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.

RB Melvin Gordon, BAL (1 Viewer)

Using per game numbers doesn't take into account that he has missed significant time in all but one season in his career. More so, those numbers are good, but they are not close to the guys you are comparing him to. Last year was his first season breaking 4 yds/r.

I am not faulting Gordan for wanting to get paid. I am saying any team willing to do so is dumb. There are only so many Jets teams around.
So had Le’Veon - missed quite a bit more due to injury and suspension. David Johnson missed an entire season.  Can you cobble together a running game...of course.  But there’ll be at least one team if Gordon were to make it to FA who will find him an attractive target.

...the point from Gordon’s POV is why put yourself at risk by accumulating more wear and tear and devaluing your market before you can avail your services to the league.  I think you’ll see more RB’s consider this.

 
Some of you seem to think one or both of these things:

  1. The RB market hasn't changed since deals were signed by other RBs.
  2. The RB market for players who reach free agency is the same as it is for a player under contract like Gordon.
IMO neither of these things is true.

 
Some of you seem to think one or both of these things:

  1. The RB market hasn't changed since deals were signed by other RBs.
  2. The RB market for players who reach free agency is the same as it is for a player under contract like Gordon.
IMO neither of these things is true.
On #1, of course it's changed.  When Freeman signed his deal 2 years ago, we didn't have the McKinnon deal, or the Barkley deal, or the Bell deal.  It's always changing.  Are you saying that the bottom has dropped out?  If so, when did that happen? 

Yes, Gordon is technically under contract due to the 5th year option the team exercised.  Gurley's deal was done while he was still under contract.  So was David Johnson's, Freeman's, McCoy's (with his trade), Duke Johnson's, and so on.  We may see Zeke's deal get done while under contract, too....but I'll agree he means more to the Cowboys than Gordon does to the Chargers.  Some of those deals are listed above. 

All that said, if he was offered something north of Freeman's deal, he should take it immediately. 

 
All that said, if he was offered something north of Freeman's deal, he should take it immediately. 
Some reasons why I think the Freeman deal is a non-starter for Gordon.

1) Career earnings to date:  Freeman had essentially earned $2M thru his first 3 seasons in the league (which is when he signed his contract extension).  Gordon has earned 5x that.  From my POV, Gordon would have more leverage simply because of his bank account.

2) Tevin Coleman: there was a school of thought at the time that coming off his breakout season, if Freeman was not amenable to the Falcons terms, they could move on to secure Coleman on a long, more team friendly deal.  This would have required Freeman to have played out the final year of his rookie year 4th round deal.

3) 2 years have gone by:  In that time the salary cap has gone up 13%.  So in terms of AAV - Freeman’s $8.25M would equal $9.3M.

4) Snap counts:  In the year prior to signing his extension, Freeman averaged 38 snaps/game.  Gordon - 44.  The prior year - 47.  A 6-8 snap variance/game may not seem like a lot.  But over a 4 year contract could be as much as one full season of use.  Plus, if the Chargers are offering $10M...on a per snap basis, his camp could argue he’s getting less than Freeman.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Some reasons why I think the Freeman deal is a non-starter for Gordon.

1) Career earnings to date:  Freeman had essentially earned $2M thru his first 3 seasons in the league (which is when he signed his contract extension).  Gordon has earned 5x that.  From my POV, Gordon would have more leverage simply because of his bank account.

2) Tevin Coleman: there was a school of thought at the time that coming off his breakout season, if Freeman was not amenable to the Falcons terms, they could move on to secure Coleman on a long, more team friendly deal.  This would have required Freeman to have played out the final year of his rookie year 4th round deal.

3) 2 years have gone by:  In that time the salary cap has gone up 13%.  So in terms of AAV - Freeman’s $8.25M would equal $9.3M.

4) Snap counts:  In the year prior to signing his extension, Freeman averaged 38 snaps/game.  Gordon - 44.  The prior year - 47.  A 6-8 snap variance/game may not seem like a lot.  But over a 4 year contract could be as much as one full season of use.  Plus, if the Chargers are offering $10M...on a per snap basis, his camp could argue he’s getting less than Freeman.
I don't know the exact offer made to him, but as the Chargers state it's "north of Freeman's deal" - so maybe that takes care of your #3 and #4 points.  Also, as Just Win pointed out, the market itself has possibly stagnated a bit - so he has that working against him. 

The Chargers might have similar internal feelings about Ekeler and Jackson, or maybe next year's draft class.  He's got the same situation possibly. 

Not sure what career earnings to date have to deal with offers on the table now.  Sure Gordon might be better financially able to hold out, but even today 2 years later Freeman is the 4th highest paid RB in the game....and the Chargers are apparently willing to offer Gordon more than that.  I think that's pretty fair, if accurate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
On #1, of course it's changed.  When Freeman signed his deal 2 years ago, we didn't have the McKinnon deal, or the Barkley deal, or the Bell deal.  It's always changing.  Are you saying that the bottom has dropped out?  If so, when did that happen? 

Yes, Gordon is technically under contract due to the 5th year option the team exercised.  Gurley's deal was done while he was still under contract.  So was David Johnson's, Freeman's, McCoy's (with his trade), Duke Johnson's, and so on.  We may see Zeke's deal get done while under contract, too....but I'll agree he means more to the Cowboys than Gordon does to the Chargers.  Some of those deals are listed above. 

All that said, if he was offered something north of Freeman's deal, he should take it immediately. 
I'm saying that the deals listed earlier haven't really yielded great ROI for the teams.

  1. Gurley was hurt for a Super Bowl run and looks to have long term concerns with his knee.
  2. The Jets organization has reportedly been at odds over whether or not Bell was worth his contract, even before he played a down for the team. New HC Gase reportedly didn't think so.
  3. David Johnson signed last year and his play last season was not close to his play in 2016.
  4. Freeman hasn't come close to his previous level of play since signing his contract, and he has missed half of the possible regular season games since then due to injury.
  5. McKinnon signed last year, got hurt, and missed the season.
I think those are the last 5 high profile signings. That is reason enough for the RB market to 'reset' or 'stagnate.'

What Barkley, Fournette, and Elliott got on their rookie contracts is irrelevant to Gordon. They were picked higher and in later years than Gordon, and their salaries were dictated.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by 'technically' Gordon is under contract. There is no need to qualify it, he is under contract, period.

 
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by 'technically' Gordon is under contract. There is no need to qualify it, he is under contract, period.
I just mean that I'm not a fan of 5th year team options.  It's only really beneficial to the team, as it's their option.  When signing the deal 4 years ago, he signed a four year deal.  2-3 years later (I don't know the exact timing), the team exercised their option for another year.  Yes, it was part of the original deal, I get that - but you don't know back then if it will happen or not, and if if does, it's for the benefit of the team, not the player. 

I'm in sales.  Say I'm salaried, not commissioned.  Say I blow away all my sales goals the first four years and have a shot and now being commissioned and make more money....but my employer says, no, we're going to keep you salaried one more year before you can go that route.  That's what's happened to him.  I get that it's a big bump in salary for that last year, but it's also less than he could make.  Understand, I see both sides of this - and think he should take the Freeman like offer if it was valid.

As for the other deals out now - I'm just pointing out, as I'm sure Gordon's representation is, that's the market.  David Johnson signed less than a year ago, 9 days after McKinnon tore his ACL (effectively making his deal a horrible one).  But the Johnson deal still happened.  Freeman and Gurley both got hurt last year making their deals look bad....and Bell still got his huge deal just a few months back.  Teams are still signing RBs.  Gordon would like to be the next one.

 
Gordon's standing no matter your thoughts on contracts is well behind Ezekiel Elliott. The longer the Cowboys drag out Elliott, the worse Gordon's position is. He continues to add fines. I think he will eventually sign with the Chargers and for much less than he is asking.

 
I don't know the exact offer made to him, but as the Chargers state it's "north of Freeman's deal" - so maybe that takes care of your #3 and #4 points.  Also, as Just Win pointed out, the market itself has possibly stagnated a bit - so he has that working against him. 

The Chargers might have similar internal feelings about Ekeler and Jackson, or maybe next year's draft class.  He's got the same situation possibly. 

Not sure what career earnings to date have to deal with offers on the table now.  Sure Gordon might be better financially able to hold out, but even today 2 years later Freeman is the 4th highest paid RB in the game....and the Chargers are apparently willing to offer Gordon more than that.  I think that's pretty fair, if accurate.
I probably needed to add a point to ‘career earnings to date’...related to this situation.  Ultimately, Freeman wasn’t in a position at that time financially to really play hardball with the Falcons.

 
It would be nice to clear up the facts about when Gordon has to report this season.

First, there is the issue of what entitles a player to unrestricted free agency. Upon expiration of a player’s contract, if he has accrued 4 or more seasons in the NFL, he becomes an unrestricted free agent. An accrued season is defined as a season with 6 or more regular-season games on a club’s active/inactive, reserve/injured or reserve/physically unable to perform lists.

Many articles have said he has to report no later than after week 10, apparently based on a belief that he needs to accrue another season (or just taking something written elsewhere as fact without understanding the rules). Gordon doesn’t need to accrue another season — he has already accrued 4 seasons in the NFL.

Next, I have read on another message board that players under contract have to report by the Tuesday following week 10 in order to be eligible to play the rest of the season, but that post did not contain any source reference. I know this is true for franchise players and transition players, but Gordon is not in either of those categories.

My understanding has been that Gordon has to report for at least one game to avoid having his contract tolled, which would mean it carries over to next season with the exact same terms. (And the player does not have to play in that game.) Precedent with Joey Galloway has shown that reporting by the midpoint of the season (i.e., before the 9th game) prevents a contract from tolling. The language in the arbitrator’s ruling implies that possibly reporting for as little as a single game could be enough, but no player has tested that with a holdout longer than Galloway’s. Pretty good explanation of that in this PFT article.

Does anyone have a link that seems to be definitive on this? There is a big difference between:

  1. Must report by "midseason" (e.g., the Tuesday following the week 8 game), like @electric Ape stated above
  2. Must report by the Tuesday following the week 10 game
  3. Must report for just 1 game, maybe the week 17 game
I suspect it is probably academic, because given the weak RB market, I doubt Gordon is going to be willing to forego much, if any, of his $5.6M salary this season. So I expect he will miss no more than few games and maybe none, even if he doesn't get a contract. He can cloak it as not wanting to let his teammates down on a potential Super Bowl contender to save face. Of course, I never expected Bell to do what he did last year...

Still, without clarity on this, Gordon is on my DND list.
It's an interesting issue.

Based on the text of the CBA and the Player Contract, I can see an argument for:

1. Not having to report at all as long as he pays all the fines he owes ($30,000 per day during training camp plus the value of four game checks). (Article 7, Section 7(g) of the CBA.)

2. Having to report by the midway point of the season, because the contract is tolled during his absence rounded to the nearest whole season. (Paragraph 16 of the Player Contract.)

Link to CBA with Player Contract appended.

The argument for No. 1 would be that a player is entitled by the contract to sit out and pay fines, so paying fines counts as performing his obligations under the contract, and as long as he performs his obligations under the contract, the contract is not tolled. It's not a great argument, though, because Paragraph 16 of the player contract talks about tolling while the player "fails or otherwise refuses to perform his services under the contract." The word "services" rather than "obligations" probably means playing football rather than writing a check, IMO.

The argument for No. 2 seems fairly strong. Eight games is half a season. Miss more than eight games and you've missed more than half a season, which means rounding to the nearest season entails tolling for a year. (Missing exactly eight games is pushing it, and not something I'd recommend.)

I have not read the Joey Galloway ruling. But I will venture two conjectures about it. First, I don't believe there's any principle governing NFL player grievances such that later arbitrators are bound by earlier arbitrators' rulings the same way that a lower court would be bound by a higher court in law. (Note that in law, later courts are not bound by the decisions of earlier courts of the same standing.) Second, even if such a principle exists, if it is analogous to binding legal decisions, it wouldn't apply here because Galloway did not miss more than half a season, so any statements made by the arbitrator in Galloway's case about a hypothetical situation where more than half a season was missed would be non-binding dictum.

If I were Gordon's agent ... well, I would look into this issue a good deal further. But if I had to advise him based on my current knowledge, having read the CBA and the Player Contract, my advice would be: DO NOT HOLD OUT FOR MORE THAN HALF A SEASON. Doing so would put him in serious jeopardy of having his contract tolled for a year, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument for No. 2 seems fairly strong. Eight games is half a season. Miss more than eight games and you've missed more than half a season, which means rounding to the nearest season entails tolling for a year. (Missing exactly eight games is pushing it, and not something I'd recommend.)
Would services performed during the team's bye week count, or do you think they'd only be looking at on field services?  His week 8 game is at Chicago anyway, so not a great start even if he did play.  If he plays the rest of the season after that game - great matchups vs Packers, Raiders and Chiefs, then a bye and the rest of season against average to below average run defenses from last year. 

 
[Anderson] Chargers RB Melvin Gordon's agent Damarius Bilbo tells me he requested a trade last wk for his client, after the team remained at their initial offer of aprox $10M/ year. GM Tom Telesco told Bilbo, Gordon is still family, but Bilbo was not given permission to seek trade partners.

https://twitter.com/JosinaAnderson/status/1156955024859303937
Depending on the guarantees, that seems extremely fair by the team.  Puts him well above Freeman and squarely at #4 highest paid RB, and well above each of the three highly paid rookies (Barkley, Zeke, Fournette) on the larger rookie deals they got after him. 

That's nearly doubling his salary this year (currently $5.6), and if he does well the team could just franchise him next year (anyone else on that team they may want to franchise?) for $12.5m at which point he'll be entering his age 28 season with 6 years of wear and tear.  If the guarantees in that offer are anything north of $20M (Gurley's guaranteed money is just below $22m), I think he needs to rethink his position

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the team could just franchise him next year (anyone else on that team they may want to franchise?)
I doubt it. There are many notable free agents (e.g., Rivers, Henry, Pouncey) but none that seem like candidates to be franchised.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I doubt it. There are many notable free agents (e.g., Rivers, Henry, Pouncey) but none that seem like candidates to be franchised.
Meaning they'd have no real issue using the tag on him next year for $12.5m (and not having to make that decision till next offseason).  With that in mind, I don't know why he wouldn't take an offer of $10m a year (unless the guaranteed money is horrible). 

 
Meaning they'd have no real issue using the tag on him next year for $12.5m (and not having to make that decision till next offseason).  With that in mind, I don't know why he wouldn't take an offer of $10m a year (unless the guaranteed money is horrible). 
I really doubt the Chargers would franchise him at that price, though. But I very seriously doubt he would get a non-trivial amount more than $10M per year on the open market next offseason, so I agree he should take that deal if it was truly offered. Of course, we don't know the contract structure, guaranteed money, etc., and that could be his issue rather than the $10M per year.

I really hope the Chargers do not pay him $10M per year unless the contract is structured with low guaranteed money and easy outs for the team.

 
I would be open to giving Gordon a two-year contract for $30 million. It would be for $6 million in 2019 fully guaranteed, and $24 million in 2020 non-guaranteed.

That's clearly better for Gordon than the deal he currently has, and it's pretty close to the same from the Chargers' standpoint. It effectively deprives them of the franchise-tag option, but is otherwise identical if we round 5.6 to 6.

(And, actually, there's room to move upwards a bit on the 2019 salary.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be open to giving Gordon a two-year contract for $30 million. It would be for $6 million in 2019 fully guaranteed, and $24 million in 2020 non-guaranteed.

That's clearly better for Gordon than the deal he currently has, and it's pretty close to the same from the Chargers' standpoint. It effectively deprives them of the franchise-tag option, but is otherwise identical if we round 5.6 to 6.

(And, actually, there's room to move upwards a bit on the 2019 salary.)
Not sure I follow the math here.  Next year's tag is around $12.5m (estimate).  You're going to give him twice that?

That said, it's a pretty interesting idea.  Just give him the tag now in the form of a non guaranteed "team option" year, and save the tag for another player should they need it. 

 
Not sure I follow the math here.  Next year's tag is around $12.5m (estimate).  You're going to give him twice that?
I would be giving it to him zero times. It would convert the "tag" into a $24 million team option from a $12.5 million team option, but it's not going to be exercised either way. (I mean, there's a chance it would have been exercised at $12.5 million. Converting it to $24 million is just a way of guaranteeing that it won't be exercised, so he'll definitely hit the open market in 2020.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would be open to giving Gordon a two-year contract for $30 million. It would be for $6 million in 2019 fully guaranteed, and $24 million in 2020 non-guaranteed.

That's clearly better for Gordon than the deal he currently has, and it's pretty close to the same from the Chargers' standpoint. It effectively deprives them of the franchise-tag option, but is otherwise identical if we round 5.6 to 6.

(And, actually, there's room to move upwards a bit on the 2019 salary.)
That doesn't make sense from Gordon's side at all.

 
That doesn't make sense from Gordon's side at all.
It depends on what the baseline comparison is. It's better for him in every respect than his current situation. (More money in 2019; removes threat of franchise tag; gets to tout headline of highest paid RB ever.) It's definitely not as good as what he'd prefer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on what the baseline comparison is. It's better for him in every respect than his current situation. (More money in 2019; removes threat of franchise tag; gets to tout headline of highest paid RB ever.) It's definitely not as good as what he'd prefer.
The bolded is meaningless, nobody would see it that way based on the structure.  It'd be embarrassing for Gordon.  He still has zero long term security. He makes an extra 400 grand this year, big deal. He gets to have the most insincere bragging rights ever, because there is a 0% chance he'd ever be back for 2020 at that price. Nobody would be fooled into thinking Gordon was the highest paid RB, he(and his agent) would look like rubes. 

 
That's clearly better for Gordon than the deal he currently has, and it's pretty close to the same from the Chargers' standpoint. It effectively deprives them of the franchise-tag option, but is otherwise identical if we round 5.6 to 6.
Actually, never mind, this doesn't work for the Chargers. As things stand now, if Gordon leaves after 2019, the Chargers would get a compensatory draft pick for him. Under the stupid offer I just proposed, the Chargers would release him after 2019 and therefore would not get a compensatory pick for him.

The Chargers should keep things as they are and let Gordon decide whether he wants to play 8 games, 16 games, or anywhere in between (or risk playing fewer than that).

 
The bolded is meaningless, nobody would see it that way based on the structure.  It'd be embarrassing for Gordon.  He still has zero long term security. He makes an extra 400 grand this year, big deal. He gets to have the most insincere bragging rights ever, because there is a 0% chance he'd ever be back for 2020 at that price. Nobody would be fooled into thinking Gordon was the highest paid RB, he(and his agent) would look like rubes. 
Ignore that part then. Being assured of not having the tag placed on him is worth something, so it would be better for him than his current situation. But as I mentioned in the previous post, it would be bad for the Chargers, so it's not worth considering after all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Chargers can get a 3rd rounder for him(or a 4th rounder plus something) they should trade him, if they can't then let him hold out. 

 
If the Chargers can get a 3rd rounder for him(or a 4th rounder plus something) they should trade him, if they can't then let him hold out. 
They'll get a (compensatory) third if he leaves via free agency. They need to get at least a second for him in a trade, IMO. But I agree that they should either trade him (if they can get a second) or let him do whatever he wants in terms of holding out. Whenever he shows up, whether it's in Week 1 or Week 9 or any other week, he'll be welcomed with open arms. That's a business decision for him to make, and he should do whatever he thinks is in his best interest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They need to get at least a second for him in a trade, IMO. But I agree that they should either trade him (if they can get a second) or let him do whatever he wants in terms of holding out.
Do you think this is still a purely business decision on both sides, or has it gotten personal and ugly already?

 
That doesn't make sense from Gordon's side at all.
Or the team's side the way I understand it (which I likely don't).  They'd never use the second year option.  So then why give him more this year (other than maybe getting him in the door now)?

 
Do you think this is still a purely business decision on both sides, or has it gotten personal and ugly already?
I don't think the Chargers have any hard feelings toward Gordon, at least based on their public statements. They understand why Gordon wants more money now. They have a difference of opinion about what he's worth. They still regard him quite highly as a player and as a person, but they're not willing to offer him what he wants.

I did see a report saying that Gordon felt disrespected by the Chargers' offer. So maybe it's gotten a little personal on his side.

 
I don't think this team makes the playoffs without Gordon.  They'll just hand the division to KC, and then they have to keep pace with Indy Houston Cleveland Pittsburgh Baltimore and Tennessee. 

They're mortgaging their present for a chance to be slightly better when rivers retires.  That's backwards. 

Go work on the other guys who need extensions.  Work out what you can with the leverage of this situation - somebody is getting left out, we don't want it to be you.  Here are our terms. 

Then restructure Rivers and mortgage your future so you can sign Gordon. 

You might not be good enough to win it all right now. You probably aren't.  But trying to escape cap prison as the team with everything but a quarterback is a recipe for a decade of misery.  

The simple truth is you're going to suck when rivers retires.  You aren't bad enough to get a top pick for a quarterback so you're going to be a 6 or 7 win team looking for a nick foles or sam bradford. 

 
I don't think this team makes the playoffs without Gordon.  They'll just hand the division to KC, and then they have to keep pace with Indy Houston Cleveland Pittsburgh Baltimore and Tennessee. 

They're mortgaging their present for a chance to be slightly better when rivers retires.  That's backwards. 

Go work on the other guys who need extensions.  Work out what you can with the leverage of this situation - somebody is getting left out, we don't want it to be you.  Here are our terms. 

Then restructure Rivers and mortgage your future so you can sign Gordon. 

You might not be good enough to win it all right now. You probably aren't.  But trying to escape cap prison as the team with everything but a quarterback is a recipe for a decade of misery.  

The simple truth is you're going to suck when rivers retires.  You aren't bad enough to get a top pick for a quarterback so you're going to be a 6 or 7 win team looking for a nick foles or sam bradford. 
come on fred....

 
I don't think this team makes the playoffs without Gordon.  They'll just hand the division to KC, and then they have to keep pace with Indy Houston Cleveland Pittsburgh Baltimore and Tennessee. 

They're mortgaging their present for a chance to be slightly better when rivers retires.  That's backwards. 

Go work on the other guys who need extensions.  Work out what you can with the leverage of this situation - somebody is getting left out, we don't want it to be you.  Here are our terms. 

Then restructure Rivers and mortgage your future so you can sign Gordon. 

You might not be good enough to win it all right now. You probably aren't.  But trying to escape cap prison as the team with everything but a quarterback is a recipe for a decade of misery.  

The simple truth is you're going to suck when rivers retires.  You aren't bad enough to get a top pick for a quarterback so you're going to be a 6 or 7 win team looking for a nick foles or sam bradford. 
I'd disagree with all of this. They easily make the playoffs without Gordon. They went 4-0 without him last year, No RB is making a 12-4 team a non playoff team. It maybe costs them 1 game, maybe. KC took a big step backward this offseason on defense and possibly a small one on the o-line, plus now there is a year of tape on Mahomes. I'd bet on the Chargers winning the division regardless of Gordon's status. Hell, without Gordon, they are still better than KC at RB, maybe by quite a bit.

There is also no reason to assume Rivers doesn't hang around for 3-4 more years. He doesn't take a ton of hits, he doesn't leave the pocket, and he's still throwing a very good deep ball. 

They'll get a (compensatory) third if he leaves via free agency. They need to get at least a second for him in a trade, IMO. But I agree that they should either trade him (if they can get a second) or let him do whatever he wants in terms of holding out. Whenever he shows up, whether it's in Week 1 or Week 9 or any other week, he'll be welcomed with open arms. That's a business decision for him to make, and he should do whatever he thinks is in his best interest.
The 3rd would be a year earlier and a lot higher than a compensatory pick. It would also allow the Chargers to get to work on extensions earlier with an extra 5.6 million to play with. 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is a 3rd comp pick a lock? I thought those were based on salary, and its very possible that a RB doesn't have a top one. 

 
The 3rd would be a year earlier and a lot higher than a compensatory pick. It would also allow the Chargers to get to work on extensions earlier with an extra 5.6 million to play with. 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but is a 3rd comp pick a lock? I thought those were based on salary, and its very possible that a RB doesn't have a top one. 
These points are all correct, but I think a compensatory third plus half a season of low-paid production is worth more than just a regular third a year earlier. (The secret compensatory formula is based largely on salary, but I think Gordon would effectively be a lock for a third based on what he'd be expected to sign for on the open market.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ve got him in both my Dynasty Leagues. Not sure why you don’t pay the guy.

Great character and production. Rivers is on his back 9 and you want to surround him with as much talent as you can if you think you have a chance to win a SB.

...and if you don’t, I don’t know why you’re paying Rivers all that money in the first place.

 
I'd disagree with all of this. They easily make the playoffs without Gordon. They went 4-0 without him last year, No RB is making a 12-4 team a non playoff team. It maybe costs them 1 game, maybe.
Pittsburgh 2017 13-3, made playoffs

Pittsburgh 2018 9-6-1 missed playoffs

(bell may be better than Gordon, but Conner played better than Ekeler)

Bills 2017 9-7, made playoffs

Bills 2018 6-10... McCoy went from 1586 total yards to 752. 

Cowboys have made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years.  Which one did Zeke miss time? 

Jaguars 2017 playoffs with a healthy fournette.  2018 can't be blamed on fournette - they were 3-5 with him and 2-6 without.  

How did the rams look before and after Gurley got hurt?  

2014 Seahawks with lynch were 12-4, won the division and went to the superbowl.  2015 with Thomas Rawls they still won 10 games, made thewildcard spot and lost in the division round of the playoffs.

Those are just recent examples off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's others.  I understand that they're not all perfect analogies to this situation and that there  may be other examples of teams doing fine without an elite back.  

It doesn't change the fact that losing a top running back is really bad for a good team and can easily contribute to a 12 win team missing the playoffs the following year.

 
I’ve got him in both my Dynasty Leagues. Not sure why you don’t pay the guy.

Great character and production. Rivers is on his back 9 and you want to surround him with as much talent as you can if you think you have a chance to win a SB.

...and if you don’t, I don’t know why you’re paying Rivers all that money in the first place.
My guess is they're not paying him because they don't think he's worth what he's asking.

 
Raptors409 said:
I’ve got him in both my Dynasty Leagues. Not sure why you don’t pay the guy.

Great character and production. Rivers is on his back 9 and you want to surround him with as much talent as you can if you think you have a chance to win a SB.

...and if you don’t, I don’t know why you’re paying Rivers all that money in the first place.
I agree that Gordon has great character and has provided great production. I agree that the team should surround Rivers with as much talent as possible to make a run at the Super Bowl.

The Chargers are going spend about the same amount on talent whether or not they extend Gordon. The question is whether the money is better spent on Gordon or on players at other positions. I'd vote for other positions for a couple reasons: (1) Austin Ekeler and Justin Jackson aren't as good as Gordon, but they're still good. And (2) the difference between a great running back and a good one means a lot less, in terms of expected team wins, than the difference between a great cornerback or linebacker or offensive tackle or wide receiver and a good one. Running backs get a lot of attention from fans and fantasy owners because they have the ball in their hands a lot and score a lot of points. They're extremely visible. But in terms of winning games, star running backs don't seem as important as stars at many other positions, so that's not where teams should necessarily spend large portions of their salary caps. JMHO.

 
I agree that Gordon has great character and has provided great production. I agree that the team should surround Rivers with as much talent as possible to make a run at the Super Bowl.

The Chargers are going spend about the same amount on talent whether or not they extend Gordon. The question is whether the money is better spent on Gordon or on players at other positions. I'd vote for other positions for a couple reasons: (1) Austin Ekeler and Justin Jackson aren't as good as Gordon, but they're still good. And (2) the difference between a great running back and a good one means a lot less, in terms of expected team wins, than the difference between a great cornerback or linebacker or offensive tackle or wide receiver and a good one. Running backs get a lot of attention from fans and fantasy owners because they have the ball in their hands a lot and score a lot of points. They're extremely visible. But in terms of winning games, star running backs don't seem as important as stars at many other positions, so that's not where teams should necessarily spend large portions of their salary caps. JMHO.
If the decision was in April and it was between Gordon and all the other running backs on the market, his value would be lower.  Instead, it's between Gordon and ekeler/ etc. That's leverage for Gordon - i think most of us agree that Gordon is better than that tandem, including the chargers, who have made an offer to increase the salary of a holdout player under contract.  

So the first vector of the decision is, are they better with him or without him.  The second is, are they better with or without other players. And there i probably agree with you. The difference between Gordon and ekeler may be less than the difference between hunter Henry and their next best tight end option.  Then again, the chargers spent a higher pick on Gordon, are paying him more money and are talking extension with him first, so that's not necessarily true.

But let's assume it is. Is there a third vector?  Or is the decision between ekeler/henry and Gordon/scrub tight end in 2021?

The third vector is between cap discipline and mortgaging the future.  And they should mortgage.  

If this were the 2009 and rivers had a decade plus left, i would value cap discipline more because my goal would be to win as much as possible over the next decade.  But this is close to the end of his career. Rivers probably isn't playing in 2023, and his play may drop off before then,  and they're currently a 12 win caliber team.  In 2023 they will likely be searching for a quarterback.  So their goal should be to win as much as possible now.  

And they have access to cap money if they want it. Give rivers a multi year extension with a huge signing bonus, low salary and extra years he'll never actually see.  You can borrow a lot of money from a veteran quarterback if you're trying to win.  The chargers are just getting started.  

That doesn't mean they should pay everyone way more than they're worth.  What it does mean, though, is that a top player like Gordon has leverage if he holds out at this point in the year because he knows his value is higher in August 2019 than April 2020, and that the team should be more willing to pay him in 2019 than they would have been in 2009. So even though he's asking for more than what the market thinks he's worth, the chargers really should be willing to pay him a premium because he's right.  

I don't disagree with them preaching cap discipline, but they really should - and almost certainly will - end up offering him more than his "value". 

 
If the decision was in April and it was between Gordon and all the other running backs on the market, his value would be lower.  Instead, it's between Gordon and ekeler/ etc. That's leverage for Gordon - i think most of us agree that Gordon is better than that tandem, including the chargers, who have made an offer to increase the salary of a holdout player under contract.  

So the first vector of the decision is, are they better with him or without him.  The second is, are they better with or without other players. And there i probably agree with you. The difference between Gordon and ekeler may be less than the difference between hunter Henry and their next best tight end option.  Then again, the chargers spent a higher pick on Gordon, are paying him more money and are talking extension with him first, so that's not necessarily true.

But let's assume it is. Is there a third vector?  Or is the decision between ekeler/henry and Gordon/scrub tight end in 2021?

The third vector is between cap discipline and mortgaging the future.  And they should mortgage.  

If this were the 2009 and rivers had a decade plus left, i would value cap discipline more because my goal would be to win as much as possible over the next decade.  But this is close to the end of his career. Rivers probably isn't playing in 2023, and his play may drop off before then,  and they're currently a 12 win caliber team.  In 2023 they will likely be searching for a quarterback.  So their goal should be to win as much as possible now.  

And they have access to cap money if they want it. Give rivers a multi year extension with a huge signing bonus, low salary and extra years he'll never actually see.  You can borrow a lot of money from a veteran quarterback if you're trying to win.  The chargers are just getting started.  

That doesn't mean they should pay everyone way more than they're worth.  What it does mean, though, is that a top player like Gordon has leverage if he holds out at this point in the year because he knows his value is higher in August 2019 than April 2020, and that the team should be more willing to pay him in 2019 than they would have been in 2009. So even though he's asking for more than what the market thinks he's worth, the chargers really should be willing to pay him a premium because he's right.  

I don't disagree with them preaching cap discipline, but they really should - and almost certainly will - end up offering him more than his "value". 
Have to factor in teams have to consider if they give in too much, what other players will think next time they want more money. So decision not made in a vacuum.

 
If the decision was in April and it was between Gordon and all the other running backs on the market, his value would be lower.  Instead, it's between Gordon and ekeler/ etc. That's leverage for Gordon - i think most of us agree that Gordon is better than that tandem, including the chargers, who have made an offer to increase the salary of a holdout player under contract.  

So the first vector of the decision is, are they better with him or without him.  The second is, are they better with or without other players. And there i probably agree with you. The difference between Gordon and ekeler may be less than the difference between hunter Henry and their next best tight end option.  Then again, the chargers spent a higher pick on Gordon, are paying him more money and are talking extension with him first, so that's not necessarily true.

But let's assume it is. Is there a third vector?  Or is the decision between ekeler/henry and Gordon/scrub tight end in 2021?

The third vector is between cap discipline and mortgaging the future.  And they should mortgage.  

If this were the 2009 and rivers had a decade plus left, i would value cap discipline more because my goal would be to win as much as possible over the next decade.  But this is close to the end of his career. Rivers probably isn't playing in 2023, and his play may drop off before then,  and they're currently a 12 win caliber team.  In 2023 they will likely be searching for a quarterback.  So their goal should be to win as much as possible now.  

And they have access to cap money if they want it. Give rivers a multi year extension with a huge signing bonus, low salary and extra years he'll never actually see.  You can borrow a lot of money from a veteran quarterback if you're trying to win.  The chargers are just getting started.  

That doesn't mean they should pay everyone way more than they're worth.  What it does mean, though, is that a top player like Gordon has leverage if he holds out at this point in the year because he knows his value is higher in August 2019 than April 2020, and that the team should be more willing to pay him in 2019 than they would have been in 2009. So even though he's asking for more than what the market thinks he's worth, the chargers really should be willing to pay him a premium because he's right.  

I don't disagree with them preaching cap discipline, but they really should - and almost certainly will - end up offering him more than his "value". 
I agree with all this.   In addition, there is another factor at play.   The Chargers need to win and win soon in order to build a fan base in LA before they move into the new stadium.   Right now they are having trouble selling out a 30K seat soccer stadium.   Now is not the time for fiscal responsibility.  Making news by overpaying Gordon will sell a lot more tickets than making news by refusing to pay him will.

 
bostonfred said:
Those are just recent examples off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's others.  I understand that they're not all perfect analogies to this situation and that there  may be other examples of teams doing fine without an elite back.  

It doesn't change the fact that losing a top running back is really bad for a good team and can easily contribute to a 12 win team missing the playoffs the following year.
Some of your examples are terrible (PIT, BUF are obvious, didn't really look closely at the others after those). Also, you are treating year over year results as if the RB was the only change, which obviously was not true in any one of your examples. And you brought up a very small sample size.

For these reasons, I disagree with your bolded conclusion. The part after that - losing a top RB can contribute to a playoff team missing the playoffs - is obviously true, but it is as generic as it gets. I mean, losing a top player at any position can contribute to that, so that fact isn't particularly relevant.

And they have access to cap money if they want it. Give rivers a multi year extension with a huge signing bonus, low salary and extra years he'll never actually see.  You can borrow a lot of money from a veteran quarterback if you're trying to win.
This is false unless you assume a very significant discount from Rivers, mainly because they have already borrowed money from Rivers twice. $7.5M of his cap hit in 2019 is from previous restructurings to help the team's cap. He also still has $4.5M remaining from the signing bonus for his 2015 contract. All of that must hit the cap in 2019, regardless of whether or not he is extended. The going rate for a QB of Rivers' caliber who signs a new contract is in the neighborhood of $25M to $30M per year with substantial guaranteed money. You advocate giving him a "huge" signing bonus. What does that come to, $10M+ per year? Now give him just $1M in salary this year. Boom, we are at $22M+ in 2019 cap hit. Compare that to his current 2019 cap hit of $23M. It doesn't work the way you suggest.

I don't disagree with them preaching cap discipline, but they really should - and almost certainly will - end up offering him more than his "value". 
An issue with this is that next year Bosa is set to play on a 5th year option. If they do this for Gordon, they will have to pay more for Bosa next year. Then they will face Mike Williams the year after. Then James the year after that. Cap discipline matters here.

 
bostonfred said:
Pittsburgh 2017 13-3, made playoffs

Pittsburgh 2018 9-6-1 missed playoffs

(bell may be better than Gordon, but Conner played better than Ekeler)

Bills 2017 9-7, made playoffs

Bills 2018 6-10... McCoy went from 1586 total yards to 752. 

Cowboys have made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years.  Which one did Zeke miss time? 

Jaguars 2017 playoffs with a healthy fournette.  2018 can't be blamed on fournette - they were 3-5 with him and 2-6 without.  

How did the rams look before and after Gurley got hurt?  

2014 Seahawks with lynch were 12-4, won the division and went to the superbowl.  2015 with Thomas Rawls they still won 10 games, made thewildcard spot and lost in the division round of the playoffs.

Those are just recent examples off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's others.  I understand that they're not all perfect analogies to this situation and that there  may be other examples of teams doing fine without an elite back.  

It doesn't change the fact that losing a top running back is really bad for a good team and can easily contribute to a 12 win team missing the playoffs the following year.
I think its a massive oversimplification to think that RB made a huge impact for any of those teams. 

The Steelers offense was actually better in 2018 than 2017, the defense missed Ryan Shazier, and they lost a lot of close games because Boswell suddenly forgot how to kick, after being a pro bowl candidate before. 

The Bills switched to a rookie QB, who also missed games, and had multiple Nathan Peterman starts, which may or may not be better than starting you or I at QB, its an auto loss either way. 

Zeke playing was only a small piece of the puzzle in Dallas. The health of Tyron Smith, Jaylon Smith, the drafting of Vander Esch and trade for Cooper, were all more important than having Zeke back. The run game barely missed him when he was out, its just the production was split between multiple guys, guys who collectively had a higher YPC than Elliott no less. 2016 had a healthy Sean Lee, at an all-pro level, o-line health, and a still useful(though declining) Dez Bryant.

The Jags were powered mostly by an inordinate amount of defensive TD's, and turnovers. 

The Rams missed Cooper Kupp a hell of a lot more than Gurley. They went to the Super Bowl anyway.

Seattle was arguably a better team in 2015, they just ran into a Panthers team who was better than anybody in the NFC was in 2014. The offense was better in 2015 than 2014.

My point being, while yes, these teams all missed or had underperforming RB's, ultimately their downfalls were elsewhere, and I don't see that applying to the Chargers right now.

 
Some of your examples are terrible

which obviously was not true

And you brought up a very small sample size.

obviously true, but it is as generic as it gets.

that fact isn't particularly relevant.

This is false
I enjoy your contributions on topics you're knowledgeable about but i would prefer you don't quote me or engage me directly anymore because I spend my time here to enjoy discussing things with friends and i don't find your style very friendly when you're talking to me. Too many years of Manning vs Brady.  I haven't always been respectful with you either and for that i apologize.  You seem to be able to play nice with other people, please do that instead.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top