PDay8810
Well-Known Member
Yes it is and running the football mattersIt's a passing League....
Yes it is and running the football mattersIt's a passing League....
Not invalidating those teams, just pointing out when your 2 examples you have include 2 of the greatest QBs of all time you are not focusing standard use cases.How about Matthew Stafford? Rams leading rusher in the Super Bowl had 21 yards, a 3rd rounder coming back early from injury.
If you're going to invalidate any of Brady's or Mahomes' teams, then championship discussions get really thin.
"400% raise" is a mentally ill way to portray it.
Kamara got 15 per. McCaffrey got 16.
But the way contracts in sports usually goes, next guy up sets the new market when they’re in the top tier. The Kamara and McCaffrey deals aren’t recent. I think 18 is high but in giving up 18 he should get years guaranteed for settling for an AAV of 15-16JT is not the receiving threat they are either, he had one outstanding year and a really good year, followed by a year of injuries, he isn't worth the same as those two. I personally would sign him to 4 yrs, about 12 mill per.
You pay the going rate for RBs, not the going rate for LTs, or WRs, or QBs. The prime for those other positions lasts longer typically than RBs, so the earning power is greater as the players are expected to be healthy longer and more often.You would follow it just fine with a more capable brain.
What are you paying for if not "importance to the offense?"
But the way contracts in sports usually goes, next guy up sets the new market when they’re in the top tier. The Kamara and McCaffrey deals aren’t recent. I think 18 is high but in giving up 18 he should get years guaranteed for settling for an AAV of 15-16
Yes it is and running the football matters
Sure it is. The value of the NFL RB is still there. The league has decided not to pay those guys anymore. That’s what this is all about.The next guy sets the market when there is scarcity and demand (notably with QBs). #1 WRs have jumped as a result too. Elite RBs are nice, but the drop off to a day 3 guy isn't as severe, so that scarcity just isn't there.
It's page 9. You aren't saying anything new. Just the same song and dance that's caused the current problems.You pay the going rate for RBs, not the going rate for LTs, or WRs, or QBs. The prime for those other positions lasts longer typically than RBs, so the earning power is greater as the players are expected to be healthy longer and more often.
Not difficult to understand really. If recently tagged players at or near your level (Jacobs, Barkley) aren't getting offers above $13M per, don't expect $18M. No RB has gotten more than $12M per in the past 3 years.
What does Kevin Costner Say in Draft Day.Trading him now means relying on cast-offs and/or late draft picks this season when they are trying to introduce a raw rookie QB. What are they going to get in return?
They very well might have been interested in extending him, but then he asks for $18M per. A 400% raise is probably not what they were looking to pay. Certainly seems like they were discussing extension until $18M was introduced.
Make no mistake....he will be playing. No chance he sits out ad misses checks.The Colts are worse without him. The league is worse if the best players aren't playing.
It's page 9. You aren't saying anything new. Just the same song and dance that's caused the current problems.
If Jonathan Taylor means more to an offense than Christian Kirk than he's worth more money.
*Not to bash Kirk, the Jags had their own reasons to overpay for him and the Jags are developing a nice offense there.
The Colts are worse without him. The league is worse if the best players aren't playing.
Weasel word nonsense from you. What you mean by "simply" is actuallyJags likely overpaid Kirk to get him, but WR simply get more than RBs in today's NFL. The drop off from upper tier to replacement level is steeper.
Weasel word nonsense from you. What you mean by "simply" is actually
1) An organized tactic to negotiate in bad faith with runningbacks
2) And use them up while not paying them
3) Because they are not free to let the market set their value
4) Instead they are trapped in a contract that doesn't pay them what they are worth to a franchise
5) And the franchise will use them up by the time they can seek fair payment
If you ignore the reasons for anything you can always claim "drrrr that's just the way it is drrrrr"
Oh no...now you've said too muchNot having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.
It's one of the things that makes football a better sport for fans IMO.Not having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.
Too many injuries for thatNot having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.
If they wanted to, they could do guaranteed contracts and allow for injury to remove money due from the cap total. But that costs a lot of money so they’ll never do it. It would also create a haves vs have nots situation we see in baseball where big market teams can buy their way out of mistakes the front office makes.Too many injuries for that
Teams would create dubious injury concerns for bust players and move them to IR...and we as fans would support our team making such a business decision. It would encourage even bigger risks, which would create even bigger busts.If they wanted to, they could do guaranteed contracts and allow for injury to remove money due from the cap total. But that costs a lot of money so they’ll never do it. It would also create a haves vs have nots situation we see in baseball where big market teams can buy their way out of mistakes the front office makes.