The Big Cat

RB's like Shady are not devalued. Agree to disagree. I don't think it's even remotely fair to say that any combination of RB's on the Bills roster were as effective as Shady was. The Bills ran all over Dallas. This is true. 67 of those yards came from their QB and another 76 came on two plays which leaves 90 yards on 24 carries. Gillislee ripped a 60 yarder against Washington. Okay, sure, he did that in two consecutive games. But in the game in which he had to be the feature back, he averaged less than 2 yards per carry on more than 20 carries. Also, it cannot be refuted, that the Bills' two worst offensive performances--by A MILE--came in the two games Shady missed earlier in the year. They do not have a "replacement" for him in the run game, IMO. I cannot be convinced otherwise, and there are many who feel the same way I do. Yes. This.

It's not about giving him credit. It's about determining his value. Let's rewind to about 14 months ago: if someone were to ask you how you'd feel if Shady were signed to less than 5% of the cap to gain more than a quarter of our yards from scrimmage, would you take that deal? Would you take that deal at 20%? These are a yes or no questions, just like eball's. To answer them is to provide one of two words: yes or no. Would you pay Shady less than 5% of the cap for more than 25% of yards from scrimmage? Would you pay Shady less than 5% of the cap for more than 20% of yards from scrimmage?

I want to revisit the issue of numbers. You sign a guy expecting him to play 16 games. You pay him to play 16 games. You always know there's an opportunity for injury, but these guys are signing 16 game contracts. Agents wouldn't accept negotiations any other way. So, McCoy's value of 4.88% is assuming he plays 16 games. Some funny math here, but stay with me. His yards from scrimmage, extrapolated to 16 games is 1,519.36. We can assume there would have been a bump in the team's total yards. So if we factor in his difference (a feature back @ 94.96 yards from scrimmage/game) in the four games he missed in their entirety, the team's total yards for year would have been 145.84 yards higher or 5920.84 yards. Which means, extrapolated over 16 games, McCoy would have been paid 4.88% to account for 25.6% of the team's total yards from scrimmage. Is THAT worth it? (on what planet is it not?)

Yes, but your premise has been roundly refuted by all available data. Do you care to present something to support your claims? How's this: is 4.88% an appropriate amount for a guy who accounted for 20.5% of the team's yards from scrimmage in 75% of games? And now you're just calling people "vag." Keep up the great work.

It's a guess, every time. Totally agree.

And that does it for this thread.

Okay. What if he turns in 12 games like he did last year? Does that qualify as "injury?"

Yeah, I think it's wildly premature to say--definitively--that this is his last season. But I don't dismiss the possibility. As a percentage of our cap? Strongly disagree.

Um. This is bizarrely inaccurate. He was due a new contract. He had zero guaranteed money and was under contract for like $1 million.

He won't play for the Bills in 2018. There's a chance he won't play in 2017. But I'm certain he's gone before 2018. You mean like when Gillslie was the feature back? Like in week 17? His yards per touch were 1.17. He had no catches in that game. He finished with 24 rushing attempts for 28 yards. Against the same team earlier in the season, on the road McCoy had 112 yards on 19 carries and caught five passes for 47 yards. But let's back up. Do you really mean to suggest that Mike Gillislie is about as good as LeSean McCoy? Is that really your premise here?

No you didn't. Gillsie did not have McCoy's production. In his five games with Buffalo Gillslie had 296 yfs. In 12 games McCoy had 1187. That's 59.2 ypg compared to 98.9. Unless you meant something different by "similar." Second, we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about the team's production. McCoy added a dimension to the offense that neither Karlos nor Gillsile did. This is not debatable.

Peterson is 7.65, According to what metric? All that matters to our team is how much pct of the cap he consumes. And compared to other elite backs, it's on point or affordable. Jonathan Stewart is more than 6. The only costs that matter when looking at player value is opportunity cost. Doesn't matter how much a guy is paid, it matter how much it impacts the team's ability to pay others.

For comparison's sake--and eBall is on point looking at the cap pct and not the real number--Marshawn is 7.44. Now, he's retired. But put it things into perspective. Elite running backs get paid. We have one of them and his pay is commensurate.

The Panthers are paying Jonathan Stewart more. You actually do pay running backs that kind of money. Shady is no ordinary running back. The offense's production with him in and out of games is starkly different.

You asked a yes or no question. The answer is yes. We're not.

Yes, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples

Vikings = Germanic. It's a stretch, but it's a lot closer than "Dolphin, Bengal, Buccaneer, SeaHawk, 49er, etc" to something their people can relate to.

I like that Germans will be rooting for the Vikings. Seems fitting.

He wouldn't have made it past the Jets @ 20

#BuryTheFridge

Ha, yeah. To spin it as a negative is categorically absurd.

Totally agree. The player made the pick, not Rex's Clemson connection. But that connection did contribute to the decision, in a positive, advantageous way. Exactly.

Sure it did. It absolutely did. And that's perfectly fine.

So what if it did?