Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Seem like reasonable averages for stud backs but I would not prefer signing a back for that many years. Interested in seeing how the money is spread.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted

Happy RBs got the money - it is such an injury prone position yet gets paid the least since the opportunity cost of going to a replacement is low.

 

That said, to be competitive - a team cannot really pay a RB 12-15 mill precisely for the opportunity cost reason. See Rams with Gurley and Jets with Bell. Jury still out on whether Elliott is worth the extension. McCaffrey is probably the single exception to the rule (he IS the face of that franchise now).

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Insane to pay a RB. You can find a starter in first three rounds any year you want. 

It’s going to look really stupid when Brees retires, and the team needs to invest in other areas. Kamara is very good, but he’s obviously not going to make up for the loss of Brees. If Brees were younger and he was locked in for years to come, I might be able to tolerate that deal for a RB. A team that won’t have a QB shouldn’t be doing that

 

Dalvin Cook is the Vikings offense in many ways, and Cousins could be there a while. I’m ok with a big contract for Cook, although it still goes against my rule of no big time contracts for backs. The situation in Minnesota seems more favorable to Cook being a necessity. They play good defense, and ball control offense with play action being a big part of their game. The Vikings have an identity that probably won’t change anytime soon. The Saints will need to find an entirely new identity when Brees retires soon. 

Edited by SirAndrew
Posted
14 minutes ago, Big C said:

Seem like reasonable averages for stud backs but I would not prefer signing a back for that many years. Interested in seeing how the money is spread.

That's a good point. It would make sense to sign running backs to shorter deals, but it takes two to tango. Running backs probably prefer the longer term deals because it offers more security. QB's should want short-term deals, especially if they are elite.

Posted (edited)

I'm over the whole "DoNt PaY a RB" argument. Smart teams clearly value stars at that position. 

Kamara has shown he is a 1500+ yard, 10+ TD player. Who cares if he's getting $15M? A WR with those numbers will demand $20M+ 

Someday, the bill will come due for these teams, but they clearly don't give a damn.

image.thumb.png.568f4e3e73bff529fc7110a9324194c6.png

 

 

Edited by TheElectricCompany
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Looks like a good day to be a RB. Also, lol at people that think that “cap trouble” is a thing.

 

 

 


Demarius Bilbo.

 

LOL

  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

To me while the RB position is somewhat devalued in this case, they are just paying the best players on their offense 

 

Kamara is better than Michael Thomas? Not sure how you would even begin to make that case. Thomas might be an all-timer by the end of his career. 

 

Kamara is good but I don't see him on that level.

Edited by matter2003
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I think I’d pay a dual threat back top dollar.. but not simply a north south hammer.. if a guy is getting you 1k rushing and 1k receiving i think you pay those kinda backs.. 75-80 receptions on top of 1k rushing is hard to ignore....

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Virgil said:

Add Kupp to the conversation 

 

 

 

Rams are just determined to be in cap hell with no draft picks for years to come apparently.

Posted
1 minute ago, matter2003 said:

 

Rams are just determined to be in cap hell with no draft picks for years to come apparently.


The way they spend makes zero sense to me.  They sign players like a high schooler playing Madden.  They just see ratings per player, with no regards to a big picture plan 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

Remember when the Chiefs had like $180 in cap space, and THEN signed Mahomes, Chris Jones and Travis Kelce? 

There is an art to manipulating the cap, and many championship contenders are doing it. 

 When we've got to pay our guys, we'll figure it out too. 

Edited by TheElectricCompany
Posted
5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

To me while the RB position is somewhat devalued in this case, they are just paying the best players on their offense 

 

Of course. Something to be said about paying your own - and maybe they can get out of these deals after 3 years easy - but the two teams in the Super Bowl this past year did damage with a revolving cast of backs. The Patriots never gave a huge deal to a back. The championship Eagles didn't. The other consistently good teams over the years (Steelers, Packers, etc) have not done it. It is just not good practice for a winning team. 

 

Not saying you can't win it all paying top dollar for a top back, but you're fighting statistics.

 

CMC might be the one exception to the rule right now but his team is in no position to go on a run.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, TheElectricCompany said:

Remember when the Chiefs had like $180 in cap space, and THEN signed Mahomes, Chris Jones and Travis Kelce? 

There is an art to manipulating the cap, and many championship contenders are doing it. 

 When we've got to pay our guys, we'll figure it out too. 

 

I think the word manipulation is used way too much and it seems to infer some sort of "smoke and mirrors" techniques.

The Chiefs have preferred to sign a handful and a half of high dollar players followed by young players on rookie contracts

and cheaper players.  As of now it is working well but things are going to be tight for them starting next year.

 

As of now they are 14 million in the hole next year with only 34 players signed.  It will very tough to resign Sammy Watkins

and other UFAs.  KC will be one team I want to watch very closely to see how the handle the cap next offseason.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/cap/2021/

Edited by ColoradoBills
Posted
30 minutes ago, TheElectricCompany said:

I'm over the whole "DoNt PaY a RB" argument. Smart teams clearly value stars at that position. 

Kamara has shown he is a 1500+ yard, 10+ TD player. Who cares if he's getting $15M? A WR with those numbers will demand $20M+ 

Someday, the bill will come due for these teams, but they clearly don't give a damn.

image.thumb.png.568f4e3e73bff529fc7110a9324194c6.png

 

 


There is very much the factor that a guy getting 13 per for 6 years is not getting “paid” relative to plenty of other positions. You look at contracts to Wrs and cbs this week and these backs were pretty modest 

2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I think the word manipulation is used way too much and it seems to infer some sort of "smoke and mirrors" techniques.

The Chiefs have preferred to sign a handful and a half of high dollar players followed by young players on rookie contracts

and cheaper players.  As of now it is working well but things are going to be tight for them starting next year.

 

As of now they are 14 million in the hole next year with only 34 players signed.  It will very tough to resign Sammy Watkins

and other UFAs.  KC will be one team I want to watch very closely to see how the handle the cap next offseason.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/cap/2021/


a luxury guy in Sammy Watkins will be replaced by mecole hardman as a high pick with a couple years under his belt. 

×
×
  • Create New...