have young QBs performing and NFL offenses adjusting to college QB schemes and strengths.

The way the Eagles team is currently built with strong lines on both sides, a top defense and Defensive Coordinator who isn't going to leave for a HC job, and a top running game they could potentially be plug and play at QB. This is not a knock on Hurts specifically. In limited time we saw both Pickett and McKee have success. 

If a team has an elite QB, that's always great. If not, don't overspend on a QB. Teams will learn to move away from that trend and instead keep trying to find the long-term guy. Or keep rotating QBs and build out a solid roster.

Although there is talk about some fans thinking this way - the reality is until teams start winning Super Bowls with this "theory" not too many teams in contention will go that route.

 

When was the last time a team won the Super Bowl with an "average" QB?  Or a QB not playing at an "elite level"?

Maybe the Ravens back in 2012?  And that was with an historic defense and Joe Flacco (QB) having a career year - although Flacco may not be considered "elite" he had a great season that year.

 

 

Well, winning is literally everything in the NFL.......style points, stats, fancy plays don't mean much if you keep winning.  

The eagles physical play, powerful run game and top rated defense can win a Super Bowl against any remaining teams by grinding teams down, controlling the ball and TOP, and a stingy defense.

But as an old timer, I believe one facet of the game can improve the other facets of the game.  I think being effective in passing can open up more in the run game and vice versa.  I think a good defense can set up and offense for more opportunities.....I think good special teams can keep you in a game when the offense and defense are struggling early.

Hurts has had limitations in his ability to get thru progressions quickly and has developed some bad habits......which has hampered the passing attack.   The sacks are almost all his fault.

Winning in the NFL is hard and even harder winning in the playoffs.  It increases your odds if you have all 3 facets working efficiently.   The fact that the eagles are struggling in the passing game and have had some FGs and extra points missed and still have won the division and 2 playoffs games is a testament to how good they are. 

Getting the passing game to be more of a threat could really tilt the whole field in the eagles favor.

 

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Although there is talk about some fans thinking this way - the reality is until teams start winning Super Bowls with this "theory" not too many teams in contention will go that route.

When was the last time a team won the Super Bowl with an "average" QB?  Or a QB not playing at an "elite level"?

Maybe the Ravens back in 2012?  And that was with an historic defense and Joe Flacco (QB) having a career year - although Flacco may not be considered "elite" he had a great season that year.

Well here's the thing. You're comparing average and elite. Elite is the top 2-3 guys at most, and then there are the next crop of QBs that are above average and just under those elite.

You have 2 elite QBs who won most of the recent SBs. between Brady and Mahomes. Other QBs considered elite who won in the last 20 years: Brees, Peyton Manning, at the time Aaron Rodgers. So who else won SBs in the last 20 years?

• Stafford
• Foles (how could you forget)
• Russell Wilson
• Eli Manning
• Joe Flacco
• Big Ben
• Brad Johnson

Elite QBs don't fall off trees. So unless you luck out and get the 1 or 2 elite QBs, you're looking for the very good QB with a good surrounding cast. If you have a top defense and running game and have a QB that can be good enough to win, they would join the list above. 

The Eagles have the best defense, O line and run game. They have great WRs and a decent TE group. If they don't have an elite QB, they can win. Whether it's Hurts or another QB they don't have to be the top 2-3 QB in the league. 

6 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Well here's the thing. You're comparing average and elite. Elite is the top 2-3 guys at most, and then there are the next crop of QBs that are above average and just under those elite.

You have 2 elite QBs who won most of the recent SBs. between Brady and Mahomes. Other QBs considered elite who won in the last 20 years: Brees, Peyton Manning, at the time Aaron Rodgers. So who else won SBs in the last 20 years?

• Stafford
• Foles (how could you forget)
• Russell Wilson
• Eli Manning
• Joe Flacco
• Big Ben
• Brad Johnson

Elite QBs don't fall off trees. So unless you luck out and get the 1 or 2 elite QBs, you're looking for the very good QB with a good surrounding cast. If you have a top defense and running game and have a QB that can be good enough to win, they would join the list above. 

The Eagles have the best defense, O line and run game. They have great WRs and a decent TE group. If they don't have an elite QB, they can win. Whether it's Hurts or another QB they don't have to be the top 2-3 QB in the league. 

When you're discussing the strategy of not wanting to pay QB's 50+ million per year - that would mean the top 10- 15 NFL QB's - not just the top 2--3.

 

Again, when was the last time an NFL team won the Super Bowl without a top 10 - 15 QB or a QB that was playing at a top 10 - 15 QB level?

 

As far as the Eagles go, they have the most talented roster on paper in team history (likely).  Possibly the most talented roster in the NFL.  And even with the backups this year, the team lost the only significant game  played with a backup (Washington).  So although it's easy to assume even this team can "win with any QB" that hasn't been the case in the only significant game they played without Hurts this year.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

As far as the Eagles go, they have the most talented roster on paper in team history (likely).  Possibly the most talented roster in the NFL.  And even with the backups this year, the team lost the only significant game  played with a backup (Washington).  So although it's easy to assume even this team can "win with any QB" that hasn't been the case in the only significant game they played without Hurts this year.

 

If only Smitty caught that ball ... 

23 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

When you're discussing the strategy of not wanting to pay QB's 50+ million per year - that would mean the top 10- 15 NFL QB's - not just the top 2--3.

 

Again, when was the last time an NFL team won the Super Bowl without a top 10 - 15 QB or a QB that was playing at a top 10 - 15 QB level?

 

As far as the Eagles go, they have the most talented roster on paper in team history (likely).  Possibly the most talented roster in the NFL.  And even with the backups this year, the team lost the only significant game  played with a backup (Washington).  So although it's easy to assume even this team can "win with any QB" that hasn't been the case in the only significant game they played without Hurts this year.

 

 

So my first post was about the FUTURE, I said potentially and possibility...that the future could trend away from paying QBs that aren't worth it. Because of young QBs having success and teams learning from the mistake of overpaying for a mid QB. You're citing the PAST, which is fine, so I then I pointed out many QBs that have won past Super Bowls that were not elite. Look at the list I posted again:

@TEW tagging you because you've been making this argument and I did all this research so thought you might be interested.

Stafford - traded away from a losing organization, his cap number on his new deal with the Rams was $20m, total contract $160m
Foles (how could you forget) - cheap free agent journeyman backup, cap number $1.6m that year
Russell Wilson - on his rookie deal, his cap number that year was $800k
Eli Manning - the first SB win was still on his rookie deal, cap number $10m. Signed his extension in 2009. Won a 2nd SB as a veteran SB winner, his cap number that 2nd SB was only $14m. 
Joe Flacco - on his rookie deal, his cap number was $8m. Never won again after the extension to a total $120m contract.
Big Ben - won 1st SB on rookie deal, extended then won a 2nd SB as a veteran proven SB winner.
Brad Johnson - cheap game manager (Over the cap website doesn't list him)

So you have 9 Super Bowls won in that list with QBs on cheaper contracts, 3 of them on rookie deals. And that's the past going back 20 years.

Now let's look at Brady and Mahomes who are elite, generational talents. They got their contracts after winning championships also.

Brady:

• Won his 1st SB on a rookie deal making $310k (he obviously started as a backup late round draft pick).
• Renegotiated contract in 2002 to a total contract of a whopping $29m.
• SB win in 2003 he made $3.3m, SB win in 2004 he made $5m. 
• 2005 renegotiated contract for a total of $48m. Other renegotiations/extensions throughout but he never had huge contracts.
• Won SBs 2014 ($14m), 2016 ($13m), 2018 ($22m)

Mahomes:

• Won 1st SB on a rookie deal making $4.4m. Got his huge contract after that and won 2 more SBs.

 

Now let's look at the top QB contracts this year. Who on this list is worth what they're making?

Top QB total contracts:

2024 top contracts: 

This tells me that you can win championships with QBs on rookie deals or average free agent salary if the team is loaded otherwise (top defense, run game just like the Eagles currently have), and that if a QB wins championships and proves themselves, they earn that big contract. But guys like Dak, Daniel Jones, Lawrence, Tua, etc. haven't won anything and shouldn't get those contracts.

33 minutes ago, NOTW said:

So my first post was about the FUTURE, I said potentially and possibility...that the future could trend away from paying QBs that aren't worth it. Because of young QBs having success and teams learning from the mistake of overpaying for a mid QB. You're citing the PAST, which is fine, so I then I pointed out many QBs that have won past Super Bowls that were not elite. Look at the list I posted again:

@TEW tagging you because you've been making this argument and I did all this research so thought you might be interested.

Stafford - traded away from a losing organization, his cap number on his new deal with the Rams was $20m, total contract $160m
Foles (how could you forget) - cheap free agent journeyman backup, cap number $1.6m that year
Russell Wilson - on his rookie deal, his cap number that year was $800k
Eli Manning - the first SB win was still on his rookie deal, cap number $10m. Signed his extension in 2009. Won a 2nd SB as a veteran SB winner, his cap number that 2nd SB was only $14m. 
Joe Flacco - on his rookie deal, his cap number was $8m. Never won again after the extension to a total $120m contract.
Big Ben - won 1st SB on rookie deal, extended then won a 2nd SB as a veteran proven SB winner.
Brad Johnson - cheap game manager (Over the cap website doesn't list him)

So you have 9 Super Bowls won in that list with QBs on cheaper contracts, 3 of them on rookie deals. And that's the past going back 20 years.

Now let's look at Brady and Mahomes who are elite, generational talents. They got their contracts after winning championships also.

Brady:

• Won his 1st SB on a rookie deal making $310k (he obviously started as a backup late round draft pick).
• Renegotiated contract in 2002 to a total contract of a whopping $29m.
• SB win in 2003 he made $3.3m, SB win in 2004 he made $5m. 
• 2005 renegotiated contract for a total of $48m. Other renegotiations/extensions throughout but he never had huge contracts.
• Won SBs 2014 ($14m), 2016 ($13m), 2018 ($22m)

Mahomes:

• Won 1st SB on a rookie deal making $4.4m. Got his huge contract after that and won 2 more SBs.

 

Now let's look at the top QB contracts this year. Who on this list is worth what they're making?

Top QB total contracts:

2024 top contracts: 

This tells me that you can win championships with QBs on rookie deals or average free agent salary if the team is loaded otherwise (top defense, run game just like the Eagles currently have), and that if a QB wins championships and proves themselves, they earn that big contract. But guys like Dak, Daniels, Lawrence, Tua, etc. haven't won anything and shouldn't get those contracts.

You can't go by what the QB made solely that year. 

 

Stafford - traded away from a losing organization, his cap number on his new deal with the Rams was $20m, total contract $160m 
 

-Stafford's contract averaged out to over 40 million per year

Foles (how could you forget) - cheap free agent journeyman backup, cap number $1.6m that year

-Foles was not the staring QB and the Eagles hit lightning in a bottle with Foles.  Foles also went on to sign a contract as a starter that averaged over 22 million per year.

Russell Wilson - on his rookie deal, his cap number that year was $800k

-And then Wilson went on to sign one of the largest QB contracts in history and is currently averaging 50+ million per year with career earnings to exceed $300 million

Eli Manning - the first SB win was still on his rookie deal, cap number $10m. Signed his extension in 2009. Won a 2nd SB as a veteran SB winner, his cap number that 2nd SB was only $14m. 

-Eli Manning also ended up signing among the highest QB contracts of the time.  YOU CAN'T COMPARE WHAT QB's were making 10-15 years ago.  

 

NON of the QB's you listed show what you want them to show.  All of them - except for maybe Johnson (and Foles to a lesser extent) went on to immediately sign huge contracts for their time period.

 

The only way any of these theories could even be tested is if teams that become perenial contenders begin to use "average" QB's or constantly draft QB's every year so they don't need to pay them.  The chances of that happening are next to zero.  Even if some teams try it, the inconsistency at the position would end up crippling the team.

 

The QB is likely the hardest position in all of professional sports to master.  To think that every team has a "wizard GM" like Howie Roseman and that every team can just build a "super team" and play "anyone they want" at QB isn't realistic, imo.  IT HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED HERE THIS SEASON - WITH THIS TEAM - WHEN OUR STARTING QB WENT DOWN IN THE ONLY GAME THAT MATTERED WHEN A BACKUP WAS PLAYING. 

 

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

You can't go by what the QB made solely that year. 

 

Stafford - traded away from a losing organization, his cap number on his new deal with the Rams was $20m, total contract $160m 
 

-Stafford's contract averaged out to over 40 million per year

Foles (how could you forget) - cheap free agent journeyman backup, cap number $1.6m that year

-Foles was not the staring QB and the Eagles hit lightning in a bottle with Foles.  Foles also went on to sign a contract as a starter that averaged over 22 million per year.

Russell Wilson - on his rookie deal, his cap number that year was $800k

-And then Wilson went on to sign one of the largest QB contracts in history and is currently averaging 50+ million per year with career earnings to exceed $300 million

Eli Manning - the first SB win was still on his rookie deal, cap number $10m. Signed his extension in 2009. Won a 2nd SB as a veteran SB winner, his cap number that 2nd SB was only $14m. 

-Eli Manning also ended up signing among the highest QB contracts of the time.  YOU CAN'T COMPARE WHAT QB's were making 10-15 years ago.  

 

NON of the QB's you listed show what you want them to show.  All of them - except for maybe Johnson (and Foles to a lesser extent) went on to immediately sign huge contracts for their time period.

 

The only way any of these theories could even be tested is if teams that become perenial contenders begin to use "average" QB's or constantly draft QB's every year so they don't need to pay them.  The chances of that happening are next to zero.  Even if some teams try it, the inconsistency at the position would end up crippling the team.

 

The QB is likely the hardest position in all of professional sports to master.  To think that every team has a "wizard GM" like Howie Roseman and that every team can just build a "super team" and play "anyone they want" at QB isn't realistic, imo.  

 

Fact: Teams have won SBs with QBs on rookie and cheap deals. The SB winning QBs earned their contracts by proving it by first winning a championship. Some of them went on to continue to win, others didn't.

Fact: other QBs get big contracts without winning anything, a good number of them proving they are not worth the big contract.

Fact: You've got QBs like Dak, Tua, Murray, Watson, Geno Smith, Lawrence with huge contracts and they haven't done ish.

My point is: teams might learn this lesson and only pay QBs when they prove to win or be a top QB in the league.

 

16 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Fact: Teams have won SBs with QBs on rookie and cheap deals. The SB winning QBs earned their contracts by proving it by first winning a championship. Some of them went on to continue to win, others didn't.

Fact: other QBs get big contracts without winning anything, a good number of them proving they are not worth the big contract.

Fact: You've got QBs like Dak, Tua, Murray, Watson, Geno Smith, Lawrence with huge contracts and they haven't done ish.

My point is: teams might learn this lesson and only pay QBs when they prove to win or be a top QB in the league.

 

In most cases, QB's don't "hit the big payday" until they are "proven winners".   There are some exceptions and depending on the team, etc they may give them large contracts for various reasons (like seeing what their team is like when the starting QB doesn't play).   And btw, Geno Smith did not get a "huge contract" he got roughly 50% of the money the top starting QB's in the NFL get on an annual basis. (25 mil per year average)

I'm not saying "it's impossible" to win the Super Bowl with rookie QB's or low paid QB's - it's happened before and will likely continue to happen.  The idea is that in almost all cases, the QB played at a very high level to win the Super Bowl and went on to get paid that way.  

What would people do if their team won a Super Bowl, with the QB playing at a high level, won Super Bowl MVP - then the team immediately trades him the following season and starts either a rookie or a backup?  What would that say to the team? The fans?  And what would happen if the team fell on its face the following season?  You want to talk about a dumpster fire?  That would be the definition of a dumpster fire. 

 

A proven way to build a perennial winner is to follow what Patriots did with Tom Brady.  Get together with the star QB and say, "Listen, this is what we need to have available in terms of $$ to build a perennial winner around you.  We can pay you record breaking amounts of money every year but you won't have the team that we could potentially build around you." 

If the QB is smart, the way Brady was - he realized that winning multiple championships and sacrificing a little money would actually not only make him a perennial winner but he would end up making even more money in the long run (even after his NFL career was over) by being a "perennial winner".   Brady likely gave up millions and millions of dollars on his NFL deals but just signed a deal worth over $300 million as a broadcaster well after his retirement. Not to mention the fact that he likely had already  made up from taking less than his worth from NFL contract money from endorsements alone while he was still playing.