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.
No, he would have to report at some point or else the contract would toll and he'd still be under the same terms in 2020. If he reports even for just one game he's fulfill the contract and be a UFA next year. Of course they can just FT him then but at least that's $12M+
He doesn't need to accrue the year though. He's already got 4 accrued seasons. He just hast to not have the contract toll.
I’d be skeptical. Super small sample size alert but his numbers were 40/129 (3.2 ypc) and 12/76 (6.3 ypr) as the starter. He’s small at 5’10 200 so you’d have to be concerned about him holding up to a full time workload and those concerns wouldn’t be eased by the fact that he got hurt last year after 2 games in a row starting.
You’re comparing the contracts of guys who hit the open market to Melvin’s rookie deal (except for Saquon who got top 3 money). It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Unless you know that the Chargers have offered less money than what those guys you listed got.
Understood. But I'm also comparing 3 guys who at this point have, or at the time of their new deal had played 4 years in the NFL. Gordon (and in my opinion rightfully so) is a bit upset about this 5th year option part of it. It's an awkward position for both sides. He's under, I believe, his market value - but the team has the leverage for the next year.
He’s on that fifth year option though because he was a first round pick. And that earned him a 15+ million dollar contract before he had even played a down of pro football. Much more than those guys made on their first contract.
Understood. Just trying to find a middle ground between Gordon and the Chargers that would work for both - and used those two somewhat recent deals as examples. I don't know what the Chargers offered him, and I don't know what it would take to get him to sign. Just throwing out there a new 4 year $26m with $14m guaranteed example to see if that would be smart/fair for the team or offer, and smart for Gordon to accept.
How's about the other one - 4 year $30m with $18m guaranteed? They can offer that now, as a new deal, rather than an extension - correct? So it would start today? If so, that's $7.5M per year average - so more than what he's scheduled to get this year, with three future years tacked on (he's got 0 future years now). Puts him right in that 2nd group of RBs I mentioned above, and depending on the guarantees could set him up for the remainder of both his career, and his life.
I’m guessing he thinks since he’s been treated like a full time feature back he should get paid like one. Maybe he doesn’t view himself like Gurley or Bell but he probably wouldn’t want less than Freeman or Shady and more than McKinnon/Duke. So 4/40 ish. The Chargers may have concerns about his health/mileage and lack of efficiency prior to last year. Or they may feel like the position is replaceable outside of the top few studs. I doubt they offer that. 4/30 with an out after a couple years probably would work for them. Pure speculation.
That's all I'm looking for. Speaking of Freeman and his deal - 5 year, $41M extension - do I understand it right that if he were to be cut after this season the Falcons would have $6m count against their cap (but wouldn't have to pay that amount), but not have to pay any of the $9.5M to him? So they would save $3.5M vs the cap, and save all $9.5m in actual cash? Isn't cap dollars much more important than actual dollars to these teams? So really him playing for them next year is only a $3.5m decision?
I think that they would save the 6.5 million base salary in actual money. Of that 9.5 million they’d have already paid the $3 million dollar signing bonus. And yeah if they cut him this year they save 3.5 million against the cap.
Yes, if Ekeler, Jackson, and Newsome stay reasonably healthy and Gordon does not play, I think the Chargers will be "league average or so" in their running game.
I never said otherwise.
This is a poor example. The Pats were #7 in the league in spending at the RB position in 2018, and the Saints were #9. Both teams generally choose to spend on multiple guys to play as part of a committee rather than putting a lot of cap money into a bellcow RB. This is changing in 2019 for the Saints, since Ingram is gone, but the Pats are up to #5 as things stand.
So what?
I would not support that from the Chargers' perspective. More importantly, it seems pretty clear that Gordon is demanding more than that.
TL
R - if the player doesn't play at all, the current year doesn't tick off and it picks up where it left off the following (or whenever he returns) year. No I don’t disagree if that’s the case. Your context implied to me at least that you thought that trio would be great talent wise compared to the rest of the league. And you seemed to back it up when I called it bottom of the barrel you said “I’m not so sure I agree with that anyways”. My sole point was that that trio would go into the year as one of the worst rb groups in the league, talent wise. If you don’t think that matters because they could still get average ish production from it I disagree as well and that’s why I brought up the Kamara. I believe there is a cost when you go with lesser talent even if you can get average production but that wasn’t my initial point and I don’t need to go into it if you don’t when I’m 3 IPAs deep on a Friday night!
That's honestly your answer?
Sorry, GB, but this is such a stupid post that it doesn’t warrant a serious answer.
I'd disagree with that. RB is easily the least valuable non kicking position in football. The Rams offense didn't fall apart without Gurley at all, they missed Kupp much more than Gurley. The Saints had losing seasons because they had a bottom 5 defense, now they don't. The Cowboys made the playoffs, because Cooper added a receiving threat, and the defense took a major step forward, with a healthy Jaylon Smith, and a ROY candidate in Vander Esch.cloppbeast said:
No problem. It's not my line of reasoning.Just Win Baby said:
I cant disagree with this overall, but the difference between Saquon Barkley and replacement level is a lot more than with kickers. Having a great rb helps more than you acknowledge. Debating whether Ezekial Elliot is an important offensive weapon for Dallas is a discussion not worth having imo.
I agree Barkley is more important than a kicker, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying the advantage of having a great RB over a replacement level one, is smaller than at any non-kicker position. The Giants would likely be a better team right now, if they had chosen any of Darnold, Ward, or Chubb(the next 3 picks) over him. They only gained 2 wins, and that was more from Beckham being healthy(playing in 9 more games than he did in 2017) than Barkley.
depends on the egos in the chargers front office, and now that Gordon & his agent went public, we will see what the chargers brass does, Im guessing nothing, as he is under contract to make 5 million and they are cap strapped....
Only thing Gordon has on Elliott is he is better off the field. A tier below as a running back
Rivers will retire at the end of the year. You really want to be in rebuild mode with an overpriced middle age rb?
different gm.....but telesco is responsible for the joey bosa fiasco...so its an organization thing
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
