Le'Veon Bell

[feltdizz]

We had Ben, Bell and brown for several years and didn't win squat.
If we paid, Bell what you wanted us too and paid brown what you wanted us to, we still wouldn't be able to bring in anyone or even keep Dupree.

The reality is 31 teams don’t win “squat” every year.

What did I want to pay Bell? No one was ever able to show proof I wanted US to pay Bell more than 13 per year. I thought Colbert’s offer was strong but I also believed Bell could get more guaranteed money if he was able to hit FA before sitting out a year. I still believe he would’ve cashed out big if given the opportunity.

What I find odd is damn near every year teams do what you guys suggest and don’t make the playoffs or the SB. You guys always cheery pick the winner AFTER the fact as proof paying a RB is a bad idea.

It’s not a bad idea. What’s a bad idea is paying an aging QB or pedestrian QB $100 mill guaranteed and then acting like the RB is the reason teams are cash strapped.

Bell going to the Jets isn’t proof of anything. The Jets aren’t that good and they still beat our team who didn’t have a high paid RB on the roster.

There are tons of good high paid players on bad teams. Doesn’t mean the team or player made a mistake. Sometimes you aren’t a good team or the ball doesn’t bounce your way.

and one last thing. We had AB’s money on the books, Ben’s money on the bools and still brought in Fitz. We are creative and we will find a way to keep Dupree if he wants to be here. I always preferred keeping skill players and moving an aging Ben for draft picks.

[whatever]

The reality is 31 teams don’t win “squat” every year.

What did I want to pay Bell? No one was ever able to show proof I wanted US to pay Bell more than 13 per year. I thought Colbert’s offer was strong but I also believed Bell could get more guaranteed money if he was able to hit FA before sitting out a year. I still believe he would’ve cashed out big if given the opportunity.

What I find odd is damn near every year teams do what you guys suggest and don’t make the playoffs or the SB. You guys always cheery pick the winner AFTER the fact as proof paying a RB is a bad idea.

It’s not a bad idea. What’s a bad idea is paying an aging QB or pedestrian QB $100 mill guaranteed and then acting like the RB is the reason teams are cash strapped.

Bell going to the Jets isn’t proof of anything. The Jets aren’t that good and they still beat our team who didn’t have a high paid RB on the roster.

There are tons of good high paid players on bad teams. Doesn’t mean the team or player made a mistake. Sometimes you aren’t a good team or the ball doesn’t bounce your way.

and one last thing. We had AB’s money on the books, Ben’s money on the bools and still brought in Fitz. We are creative and we will find a way to keep Dupree if he wants to be here. I always preferred keeping skill players and moving an aging Ben for draft picks.

Wow, where to start?
1) Where did I suggest what to do?
2) What team did I cherry pick a winner after the fact?
3) When did I say I supported paying Ben or any qb 100 million?
4) Fitz was cheap so pointing to that makes no sense.
5) Agree on Dupree but it wouldnt be possible with Bell and Brown here unless you wanted to gut the whole team.

[feltdizz]

Wow, where to start?
1) Where did I suggest what to do?
2) What team did I cherry pick a winner after the fact?
3) When did I say I supported paying Ben or any qb 100 million?
4) Fitz was cheap so pointing to that makes no sense.
5) Agree on Dupree but it wouldnt be possible with Bell and Brown here unless you wanted to gut the whole team.

you don’t have to gut the whole team. That type of
hyperbole is used all the time when it comes to paying a RB big money but never comes into play when paying other positions the same amount and much more.

Fitz being cheap is a prime example of how you can make a roster better.

People like to say we couldn’t get better if we paid certain players but Fitz proved it’s possible. Aloulu is another example.

as far as what you said or didn’t say. I don’t care what you did or didn’t say. I’m talking about the topic.

If something in my post doesn’t apply to you feel free to skip over it.

[whatever]

you don’t have to gut the whole team. That type of
hyperbole is used all the time when it comes to paying a RB big money but never comes into play when paying other positions the same amount and much more.

Fitz being cheap is a prime example of how you can make a roster better.

People like to say we couldn’t get better if we paid certain players but Fitz proved it’s possible. Aloulu is another example.

as far as what you said or didn’t say. I don’t care what you did or didn’t say. I’m talking about the topic.

If something in my post doesn’t apply to you feel free to skip over it.

So when you address my post and say 'you guys' that doesn't mean me............ok.
For future discussions, I'll say that goes for me too.
Obviously you did care about what i did or didn't say. I too was talking about the topic.
How many 'Fitz' trades have gone down? One fluke situation doesn't make it the standard as how to build a team.
As far as rbs contracts go, I think many more times a huge contract bites a team in the arse more than other positions. Mostly due to longevity and its the easiest position to replace. AND before you go there, its the easiest to replace based on value compared to production.
I bet more cheap rbs filled in more admirable for a huge $ rb that lets say for a qb, cb, ot etc.
If there is a position in the nfl that can get by, and flourish on the cheap, its rb.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

I think we have fallen off the rails on the whole "don't pay big money to a RB idea". It is disingenuous to say that RBs are a dime a dozen. However, the reality is that

a) RB is typically the most NFL ready position entering the league. Regardless of a team's playbook, the general theory behind playing RB is see hole, run through hole. Therefore, a RB is able to have success early in his rookie contract.

b) Due to the pounding that a running back endures, the RB position is also the earliest skill position to see a player break down. They become less reliable, both in terms of ability to stay on the field and ability to perform as well as when entering the league.

A good RB is still a good RB, but the combination of how quickly the position can go downhill and the dynamic boost that a rookie can give (if he finds that success) makes it the smartest position to gamble on replacing instead of paying out big dough.

[feltdizz]

So when you address my post and say 'you guys' that doesn't mean me............ok.
For future discussions, I'll say that goes for me too.
Obviously you did care about what i did or didn't say. I too was talking about the topic.
How many 'Fitz' trades have gone down? One fluke situation doesn't make it the standard as how to build a team.
As far as rbs contracts go, I think many more times a huge contract bites a team in the arse more than other positions. Mostly due to longevity and its the easiest position to replace. AND before you go there, its the easiest to replace based on value compared to production.
I bet more cheap rbs filled in more admirable for a huge $ rb that lets say for a qb, cb, ot etc.
If there is a position in the nfl that can get by, and flourish on the cheap, its rb.

Any huge contract will bite a team in the arse if the player doesn’t produce.

RB seems to be the only position where after 1 year everyone on here screams about how it’s the biggest mistake in the world.

20 teams miss the playoffs every year. Each of those teams have huge contracts with a few players. No reason an elite RB shouldn’t get paid for his services.

[Steel Maniac]

I think we have fallen off the rails on the whole "don't pay big money to a RB idea". It is disingenuous to say that RBs are a dime a dozen. However, the reality is that

a) RB is typically the most NFL ready position entering the league. Regardless of a team's playbook, the general theory behind playing RB is see hole, run through hole. Therefore, a RB is able to have success early in his rookie contract.

b) Due to the pounding that a running back endures, the RB position is also the earliest skill position to see a player break down. They become less reliable, both in terms of ability to stay on the field and ability to perform as well as when entering the league.

A good RB is still a good RB, but the combination of how quickly the position can go downhill and the dynamic boost that a rookie can give (if he finds that success) makes it the smartest position to gamble on replacing instead of paying out big dough.

All I know is that all the “ pro big contract for rb’s” posters held up the gurley situation as their #1 example.

But like what I’ve been saying , you need to wait before you judge. And now, after a little time, you see the Rams desperately trying to get out from under that contract.

Now all the “ pro big contract for rb’s” people are saying that isn’t right.

You can’t say the gurley situation is your poster example one minute ... then when time bears witness to the truth, you dismiss it.

You can’t have it both ways.

[feltdizz]

Has Gurley been traded already?

[Steel Maniac]

Storm clouds gather for Todd Gurley

Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2020, 10:54 AM EST



It’s been clear for months that the Rams have a huge decision to make regarding running back Todd Gurley‘s contract. In the coming days and weeks, it all will be coming to a head.

With another $10.5 million in compensation under Gurley’s blockbuster deal due to become fully guaranteed on March 20, the Rams reportedly want to meet with Gurley.

The Rams surely regretted the Gurley contract, signed in June 2018, by the time its first year concluded. In 2019, he became a part-time player whose abilities and contributions simply don’t justify the terms to which the Rams have committed.

He received $21 million to sign, part of $34.5 million in guarantees that fully vested last March. If they’d cut him now, Gurley would walk away with $17.25 million per year for two seasons. (Of the $34.5 million, $31.95 million would not be subject to offset.)

Keeping Gurley beyond March 20 means that his $5.5 million base salary for 2020 along with a $5 million roster bonus for 2021 will become fully guaranteed. He’s also due make $5 million in base salary in 2021.

So it’s not hard to guess the subject of the meeting. The Rams, I believe, will tell Gurley that they want to keep him, but that they can’t justify keeping him under the terms of his current deal, which was signed before Gurley’s knee necessitated making him something less than the workhorse he’d been before signing the deal.

The Rams could (and maybe should) allow Gurley to gauge the market elsewhere, to see if anyone would offer him as much or more than whatever the Rams are willing to pay on a restructured deal. Chances are that Gurley won’t do any better than whatever the Rams would pay, especially since keeping Gurley on the roster would avoid a cap charge of $12.6 million in signing bonus acceleration and $7.55 million in a fully-guaranteed roster bonus for 2020. (They could push $8.4 million in dead money into 2021 by designating Gurley as a post-June 1 release, pending the completion of a new CBA before the start of the league year.)

Of course, Gurley may decide to simply refuse whatever the Rams offer, even if he ends up getting less elsewhere. With $34.5 million (or at a minimum $31.95 million) in hand, he can afford to take a stand on principle and to force his way to the open market.

Gurley has a short fuse when it comes to conversations about his knee, and it won’t be easy for the Rams to sell him on the idea of taking less without mentioning the elephant in the room. The moment they do could be the moment Gurley refuses to do anything other that sit and wait for another $10.5 million in guaranteed money to vest — or for the Rams to rip up the contract and make him a free agent.

[feltdizz]

Has Gurley been traded already?

[phillyesq]

The Gurley and David Johnson deals are somewhere between bad for their teams and unmitigated disasters. McCoy never played up to his contract, either, when he was the highest paid RB.

I think running backs are important, and if the right guy is there, I want the Steelers to take one in the second round. But I don't think paying big money to a running back is any recipe for building a successful team.

[SS Laser]

I for one am glad Bell moved on. That contract offered would have been a problem. Yes Ben's is also a problem for sure. But I like the cheaper vet or rookie RB contracts so there is money for all other positions.
D. Williams was good here. It might be time for BPA RB or cheap vet to replace J Sam or Whyte on the roster.
I also wonder what RB with the highest contract continued to produce at same or better level? Peterson maybe? I am taking that real big type contract we have been seeing just the last few years. Some times percentage shows how each position or player really effects the cap. Can't remember were I seen or read that.

[BURGH86STEEL]

I for one am glad Bell moved on. That contract offered would have been a problem. Yes Ben's is also a problem for sure. But I like the cheaper vet or rookie RB contracts so there is money for all other positions.
D. Williams was good here. It might be time for BPA RB or cheap vet to replace J Sam or Whyte on the roster.
I also wonder what RB with the highest contract continued to produce at same or better level? Peterson maybe? I am taking that real big type contract we have been seeing just the last few years. Some times percentage shows how each position or player really effects the cap. Can't remember were I seen or read that.

The reported deal the Steelers offered Bell wouldn't had been a problem. That's because they didn't offer him the guaranteed money that would had made it difficult to move on from him after one or two years.

With RBs and players in general it's all about the structure of the contracts. Teams can protect themselves to a degree with contracts that are structured properly. Players protect themselves with the guaranteed money. At some point there needs to be a proper balance for players and teams.

[Steel Maniac]

According to ESPN Jets reporter Rich Cimini, the odds of Le'Veon Bell being traded this offseason are "remote."

Despite coach Adam Gase's open antagonism of Bell throughout his debut season in the Big Apple, Cimini doesn't see a trade coming to fruition without the Jets taking on a significant portion of his 2020 salary, which calls for a whopping $13.5 million in guarantees. Even then, Cimini wouldn't anticipate New York getting much in return for Bell (a Day 3 draft pick is probably the best they could hope for), who the Jets believe put on weight in 2019 while losing much of his explosiveness. Only Buccaneers plodder Peyton Barber averaged fewer yards per rushing attempt (3.1) than Bell (3.2) last season.

SOURCE: ESPN.com
Feb 17, 2020, 10:43 AM ET

[Oviedo]

According to ESPN Jets reporter Rich Cimini, the odds of Le'Veon Bell being traded this offseason are "remote."

Despite coach Adam Gase's open antagonism of Bell throughout his debut season in the Big Apple, Cimini doesn't see a trade coming to fruition without the Jets taking on a significant portion of his 2020 salary, which calls for a whopping $13.5 million in guarantees. Even then, Cimini wouldn't anticipate New York getting much in return for Bell (a Day 3 draft pick is probably the best they could hope for), who the Jets believe put on weight in 2019 while losing much of his explosiveness. Only Buccaneers plodder Peyton Barber averaged fewer yards per rushing attempt (3.1) than Bell (3.2) last season.

SOURCE: ESPN.com
Feb 17, 2020, 10:43 AM ET

So the Jets look to be stuck with "fat boy" Bell...serves them right for giving him the contract they did. I knew he took a step back, but I didn't know his yards per attempt were that bad. Wishing him the worst going forward