It's interesting how NFL teams pay players. When they sit down to evaluate someone for a new contract, they gauge their value based on how they've played over the terms of the ending contract. They use that, to sign them.
Then, when that contract nears the end, they say that the guy didn't play up to the standards of the contract he was given.
It's a catch point here simply because a player rarely lives up to, or exceeds, what was expected of them during that second contract. Towards the end, they're usually broken down by injuries, and a natural lesser ability to perform. Yet, teams continually use that criteria - not living up to contract - to cut ties with them.
The fact is, teams put themselves into this predicament through how they write contracts. Most of them are so back loaded that they find it easier to cut ties with a guy with one year left on a contract, or right after it expires, because they spent too much basing the contract on past performances, not "expected performance," no matter what they say.
The whole reason for them saying what they do is so they don't have to admit they don't really know how to judge where a player will be compared to where they were. When they begin to realize this, they might find they can make better decisions on who to keep, and cut. Until then, they're going to over pay in contract two, and opt out of a contract negotiation for contract three. That's exactly why we got Charles Woodson, and why we should be looking at more players like him, who believe in physical conditioning, along with a life-style that will make their careers last longer.
Just my opinion.
