Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Eminence

Le'Veon Bell

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Some possibilities:

1) He's passing the baton in the relay race that is Steelers' RBs to Conner, and moving on.

2) He's crossing some sort of boundary and coming into the Pittsburgh compound to start playing again.

or

3) He's on something so good that it makes sentences like that seem profound.

Even odds on any of these imo.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Arodin said:

Some possibilities:

1) He's passing the baton in the relay race that is Steelers' RBs to Conner, and moving on.

2) He's crossing some sort of boundary and coming into the Pittsburgh compound to start playing again.

or

3) He's on something so good that it makes sentences like that seem profound.

Even odds on any of these imo.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8390/leveon-bell

Posting on social media Thursday night, Le'Veon Bell tweeted "I think it’s safe to say, it’s time to pass the sticks."

Bell finished the tweet with three "smiling face with sunglasses" emojis. For those of you unfamiliar with Madden or PlayStation 2's "Street Hoops" (see "Chappelle's Show"), "pass the sticks" means "your time is up" in video game parlance. Bell will be reporting before Tuesday afternoon's deadline, and he wants the controller back from James Conner. Conner stayed scorching on Thursday evening, decking the Panthers for another 100-plus yard game. If Bell is active for Week 11 against the Jaguars, he will almost certainly be a package player, taking a backseat to his understudy. The saga will be officially ending soon, likely Monday, though Friday is also a possibility. Nov 8 - 10:39 PM

Source: Le'Veon Bell on Twitter

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8390/leveon-bell

Posting on social media Thursday night, Le'Veon Bell tweeted "I think it’s safe to say, it’s time to pass the sticks."

Bell finished the tweet with three "smiling face with sunglasses" emojis. For those of you unfamiliar with Madden or PlayStation 2's "Street Hoops" (see "Chappelle's Show"), "pass the sticks" means "your time is up" in video game parlance. Bell will be reporting before Tuesday afternoon's deadline, and he wants the controller back from James Conner. Conner stayed scorching on Thursday evening, decking the Panthers for another 100-plus yard game. If Bell is active for Week 11 against the Jaguars, he will almost certainly be a package player, taking a backseat to his understudy. The saga will be officially ending soon, likely Monday, though Friday is also a possibility. Nov 8 - 10:39 PM

Source: Le'Veon Bell on Twitter

And FYI, that write up on Rotoworld didn't last long. It's been deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

 

The fact that it turns out Bell made the smart decision just underscores that fact.  Bell has weakened some of the power of the NFL teams, with regards to the use of the franchise tag.  If the precedent is established that a player tagged twice can sit out the 2nd franchise tag year & mandate the QB tag rate in the event of a 3rd tag, NFL teams will be less likely to tag players multiple teams, which means they’ll be more likely to work out long term deals (giving players the security if ACTUAL guaranteed money) OR making it easier for players to reach FA.  Bells actions, which the Steelers players #### on, stands to benefit all NFL players in general, and possibly some of those poor teammates, specifically.

 

This just sounds dumb to me.

No matter what happens next year he is down $15 mil and roughly 10% of his earning career.  Sure less since he has not played.

I don't know what kind of promised land he will land in but I am sure interested to see it and how much better it is than being the Steelers RB this year is.

If it is all about the numbers than what was the number and how much more was it than what he was offered?  Was it 15 mill?

It is a business.  Get your money.  Let the NFLPA do it's job and fix the rules and contribute your money but get paid every Sunday.  The over/under on Bell's career earning's has dropped.

The first rule of sales  - you can't make up missed ones.  The second rule - be-back's are useless.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, infantsam said:

This just sounds dumb to me.

No matter what happens next year he is down $15 mil and roughly 10% of his earning career.  Sure less since he has not played.

I don't know what kind of promised land he will land in but I am sure interested to see it and how much better it is than being the Steelers RB this year is.

If it is all about the numbers than what was the number and how much more was it than what he was offered?  Was it 15 mill?

It is a business.  Get your money.  Let the NFLPA do it's job and fix the rules and contribute your money but get paid every Sunday.  The over/under on Bell's career earning's has dropped.

The first rule of sales  - you can't make up missed ones.  The second rule - be-back's are useless.

 

 

 

And by the way.

 

Get back in and play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like he is going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

 

Edited by lsufan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like his going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

 

Unwad those panties down there in Louisiana.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like his going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

 

Conner has 10 days to recover.  Plus, no way to tell what kind of shape Bell is in at this point.  Plus, Bell might not even show up.  Even if Conner can't go next week, worst case scenario, he has earned the right to be the Steelers starting RB this year, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steeler said:

Conner has 10 days to recover.  Plus, no way to tell what kind of shape Bell is in at this point.  Plus, Bell might not even show up.  Even if Conner can't go next week, worst case scenario, he has earned the right to be the Steelers starting RB this year, IMO.

We have no idea what's going down on the injury front.  Most likely they were winning by 40 points and there was no point in playing their star RB at that point.  Ben also sat.

I'll be very surprised if Bell even reports given what I am reading as of late.  He'd be stupid to do so. 

Even if Bell does report, going to be really tough to sit a guy that's performing at the top of the league, engaging as a team player and is respected by his immediate peers and teammates as such (as opposed to the alternative...) and is a clear lead back.  And... who knows what kind of shape Bell is in.  Dude is most likely not in mid-season form.

Just MHO, but I think way, way, way to early to panic on the Conner cocaine rush.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 3:53 PM, matuski said:

A solid backup/passable starter RB.  

Stats are the silliest argument you can make here against Bell.  Conner can't be Bell.  Teams don't respect Conner.  Conner is the reason AB is slumping  - they can double AB and put an LB on Conner.. they can play 2 deep, etc..  The team is worse without Bell.

:lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steeler said:

Conner has 10 days to recover.  Plus, no way to tell what kind of shape Bell is in at this point.  Plus, Bell might not even show up.  Even if Conner can't go next week, worst case scenario, he has earned the right to be the Steelers starting RB this year, IMO.

With the extra days, Connor will absolutely be ready to go. He wanted to keep playing and if it is in fact a concussion, it seemed to be on the mild side. Even if Bell is back, there is no shot he’s ready to carry a big workload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, infantsam said:

This just sounds dumb to me.

No matter what happens next year he is down $15 mil and roughly 10% of his earning career.  Sure less since he has not played.

I don't know what kind of promised land he will land in but I am sure interested to see it and how much better it is than being the Steelers RB this year is.

If it is all about the numbers than what was the number and how much more was it than what he was offered?  Was it 15 mill?

It is a business.  Get your money.  Let the NFLPA do it's job and fix the rules and contribute your money but get paid every Sunday.  The over/under on Bell's career earning's has dropped.

The first rule of sales  - you can't make up missed ones.  The second rule - be-back's are useless.

 

 

 

The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.  The second rule-you don't talk about fight club.  But we ain't talking about fight club or sales, so neither of those things are relevant.

And that being said, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a response to my post.  You quoted my comments about the impact Bell's actions could have on the use of the franchise tag, then proceeded to say "this just sounds dumb to me," and discuss the impact this decision was having on Bell's wallet almost exclusively, with just a throwaway comment at the end about the NFLPA.  Doesn't make sense to say something sounds dumb, then argue a completely different point to back that up.

If you want to discuss Bell's personal financial information, you're likely right-this decision cost him money.  But, we can't be 100% certain about that unless we know what, EXACTLY, Pitt actually offered him.  There are multiple different reports of what they offered, what the real guarantees were, etc.  We would also need to know what deal he eventually gets from another team.  You also have to consider the chance of sustaining an injury if he had played on the franchise tag this year and the impact that would have had on a long-term deal next year (Earl Thomas says hi).  

But, again, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point was that IF the situation plays out the way that report suggests, Bell's actions strengthens the NFLPA, and other NFL players in their future dealings with teams with regards to use of the franchise tags.  Bell establishing the precedent that a player doesn't have to play under a 2nd tag and still advance to the 3rd tag (& QB tag rate) will make the tag a much less valuable tool/weapon for teams to utilize.  Players will know, and teams will know that player will know, that teams will get 1 tag & 1 chance to exclusively work out a long-term deal.  If the team decides to tag a player a 2nd time, they run the risk of the player holding their salary cap hostage (as Bell did with the Steelers), not reporting (saving a year of abuse on their body), and still moving up to either a huge payday the next year or becoming a FA.  The players/NFLPA got a big win here (with the exception of QBs, but their contracts are already so ahead of everyone else's, anyway).

So, if this report is accurate-Bell doesn't report, he graduates to the QB tag rate anyway & is allowed to become a FA because Pitt won't want to play that rate; then he has done something for the NFLPA that they couldn't do themselves during negotiations.  While not getting rid of the franchise tag, he has returned it to what it was (purportedly) supposed to be anyway: a way for teams to be able to keep their franchise players.  He has greatly weakened its' availability as a weapon for teams to control players during the prime of their careers without making long-term commitments to those players.  That was the point of my previous post.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.  The second rule-you don't talk about fight club.  But we ain't talking about fight club or sales, so neither of those things are relevant.

And that being said, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a response to my post.  You quoted my comments about the impact Bell's actions could have on the use of the franchise tag, then proceeded to say "this just sounds dumb to me," and discuss the impact this decision was having on Bell's wallet almost exclusively, with just a throwaway comment at the end about the NFLPA.  Doesn't make sense to say something sounds dumb, then argue a completely different point to back that up.

If you want to discuss Bell's personal financial information, you're likely right-this decision cost him money.  But, we can't be 100% certain about that unless we know what, EXACTLY, Pitt actually offered him.  There are multiple different reports of what they offered, what the real guarantees were, etc.  We would also need to know what deal he eventually gets from another team.  You also have to consider the chance of sustaining an injury if he had played on the franchise tag this year and the impact that would have had on a long-term deal next year (Earl Thomas says hi).  

But, again, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point was that IF the situation plays out the way that report suggests, Bell's actions strengthens the NFLPA, and other NFL players in their future dealings with teams with regards to use of the franchise tags.  Bell establishing the precedent that a player doesn't have to play under a 2nd tag and still advance to the 3rd tag (& QB tag rate) will make the tag a much less valuable tool/weapon for teams to utilize.  Players will know, and teams will know that player will know, that teams will get 1 tag & 1 chance to exclusively work out a long-term deal.  If the team decides to tag a player a 2nd time, they run the risk of the player holding their salary cap hostage (as Bell did with the Steelers), not reporting (saving a year of abuse on their body), and still moving up to either a huge payday the next year or becoming a FA.  The players/NFLPA got a big win here (with the exception of QBs, but their contracts are already so ahead of everyone else's, anyway).

So, if this report is accurate-Bell doesn't report, he graduates to the QB tag rate anyway & is allowed to become a FA because Pitt won't want to play that rate; then he has done something for the NFLPA that they couldn't do themselves during negotiations.  While not getting rid of the franchise tag, he has returned it to what it was (purportedly) supposed to be anyway: a way for teams to be able to keep their franchise players.  He has greatly weakened its' availability as a weapon for teams to control players during the prime of their careers without making long-term commitments to those players.  That was the point of my previous post.

 

Doesn't mean he won't still lose money on the deal.  But I think he knew he was taking that hit.  

I also do not think he wants to sit out an entire year. He wants to play football.  And I am sure he understands what missing an entire season can do to a football players body (See David Johnson).  

I think he will report.  But I also agree with what you wrote.  I don't think he needs to not report to set the precedent.  He already did that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Steelers were going to use the two week roster exemption even if Bell reports prior to next game.  Has that plan changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, skillz said:

I thought the Steelers were going to use the two week roster exemption even if Bell reports prior to next game.  Has that plan changed?

If/when Bell reports the Steelers will use the roster exemption for at least one week to evaluate what kind of shape Bell is in and to acclimate him back on to the team.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

If/when Bell reports the Steelers will use the roster exemption for at least one week to evaluate what kind of shape Bell is in and to acclimate him back on to the team.  

What if Conner is still in the concussion protocol at that time? I'd think that might stay their hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.  The second rule-you don't talk about fight club.  But we ain't talking about fight club or sales, so neither of those things are relevant.

And that being said, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a response to my post.  You quoted my comments about the impact Bell's actions could have on the use of the franchise tag, then proceeded to say "this just sounds dumb to me," and discuss the impact this decision was having on Bell's wallet almost exclusively, with just a throwaway comment at the end about the NFLPA.  Doesn't make sense to say something sounds dumb, then argue a completely different point to back that up.

If you want to discuss Bell's personal financial information, you're likely right-this decision cost him money.  But, we can't be 100% certain about that unless we know what, EXACTLY, Pitt actually offered him.  There are multiple different reports of what they offered, what the real guarantees were, etc.  We would also need to know what deal he eventually gets from another team.  You also have to consider the chance of sustaining an injury if he had played on the franchise tag this year and the impact that would have had on a long-term deal next year (Earl Thomas says hi).  

But, again, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point was that IF the situation plays out the way that report suggests, Bell's actions strengthens the NFLPA, and other NFL players in their future dealings with teams with regards to use of the franchise tags.  Bell establishing the precedent that a player doesn't have to play under a 2nd tag and still advance to the 3rd tag (& QB tag rate) will make the tag a much less valuable tool/weapon for teams to utilize.  Players will know, and teams will know that player will know, that teams will get 1 tag & 1 chance to exclusively work out a long-term deal.  If the team decides to tag a player a 2nd time, they run the risk of the player holding their salary cap hostage (as Bell did with the Steelers), not reporting (saving a year of abuse on their body), and still moving up to either a huge payday the next year or becoming a FA.  The players/NFLPA got a big win here (with the exception of QBs, but their contracts are already so ahead of everyone else's, anyway).

So, if this report is accurate-Bell doesn't report, he graduates to the QB tag rate anyway & is allowed to become a FA because Pitt won't want to play that rate; then he has done something for the NFLPA that they couldn't do themselves during negotiations.  While not getting rid of the franchise tag, he has returned it to what it was (purportedly) supposed to be anyway: a way for teams to be able to keep their franchise players.  He has greatly weakened its' availability as a weapon for teams to control players during the prime of their careers without making long-term commitments to those players.  That was the point of my previous post.

 

S’ɹƎʎ∀lԀ ǝHʇ פuIɹƎʍOdWǝ pu∀ ɹƎƃNoɹʇS uOᴉʇIsOd Ǝɥ┴ ƃNᴉʞɐW s’Ǝɥ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

That’s on his teammates & the fans.  

The unwritten rule in pro sports is the players realize it’s a business, & you support each other when it comes to the business side.  The other Steelers made assumptions about what Bells plans were, ran their mouths, then looked stupid when the things they said would happen, didn’t happen.  (Pouncey is the prime example of this; he guaranteed Bell’d report, later said he hadn’t heard that from Bell, but stood by the guarantee, then looked like a moron when he didn’t report).  Then some Steelers talked trash about him; ######## move.

The fact that it turns out Bell made the smart decision just underscores that fact.  Bell has weakened some of the power of the NFL teams, with regards to the use of the franchise tag.  If the precedent is established that a player tagged twice can sit out the 2nd franchise tag year & mandate the QB tag rate in the event of a 3rd tag, NFL teams will be less likely to tag players multiple teams, which means they’ll be more likely to work out long term deals (giving players the security if ACTUAL guaranteed money) OR making it easier for players to reach FA.  Bells actions, which the Steelers players #### on, stands to benefit all NFL players in general, and possibly some of those poor teammates, specifically.

 

The only thing I would quibble with is that this benefits anyone beyond the handful of elite players "worthy" of tags. I suppose he may have exploited language in the CBA that doesn't actually enforce what the league obviously intended it to enforce and I suppose that gives the union another bargaining chip in the next contract negotiations (which could be traded for something that actually does help all players). Still, the idea that Bell is some sort of labour hero who's standing up for the downtrodden is kinda bizarre to me. The idea that he sees himself that way or wants to see himself that way (giving up a good chunk of $14MM in the process) is also bizarre...

Let's also not downplay all the deeply engrained unwritten rules of team sports and football in particular, which serve to undermine the decisions an individual player makes taking care of his "business". The backlash Bell has suffered are a direct result of those rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, habsfan said:

The only thing I would quibble with is that this benefits anyone beyond the handful of elite players "worthy" of tags. I suppose he may have exploited language in the CBA that doesn't actually enforce what the league obviously intended it to enforce and I suppose that gives the union another bargaining chip in the next contract negotiations (which could be traded for something that actually does help all players). Still, the idea that Bell is some sort of labour hero who's standing up for the downtrodden is kinda bizarre to me. The idea that he sees himself that way or wants to see himself that way (giving up a good chunk of $14MM in the process) is also bizarre...

Let's also not downplay all the deeply engrained unwritten rules of team sports and football in particular, which serve to undermine the decisions an individual player makes taking care of his "business". The backlash Bell has suffered are a direct result of those rules.

:goodposting:

I think the only people who think Bell made a good decision is Bell and Bayhawks.  Even his agent thinks his client is a dunce for not taking the Steelers offer last year, let alone this year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hankmoody said:
I think I get it now.

 

:bag:

I really didn't think it could be interpreted that way.  The interesting thing is that it was mentioned that the Steelers would not fight it.  So, maybe it can be up to interpretation and turns out I/we were right.  But we might not know with Bell, or ever if things change and get clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like he is going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

 

Concussion "protocol".  With a 10 day off period, I'm not worried at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

:goodposting:

I think the only people who think Bell made a good decision is Bell and Bayhawks.  Even his agent thinks his client is a dunce for not taking the Steelers offer last year, let alone this year.

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Someone is bogarting the Thai sticks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

So, Bell decided to forfeit at least a huge chunk of $14.5M in large part to make things better for the RB market as a whole? How selfless  of him lol. Guys have always had this option, they were just never stupid enough to exercise it.... until now.

So next offseason, will a 27 year old RB with a lot of mileage, several knees injuries, and two drug suspensions redefine the RB market after watching his backup (for the second time) put up similar or better numbers during his absence? Will he get more fully guaranteed money in year one ($22M) than a much younger RB got last offseason? C'mon man, no one with any sense would believe that.

Was his agent supposed to come out and say, "Yes, I think Le'Veon should have accepted the offer."?  Of course not. That's like actually believing the Steelers would've offered him less in guaranteed money in year one on a long term deal than the actual franchise tag was worth to him. People who wanted to believe the Steelers were stupid believed it, and the Steelers don't argue that stuff in the media. But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

In the past year, Bell gave teams ammunition to question whether or not his production is based on his talent or his situation, he gave up millions of dollars he can never make back just to do it, his reputation has taken a hit, and any chance that his next contract sets a new market for RB's went out the window when Gurley signed his last year. Players don't talk about other players' contracts, and it speaks VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say in this case. Gurley is the market, and Bell will have to fall in line.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steelers4Life said:

So, Bell decided to forfeit at least a huge chunk of $14.5M in large part to make things better for the RB market as a whole? How selfless  of him lol. Guys have always had this option, they were just never stupid enough to exercise it.... until now.

So next offseason, will a 27 year old RB with a lot of mileage, several knees injuries, and two drug suspensions redefine the RB market after watching his backup (for the second time) put up similar or better numbers during his absence? Will he get more fully guaranteed money in year one ($22M) than a much younger RB got last offseason? C'mon man, no one with any sense would believe that.

Was his agent supposed to come out and say, "Yes, I think Le'Veon should have accepted the offer."?  Of course not. That's like actually believing the Steelers would've offered him less in guaranteed money in year one on a long term deal than the actual franchise tag was worth to him. People who wanted to believe the Steelers were stupid believed it, and the Steelers don't argue that stuff in the media. But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

In the past year, Bell gave teams ammunition to question whether or not his production is based on his talent or his situation, he gave up millions of dollars he can never make back just to do it, his reputation has taken a hit, and any chance that his next contract sets a new market for RB's went out the window when Gurley signed his last year. Players don't talk about other players' contracts, and it speaks VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say in this case. Gurley is the market, and Bell will have to fall in line.

He may have done the greatest damage to RB contracts than any other moment in the last 25 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

I guess first you have to believe Bell.  If you want to take him at his word then that is fine.

Bell comments over the past year have been all over the place and I don't believe anything he says.  I also don't think that Bell cares about anyone but himself:  his teammates, fans and other NFL RBs don't mean a whole lot to him.    I don't have a problem with that -- he should do what is best for him.  He can ask for as much as he wants and if he gets it good for him.  But I don't believe for one minute that he truly wants to redefine the market for RBs except in terms of him getting mo money.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

What's also not up for debate is that he said 2018 was going to be exactly like 2017.

So, you are using certain things he said to try and make your point, but ignoring others things he has said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."

He can't do that by himself. Teams, quasi-collectively, have to agree with top RBs that they are worth more money than they are getting now.

And the "hold out an entire year" strategy will not be copied very often. Few players care to hold out an entire year from their game checks. Some will, yes. But missing game checks was always a big factor in the players' knuckling under during recent CBA negotiations.

On top of that, elite (or close enough) RB production seems to be regarded as the easiest production to procure and rep[lace -- can a top RB demand higher pay in an environment where DeAngelo Williams (or whoever) can be signed and do 90% of the job for 20% of the money? Or where you give a youngster on your roster a shot and he runs with it? Where do RBs get their collective leverage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

He may have done the greatest damage to RB contracts than any other moment in the last 25 years. 

Possibly. Basically, teams will  be "Belichicking" RBs even more. Oh, you've produced enough to be "owed" a big payday? Time to draft your replacement. The way teams like having starting QBs on rookie deals ... teams might start favoring rookie-deal RBs more than they might now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Steelers4Life said:

But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

That basically WAS Gurley money ... "all" Gurley got was $22 million in year one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Thai Sticks..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

The unwritten rule in pro sports is the players realize it’s a business, & you support each other when it comes to the business side.

Like many things, there are limits. And with unwritten rules, those limits are particularly fuzzy -- one moment you're in good stead, but then you move ever so slightly and somehow find yourself on an island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bayhawks said:

 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Because his goals weren't smart??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, why take 14.5 million now when I can maybe get 30 next year........30 I would have still likely gotten anyway even after taking the 15 million.

I think this all hurts his next contract a lot.  IMO he gets a bigger deal if he played this year.  Easily.  Now he just looks stupid and not remotely team oriented.

 

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steelers4Life said:

So, Bell decided to forfeit at least a huge chunk of $14.5M in large part to make things better for the RB market as a whole? How selfless  of him lol. Guys have always had this option, they were just never stupid enough to exercise it.... until now.

So next offseason, will a 27 year old RB with a lot of mileage, several knees injuries, and two drug suspensions redefine the RB market after watching his backup (for the second time) put up similar or better numbers during his absence? Will he get more fully guaranteed money in year one ($22M) than a much younger RB got last offseason? C'mon man, no one with any sense would believe that.

Was his agent supposed to come out and say, "Yes, I think Le'Veon should have accepted the offer."?  Of course not. That's like actually believing the Steelers would've offered him less in guaranteed money in year one on a long term deal than the actual franchise tag was worth to him. People who wanted to believe the Steelers were stupid believed it, and the Steelers don't argue that stuff in the media. But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

In the past year, Bell gave teams ammunition to question whether or not his production is based on his talent or his situation, he gave up millions of dollars he can never make back just to do it, his reputation has taken a hit, and any chance that his next contract sets a new market for RB's went out the window when Gurley signed his last year. Players don't talk about other players' contracts, and it speaks VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say in this case. Gurley is the market, and Bell will have to fall in line.

Wait, so until 3 days ago, we were convinced that Bell HAD to sign by 11/13 or he'd be able to be tagged again in 2019 at the $14.5M tag rate, but you claim that "guys have always had this option, they were just stupid enough to exercise it?"  I'm pretty sure that at various points, I've read posts you made referencing that Bell had to sign or he could be franchised again at $14.5M.  If I'm mistaken, I will apologize in advance, but if I'm not, you can't claim that "guys have always had this option," as we didn't know this WAS an option until a few days ago.

He doesn't have to do anything next year to change the system, rather than the market.  By getting the NFL to admit that a player can sit out a year while tagged, and still advance to the next tag rate, he's changed the system for RBs.  Prior to this, if a RB gets franchise tagged twice, much of the prime of his career will be gone before he truly becomes a FA.  @Anarchy99 posted about this previously.  Now, teams will be much less inclined to franchise tag RBs (especially for a 2nd year) because they know they might be sacrificing a significant amount of their cap for a player who can just sit out a year, rest their body, and force a larger paycheck the following year (either through advancing to the next tag level, or becoming a FA).  Bell HAS changed the system for RBs, already.

You have said many times that the Steelers don't argue stuff in the media, but that's just plain false.  The inaccurate leaks about what they offered, the inaccurate leak about Bell agreeing to a deal then backing out, the constant comments last night about how Steeler FO expects Bell to report this week-they argue stuff through the media ALL THE TIME, you just choose to ignore it.  We have no named source saying Bell backed out of a deal; we have a named source saying that's not true.  You choose to believe the un-named source because it fits what you want to believe.  We have a named source saying Bell is doing what he's doing to bring value back to the RB position, and his actions are bearing that out, but you choose to dis-believe it, because it doesn't fit what you want to believe.  You're entitled to believe what you want, but stop trying to pretend that your beliefs are incontrovertible facts, especially when facts that ARE actually incontrovertible prove your beliefs wrong.

On one thing, we agree, it does speak VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say about this: It speaks VOLUMES about them being crappy teammates. 

 

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

I guess first you have to believe Bell.  If you want to take him at his word then that is fine.

Bell comments over the past year have been all over the place and I don't believe anything he says.  I also don't think that Bell cares about anyone but himself:  his teammates, fans and other NFL RBs don't mean a whole lot to him.    I don't have a problem with that -- he should do what is best for him.  He can ask for as much as he wants and if he gets it good for him.  But I don't believe for one minute that he truly wants to redefine the market for RBs except in terms of him getting mo money.

Why wouldn't I take him at his word?  At one point has he done anything to cause me (or anyone) to do otherwise?

He said he won't play for less than what he thinks hes worth-he hasn't.

He said he wants to bring value back to the RB position-by impacting the use of the franchise tag, he has.

He NEVER said he would be back by week 1, week 4, week 7, week 10, etc.  None of the reports that he would do so came from him/his agent.

If he was just about getting "mo money," he'd have reported the friday before their bye, because he could have gotten the roster exemption out of the way and collected more money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bryhamm said:

What's also not up for debate is that he said 2018 was going to be exactly like 2017.

So, you are using certain things he said to try and make your point, but ignoring others things he has said.  

When did he say this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bayhawks said:

When did he say this?

Earlier this year.  Thinking it was around the time the 7/14 deadline passed (or whatever the specific date was for them to sign a LT deal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it was back in March.  Link.

"I'm not going to sit out. I'm going to be in the facility Week 1," Bell said on Instagram Wednesday. "It's going to be a rerun of last year. I'm not going to camp. I'm not doing nothing else extra, OTAs, none of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Doug B said:

He can't do that by himself. Teams, quasi-collectively, have to agree with top RBs that they are worth more money than they are getting now.

And the "hold out an entire year" strategy will not be copied very often. Few players care to hold out an entire year from their game checks. Some will, yes. But missing game checks was always a big factor in the players' knuckling under during recent CBA negotiations.

On top of that, elite (or close enough) RB production seems to be regarded as the easiest production to procure and rep[lace -- can a top RB demand higher pay in an environment where DeAngelo Williams (or whoever) can be signed and do 90% of the job for 20% of the money? Or where you give a youngster on your roster a shot and he runs with it? Where do RBs get their collective leverage?

Look at the deal that Dion Lewis got, the deal that McKinnon got.  They got those deals because they were free agents, and were able to negotiate with multiple teams.  The franchise tag takes that away from RBs because they finish out their original contract, get franchised for 2 years, and are exiting their prime before they can enter FA, and aren't able to get as lucrative a deal.  @Anarchy99  posted this previously. 

Now, RBs will have the leverage of sitting out and holding a large chunk of the team's cap hostage (while they sit out, the team has to keep the cap room available in case they sign).  What teams are going to be willing to eat $10M, $12M, $14M of dead cap by franchising a player who won't play for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about tags which I still don’t really get got me convinced he wasn’t showing up.

Him being in Pittsburgh, the pass the stick tweet gets me back to my original thinking — He’s definitely signing and before this deadline and is going to play a part on the team this year. Steelers will figure out how to blend him in without pissing off the team. As long as they win there will be no real issues with the team despite hot take crews pushing the the drama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

He said he wants to bring value back to the RB position-by impacting the use of the franchise tag, he has.

Yet to be determined. Teams have a say in how RBs are valued, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bryhamm said:

Earlier this year.  Thinking it was around the time the 7/14 deadline passed (or whatever the specific date was for them to sign a LT deal).

He didnt' say that then, he said it earlier.  Then things changed.

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Now, RBs will have the leverage of sitting out and holding a large chunk of the team's cap hostage (while they sit out, the team has to keep the cap room available in case they sign).  What teams are going to be willing to eat $10M, $12M, $14M of dead cap by franchising a player who won't play for them?

Guess we'll see. The Steelers are one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bryhamm said:

Looks like it was back in March.  Link.

"I'm not going to sit out. I'm going to be in the facility Week 1," Bell said on Instagram Wednesday. "It's going to be a rerun of last year. I'm not going to camp. I'm not doing nothing else extra, OTAs, none of that. 

Okay, so in March, before the negotiations fell through, and before Gurley and DJ got their deals, he made this statement.  Then things changed, but he isn't allowed to change his thoughts?

The Steelers said they weren't considering trading Bell, then 2 weeks later, they were listening to offers and calling teams.  Are they not allowed to change their minds/plans either when circumstances change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.