PATRIOTSFANINPA

We see it every year where a player comes off a team that is loaded for a championship run the following season, yet turns down that teams offer and obviously that teams chances to win a championship by going the other way and signing with a team that has vitually no chance to make the playoffs and has been .500 or less for much of the past decade or two.

With that being said,what percentage of players in the NFL from 10% to 100% do you feel opts for more money and lucrative long term secured deals with teams that are very unlikley to win a title compared to playing on a team that has a more talented roster,better coaching and a much better chance of winning it all in any given year but refuse the offer because it was not as much as the other,lesser talented team?

Curious minds want to know your opinion?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

emoney_33

An "opinion" on % numbers is pretty useless. A study, while imperfect, would tell us more, but I doubt anyone will attempt that study.

But if I had to guess, and % numbers are pretty terrible usually when guessed, I'd say that less than 10% turn down ANY money for wins. I also guess that it's virtually 0% that refuse anything significant.

Most players are influenced by their Agents, and agents couldn't give a damn whether they win or lose, they have to get their small (%-wise) cut.

So my stupid guess would be a little less than 100% in this poll, but that's not an option. I'd say maybe 95-98%

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who do not.

BoTown

Can't really put a number on it, but when it comes down to it, players will chase the money much more often than not. Sometimes if you're lucky you get to have both (Adam Vinatieri in 2006). Players who take a discount to stay with the Patriots aren't guaranteed to win more. How many people this time last year thought the Saints (8-8, last place in NFC South) had a better shot at winning the Super Bowl than the Patriots (11-5, second place in AFC East)? Heath Evans got a pay raise to leave New England for New Orleans, and he got his ring right away.

Especially in the NFL where contracts aren't all guaranteed, players are going to chase the money more than anything, and hope that the winning would be the gravy on top. They go from a winning team to a losing team, and hope to invoke a winning spirit with their new teams. A guy like Watson, who took a 6-year, rookie salary contract, is going to the Browns as an opportunity to earn money he never got (and probably never was going to get) with the Patriots, and to be a focal part of a rebuilding team's offense. And given Cleveland's lack of a proven offensive threat, and the uncertainty of the quarterback situation, I can see Watson thriving as a safety valve for whoever the Browns put at the helm. And let's face it, the Patriots as constructed right now (I am aware the offseason is still young) are not built to win a Super Bowl. They are currently a thinned-out version of last year's 10-6 team. This is the wisest career move for Watson, and that's why it's not as simple as saying he, or other players in his situation, is leaving just to get paid.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tanked_as_usual

tedy bruschi is gone......its 100% now

mojocaster.com

There was no option for 99.9% so I went with 90%

__________________

Deus Irae

Depends on the money gap. I'd estimate that just about 100% of players would take a $10 million salary on the Browns over a minimum salary on the Colts.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

billdog3484

why would anyone sign for less? i wouldnt. its nice to win, but its nicer to be richer

BoTown

It also matters where the player is in their stage of their careers.

IIRC, Rodney Harrison picked the Patriots over taking more money with the Raiders because he wanted a ring and it was getting late in his career.

On the other hand you have Ty Law, who was fulfilled with winning 3 rings with the Patriots and decided to chase the biggest contracts he could find at the end of his career.

Guys like Tedy Bruschi, Troy Brown, and Kevin Faulk are special exceptions, as they each won 3 rings and had opportunities to sign elsewhere, but were happy and content in New England and didn't see the need to start their careers over in new locker rooms just to chase a few extra bucks.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

condon84

I think a more clear picture would be to look at the age of players willing to take less money to play for winners vs the age of players willing to take more money to play for losing teams.

The way I see it, the older the player gets and the less time left they have playing in the NFL, the more likely they'll take less money to try to win a championship. I believe that young players want to get "paid" now because they always have time to try to win a championship later on.

alamo

The question is somewhat flawed, in that it holds out money and titles as the only two options.

Players are no different than other people: sometimes money isn't the most important thing. But that doesn't mean winning is, either. General lifestyle and enjoyment of life for both you and your family are sometimes most important.

Obviously money is a key ingredient to making your life easier. But once your financial needs are sufficiently met, most people look to improve other areas of their life. And winning also makes your life better, but it's not the only thing that can do so. And it's far from guaranteed, so risking your lifestyle for a chance at a ring is something not everyone will do.

I voted 90% on the poll, but what I really meant was "only 10% of players opt for titles" rather than "90% opt for money". Because titles % is probably only 10% but money is probably less than %90. Though I admit agents skew the % from what the general population would do.