jblaze":311fsj01 said:
HawkFan72":311fsj01 said:
Diezel Dawg":311fsj01 said:
So retire because he doesn't get what he "thinks" he is worth, and turn down $6m?LOL comical.
That's what I've been saying this whole time. $6m is a whole lot more than ZERO. Not sure I get his reasoning here.
It's not that difficult to understand. He doesn't need the money, he's made over 100m in contracts so far, what's another 6m to his quality of life? Nothing. It's all the other considerations that matter here.
I understand that we as peons can't understand why 6m isn't reason enough, but if you've made 12m/year for the past 6 years and now you hit the market and the best you can get is 6m when you had a 10m/3 year offer from Denver a week before, that would bother you. It's all about perspective and perceived respect.
For some reasons fans get so hung up on the money when it's not always about that, especially when you've already banked a ton of cash and are playing out the last few years of your career.
I get that. But when he says he is going to retire over the money issue it just sends a mixed message. "I'll play for $10m but not $6m. I'd rather have zero." Okay. If the money doesn't matter and you love the game, you play for $6m.
Same with the sacks issue. He wants to climb the all-time sacks list. But if the only offer he gets is a rotational role, he is going to retire. Last I checked, you'll get more sacks in a rotational role than you will sitting at home.
The logic just doesn't add up. You get some money and some sacks by playing. You get nothing if you retire. Either you want to play football or not.
I'm not even talking about signing with the Seahawks. If he goes somewhere else, at least it makes sense that he would choose to play SOMEWHERE rather than retiring. The whole retirement threat just is stupid to me because it would not allow him to meet any of his supposed goals (money and sacks).