LeVeon Bell: What better fit for him than Buffalo?

[Dr.Sack]

21 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He held out after refusing a much better deal than that.  

 

You might want to read up on his story this season.  He wants, at least, Todd Gurley's contract.

With Bell it’s all about guaranteed money. Do you want to pay a kings randsom of $70 million guaranteed for a 27 year old RB? I would as it reminds me of 2015 when we got Shady McCoy for Kiko Alonso on a 5 year 40 million contract. If we do the same expect 4 years at $25 million per year $70 million guaranteed. That’s a steep price to pay for a position where they are one horrible lower leg injury away from career ending. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dr.Sack

[DCOrange]

40 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Wow I missed that, thanks for posting.  

 

I will amend my take to this; OBD will not put a fully guaranteed $54mm-60mm 3 year deal on the table for reasons noted previously.

 

Bell was picked 48th in draft (mid 2nd) and David Johnson and Kareem Hunt were taken at pick 86 in the 3rd.  Have to believe a Shady replacement (who will have Shady alongside them in RB room in 2019) can be found in the draft next spring.

 

OL, WR, DL and CB are bigger needs than RB

 

That I do agree with. My guess is that the Jets and Raiders are the teams to watch here but I know other people in the media (and Leveon himself in the case of Indy) have said to watch out for Indy and Green Bay.

 

If I were in Beane's shoes, I'd probably consider signing a guy like Tevin Coleman (probably a pretty large contract in his own right), Alex Collins (hopefully cheap-ish after this season), or Malcolm Brown (cheap flyer on a guy that's been productive behind Gurley), and then go out and draft a RB like Darrell Henderson or Matt Colburn in the 3rd-7th round range (Henderson towards the front of that range or Colburn in the back half). I'd also like to see Buffalo potentially utilize Isaiah McKenzie out of the backfield next season as a Ty Montgomery-type of play.

[QuoteTheRaven83]

RBs are a dime a dozen. Pick one up in the draft and focus on WRs and o-line. McCaffrey, Hunt, Kamara, Ingram, McCoy, Fournette, Barkley, Connor, Bell, Gurley, Elliott, David Johnson, Kerryon Johnson, Chubb, i can go on and on. There's been SO many successful RBs taken in the draft, so why would you overpay for a FA RB? I don't get it. 

[freddyjj]

15 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

 

That I do agree with. My guess is that the Jets and Raiders are the teams to watch here but I know other people in the media (and Leveon himself in the case of Indy) have said to watch out for Indy and Green Bay.

 

If I were in Beane's shoes, I'd probably consider signing a guy like Tevin Coleman (probably a pretty large contract in his own right), Alex Collins (hopefully cheap-ish after this season), or Malcolm Brown (cheap flyer on a guy that's been productive behind Gurley), and then go out and draft a RB like Darrell Henderson or Matt Colburn in the 3rd-7th round range (Henderson towards the front of that range or Colburn in the back half). I'd also like to see Buffalo potentially utilize Isaiah McKenzie out of the backfield next season as a Ty Montgomery-type of play.

Thanks for the Pro personnel and draft prospects heads up.  I don't drill down on that until season ends.

 

McKenzie is too small to play RB as is only 5'7" and weighs 175 lbs soaking wet.  

[DCOrange]

5 minutes ago, freddyjj said:

Thanks for the Pro personnel and draft prospects heads up.  I don't drill down on that until season ends.

 

McKenzie is too small to play RB as is only 5'7" and weighs 175 lbs soaking wet.  

Obviously he wouldn't be a feature back or anything, but they're already giving him handoffs as is. There's no reason they couldn't line him up in the backfield out of the shotgun and do some fun stuff with him. Having a WR with his speed that can motion out of the backfield and potentially be mismatched on LBs would be a nice way to weaponize him IMO. He's the same size as Tavon Austin, who has done the same thing from time to time.

Edited November 27, 2018 by DCOrange

[row_33]

On 11/26/2018 at 2:24 PM, Bangarang said:

I really am sick of this team investing a lot in RBs. 

 

it's the code

[Bing Bong]

Bell is flat out better than Conner, STAHP annointing him as the king runningback of the league. This isn't even a hot take. EVERY sports writer save for some Steelers beat writers are saying the same thing. A 3-4 time All-Pro 27 YO runningback isn't worse than a friggin guy with 8 starts in his career on one of the best offenses with 3 fumbles already. He's not on pace to crack Bell's yards from scrimmage last year. And he ain't even close to crack Bell's YFS when comparing their sophmore years: 

2018 Connor: prorated out for 1279/659/3/1938/16 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs

2017 Bell: 1291/655/2/1946/11 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs

 

so what proof is Conner better than Bell. He's arguably just as good (and a weak argument)

 

Bell's sophomore year (same experience as Connor's right now): 1361/854/0/2215/11 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs. He annaihlated Conner's stats that year with a worse supporting cast than Connor has now. He's better. He's better. He's better. 

 

A better question is, is he close talent-wise? Sure? Likely not.. Could be close. Let's see how the year plays out and how next year breaks out. 8 starts doesn't mean jack, it didn't for Bell when he started, he had to finish out the year (pretty good) and absolutely eclipse that number the next year. And.. WHO CARES. Conner's a Steeler for the near future and Bell is  FA. Conner playing well has NOTHING to do with Bell's ability. Bell crushed it with the Steelers, Conner's exceeding expectations with a promising future.

 

He's simply not better. He's playing pretty well on a stacked offense. Bell had better numbers before the Steelers O Line went from mediocre to elite. And better numbers when comparing similar teams this year to Bell's last year (and the Steelers ARE BETTER now simply with a more experienced JuJu and yet another year of elite O Line chemistry building.

 

And if 27 is the new year of rapid decline for RBs, wow.. well I don't know about that!

 

If we don't want to pay big money to an RB with Shady on the roster and are concerned about Bell's attitude after getting a contract these are fair points. The "BELL SUCKS BECAUSE CONNER IS GOOD" makes noooooooooooo sense though. Bell's great, Connor's had a good 3/4 of a season, maybe we don't want to spend money on him. Personally I would, but I understand the more rational points. Anybody bringing up Conner as "proof" is being ridiculous.

 

Edjerrin James didn't skip a beat on the Colts offense when they shipped off Faulk to Rams. Never was indicative that Edjerrin is better than Faulk. They were both good. AND FAULK WAS BETTER. Turns out the Steelers and the Colts drafted very good running backs to replace their running back superstars. Makes absolutely no difference to the superstars leaving for another team.

 

anybody saying Bell "isn't any good".. I'll just say that's a poor opinion. I could see him landing on the Colts. Fun team to be had there!

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[buffaloboyinATL]

On 11/26/2018 at 8:13 AM, 26CornerBlitz said:

Better fits? The Jets, Colts, and Packers immediately come to mind.

I think Aaron Jones is the real deal. Not on par with Bell, but much cheaper, with a high ceiling.  We are better than Jets IMO and I agree regarding Colts. Luck needs a top RB.

5 hours ago, DCOrange said:

 

That I do agree with. My guess is that the Jets and Raiders are the teams to watch here 

Could he co exist with Chuckie?

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by buffaloboyinATL

[Thurman#1]

18 hours ago, NewDayBills said:

That's how much elite or potentially elite skill players go for. Bell will get less than Sammy even though Bell out produced him in every category. We got 91 million, we have the cap to play around with. LeVeon Bell would instantly upgrade our offense in a big way. Draft OL often and early. Look into WR/RB Tavon Austin and WR John Brown.

 

 

It's not how much elite or potentially elite skill players go for. It's how much elite or potentially elite wide receivers go for. Gurley's contract is the best WR contract ever, certainly as far as average salary and probably in most ways. But he still falls almost $2 mill short of Sammy territory.

 

And while people keep assuming that Sammy is potentially elite, he never manages to produce a season anywhere remotely near elite.

 

So Sammy got an elite contract with production that shows no sign of reaching top 25 levels, much less elite levels. So yeah, Bell would produce more than Sammy but just because Sammy has managed to get overpaid every single step along the way doesn't mean we should do the same for Bell.

 

There is a legit argument that Bell could be worth the best RB contract ever. But our GM and coach come from a salary cap background that was very conservative. They talk conservative and they have acted conservative. I suppose there's a possibility they break all their tendencies, but I'm betting it is a very low possibility.

 

 

21 hours ago, Buffalo30 said:

The age was for McCoy...and 17 million can go a LONG way to filling a lot of holes for this team.  His fit is not right for the team IMO.  Did I say anything about hoarding cap?  He's not the type of team first chemistry player for this team IMO.  Plus, you better be getting 3 offensive lineman or 17 million invested in a running back would be a waste.  

 

 

Our FO does seem to want team-first guys. But the general definition of team-first guys isn't a guy who wants to maximize his contract in the year when he has the most leverage. That's like 1% of the players in the league. They virtually all want to get what they can in their second contract, the exceptions being guys whose families are glued into the community and will thus give a hometown discount. And even those guys are few and far between. Bell has been a team guy. The Steelers have loved him till now, and I bet you would find that OBD'd love to get Bell, but not at that salary. Much the way that Pittsburgh feels, really.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

 

I'm sure they would live a player who brings those kind of stats here, but they also value guys more that are playing cause they love the game and their teammates, not for their bank account. They dont want divas who are playing for themselves and their personal stats. If Bell has another year or 2 of the same stats, is he going to sit out another season because he wants his contract renegotiated?

 

The reality is, this front office and coaching staff want guys who love and are all about the game of football first. Not me first guys looking to cash checks. It might not be what some fans want, bit they arent in charge in the lockerroom or on the field having to coach the team.

 

 

Salary isn't a character issue.

 

Being about football first doesn't mean you have to bend over at contract time to show you're a team guy.

 

Look at what Carolina did with Kuechly. His contract signed before the 2017 season is still the highest ILB contract in football, about 20% higher than the number two guy, Bobby Wagner.

 

Fans tend to get all angry about guys who won't take a discount. Front offices tend not to think of those players as bad guys. They're just guys who price themselves out of what the team will pay.

[BillsMafia13]

15 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Bell is flat out better than Conner, STAHP annointing him as the king runningback of the league. This isn't even a hot take. EVERY sports writer save for some Steelers beat writers are saying the same thing. A 3-4 time All-Pro 27 YO runningback isn't worse than a friggin guy with 8 starts in his career on one of the best offenses with 3 fumbles already. He's not on pace to crack Bell's yards from scrimmage last year. And he ain't even close to crack Bell's YFS when comparing their sophmore years: 

2018 Connor: prorated out for 1279/659/3/1938/16 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs

2017 Bell: 1291/655/2/1946/11 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs

 

so what proof is Conner better than Bell. He's arguably just as good (and a weak argument)

 

Bell's sophomore year (same experience as Connor's right now): 1361/854/0/2215/11 RUSH/REC/FUM/YFS/TDs. He annaihlated Conner's stats that year with a worse supporting cast than Connor has now. He's better. He's better. He's better. 

 

A better question is, is he close talent-wise? Sure? Likely not.. Could be close. Let's see how the year plays out and how next year breaks out. 8 starts doesn't mean jack, it didn't for Bell when he started, he had to finish out the year (pretty good) and absolutely eclipse that number the next year. And.. WHO CARES. Conner's a Steeler for the near future and Bell is  FA. Conner playing well has NOTHING to do with Bell's ability. Bell crushed it with the Steelers, Conner's exceeding expectations with a promising future.

 

He's simply not better. He's playing pretty well on a stacked offense. Bell had better numbers before the Steelers O Line went from mediocre to elite. And better numbers when comparing similar teams this year to Bell's last year (and the Steelers ARE BETTER now simply with a more experienced JuJu and yet another year of elite O Line chemistry building.

 

And if 27 is the new year of rapid decline for RBs, wow.. well I don't know about that!

 

If we don't want to pay big money to an RB with Shady on the roster and are concerned about Bell's attitude after getting a contract these are fair points. The "BELL SUCKS BECAUSE CONNER IS GOOD" makes noooooooooooo sense though. Bell's great, Connor's had a good 3/4 of a season, maybe we don't want to spend money on him. Personally I would, but I understand the more rational points. Anybody bringing up Conner as "proof" is being ridiculous.

 

Edjerrin James didn't skip a beat on the Colts offense when they shipped off Faulk to Rams. Never was indicative that Edjerrin is better than Faulk. They were both good. AND FAULK WAS BETTER. Turns out the Steelers and the Colts drafted very good running backs to replace their running back superstars. Makes absolutely no difference to the superstars leaving for another team.

 

anybody saying Bell "isn't any good".. I'll just say that's a poor opinion. I could see him landing on the Colts. Fun team to be had there!

 

 

Here's some scorchers you're conveniently overlooking.  Conner is playing, Bell isnt.  Steelers  (7-3-1)dont seem to be hurting with Bell in Miami all season. Bell- 16 Mil+/-, Conner 700K. Id make the case Steelers were a better team in 2014 too, with a better oline and you literally posted stats showing Conner>Bell.  I dont think anybody thinks Conner is more talented than Bell, but its clear Bell is replaceable at a fraction of the stress, risk, money. Are you Le'veons agent or something, you're beating this drum real hard?

[row_33]

i'm all in favour of a near-elite RB provided you also give me a near-elite QB and near-elite WR who jell perfectly and get us to 4 Super Bowls

 

 

[apuszczalowski]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Salary isn't a character issue.

 

Being about football first doesn't mean you have to bend over at contract time to show you're a team guy.

 

Look at what Carolina did with Kuechly. His contract signed before the 2017 season is still the highest ILB contract in football, about 20% higher than the number two guy, Bobby Wagner.

 

Fans tend to get all angry about guys who won't take a discount. Front offices tend not to think of those players as bad guys. They're just guys who price themselves out of what the team will pay.

Yeah, team first guys who are in it to play the game sit out an entire season because they are insulted to play for top 5 at their position money. He has cut off ties to almost all of his teammates. Definitely the 'character' kind of player this front office is looking for!

[row_33]

the Steelers haven't been a dumb organization signing wasteful contracts compared to most teams

 

 

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

Yeah, team first guys who are in it to play the game sit out an entire season because they are insulted to play for top 5 at their position money. He has cut off ties to almost all of his teammates. Definitely the 'character' kind of player this front office is looking for!

 

 

To repeat, if you define a "team first" guy as a guy who won't do the best he can to get paid as much as he can in his second contract, then there are probably 40 or 50 in the whole league. In terms of pay, the interests of players and their teams are directly opposed. Teams understand this. They don't like it, but they understand it.

 

Every player is their team's antagonist in player negotiations. That's the way it is.

 

The difference for Bell is that he's got a lot of leverage. I don't like the way he's handled this. He should've come back and gotten the season at the deadline. It was dumb for him, IMHO. But Pittsburgh has placed the franchise tag on him two years in a row, and nobody blamed them for that.
They were trying to screw him, to get him for less than his value. As they should. So he tried to get his value and got angry at Pittsburgh. That's the way these things go.

 

The minute a guy like this is signed to a contract, he's an asset again. He's not anti-team.

 

Character problems are guys who show up late all the time, or don't study the playbook, or try to talk down the coach and the organization in the locker room, or don't give their all in practice or games, or commit crimes outside the facility. Those are character problems.

 

Trying to get all the money you're worth in a legal way isn't a problem. It's what America is built on. Teams don't consider those guys character problems. They do consider them hard to sign, and they do have problems with negotiating with them. But they are teams guys the instant you sign them.

 

So yeah, if the Bills were willing to spend the money to sign him - and I don't think they will or should - then yeah, this would indeed likely be the "character" kind of player this front office is looking for.

[PlayoffsPlease]

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

To repeat, if you define a "team first" guy as a guy who won't do the best he can to get paid as much as he can in his second contract, then there are probably 40 or 50 in the whole league. In terms of pay, the interests of players and their teams are directly opposed. Teams understand this. They don't like it, but they understand it.

 

Every player is their team's antagonist in player negotiations. That's the way it is.

 

The difference for Bell is that he's got a lot of leverage. I don't like the way he's handled this. He should've come back and gotten the season at the deadline. It was dumb for him, IMHO. But Pittsburgh has placed the franchise tag on him two years in a row, and nobody blamed them for that.
They were trying to screw him, to get him for less than his value. As they should. So he tried to get his value and got angry at Pittsburgh. That's the way these things go.

 

The minute a guy like this is signed to a contract, he's an asset again. He's not anti-team.

 

Character problems are guys who show up late all the time, or don't study the playbook, or try to talk down the coach and the organization in the locker room, or don't give their all in practice or games, or commit crimes outside the facility. Those are character problems.

 

Trying to get all the money you're worth in a legal way isn't a problem. It's what America is built on. Teams don't consider those guys character problems. They do consider them hard to sign, and they do have problems with negotiating with them. But they are teams guys the instant you sign them.

 

So yeah, if the Bills were willing to spend the money to sign him - and I don't think they will or should - then yeah, this would indeed likely be the "character" kind of player this front office is looking for.

Don't always agree with you. But everything you posted here is right on the money. 

[kota]

constantly hurt two marijuana suspensions no thanks.  

[ghostwriter]

On 11/27/2018 at 3:31 PM, QuoteTheRaven83 said:

RBs are a dime a dozen. Pick one up in the draft and focus on WRs and o-line. McCaffrey, Hunt, Kamara, Ingram, McCoy, Fournette, Barkley, Connor, Bell, Gurley, Elliott, David Johnson, Kerryon Johnson, Chubb, i can go on and on. There's been SO many successful RBs taken in the draft, so why would you overpay for a FA RB? I don't get it. 

If Rodney Anderson is there in the 4th, why not? Perfect guy to dump a 1yd pass off to for a 1st down. Lot to like about him as a receiver and he's a big dude unlike Bryce Love and some of these other top prospects this year. Rodney Anderson is 6'1 222, can catch a pass out the backfield, can also run between the tackles. RBs these days must also be threats as receivers too. Rodney Anderson is a complete back. May sneak into RD3.

Edited November 29, 2018 by NewDayBills

[apuszczalowski]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

To repeat, if you define a "team first" guy as a guy who won't do the best he can to get paid as much as he can in his second contract, then there are probably 40 or 50 in the whole league. In terms of pay, the interests of players and their teams are directly opposed. Teams understand this. They don't like it, but they understand it.

 

Every player is their team's antagonist in player negotiations. That's the way it is.

 

The difference for Bell is that he's got a lot of leverage. I don't like the way he's handled this. He should've come back and gotten the season at the deadline. It was dumb for him, IMHO. But Pittsburgh has placed the franchise tag on him two years in a row, and nobody blamed them for that.
They were trying to screw him, to get him for less than his value. As they should. So he tried to get his value and got angry at Pittsburgh. That's the way these things go.

 

The minute a guy like this is signed to a contract, he's an asset again. He's not anti-team.

 

Character problems are guys who show up late all the time, or don't study the playbook, or try to talk down the coach and the organization in the locker room, or don't give their all in practice or games, or commit crimes outside the facility. Those are character problems.

 

Trying to get all the money you're worth in a legal way isn't a problem. It's what America is built on. Teams don't consider those guys character problems. They do consider them hard to sign, and they do have problems with negotiating with them. But they are teams guys the instant you sign them.

 

So yeah, if the Bills were willing to spend the money to sign him - and I don't think they will or should - then yeah, this would indeed likely be the "character" kind of player this front office is looking for.

Going by your definition, every player is a team first player. But someone who is willing to hold out because they are insulted they would have to play out a season  being paid as one of the top 5 players at his position, and cuts himself off from contact of his teammates is not a team first kind of player, they are not because they are putting themselves and their bank accounts first, not the team and their teammates. Does he have every right to do what he is doing, yes. Does it mean that he is still a team first guy, not really, if it wasnt for Conner stepping up, he could really be hurting his teammates by not being on the field. Players have tried to talk to him and he doesnt respond. He wants to be paid Big in order to play a game. 

 

It doesnt matter how you want to define it, any way you put it, this front office doesnt want players that would do what he is doing this season. They want players who want to play the game because they love it and not for their bank account/paycheck. It's not hard to understand. They believe that a team full of players who love the game and play for the love of it will be more successful then having guys who may have a bunch of talent, but care more about their next contract. Whether it works or not can be debated, but that's what this front office and management wants in their players.

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

Going by your definition, every player is a team first player. But someone who is willing to hold out because they are insulted they would have to play out a season  being paid as one of the top 5 players at his position, and cuts himself off from contact of his teammates is not a team first kind of player, they are not because they are putting themselves and their bank accounts first, not the team and their teammates. Does he have every right to do what he is doing, yes. Does it mean that he is still a team first guy, not really, if it wasnt for Conner stepping up, he could really be hurting his teammates by not being on the field. Players have tried to talk to him and he doesnt respond. He wants to be paid Big in order to play a game. 

 

It doesnt matter how you want to define it, any way you put it, this front office doesnt want players that would do what he is doing this season. They want players who want to play the game because they love it and not for their bank account/paycheck. It's not hard to understand. They believe that a team full of players who love the game and play for the love of it will be more successful then having guys who may have a bunch of talent, but care more about their next contract. Whether it works or not can be debated, but that's what this front office and management wants in their players.

 

 

No, going by my definition, every player is a player-first player on this issue, an issue that teams are well aware has nothing to do with character. Virtually every single guy in the league, the few exceptions being guys looking at third and fourth contracts who've already made huge money, like Brady, or guys who will give a small hometown discount because their family loves the community and doesn't want to move. That's pretty much the only players who won't do everything they can to maximize their contracts.

 

The guys that McDermott and Co. don't want because of character are guys who can't show up on time, locker room lawyers, guys who piss and moan all the time, guys who don't practice hard, guys who set up cliques in the locker room tearing the team apart, guys who commit domestic violence or drunk driving, guys who don't study the playbook or have serious alcohol or drug issues ... That's what people mean when they say "character issues." 

 

Do you go to your employers each year and say, "Hey, I know I'm doing a great job for you guys, but don't pay me as much as I'm worth, OK? I just want to support the company"? Do you do that? Of course not. And that's essentially what you're expecting these guys to do.

 

This simply isn't a character issue. Kid yourself if you must, but that's the way it is ... they're all looking to get as much money out of their very short careers as possible ... and for good reason. 

 

 

6 hours ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Don't always agree with you. But everything you posted here is right on the money. 

 

 

Thanks. And fair enough that you don't always agree with me. 

 

I work hard to align myself with football wisdom and to look at things coolly and dispassionately rather than in a knee-jerk fashion. But particularly when making predictions, we're all wrong plenty of the time, and certainly that includes me many times.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Thurman#1