Adam Schefter Jabs, Matt Barkley Counter-Punches in Catty Twitter Exchange
We're all terribly aware that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Matt Barkley cost himself quite a lot of money by opting to stay at USC an extra year. Barkley's draft stock plummeted in 2012, and as a result, the contract he signed with the team this week as a fourth-round pick is worth quite a lot less than what he would have been due as a top-10 selection.
So when ESPN's Adam Schefter threw that fine point into his tweet announcing Barkley's new deal Thursday afternoon, the 22-year-old fired back in lighthearted fashion:
You might recall that Barkley also called out ESPN's Merril Hoge in response to a some criticism back in March. Some might argue that this is an indication Barkley has thin skin, which is an extremely bad trait to possess when you're a quarterback in Philadelphia, but it's also an indication he's entering this league—and this quarterback competition—with a California-sized chip on his shoulder.
That's never a bad thing, but it won't take tweets from national reporters to remind Barkley that his gamble did the opposite of pay off. He'll receive that reminder each and every time he checks his online bank statement and views the direct deposits he's receiving from the Eagles over the next four years.
Former agent Joel Corry, who is now working for the National Football Post, estimated in a response to Schefter that the decision to be cool and stay in school ultimately cost Barkley about $10 million, assuming the Miami Dolphins would have selected him rather than Ryan Tannehill in the No. 8 spot.
We can't say for sure that he would have been chosen there, or even in the first round. Things change, sometimes dramatically, in the lead-up to the draft. So we'll never really know how much money Barkley lost by not entering the draft a year earlier. But let's conclude that he's now a rich man regardless.
And in this case, he's a rich man with some extra fire in his belly.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?