What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hypothetical - PIT Earns Wildcard Spot - Does Bell Play For $30,000 a game? (1 Viewer)

Hypothetical - Does Le'Veon Bell play in a Wildcard Game for $30,000?

  • For sure not play

    Votes: 22 23.4%
  • Probably would not play

    Votes: 18 19.1%
  • On the fence

    Votes: 8 8.5%
  • Probably would play

    Votes: 20 21.3%
  • For sure would play

    Votes: 26 27.7%

  • Total voters
    94
It seems too far-fetched to worry about. Report in time to accrue the season b/c the risk of being under the thumb of the Steelers is too high. Play as expected while under contract, move on to a greener pasture in 2019. 

The sentiment so many have that somehow the NFL owners will be bastions of high ethics next year and NOT sign Bell to a deal that's in line with his ability, age, and pedigree is an odd one to me. The NFL, as a collective organization, consistently shows us that ethics are pretty low on the priority list.

I agree with Bell's current decision and will only change that opinion if he doesn't show up on time to accrue a full season.

 
I thought hard about this. Still thinking.  There are things that money can't buy.  Championships are why players play.  I think LeVeon plays for championships.

In addition, I dont know how a locker room would "welcome" someone who walked out on another team's championship drive the year before.  How do you trust him?  

 
Do you agree with college players skipping their bowl game as they enter the NFL?

What if PIT is a big underdog going into their Wildcard game?
I’d compare most of the bowl games to the pro bowl. Completely meaningless.

He’ll be in the playoffs because nobody will pay a guy who quits. They’d have to make an example of him so nobody else did it. But I’ll admit that he’s making an incredibly stupid move by sitting right now and he’ll never get the money back it’s costing him. I’d say he’s lowering what he’ll get next summer by sitting right now. Injuries are covered by insurance so he’s only losing money by doing this. Seems less a business move than a pissing contest between him and the Steelers. 

 
As a Steelers fan, I'm not sure they're making the playoffs.  If they do and make it without him, I hope they tell him to pound sand.

 
I’d compare most of the bowl games to the pro bowl. Completely meaningless.

He’ll be in the playoffs because nobody will pay a guy who quits. They’d have to make an example of him so nobody else did it. But I’ll admit that he’s making an incredibly stupid move by sitting right now and he’ll never get the money back it’s costing him. I’d say he’s lowering what he’ll get next summer by sitting right now. Injuries are covered by insurance so he’s only losing money by doing this. Seems less a business move than a pissing contest between him and the Steelers. 
I disagree.  He will have at least 1 team willing to take the chance that if THEY pay him what he’s worth, then he will give total effort.  Just because he refused to play for the Steelers who wouldn’t pay him what he feels he’s worth doesn’t mean he won’t play for a team who will pay him what he’s worth.

 
I disagree.  He will have at least 1 team willing to take the chance that if THEY pay him what he’s worth, then he will give total effort.  Just because he refused to play for the Steelers who wouldn’t pay him what he feels he’s worth doesn’t mean he won’t play for a team who will pay him what he’s worth.
No kidding 1 team will pay him but it’ll be less than if none of this happened. And it certainly won’t be 9 million extra. It’s not a business move, it’s just a fight and not wanting to blink first.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No kidding 1 team will pay him but it’ll be less than if none of this happened. And it certainly won’t be 9 million extra. It’s not a business move, it’s just a fight and not wanting to blink first.
Again, disagree.  It’s been posted in the other thread, but there are several teams with a lot of cap room, with a QB on a rookie contract, that could offer Bell A LOT of money next year.  He’ll get a contract closer to what DJ & Gurley got that to what Pitt offered him, IMO.

 
I'm still astounded that he's sitting out. 10 games is $8.5m in lost earnings, which means he has to think that he'll get at least $8.5mm more on the open market that he would've under the 5 year $70m contract he was offered. That would put him at an AAV of 0.7mm more than Gurley, and Bell has 550 more NFL touches and is two years older.

 
I'm still astounded that he's sitting out. 10 games is $8.5m in lost earnings, which means he has to think that he'll get at least $8.5mm more on the open market that he would've under the 5 year $70m contract he was offered. That would put him at an AAV of 0.7mm more than Gurley, and Bell has 550 more NFL touches and is two years older.
The 5 year $70m contract report is likely not accurate. Bell's agent refuted it and the guy who initially reported it (Rapaport) also backtracked on it. We really have no idea what Pitt offered. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought hard about this. Still thinking.  There are things that money can't buy.  Championships are why players play.  I think LeVeon plays for championships.
 


All evidence to the contrary.  Championships start in the regular season.  Playoff seeding can be critical.  Bell has shown only that he is interested in his own bank account.  That’s his prerogative, but it does make a profound statement about him

 
The 5 year $70m contract report is likely not accurate. Bell's agent confirmed that and the guy who initially reported it (Rapaport) also backtracked on it. We really have no idea what Pitt offered. 
That may be true, and I guess if he was only offered 2 years guaranteed and he gets 3 years guaranteed on the open market, it will have been worth it, but short of a full extra year of guaranteed salary, taking the 8.5mm loss this year seems... like a poor strategy to maximize career earnings.

As for the playoffs, I think it is a very interesting question that's been posed. I think it would be surprising if he played - it seems like his main goal is to get to his next contract injury free.

 
I'm still astounded that he's sitting out. 10 games is $8.5m in lost earnings, which means he has to think that he'll get at least $8.5mm more on the open market that he would've under the 5 year $70m contract he was offered. That would put him at an AAV of 0.7mm more than Gurley, and Bell has 550 more NFL touches and is two years older.
This has been covered in the other thread, but the $70M was a number that was never realistic.  Bell was never going to see the end of that contract or much of that money.  Pitt offered him $10M I’m fully guaranteed money.  The rest of the guaranteed money was in “rolling” guarantees, where if Pitt decided to part ways with Bell before certain dates each year, they wouldn’t have to pay the rest of the guaranteed money.  At that point, not signing & playing under the tag was the best choice, as he was guaranteed more money with that tag.  When Gurley got his deal, Mack got his deal, then DJ got his deal, Bell’s plans for this season may have changed.  He seems to be making the choices that will prepare him for hitting FA next year to in the best position (as healthy as possible).  Playing in playoff games, when he isn’t contractually obligated to do so, doesn’t fit with that plan.  

Also, when college players like Fournette & CMC first started skipping bowl games, people on these boards (& others) were saying the same type of things: “those guys are hurting their stock by slipping these games,” “NFL  teams won’t want a guy who would “quit” on their team,” etc.  NFL teams still went out & drafted this guys high; IMO the same thing will happen with Bell-no matter how much people on this message board vilify him, NFL GMs will pay him for what he can do for THEIR team, not for what he DIDN’T do for the Steelers.

 
A) I think so. Missing a playoff game would be a big red flag imo to a team. Would be to me.

B) Players should get paid the reg season equivalent + 10% for playoff games 

 
Bayhawks said:
Also, when college players like Fournette & CMC first started skipping bowl games, people on these boards (& others) were saying the same type of things: “those guys are hurting their stock by slipping these games,” “NFL  teams won’t want a guy who would “quit” on their team,” etc.  NFL teams still went out & drafted this guys high; IMO the same thing will happen with Bell-no matter how much people on this message board vilify him, NFL GMs will pay him for what he can do for THEIR team, not for what he DIDN’T do for the Steelers.
First off, Fournette did not make the choice to skip his bowl game, his coach did, and partly because his ankle was not 100%.

More importantly, I repeat: to my knowledge, no player has ever skipped a bowl game that matters, i.e., a national championship game or national championship playoff game. All other bowl games are less meaningful, in most cases, much less.

McCaffrey and Bradley Chubb both skipped the Sun Bowl... the Sun Bowl. That is not comparable to skipping an NFL playoff game in a playoff series that leads to the Super Bowl.

 
First off, Fournette did not make the choice to skip his bowl game, his coach did, and partly because his ankle was not 100%.

More importantly, I repeat: to my knowledge, no player has ever skipped a bowl game that matters, i.e., a national championship game or national championship playoff game. All other bowl games are less meaningful, in most cases, much less.

McCaffrey and Bradley Chubb both skipped the Sun Bowl... the Sun Bowl. That is not comparable to skipping an NFL playoff game in a playoff series that leads to the Super Bowl.
First off, In the article that you linked, it explicitly stats that skipping the bowl (which he originally claimed WAS his decision)hadn’t hurt his draft stock anyway.

Second, it is comparable.  The players made the decision to protect themselves in order to be as healthy as possible for their next team (that drafted them) and to make sure they could get as much $$ as possible.  Bell, if he decides to skip playoff games, would be making a decision to protect himself in order to be as healthy as possible for his next team & to make as much $$ as possible.

Finally, you’re entitled to your opinion (and we’ll likely never know who is right, because I doubt Bell will have to make that choice), but IMO NFL teams will not pass on a All-Pro caliber player because he refused to play in the playoffs for a team that refused to pay him what he is worth.

 
:lmao:

Pretty sure he's put enough on tape for teams to know what they're getting.  
I don't know why that's so funny. Might be nice to see him actually play in the playoff game and judge him against top competition at that time of year. I'm not talking about September or October. I'm talking at the height of the profession during playoff time.

I also think it would be a huge red flag if he didn't play in a playoff game because of money. Then, if you were a team, in the back of your mind you'd have to ask whether he'd play in your playoff game. 

I'm not making a normative argument about honor or sportsmanship or tradition or winning or anything like that, though that might concern the team (the normative issue). I'm talking that a team might then have a pure labor concern on their hands and might not want that, or at the very least, discount it with respect to their offer to him.  

 
Only championship this guy has ever played in in the NFL and it was the conference championship. He ripped off twenty yards on six carries, as he was...wait for it...

hurt. 

 
I don't know why that's so funny. Might be nice to see him actually play in the playoff game and judge him against top competition at that time of year. I'm not talking about September or October. I'm talking at the height of the profession during playoff time.
That's ROFL funny too because players are beat to crap at that time of the year and he would have fresh legs.  Detractors would discount his performance based on that. 

He's a vet and one of the best all round RBs in the game.  Front offices know that.  

 
That's ROFL funny too because players are beat to crap at that time of the year and he would have fresh legs.  Detractors would discount his performance based on that. 

He's a vet and one of the best all round RBs in the game.  Front offices know that.  
Yeah, ever seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit? with the hyenas? Good luck with that laughter.  

 
Bayhawks said:
When Gurley got his deal, Mack got his deal, then DJ got his deal, Bell’s plans for this season may have changed.  He seems to be making the choices that will prepare him for hitting FA next year to in the best position (as healthy as possible).  Playing in playoff games, when he isn’t contractually obligated to do so, doesn’t fit with that plan.  
And if Bell didn't have 2 drug suspensions and multiple season ending injuries on his resume already, he would've gotten his long term deal like those other guys who did. 

 
Wouldn't the bad press hurt him financially with whoever he ends up signing with if he refused to play in the playoffs? He'd be the ultimate quitter. 
Jaylon Smith may have been a "quitter" for skipping that bowl game, but he also might have made a lot more money.

On the other side of the coin there are teams that may have dodged a bullet by avoiding Derwin James in the draft because he's a quitter. But there's a very real chance they regret avoiding him when they have to play against him on Sundays.

 
msudaisy26 said:
I think the aspect people are missing is that he would be under contract and sitting out games. Right now he has no contract. 
This is the best post in the thread. 

People act like Bell(one of my least fav players) is a "holdout" butt he's really not. He simply is unwilling to sign a contract that deems to be unfair. Good for him. If he was under contract and the Steelers were in the playoffs I think he would honor the contract that he chose to sign.

 
And if Bell didn't have 2 drug suspensions and multiple season ending injuries on his resume already, he would've gotten his long term deal like those other guys who did. 
You don't know that and I doubt that is why. The Steelers gave Ben his money after his off field problems and they were more serious than weed. He has only had one season ending injury. Even if he failed another drug test he isn't in danger of anything more than a 4 game suspension.

2013 - missed the first 3 games of the year because of a foot sprain in the 2nd week of the preseason

2014 - played all 16 games

2015 - missed 2 games for suspension, played 6 then lost for the rest of the year

2016 - missed 3 games for suspension played 12 then sat the final game of the year with the other Steeler starters

2017 - sat week 17 with most of the Steelers starters.

 
You don't know that and I doubt that is why. The Steelers gave Ben his money after his off field problems and they were more serious than weed. He has only had one season ending injury. Even if he failed another drug test he isn't in danger of anything more than a 4 game suspension.

2013 - missed the first 3 games of the year because of a foot sprain in the 2nd week of the preseason

2014 - played all 16 games

2015 - missed 2 games for suspension, played 6 then lost for the rest of the year

2016 - missed 3 games for suspension played 12 then sat the final game of the year with the other Steeler starters

2017 - sat week 17 with most of the Steelers starters.
The Steelers weren't going to be giving him a long term contract in 2015 (he had a suspension, 2016 (he had a suspension), or 2017 (he was one year removed from suspensions)

Beyond that....

One, Ben was a QB and far less replaceable than any RB, even one as talented as Bell.  Comparing the value of a franchise, possibly HOF quarterback to a RB is ridiculous.

And two, you didn't tell the whole story.  Bell was also injured and out for the playoff game in 2014, and left in the first quarter of the playoff loss in 2016.  He hasn't been anything close to reliable.  Not to mention skipping the walkthrough before the Jaguars playoff loss and late for the game itself last year.

If another team feels his history is worth a long term, lucrative contract, so be it.  I'm glad it's not the Steelers and I don't care if he shows up this year.

 
And if Bell didn't have 2 drug suspensions and multiple season ending injuries on his resume already, he would've gotten his long term deal like those other guys who did. 
That doesn’t make sense.  Bell has graduated out of the NFL’s substance abuse program, so he is on the same place as far as we know as they are.  And Gurley has had a major knee injury & DJ lost all last season to injury as well.

 
That doesn’t make sense.  Bell has graduated out of the NFL’s substance abuse program, so he is on the same place as far as we know as they are.  And Gurley has had a major knee injury & DJ lost all last season to injury as well.
Gurley's injury wasn't in the NFL and DJ lost a season due to a hand injury, not repeated knee injuries like Bell has had.  Bell missed most of one season as well as two playoff losses because of injuries to his knee(s).  He simply doesn't have the track record for reliability that I'd want the Steelers to give a long term contract to no matter how talented he is.

He got the Franchise Tag in 2017 because he had suspensions in both 2015 and 2016.  The Steelers made the decision for 2018 that he's not worth what he wants in a long term contract, and I (and most Steelers fans) agree with them.

 
Gurley's injury wasn't in the NFL and DJ lost a season due to a hand injury, not repeated knee injuries like Bell has had.  Bell missed most of one season as well as two playoff losses because of injuries to his knee(s).  He simply doesn't have the track record for reliability that I'd want the Steelers to give a long term contract to no matter how talented he is.

He got the Franchise Tag in 2017 because he had suspensions in both 2015 and 2016.  The Steelers made the decision for 2018 that he's not worth what he wants in a long term contract, and I (and most Steelers fans) agree with them.
Gurley’s injury was in 2014, the same year as Bells first knee injury.  None of Bells injuries were catastrophic, they just came at bad times.  DJs injury came in week 1 and cost him a whole season.  It makes little logical sense to say b/c of Bells injuries he doesn’t deserve a big deal, and not to say the same for those players.

That being said, IF the reason the Steelers low-balled Bell is b/c of his injury history, that just reinforces the fact that he is currently doing the right thing.   If, as you posted, the Steelers didn’t offer him a deal commensurate with other players of his caliber b/c of his injury concerns, why should he expose himself to further injury if they will just use that against him in the future?

 
Gurley’s injury was in 2014, the same year as Bells first knee injury.  None of Bells injuries were catastrophic, they just came at bad times.  DJs injury came in week 1 and cost him a whole season.  It makes little logical sense to say b/c of Bells injuries he doesn’t deserve a big deal, and not to say the same for those players.

That being said, IF the reason the Steelers low-balled Bell is b/c of his injury history, that just reinforces the fact that he is currently doing the right thing.   If, as you posted, the Steelers didn’t offer him a deal commensurate with other players of his caliber b/c of his injury concerns, why should he expose himself to further injury if they will just use that against him in the future?
Quit making sense!

 
Bayhawks said:
Again, disagree.  It’s been posted in the other thread, but there are several teams with a lot of cap room, with a QB on a rookie contract, that could offer Bell A LOT of money next year.  He’ll get a contract closer to what DJ & Gurley got that to what Pitt offered him, IMO.
I find when you prove someone wrong they ignore everything you say and bring up something different.

i never said anything about him signing whatever the Steelers offered him on a long term deal. I said he’ll never get the 9 million back he’s going to lose by sitting out right now. And there’s no business sense about what he’s doing. 

 
Gurley’s injury was in 2014, the same year as Bells first knee injury.  None of Bells injuries were catastrophic, they just came at bad times.  DJs injury came in week 1 and cost him a whole season.  It makes little logical sense to say b/c of Bells injuries he doesn’t deserve a big deal, and not to say the same for those players.

That being said, IF the reason the Steelers low-balled Bell is b/c of his injury history, that just reinforces the fact that he is currently doing the right thing.   If, as you posted, the Steelers didn’t offer him a deal commensurate with other players of his caliber b/c of his injury concerns, why should he expose himself to further injury if they will just use that against him in the future?
No, it was likely because of a combination of timing, suspensions, and an overall lack of reliability.  Injuries were only a part of that, as were the suspensions and his actions like before the Jaguars playoff game last year.  If he had been banged up but not suspended twice, it's entirely possible that they would've locked him up before 2016 or 2017.  His suspensions eliminated that possibility.

You can't give a long term contract to a guy after or during a season when he served a suspension for drugs.  So that rules out both 2015 and 2016.  Do you really think it would've been smart for the Steelers to offer a long term contract for 2017 to a guy who had served a drug suspension for BOTH of the previous two years?  No one in their right mind would.

It's entirely possible that Bell is doing the right thing.  So are the Steelers.  It's entirely possibly that both parties are doing exactly what they should.  Most Steelers fans I know don't care if he comes back or not.

 
No, it was likely because of a combination of timing, suspensions, and an overall lack of reliability.  Injuries were only a part of that, as were the suspensions and his actions like before the Jaguars playoff game last year.  If he had been banged up but not suspended twice, it's entirely possible that they would've locked him up before 2016 or 2017.  His suspensions eliminated that possibility.

You can't give a long term contract to a guy after or during a season when he served a suspension for drugs.  So that rules out both 2015 and 2016.  Do you really think it would've been smart for the Steelers to offer a long term contract for 2017 to a guy who had served a drug suspension for BOTH of the previous two years?  No one in their right mind would.

It's entirely possible that Bell is doing the right thing.  So are the Steelers.  It's entirely possibly that both parties are doing exactly what they should.  Most Steelers fans I know don't care if he comes back or not.
You do realize that after those suspensions he was still only in danger of missing 4 games if he did it again? Most teams have clauses that let them void the contract if a player does fail tests as well. There was very little risk for the Steelers to sign him long term in 2017.

 
You do realize that after those suspensions he was still only in danger of missing 4 games if he did it again? Most teams have clauses that let them void the contract if a player does fail tests as well. There was very little risk for the Steelers to sign him long term in 2017.
That's not the point, and with Bell's expectations, and we don't know if Bell would've been open to agreeing to any contract language like that despite his history.  The man wants PAID.  He's not getting it from the Steelers.  The combination of those suspensions and injuries and his lack of reliability meant the Steelers weren't going to risk anything long term on him, so they paid him a ton of money for last year.  This year, Bell's taking a different approach, which is fine for everyone.

 
I find when you prove someone wrong they ignore everything you say and bring up something different.

i never said anything about him signing whatever the Steelers offered him on a long term deal. I said he’ll never get the 9 million back he’s going to lose by sitting out right now. And there’s no business sense about what he’s doing. 
Assume he plans on sitting out 10 games, then plays 6, and gets to FA next year. Assume he gets a deal with $24M guaranteed money from one of the teams projected to have a lot of cap space & RB needs (Hou, NYJ, Ind, Cle, etc).  That means he lost $8.5M (approximately) by sitting out.  He’ll be paid $5.13M for the 6 games he played.  So, $29M guaranteed in the 2years.

Now assume he played under the tag from game 1 this year & destroys his knee.  That’s $14.5M, but he’s 27, coming off a major knee injury and has around 2000 NFL touches.  If he doesn’t get $14.5M in guaranteed money in 2019 (coming off a major knee injury), he made the wrong decision. 

Now, if he doesn’t get hurt, it doesn’t matter, & he obviously cost himself a lot of money.  But there’s an argument to be made for what he’s doing, and using that argument, it definitely makes business sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's not the point, and with Bell's expectations, and we don't know if Bell would've been open to agreeing to any contract language like that despite his history.  The man wants PAID.  He's not getting it from the Steelers.  The combination of those suspensions and injuries and his lack of reliability meant the Steelers weren't going to risk anything long term on him, so they paid him a ton of money for last year.  This year, Bell's taking a different approach, which is fine for everyone.
That is the point. The risk to the Steelers was minimal, nothing long term. You are holding the injury aspect against him that hits almost everyone at his position. 

 
That's not the point, and with Bell's expectations, and we don't know if Bell would've been open to agreeing to any contract language like that despite his history.  The man wants PAID.  He's not getting it from the Steelers.  The combination of those suspensions and injuries and his lack of reliability meant the Steelers weren't going to risk anything long term on him, so they paid him a ton of money for last year.  This year, Bell's taking a different approach, which is fine for everyone.
If this is your POV, that’s fair.  However, reading some of the other posters in this thread, that definitely is not the POV of many Steelers fans.  They are vilifying Bell for what he’s doing & pretending like the Steelers went above & beyond in what they offered Bell.

 
That is the point. The risk to the Steelers was minimal, nothing long term. You are holding the injury aspect against him that hits almost everyone at his position. 
…. minimal risk was more than the Steelers were willing to put up with for the kind of contract Bell was seeking.  

And that injury risk is precisely why huge long term contracts for running backs are rare.  When you add the other stuff, well, it is what it is.  Bell isn't playing and few Steelers fans care.

 
If this is your POV, that’s fair.  However, reading some of the other posters in this thread, that definitely is not the POV of many Steelers fans.  They are vilifying Bell for what he’s doing & pretending like the Steelers went above & beyond in what they offered Bell.
I won't vilify Bell for it.  It's his choice.  Teams make business decisions.  So do players.  Not about being right or wrong, it comes down to what they find most important.  Bell won't risk his health anymore for what the Steelers will offer, and the Steelers won't give Bell a long term contract like he wants.  It's a shame and all, but whatever.  I'd feel worse if the Steelers had a championship quality defense this year, but they don't.  I'm glad they're getting to see what Conner can do.

 
 Bell isn't playing and few Steelers fans care.
:bs:  

A large number of Steelers fans seem to be taking Bell's moves personally and acting like a scorned lover.

But I could be unfairly equating Steelers fans on message boards and Twitter to Steelers fans in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, In the article that you linked, it explicitly stats that skipping the bowl (which he originally claimed WAS his decision)hadn’t hurt his draft stock anyway.
Yes, correct. My whole point is that he skipped a bowl that didn't matter, because it did not potentially lead to a championship. He did not skip a bowl game that was comparable to an NFL playoff game. It seems that you are glossing over that.

And the Fournette decision was in part because he had an injury issue with his ankle. We don't know whether or not the decision would have been made if his ankle was 100%.

Second, it is comparable.
I don't agree. See above.

Finally, you’re entitled to your opinion
Well, thanks! Same to you. I'm fine agreeing to disagree.

 
:bs:  

A large number of Steelers fans seem to be taking Bell's moves personally and acting like a scorned lover.

But I could be unfairly equating Steelers fans on message boards and Twitter to Steelers fans in general.
Not the ones I know.  Obviously we'd rather him play than not.  But it's a business decision on both sides.  Most of the reasons he doesn't have a long term contract are his own fault, which has been well documented, but if he'd rather save himself for next year and beyond and he's willing to sacrifice $8 million or more to do it, that's up to him

 
…. minimal risk was more than the Steelers were willing to put up with for the kind of contract Bell was seeking.  

And that injury risk is precisely why huge long term contracts for running backs are rare.  When you add the other stuff, well, it is what it is.  Bell isn't playing and few Steelers fans care.
They big running back contracts aren't rare. They just have been for the last 5ish years because the talent wasn't there. 

The last 2 contracts for big time backs were big. Zeke will get a big deal, Gordon will, Bell will. You are behind the curve if you think running back pay is going to stay low. 

 
They big running back contracts aren't rare. They just have been for the last 5ish years because the talent wasn't there. 

The last 2 contracts for big time backs were big. Zeke will get a big deal, Gordon will, Bell will. You are behind the curve if you think running back pay is going to stay low. 
Yep, that definitely could happen.  I'm just glad that the Steelers didn't give one to Bell.  They weren't going to give him one heading into 2017 coming off of back to back years with a drug suspension and him having missed the playoff game they were eliminated in twice in the past three years, and they weren't going to this offseason either.  He wasn't under contract, so they couldn't trade him.  So their only options were to let him walk or Tag him and hope for the best.  They chose the Tag, and here we are.  The Steelers burn some cash, Bell loses over $8 million he can't get back, and they'll part ways next year instead.

I don't care if it was risk of another 4 game suspension or year, Bell wasn't the reliable and productive type of player the Steelers would give that deal to.  Simple.  I wouldn't have expected Bell to agree to language that would put any long term guarantees at risk based on another drug suspension either.    

 
I better.  The last time I tried to logically explain my opinion, I got suspended for being antagonistic.
A) You shouldn't have been suspended. At all.  

B) But the laws of markets and life is not logic, nor raw equity. That's why courts of equity emobodied within the Courts of Chancery were late developments in English common law compared to tort law and Courts of Exchequer. 

C) Yes, I'm typing that off of the type of my head, and I'm pretty sure I'm right that equity developed later than tort, and I still think the usage of equitable means something different than you did, but that's okay. 

 
They big running back contracts aren't rare. They just have been for the last 5ish years because the talent wasn't there. 
I wildly disagree. The contracts weren't there because of imperfect information and mismanagement. Are you telling me the All-Pros weren't there at RB? That talent eval isn't relative? No, the position was devalued from a market and positional perspective. 

RBs just aren't as valuable. They're like left-fielders or first basemen in baseball are now. Once, you would pay astronomical levels for these guys. Now...no way. It's all being quantified and eye-tested differently.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wildly disagree. The contracts weren't there because of imperfect information and mismanagement. Are you telling me the All-Pros weren't there at RB? That talent eval isn't relative? No, the position was devalued from a market and positional perspective. 

RBs just aren't as valuable. They're like left-fielders or first basemen in baseball are now. Once, you would pay astronomical levels for these guys. Now...no way. It's all being quantified and eye-tested differently.  
There is All-Pros every year at every position. That doesn't mean the overall talent at running back wasn't down. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top