Santana's new contract -- bigger than Jerry Porter's?

[dfbovey]

I don't see why Moss shouldn't be payed as much as Porter. They have has pretty similar production thus far in their careers. Don't know why it would be so shocking.

[Pocono]

Originally posted by kappaluvacee

I'm reserving my judement until I see the contract, but Nunyo was on Sirius this weekend and he stated that the deal has been done since the day Moss got here. Nunyo says the deal isn't being released until after June 1 because of salary cap implications.

It would make perfect sense that they wouldn't make the trade unless a deal had already been agreed upon. I think they're waiting until Gardner is traded and his cap space shakes loose to do the deal. Other than Barrow it's hard to find a natural target of a 6/1 cut that they haven't restructured. They save very little by waiting until 6/1 to cut Raymer or Friedman so the only other player beside Barrow that it makes any sense to wait with is Hall.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Dirk Diggler

Moss not living up to expectations has a lot more to do with being stuck on a team who employed one of the worst OC's in history - Paul Hackett. He ran a true WCO that was probably the worst possible match for Moss's skills. Not to mention the fact that Pennington is a noddle-armed QB who can't get the ball to reach Moss down the field. He'll be a better player with Gibbs calling the shots.

Moss may indeed fare better without Hackett's play-calling. But let's not forget that Coles played his best ball under this same OC, and Moss also played pretty well under him in 2003, before regressing last season.

As for Jerry Porter, isn't it strange that the Raiders kept him in their plans despite the emergence of Curry and Gabriel AND the acquisition of Moss, which had to have been brewing during Porter negotiations? That's how highly he was regarded by his team.

His growth was stunted when Rice and Brown stole PT in 2002, though he flashed brightly as the playoffs came, scoring a TD in every postseason game. In 2003, he was never the same player after being injured. But the real Porter emerged once again in 2004, in spite of an awful offense.

In that respect, Porter's situation is unique. Heading into 2005, this 6'2" 220 pounder still appeared to be dripping with potential, with his best years ahead. Moss, on the other hand, will be signing a new deal after coming off a downtick year, and while it's certainly possible that he'll improve in a new offense, there's no solid evidence of this just yet. Porter has the "P" factor relative to Moss, which should be reflected in both contracts.

Nonetheless, the Skins will need to be generous. Rosenhaus understands that the Skins are anxious to put the Coles/Moss chapter behind them, and that the last thing they want is to be perceived as having traded one disgruntled WR for another one. So while Moss may lack Porter's "P" factor, he's got another one that will work just as well in his favor.

[Leonard Washington]

Moss may indeed fare better without Hackett's play-calling. But let's not forget that Coles played his best ball under this same OC, and Moss also played pretty well under him in 2003, before regressing last season.

coles actually played his best ball under spurrier

[big z]

we can only judge this fairly after the numbers come out.

his contract numbers and his season stats in a Skins uni.

but i do not like the continued trend of playing players that haven't done anything in a skins uni big dollars while at the same time letting those who have been here and played tough for us go.

i'm interested in knowing what "team salary structure" moss will fit into, and whether he'll be worth it.

Good luck FO. Make the right choice...and I'll say it again, Just win Joe. Make the playoffs, and I don't care if you've got brunell at wideout.....

:helmet: :point2sky :point2sky :helmet:

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Leonard Washington

coles actually played his best ball under spurrier

Well, he had more receptions and more yards in 2002 with Hackett than he did in 2003 with Spurrier. If he had a better total in one or both of these areas under Spurrier, you'd probably have a much better argument.

That he had just 1 more TD and a slightly better YPC (0.5) under Spurrier does help your case, but not enough so to offset better stats in the 2 most important categories in judging a WR's productivity.

[fpickering]

Enter panicked drama queens.

CALM DOWN! You took nunyo's bait hook line and sinker.

Nothing has been released yet and even if it had been, Moss deserves more money than Porter.

*Porter is WAY TOO inconsistent

*He has shown glimses of a bad attitude

*Yes, he also has shown flashes of great play but so has Moss.

*Moss returns punts

*Moss is a threat to take it to the house every play. Can you say that about Porter?...... NO!

Gibbs and company passed on Porter for a reason.

[fpickering]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Moss may indeed fare better without Hackett's play-calling. But let's not forget that Coles played his best ball under this same OC, and Moss also played pretty well under him in 2003, before regressing last season.

Good post. However, I would like to bring up one point you made (above).

Coles is not and really never was as much of a pure deep threat as Moss is.

Coles was an outstanding YAC guy though. While with the Jets I remember him catching a lot of underneath stuff and crossing routes and advancing the football in space.

Pennington is not regarded as having the best arm and I think this hindered Moss' game. Also, it must be noted that as Moss regressed so did Pennington's arm with injury.

[Hooper]

I don't know about you guys, but I like number one receivers who have heart. LC had tons of it -- it's just too bad he was a colossal a$$hole in other ways. But Santana... well, I just hope those rumored numbers Nunyo's floating about include incentives for going over the middle and making catches when you know you're going to get hit because Santana will never reach those.

[tr1]

This is from Cerrato today:

A: It's about planning and it's about budgeting and knowing what you can and can't do. The thing we can do that we have an advantage over other teams is cash creates cap. What we do is give big signing bonsues and give small Paragraph 5's (*) which allows us to add players.

What we've learned over the years is not to overpay older guys.

Cash creates cap...remember that.

[GSF]

Originally posted by Art

Moss should probably get a contract worth more than Porter.

Moss is younger than Porter and in 51 career games for Moss compared to 69 career games for Porter -- where Porter played in a generally superior passing offense -- Moss has just 12 fewer receptions than Porter but has more career receiving yards than Porter does with touchdowns being the same.

And, Moss is a far superior special teams player than Porter at this point, so, I would understand, completely, why Moss would be paid somewhat better than Porter. He's a better player than Porter to this point in his career. We don't know who will be better as they continue to play.

Yeah, but Porter was on sportscenter way more times.

[GSF]

Are we going to have a guest like Vinny on here after every Nunyo article comes out to calm everybody down?

[chet06]

Porter is going to have a monster year opposite Moss.

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Well, he had more receptions and more yards in 2002 with Hackett than he did in 2003 with Spurrier. If he had a better total in one or both of these areas under Spurrier, you'd probably have a much better argument.

That he had just 1 more TD and a slightly better YPC (0.5) under Spurrier does help your case, but not enough so to offset better stats in the 2 most important categories in judging a WR's productivity.

As happens quite often, you manage to have correct facts and faulty conclusions.

Coles' production under Spurrier was hampered by a foot injury almost his entire stay in Washington. Even with that injury and the terrible protection provided by the offensive line that year, Coles equalled the best he ever managed in NY.

As for Moss coming off a "downtick" year, chart his production the last two years while Chad Pennington is riding the pine and tell me what you see.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Moss should probably get a contract worth more than Porter.

Moss is younger than Porter and in 51 career games for Moss compared to 69 career games for Porter -- where Porter played in a generally superior passing offense -- Moss has just 12 fewer receptions than Porter but has more career receiving yards than Porter does with touchdowns being the same.

And, Moss is a far superior special teams player than Porter at this point, so, I would understand, completely, why Moss would be paid somewhat better than Porter. He's a better player than Porter to this point in his career. We don't know who will be better as they continue to play.

Moss is not a #1, and Porter was last year. He is not a better WR then Porter, yes he does add as a special teams player, but his punt returning ability is ok, nothing special.

[Danny Montana]

Originally posted by Flowtrain

Nonetheless, the Skins will need to be generous. Rosenhaus understands that the Skins are anxious to put the Coles/Moss chapter behind them, and that the last thing they want is to be perceived as having traded one disgruntled WR for another one. So while Moss may lack Porter's "P" factor, he's got another one that will work just as well in his favor.

Nice speculation there. What makes it so much more convincing is the way that you state it so authoritatively!

[Darth Tater]

Average over the life of the contract means very little.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Hooper

From Nunyo's chat --

"If there's a no. 1 wideout on the team, it's Santana Moss. He'll certainly be paid like one. Brace yourselves for when his contract numbers come out. He'll make more than Jerry Porter -- the former local star -- now with the Raiders, who re-upped for a salary averaging more than $5 million per year. "

Wow. How's that for fiscal restraint?

So he's saying were give Porter the exact same contract Smoot was given minus the bonus? Recent History would normally show.

10 mil signing bonus: 1.2 mil 1st year, 3 mil 2nd year, 4 mil 3rd year with a you know were going to restructure then right?

[skinstzar]

Originally posted by barry wilburn

I bet it's true, and if so it's a HUGE overpay.

How can you say it is an overpay. He hasn't step on the field yet. TRUST GIBBS DECISION MAKING!!!!!!

Plus why would you trust Nunyo. His source is probably some prophetic homeless dude that he passes on his way to work everyday. He is tool bag.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

Moss is not a #1, and Porter was last year. He is not a better WR then Porter, yes he does add as a special teams player, but his punt returning ability is ok, nothing special.

Moss was effectively the No. 1 in New York two years ago and did better than Porter ever has.

[TenaciousB15]

Originally posted by fpickering

Gibbs and company passed on Porter for a reason.

Didn't Porter resign before free-agency began?

[AkaD]

So I guess he hasn't actually signed yet then huh? I thought this thread was an actual listing of his contract. When do we expect to sign his deal, or are we just taking over his contract from the Patriots?

Lates.

[Yomar]

so if I understand this correctly, it is ok to overpay for Moss because the Raiders overpaid for Porter?

Mosshas only had one good year and he regressed this past season but because his best year was arguably better than Porter's, he deserves more money than Porter?

Since we are doing relative arguments, I want to bring up Pierce again.

The knock against Pierce was that he only had "one good season" and therefore did not deserve a $4m a year contract, but Moss only has had one good season AND it was for another team, yet the Skins are willing to open the vault for this guy before he has even caught one pass for the team? How much more does the team have to pay him if they don't extend him, let him play out the contract and then based on his performace make a decision next off-season? The only reason to extend him now is if the team gets a discount, $5m a year doesn't seem like a discount to me.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

As happens quite often, you manage to have correct facts and faulty conclusions.

Coles' production under Spurrier was hampered by a foot injury almost his entire stay in Washington. Even with that injury and the terrible protection provided by the offensive line that year, Coles equalled the best he ever managed in NY.

As for Moss coming off a "downtick" year, chart his production the last two years while Chad Pennington is riding the pine and tell me what you see.

Jimbo, let's look at these conclusions before we decide which are correct and which are faulty.

The first conclusion disagreed with Leonard's opinion that Coles played better ball under Spurrier in 2003 than under Hackett in 2002. I based this on 2 key indicators: his output of yards and receptions.

You disagree, saying he "equalled" his production in NY -- yet based on the backup I just provided, we already know this isn't the case. Then, you provide the injury he suffered in Washington as an explanation as to why he didn't perform better. It seems odd, however, to note an injury that you say stifled his play, when the point you had hoped to make was that he was playing his best ball.

So, first you provided an incorrect fact. Then, you provided another fact that advanced the wrong conclusion.

Second, you take issue with my conclusion that, unlike Porter, Moss is coming off a "downtick" year. Now we all know that there are explanations for Moss's decline in production, some of which were under his control, some of which were not. But if you're traveling down that road, wouldn't you have to consider Porter's circumstances too, such as playing for a pitiful 5-11 team with a QB who led the league in INTs? Essentially, both WRs had some degree of adversity.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that, in 2004, one showed a downtick in play while the other showed an uptick of 3X his previous production. Is it really "faulty" to conclude that in determining relative market value between the 2 WRs, this is a fact that helps Porter more than it does Moss?

Do you actually have doubts about this? If so, ask Pierce whether, in a contract year, he'd rather show a downtick with external mitigating factors or show an uptick without excuses.

[Shotgunner]

What does Moss have left on his current contract???:helmet: