Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
gianmarco

***Official Melvin "Flash" Gordon*** Thread of Love

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Foosball God said:

Disagree a bit here.  There are some special backs, and especially within a team's system.  Elliot and Gurley (arthritis not withstanding) are elite backs that perfectly fit their team's systems.  Paying for that isn't a horrible idea.  Paying a ton of money for someone else's RBs is a bad idea imo.

RBs are "special" when they run behind an elite OL and have an offensive coordinator that isn't a moron.  The talent difference between paying someone like Ekeler vs Gordon will never justify the extra millions that could be spent elsewhere on more important positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

We're not going to agree. They take a lot of abuse absorbing tackles and shots and things go on underneath those piles you don't want to think about. I think it's horrific the way they are squeezing all th ebest of the RBs and some teams have opted not to pay them. They'll shell out $30M for a QB that hasn't won many playoff games or reached a Super Bowl but they have to squeeze RBs to the point of where Lev Bell felt he had to go. 

A RB running in the last year of his contract in the NFL is a huge risk for any player. An ACL pop and career $$$ contract is over. Big Ben was given $45M this year...your witness council 😉

I'm not wanting to pick a fight, we can feel differently but I don't really side with owners of these teams on ANYTHING, but I understand to enjoy the NFL at its best you have to mentally think the owners are good guys...they're NOT!

How hard and how often they're tackled and what goes on at the bottom of the pile doesn't really have any bearing on the basic supply & demand economics of the situation.

Hundreds of guys are ready willing and able to play RB effectively in the NFL.

Far fewer are available at those higher-paid positions, especially QB.  Heck there aren't enough QBs for every team to have one decent one, let alone several.

The Steelers didn't miss a beat when Conner took over for Bell; the Chargers haven't missed a beat without Gordon.  Why pay a ton for something that's easily replaced?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Eckeler is certainly making Gordon look irrelevant. Gordon’s a heck of a back, but he’s badly misplayed this. 

Go to work, put up numbers, get paid. Then maybe get paid next year by someone else. 

Can’t see how he’s possibly helping his value right now other than health, and if he’s that fragile maybe other teams won’t want him regardless. 

He had very little leverage with SD & IMO he’s hurting his cause. 

I understand why he’s doing it. Doesn’t make it a smart move. 

He's put up numbers though and Leveon got paid well after sitting out a year.  Yeah it's a risk and Gordon isn't Leveon and shouldn't expect to get that big of a contract, I just don't think sitting out half a season is going to hurt his long term prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tjnc09 said:

RBs are "special" when they run behind an elite OL and have an offensive coordinator that isn't a moron.  The talent difference between paying someone like Ekeler vs Gordon will never justify the extra millions that could be spent elsewhere on more important positions.

Neither Ekeler nor Gordon are elite though imo, so they don't really fit the criteria.  I wouldn't pay either of them big money, but the 10mm the Chargers reportedly offered was reasonable for a very good RB they know and has been a part of their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foosball God said:

Neither Ekeler nor Gordon are elite though imo, so they don't really fit the criteria.  I wouldn't pay either of them big money, but the 10mm the Chargers reportedly offered was reasonable for a very good RB they know and has been a part of their system.

Do we know how much was guaranteed though?  That's what's important to Gordon the guaranteed portion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

What's funny is this is where I would normally post that BB would never pay that much for a RB and they are always contenders. However, in 2019, the Patriots are paying their corps of running backs more than any other team in the league. So while they aren't paying one player big money, they are pretty heavily invested in the RB position from a monetary perspective.

I agree that more organizations should look at who the Patriots prioritize in salary.  Even if 2019 is an outlier, they have been contenders for 20 years because they rarely/ever would tie up $13m+ in one RB (and yes, underpaying Brady helps too)

Share this post


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

How hard and how often they're tackled and what goes on at the bottom of the pile doesn't really have any bearing on the basic supply & demand economics of the situation.

Hundreds of guys are ready willing and able to play RB effectively in the NFL.

Far fewer are available at those higher-paid positions, especially QB.  Heck there aren't enough QBs for every team to have one decent one, let alone several.

The Steelers didn't miss a beat when Conner took over for Bell; the Chargers haven't missed a beat without Gordon.  Why pay a ton for something that's easily replaced?

Not sure how you can say this about the Steelers and it's too early to tell with the Chargers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

I agree that more organizations should look at who the Patriots prioritize in salary.  Even if 2019 is an outlier, they have been contenders for 20 years because they rarely/ever would tie up $13m+ in one RB (and yes, underpaying Brady helps too)

I started a thread a few weeks ago on salary cap allocation by position for SB winning teams. I could only uncover data from the past 6 seasons, but NE in that time spent PEANUTS on both their lines and WR's. They varied from year to year on RB's, but they wouldn't spend that much on a single RB that could easy be hurt and miss lots of time. NE spent a lot on their secondary and the TE spot. Brady certainly has helped them by taking a discount.

I will have to get back to that thread, as my hypothesis was that teams that spread out their money are generally the ones that win. Hard to prove but at least it's a working theory.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Foosball God said:

Neither Ekeler nor Gordon are elite though imo, so they don't really fit the criteria.  I wouldn't pay either of them big money, but the 10mm the Chargers reportedly offered was reasonable for a very good RB they know and has been a part of their system.

The Chargers OL is consistently rated as one of the worst in the league.  It's actually more impressive what Ekelor has been able to do this year because of that.  

You are defining a RB as elite because they have had the luxury of running behind elite OLs. It really doesn't matter how talented a RB is if there is no space for them to run and they are consistently stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  Watch what happens to Bell's production this year after he left a top five OL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The Chargers OL is consistently rated as one of the worst in the league.  It's actually more impressive what Ekelor has been able to do this year because of that.  

You are defining a RB as elite because they have had the luxury of running behind elite OLs. It really doesn't matter how talented a RB is if there is no space for them to run and they are consistently stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  Watch what happens to Bell's production this year after he left a top five OL.

Bell won't get very far if the Jets have to continue to roll out a third string QB that never started a game before and did not throw a pass beyond the LOS for 3 quarters. Not sure the line has anything to do with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anarchy99 said:

I started a thread a few weeks ago on salary cap allocation by position for SB winning teams. I could only uncover data from the past 6 seasons, but NE in that time spent PEANUTS on both their lines and WR's. They varied from year to year on RB's, but they wouldn't spend that much on a single RB that could easy be hurt and miss lots of time. NE spent a lot on their secondary and the TE spot. Brady certainly has helped them by taking a discount.

I will have to get back to that thread, as my hypothesis was that teams that spread out their money are generally the ones that win. Hard to prove but at least it's a working theory.

NE is really a different story though. The only reason they were able to not spend money like other franchises is because Brady was ok making less money in order to win championships. In today's days where most professional athletes want more and more money and sometimes to the detriment of their own team, Brady has always been ok with making less money than other players although he knew he was worth more simply because he has a goal, to be the GOAT. Being the GOAT was more important to him than making an extra few millions a year and in order to do that, he realized he has to let the Patriots spend money else where.  This is something many athletes don't understand.

Share this post


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

Not sure how you can say this about the Steelers and it's too early to tell with the Chargers. 

Actually, you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The Chargers OL is consistently rated as one of the worst in the league.  It's actually more impressive what Ekelor has been able to do this year because of that.  

You are defining a RB as elite because they have had the luxury of running behind elite OLs.Y It really doesn't matter how talented a RB is if there is no space for them to run and they are consistently stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  Watch what happens to Bell's production this year after he left a top five OL.

Not exactly, their line certainly helps but in Gurley's case he also lets them run and pass out of the same formations which make things harder on opposing defenses.  Certainly those elite lines can and do make some good running backs look better, but not every RB is JAG.

Share this post


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

Not exactly, their line certainly helps but in Gurley's case he also lets them run and pass out of the same formations which make things harder on opposing defenses.  Certainly those elite lines can and do make some good running backs look better, but not every RB is JAG.

Yeah, he's so special they had the 4th lowest scoring offense in 2015 and league's worst offense in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

Yeah, he's so special they had the 4th lowest scoring offense in 2015 and league's worst offense in 2016. 

No player is good enough to compensate for poor coaching and play calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sasgaard said:

NE is really a different story though. The only reason they were able to not spend money like other franchises is because Brady was ok making less money in order to win championships. In today's days where most professional athletes want more and more money and sometimes to the detriment of their own team, Brady has always been ok with making less money than other players although he knew he was worth more simply because he has a goal, to be the GOAT. Being the GOAT was more important to him than making an extra few millions a year and in order to do that, he realized he has to let the Patriots spend money else where.  This is something many athletes don't understand.

Let’s not get crazy. Brady has taken less money. It’s been estimated / calculated that he took $60 to $80 million less over his career. But that is over 20 years so that’s $3-4 million a year. Brady has taken a lot more in bonuses than salary, so the impression is he’s played for peanuts. His salary often is listed as being low, but it’s not like he’s been playing for the veteran minimum. 

Three or four extra million a year is not going to buy a Super Bowl roster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ministry of Pain said:

 San Diego appears stingy to me and has a hard time working the cap. They don't seem eager to run in and redo rookie deals after year 3 while other teams seem to be able to prevent these situations from rising. 

 

Ummmm ...It's LA's problem not America's finest city's...fyi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Pipes said:

Doesn't make him an idiot for trying to get every last dollar.  Missing a few games isn't going to negatively impact him financially as much as tearing an ACL would in the last year of his deal.  Makes him smart actually.

Sitting out games isn’t crazy.   Expecting teams to pay $10-13M per year is crazy.  He’s harmed himself by sitting out - because people see that his replacements look just as good if not better.  Hasn’t worked out well for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bigger takeaway here is that RB’s are more concerned with preserving themselves than bolstering their market as they draw closer to free agency.  Content to swap short term financial bonanzas for long term security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Sitting out games isn’t crazy.   Expecting teams to pay $10-13M per year is crazy.  He’s harmed himself by sitting out - because people see that his replacements look just as good if not better.  Hasn’t worked out well for him.

Too early to make that call imo.  Salary cap going up quite a bit next year someone might pay him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tjnc09 said:

Actually, you can

No you can't.  Chargers offense looked good week 1 looked like garbage against the Lions of all teams, week 2. 

Share this post


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

Do we know how much was guaranteed though?  That's what's important to Gordon the guaranteed portion.

No.  Nor can I find any really credible source for that original $10m per year statement.  I think it got said once and then got repeated over and over.  What I read from the Chargers is that they offered "more than D Freeman's deal", which is only around $8.25m per year.  They could have offered $8.3m per with only a year or something guaranteed....and it could have been written as an extension (so after this year at $5.6m) rather than starting fresh with that deal today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The landscape and perspective on RB's has definitely changed. In the 2000 season, there were 19 running backs that had 300 touches. Last year there were only 4. The average over the past 5 seasons has been 5.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Chargers fans should be irate, they know Gordon is not going to be there and San Diego wants totally unreasonable payment for him with draft picks. 2 1st round picks? Have they seen the way Miami has been wheeling and dealing? They know RBs are not going to get that high of a trade offer. They are cutting their nose off to spite their face, that's how I feel. 

You seem to have entered the thread without reading the previous discussion. All of this has already been discussed.

I am a Chargers fan, and I am not irate at all. What you may not understand is that the Chargers don't actually want to trade him... so they won't do it unless another team is willing to overpay... and no team is willing to do that, because they not only have to give up compensation to the Chargers but also presumably need to pay Gordon $13M per year with significant guaranteed money. No team will do that.

Miami's "wheeling and dealing" is irrelevant, because they have been trading players at much more valuable positions, i.e., LT and CB. Apples and oranges.

3 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Teams can redo deals for their star players by the end of Year 3...Gordon already went into 2018 and played the whole year when the Chargers could have gotten it done.

LMAO. Prior to 2018, Gordon was nothing more than a solid volume back in a great offense that inflated his accumulated statistics. The Chargers took a risk when they picked up his 5th year option last offseason. There was certainly no reason for them to do more than that before this year. Then, this year they offered him a significant contract and he declined because it wasn't a Johnson/Bell level contract. That's his choice, but don't blame the Chargers for that.

2 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I feel that teams who push guys into Year 5 on rookie deals are taking advantage of the system

First of all, it is part of the CBA. Of course the team will operate within the rules to maximize their benefit. Secondly, it doesn't always work out this way. The Chargers picked up Jason Verrett's 5th year option in the 2017 offseason and ended up paying him $8.5M last season to not play a down. It is a risk for the team, especially with players with injury histories, like Verrett and Gordon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

The Chargers OL is consistently rated as one of the worst in the league.  It's actually more impressive what Ekelor has been able to do this year because of that.  

You are defining a RB as elite because they have had the luxury of running behind elite OLs. It really doesn't matter how talented a RB is if there is no space for them to run and they are consistently stuffed at the line of scrimmage.  Watch what happens to Bell's production this year after he left a top five OL.

Did you not watch Adrian Peterson in your life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

We're not going to agree. They take a lot of abuse absorbing tackles and shots and things go on underneath those piles you don't want to think about. I think it's horrific the way they are squeezing all th ebest of the RBs and some teams have opted not to pay them. They'll shell out $30M for a QB that hasn't won many playoff games or reached a Super Bowl but they have to squeeze RBs to the point of where Lev Bell felt he had to go. 

A RB running in the last year of his contract in the NFL is a huge risk for any player. An ACL pop and career $$$ contract is over. Big Ben was given $45M this year...your witness council 😉

I'm not wanting to pick a fight, we can feel differently but I don't really side with owners of these teams on ANYTHING, but I understand to enjoy the NFL at its best you have to mentally think the owners are good guys...they're NOT!

That  is a such a silly strawman argument that for whatever reason keeps being recycled. I'm siding with paying other players over RB's, I'm not saying owners should just pocket the money. Nobody has ever said players shouldn't get paid, its a question of what players at what position. Its not a complex topic, I don't see how the default counter argument to not paying a RB is siding with owners in any way.

RB's simply have very little effect on wins and losses. The best RB in the NFL maybe swings 2 games, assuming his backups are awful. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

How hard and how often they're tackled and what goes on at the bottom of the pile doesn't really have any bearing on the basic supply & demand economics of the situation.

Hundreds of guys are ready willing and able to play RB effectively in the NFL.

Far fewer are available at those higher-paid positions, especially QB.  Heck there aren't enough QBs for every team to have one decent one, let alone several.

The Steelers didn't miss a beat when Conner took over for Bell; the Chargers haven't missed a beat without Gordon.  Why pay a ton for something that's easily replaced?

I'm not trying to persuade or win some public opinion or court...Nothing you are posting changes my OPINION. You can whip up economics and fancy words but the facts are RBs are woefully underpaid for the amount of work they bring to the table. That's my opinion, I'll repeat that's my opinion Dave. I'm not trying to tear your ideas down so please refrain from just coming over the top because you want to rationalize what fits into the narrative in your head. 

You can have the last word but many of my posts over a long time are more than just one or two sentences. There are 2 sides to every coin or debate and sometimes a lot more than 2-3. If you have it all figured out with a neat bow attached on top so be it. There's room for differing opinions. 

I think it's shameful the way RBs are treated in the NFL when they bring a lot of the same joy and cheering and screaming that QBs and WRs generate. 

The NFL is turning fans into believing it's OK to take a rookie and ride him like SeaBiscuit for 4, 5 and 6 years with team options and chew these guys up, spit them out and render them mostly worthless at the age of 26. And that whole narrative seems to bring a huge smile to some faces in here and I find it morally despicable. 

Don't take it personal Dave, it's not you but there are lots of these posts in many threads and I think some of what I posted has merit when you walk thru the RB/Player's shoes. 

-I don't care how many are available, who is coming out next year, there needs to be a standard of some kind for the position. QB-$30M-$35M, WR$15M+ and that range applies to a lot of the positions, and then you look at RB and just a few are North of $5M a season, many starting RBs are going at $500k a year. 

-QBs are being asked to lead teams as rookies and 2nd year guys on small contracts but the gamble and the payoff is HUGE on their Year 3/4 Next contract where they are signing deals for $100M...meanwhile RBs get $500k and then are asked to play for very little if they make it to FA. For the amount of abuse and injuries they sustain it doesn't seem fair IMO. 

Edited by Ministry of Pain
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ummmm ...It's LA's problem not America's finest city's...fyi

I'm so sorry Bolt, you are correct. I don't acknowledge the Los Angeles move subconsciously and I still see LAC sometimes and scratch my head. 

My apologies 😉

Lived in SoCal/Santa Monica for years, visited San Diego several times, very nice city. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No you can't.  Chargers offense looked good week 1 looked like garbage against the Lions of all teams, week 2. 

You mentioned the Steelers and Chargers and think there is only a two game sample without Gordon or Bell.  Um, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

You seem to have entered the thread without reading the previous discussion. All of this has already been discussed.

I am a Chargers fan, and I am not irate at all. What you may not understand is that the Chargers don't actually want to trade him... so they won't do it unless another team is willing to overpay... and no team is willing to do that, because they not only have to give up compensation to the Chargers but also presumably need to pay Gordon $13M per year with significant guaranteed money. No team will do that.

 Hey JWB, thanks for engaging with me

Everything San Diego has done says they don't want Mel Gordon long term...the fact they weren't sure about him and went the extra mile by extending him in Year 5 back in Year 3...you make it sound like they were sacrificing as an organization and I can't walk down that hall with you. We don't really know what the offer is...we've heard leaks about it here and there but things might be different behind closed doors. I've not heard Gordon publicly say what he was truly offered so I can't say with certainty as you seem to be able to do that everything is exactly as reported by the media who also isn't really in the room with these things, they are quoting unnamed sources...those usually mean Owner/GM is using media to pressure. Just my opinion.  

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Miami's "wheeling and dealing" is irrelevant, because they have been trading players at much more valuable positions, i.e., LT and CB. Apples and oranges.

LMAO. Prior to 2018, Gordon was nothing more than a solid volume back in a great offense that inflated his accumulated statistics. The Chargers took a risk when they picked up his 5th year option last offseason. There was certainly no reason for them to do more than that before this year. Then, this year they offered him a significant contract and he declined because it wasn't a Johnson/Bell level contract. That's his choice, but don't blame the Chargers for that.

San Diego is the one taking all the risk? I'm sorry, Los Angeles but some of this started in San Diego 😉

I can't fault Gordon for using Bell money as a starting point when San Diego is trying to get not one but two first round picks. He is either worth it or not and if he's not than they look foolish. If he is a franchise back then they should have done a better job of managing this. 

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

First of all, it is part of the CBA. Of course the team will operate within the rules to maximize their benefit. Secondly, it doesn't always work out this way. The Chargers picked up Jason Verrett's 5th year option in the 2017 offseason and ended up paying him $8.5M last season to not play a down. It is a risk for the team, especially with players with injury histories, like Verrett and Gordon.

I view the 5th year option as another way NFL teams can control the largest chunk and best years of most NFL players. You view it more as if the players agreed to it in the CBA so it's all on them...again Owners have all the $$$ and they write the script, rules, games, not the players. 

I do feel the NFL Players are taking some of what they see in the NBA. I think Steve Young's rant was perfect in setting up exactly what angers me. His head is exploding because players are forcing their way off teams, as I recall he wasn't very happy in Tampa and rumor is when Hugh Culverhouse called him he wouldn't even address him or say hello. I would be almost a 180 from the way Steve Young is framing things. I'm delighted players are pushing their way out of lousy and poorly run franchises. I'm not lumping LAC into the world of Miami. 

Cheers!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

You mentioned the Steelers and Chargers and think there is only a two game sample without Gordon or Bell.  Um, okay.

What are you talking about?  Please re-read my post I didn't mention 2 games about the Steelers. The 2 games was about the Chargers...this year. The games without Gordon.  I suppose you could look at the couple of starts Ekelar got last year when Gordon was out but it doesn't change my point the sample size with the Chargers is way too small to conclude their offense hasn't missed a beat.

As far as the Steelers goes yes Connor had a good season last year but I can't say for sure their offense was as dynamic with Connor vs Bell.  Not saying Pittsburgh was wrong not paying Bell but that wasn't the argument.

I tend to agree with you about not paying RB's 10 million plus per year.  That's too much for a position that's been devalued over the years.  But that doesn't mean those offenses don't take a bit of hit when they lose one of those guys.  Now is the hit 8-10 million dollars worth of salary different?  Almost always no but to say those offenses don't miss those guys at all is a bit disingenuous.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I'm not trying to persuade or win some public opinion or court...Nothing you are posting changes my OPINION. You can whip up economics and fancy words but the facts are RBs are woefully underpaid for the amount of work they bring to the table. That's my opinion, I'll repeat that's my opinion Dave. I'm not trying to tear your ideas down so please refrain from just coming over the top because you want to rationalize what fits into the narrative in your head. 

You can have the last word but many of my posts over a long time are more than just one or two sentences. There are 2 sides to every coin or debate and sometimes a lot more than 2-3. If you have it all figured out with a neat bow attached on top so be it. There's room for differing opinions. 

I think it's shameful the way RBs are treated in the NFL when they bring a lot of the same joy and cheering and screaming that QBs and WRs generate. 

The NFL is turning fans into believing it's OK to take a rookie and ride him like SeaBiscuit for 4, 5 and 6 years with team options and chew these guys up, spit them out and render them mostly worthless at the age of 26. And that whole narrative seems to bring a huge smile to some faces in here and I find it morally despicable. 

Don't take it personal Dave, it's not you but there are lots of these posts in many threads and I think some of what I posted has merit when you walk thru the RB/Player's shoes. 

-I don't care how many are available, who is coming out next year, there needs to be a standard of some kind for the position. QB-$30M-$35M, WR$15M+ and that range applies to a lot of the positions, and then you look at RB and just a few are North of $5M a season, many starting RBs are going at $500k a year. 

-QBs are being asked to lead teams as rookies and 2nd year guys on small contracts but the gamble and the payoff is HUGE on their Year 3/4 Next contract where they are signing deals for $100M...meanwhile RBs get $500k and then are asked to play for very little if they make it to FA. For the amount of abuse and injuries they sustain it doesn't seem fair IMO. 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I won't try and change your mind.  I'm simply pointing out that your idea that an NFL player's pay should be determined by factors like the amount of pounding he takes, or his susceptibility to injury, or the length of his career just isn't grounded in reality. 

An elite QB is both rarer and more valuable than an elite RB, and those are the things that determine pay, not which guy is making a the greater physical sacrifice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Not sure how you can say this about the Steelers and it's too early to tell with the Chargers. 

 

2 hours ago, Pipes said:

What are you talking about?  Please re-read my post I didn't mention 2 games about the Steelers. The 2 games was about the Chargers...this year. The games without Gordon.  I suppose you could look at the couple of starts Ekelar got last year when Gordon was out but it doesn't change my point the sample size with the Chargers is way too small to conclude their offense hasn't missed a beat.

As far as the Steelers goes yes Connor had a good season last year but I can't say for sure their offense was as dynamic with Connor vs Bell.  Not saying Pittsburgh was wrong not paying Bell but that wasn't the argument.

I tend to agree with you about not paying RB's 10 million plus per year.  That's too much for a position that's been devalued over the years.  But that doesn't mean those offenses don't take a bit of hit when they lose one of those guys.  Now is the hit 8-10 million dollars worth of salary different?  Almost always no but to say those offenses don't miss those guys at all is a bit disingenuous.

 

Your original post mentioned both the Steelers and Chargers :loco:

Please let me know what part of the Steelers offense dramatically suffered last year without Bell.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tjnc09 said:

Your original post mentioned both the Steelers and Chargers :loco:

Please let me know what part of the Steelers offense dramatically suffered last year without Bell.  

I personally believe the defense suffered without bell. 

It's not just about total yards or time of possession, it's the ability to extend drives when you need to. Bell is good as a runner and receiver when they need third downs, but he's also good at creating manageable second and third downs.  And his receiving ability means teams have to defend the receivers differently. You can't blitz Ben if bell is back there waiting to see which gap is open.  The opponent's whole defensive game plan changes when bell is out. 

Credit Roethlisberger for putting up huge numbers while bell was out, but I guarantee there were plays that the offense would have tried with bell that they didn't even attempt with Conner/ Samuel, and plays that they did attempt that led to fewer yards on first or second and ultimately third down.  

The defense had holes, but they covered a lot of those holes with their offense. Steelers fans don't see it that way and i don't blame them but it's what i believe as someone with no real dog in this fight.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Faust said:
Quote

Gordon needs to report at some point to earn an accrued season towards free agency; otherwise his $5.6 million contract will toll.

I realize I'm being a touch pedantic, but it's crazy to me that nobody, even at major publications, can ever get the phrasing right.

There's no such thing as "an accrued season towards free agency." (Accrued seasons don't make you a free agent; not being under contract makes you a free agent. Accrued seasons determine what type of free agent you'll be once you're no longer under contract.) Even if there were such a thing as "an accrued season towards free agency," Gordon doesn't need any more of them. He's got four accrued seasons already, the most that can ever make a difference; so whenever he becomes a free agent, he'll be unrestricted whether or not ever gets another accrued season. If Gordon did need an accrued season, however, that ship has sailed. While players not under contract have to be on full-pay status for at least six games to earn an accrued season, players already under contract have to report no more than 30 days before the start of the regular season (in this case, August 6), so Gordon is unable to earn an accrued season in 2019 even if he shows up to practice tomorrow.

Also, accrued seasons are a completely separate issue from tolling.

(At least the article mentions tolling, which gives it a leg up on most other articles on this topic.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I personally believe the defense suffered without bell. 

It's not just about total yards or time of possession, it's the ability to extend drives when you need to. Bell is good as a runner and receiver when they need third downs, but he's also good at creating manageable second and third downs.  And his receiving ability means teams have to defend the receivers differently. You can't blitz Ben if bell is back there waiting to see which gap is open.  The opponent's whole defensive game plan changes when bell is out. 

Credit Roethlisberger for putting up huge numbers while bell was out, but I guarantee there were plays that the offense would have tried with bell that they didn't even attempt with Conner/ Samuel, and plays that they did attempt that led to fewer yards on first or second and ultimately third down.  

The defense had holes, but they covered a lot of those holes with their offense. Steelers fans don't see it that way and i don't blame them but it's what i believe as someone with no real dog in this fight.  

Third down conversion percentage:

2013 - 37.96%

2014 - 43.75%

2015 - 36.21%

2016 - 42.74%

2017 - 44.00%

2018 - 44.44%

Bell is so dynamic that the Steelers highest third down conversion percentage happened the year he held out.  :mellow:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Steelers gave up 38 offensive points to BLAKE BORTLES and the Jaguars in the 2017 AFC Divisional Playoff.  Bell had 25 touches, 155 yards, 2 TDs that game.  That defense was certainly like the Steel Curtain while Bell was still there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Jackson 116 & 9, 0 TDs.

Ekeler 124 & 163, 4 TDs.

Total: 340 yards rushing, 172 yards receiving, 4 TDs, in 2 games.

I think the idiot who said that Ekeler wasn't ready to be a feature back in one of those threads really needs to take a look and...

:bag:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I think the idiot who said that Ekeler wasn't ready to be a feature back in one of those threads really needs to take a look and...

:bag:

 

I'd just like to remind folks that Ekeler also had a costly turnover at the goal line that could impact his workload next week. Maybe he will get an opp to go airborne again or maybe they try Justin Jackson on a few red zone touches or potential TD plunges. 

Chargers Fumble Mistakes

"It was just a dumb move by me, a rookie mistake,” said Ekeler, a third-year pro. “You have to look at the situation. It’s first down, and we have three tries from the one-yard line, so I probably need to stay on the ground and pound it in there. I got too anxious, I tried to go up over the top, and someone punched it out.”

His words not mine and I'm sure most find it refreshing that he came right out and said these things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I'd just like to remind folks that Ekeler also had a costly turnover at the goal line that could impact his workload next week. Maybe he will get an opp to go airborne again or maybe they try Justin Jackson on a few red zone touches or potential TD plunges. 

Chargers Fumble Mistakes

"It was just a dumb move by me, a rookie mistake,” said Ekeler, a third-year pro. “You have to look at the situation. It’s first down, and we have three tries from the one-yard line, so I probably need to stay on the ground and pound it in there. I got too anxious, I tried to go up over the top, and someone punched it out.”

His words not mine and I'm sure most find it refreshing that he came right out and said these things. 

That was sort of tangential to me making fun of my own critical ability but it's a good anecdote nonetheless. Good for him for being a stand-up guy about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rockaction said:

That was sort of tangential to me making fun of my own critical ability but it's a good anecdote nonetheless. Good for him for being a stand-up guy about it. 

No sweat, I just wanted to gush over JJ and used your post as an excuse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, davearm said:

How hard and how often they're tackled and what goes on at the bottom of the pile doesn't really have any bearing on the basic supply & demand economics of the situation.

Hundreds of guys are ready willing and able to play RB effectively in the NFL.

Far fewer are available at those higher-paid positions, especially QB.  Heck there aren't enough QBs for every team to have one decent one, let alone several.

The Steelers didn't miss a beat when Conner took over for Bell; the Chargers haven't missed a beat without Gordon.  Why pay a ton for something that's easily replaced?

Tangential observation but I think it's interesting that a little kid starts playing football and if he's one of the best athletes on his team, he's likely a running back because the game at that level runs through the RB. And if he's good enough, that more or less keeps going, right up until he arrives at the NFL where he is told he's not particularly important or valuable  (economically speaking). Must be difficult to process...

Share this post


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

Tangential observation but I think it's interesting that a little kid starts playing football and if he's one of the best athletes on his team, he's likely a running back because the game at that level runs through the RB. And if he's good enough, that more or less keeps going, right up until he arrives at the NFL where he is told he's not particularly important or valuable  (economically speaking). Must be difficult to process...

It's rather stunning. That he is so easily replaceable and that his career will be, on average, so short must come as quite the shock and hard lesson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, travdogg said:

That  is a such a silly strawman argument that for whatever reason keeps being recycled. I'm siding with paying other players over RB's, I'm not saying owners should just pocket the money. Nobody has ever said players shouldn't get paid, its a question of what players at what position. Its not a complex topic, I don't see how the default counter argument to not paying a RB is siding with owners in any way.

RB's simply have very little effect on wins and losses. The best RB in the NFL maybe swings 2 games, assuming his backups are awful. 

NFL offensive schemes have waffled back and forth between RB driven success and QB driven success throughout the years.  The argument that they have very limited effect on W/L record is a product of watching NFL offenses in recent years.  You're correct in that RIGHT NOW offenses are QB driven, but there was a time (and that time will very likely come again) when RBs dominate the touches and perceived value of a team.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circling this back to fantasy football, the Gordon owner in 2 of my leagues is 0-2. How long do you think it takes for the current Gordon to de-value Gordon to the point they will part with him at an low cost?

It seems like we are too close to the draft and the owners are still stung by the sunk cost of a 4th or 5th round pick.

Wait too long and they start look at the rumors of when he will come back and "I might as well keep him now since he will be back soon (by week 8/9)".

The fact that Eckler is killing it has to help those that are looking to acquire Gordon.

Any thoughts of acquiring Gordon? Optimal timing and cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HULLOBUDMAN said:

Circling this back to fantasy football, the Gordon owner in 2 of my leagues is 0-2. How long do you think it takes for the current Gordon to de-value Gordon to the point they will part with him at an low cost?

It seems like we are too close to the draft and the owners are still stung by the sunk cost of a 4th or 5th round pick.

Wait too long and they start look at the rumors of when he will come back and "I might as well keep him now since he will be back soon (by week 8/9)".

The fact that Eckler is killing it has to help those that are looking to acquire Gordon.

Any thoughts of acquiring Gordon? Optimal timing and cost?

If it were me, I go 0-4 and I'd look to get out if there is no positive news because I would need players now, or technically, 4 weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gordon's value is about as low as it should get right now. There have been reports that he plans to return sometime in Weeks 6-8. Financially, in makes sense to return even sooner than that.

So with each passing week, he ought to become a bit more valuable as the ratio of expected future games missed to expected games played shrinks.

I don't know whether public perception will catch on to that.

  • Like 1

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.