I don’t think rb1 next year is on our roster.

I'm curious about your thinking behind this comment - since, as Sherck pointed out, there don't seem to be a lot of free agent RB1 candidates, do you think Ballard will go the Bell route? Or use a high draft pick on a RB?

I dont think he uses a high draft pick. I also dont believe you have to have a Bell either. I think adding some more receiving threats open run game up a lot. We just need another Gore type that can get those tough yards and move the chains. Hines and Mack at times can pick up big chunks but when you absolutely just need to pick up the first down on short yardage or punch it in from the goal line there isn't much confidence in what we have. Hopefully Ballard finds that guy.

I've come to believe Kelly is the most important piece. The line has missed him a ton! IMO

I could be way wrong on this.

You are likely correct.

Kareem Hunt

Yup, I think Hunt is the likely choice, followed by Bell.
Hunt is younger, will want to rehabilitate his image, and can be had for a much lower price tag, and *might* be a better scheme fit.

And assuming his options are basically a 1 year deal around league minimum, the Colts are an appealing choice with Luck and this OL.

That is pretty tame compared to the statements some of his teammates made.

I doubt they go the Bell route. I don’t know who it will be. Whether it be a free agent or a rookie. I just don’t think Ballard is going to look at this group and be happy with one of them as a rb1.

They all should have a role but I think we have 3 situational guys at rb. I imagine we use a committee approach next year so it probably won’t be a big name.

Yeah, I wouldn't read too much into that either. Backbiting and finger-pointing after a few losses is just the Steelers way.

I am looking at it like an NFL FA situation. They created the tag so a team isn't screwed when losing its best player, but teams do not lose their best players as much anymore. With an ever-increasing cap and better cap management than two decades ago, this is not as common an occurrence anymore. The Colts are 70 million under the cap and could be a playoff team. The cap has outdistanced the salaries now. The player's union miscalculated because they did not anticipate the cap skyrocketing like it did. It is a system created over 20 years ago that needs to be updated.

Again you are using a QB money in a RB contract situation. QB's are not the model for this comparison because QB's have, by far, the most exorbitant contracts in the league. QB's can force the hand of the team because the averages the tag uses to base the one year salary off of are so big they can actually be a detrimental influence on the team's cap. RB's are paid much less money as an average, they are on par with say safties. I reject your comparison because it is not a good analogy and the situation is not the same for every position. Some positions are valued more and are paid more. Also, QB's have a longer average career in the league. A QB can play well into his 30's, they can wait 2-3 years for that escalating tag to add up. That is a lifetime in a RB's career and will directly affect his next contract negotiation. The Steelers are obviously using the tag to get enough years of Bell's prime, then they will cut bait once that is done, or they have found a replacement for him. That is not what the tag was intended for and it screws some players and positions more than others. The tag wasn't meant just to be used for QB's.

Bell has a legitimate argument that he is more valuable than the average RB on the Steelers and should be paid accordingly. That is backed up by unprecedented production from his position. The tag, even after a second year, does not even match what he was asking for yearly. So they actually saved money by using the tag twice to secure their best offensive player. Not to mention saving bonus money that they would have to pay right away. If they did it a third year, he would hit an estimated 25 million which is QB money. Only then would it really affect them. However, if they did the proper cap predicting, and the savings they had from the previous two tag years, they could make a judgment call whether to do it or not for one more year. Whether they were still in the SB window or not. But this outcome still costs Bell millions that he would find in FA. There are definitely two types of RB's in the league, the upper echelon that account for a large amount of the team's offense, and the committee systems that may approach the same as the stars. The tag is weighted down by the lower paid backs and it is not a fair system.

In my opinion, everybody loses here, and that is why they should address the tag. The Steelers window is closing and James Connor, while good, is not Bell. Bell loses an entire year's salary. But even more important, he loses another year in RB halflife and is forced to sit out because getting a second lucrative contract is in serious danger now. The Steelers are obviously not going to cut him loose and to me that is just sour apples and is fucking a guy that has been a good player for them.

We don't need an elite RB to win a SB.

The Eagles did not have an elite RB last season and the Patriots have never had one.

Actually go back and look at the past 20 SB winners, and the only elite RB'S were Terrel Davis, Faulk and possibly Lynch.

In today NFL an elite RB is not the road to success. It's about building your OL and DL, having a QB and some guys that can cover and catch.

Let's go get those guys.

There are some decent RBs in this upcoming draft that should be available around the 30-90 range picks. I think that will be the back up if FA doesn't work out.

I agree you are right that it doesn't have to be a RB. I think fans chase the past a little and want that Faulk/Edge to compliment Luck and Hilton. But I would argue you need playmakers or matchup problems for opposing defenses. That could come from the RB position or TE/WR. That is what we need more of in my estimate. Having a good RB that can also block back there would not be the worst thing in the world.

To begin with, I want you to understand that I’m not trying to be combative on this issue, and no disrespect is intended in my posts. Tone is a hard thing to capture in a cold internet post, so I feel I should say that up front. Second, I will not go too far into detail in responding to your post, since I don’t want the posting to get out of hand and irritate everyone with another long post. With these things out of the way, I’ll respond as follows:

The collective bargaining agreement is not outdated nor is it 20+ years old. It is renegotiated periodically as it expires. The last renegotiation occurred in 2011, and it is due to expire in 2020. Both sides are well represented in the negotiations, and the resulting agreement is presumed to be a fair balance between both sides’ interests. For the teams to receive the benefit of things such as a salary cap and franchise tag options, they must concede to the players on other points such as increased pension benefits and minimum spending floors.

In the above context, Bell’s “value” in an unrestricted free agent market is irrelevant – he's negotiated away the right to be an unrestricted free agency if he’s franchise tagged. And of course the Steelers will use the tag as often as they can if it’s a good deal for them. They are simply taking advantage of the rights they negotiated into the agreement. It provides the teams with a way to keep their best players if they choose to do so, and in theory it also provides the teams with a way to limit overall salary growth since the best players rarely reach unrestricted free agency. In return, the teams have conceded other things, and the players have installed protections for Bell by ensuring that the tag price is a reasonable approximation of a top salary at his position (but he won’t be setting any record salaries unless he maneuvers himself into a Kirk Cousins-type situation).

I don’t really get your complaints regarding my use of the QB position as an illustration of my points. Kirk Cousins comes to mind because it just happened this last offseason. But you could use any position – as I mentioned, Bell could have set himself up for a tag price of $21 million, which is just as crazy for a RB like Bell as $34 million would have been for a QB of Cousins' caliber. The same rationale applies regardless of position/tag price.

About the only thing I agreed with is that the current system is not as beneficial for positions with shorter lifespans such as RB. That’s true, but in my mind that’s up to the players union to address in their negotiations. You can’t blame the teams for taking advantage of the terms they’ve negotiated - in fact its unfair for you to suggest that they should.

Lastly, please explain why Bell is in a different class than Conner? I’ll admit that I know very little about their respective running styles or skills, but what I do know is that Conner has outpaced Bell’s most recent production in almost every respect – which gives rise to the question of whether this is because the Steelers’ system is RB friendly, in which case signing Bell could be a huge mistake.

Well, I need to apologize now because my post ended up long again. But I'm trying!

You don't need to apologize for the tone of your post. You aren't going to offend me and I don't think you are angry, I'm not. Message boards are for things like this, no one is forced to read it. They can easily scroll past it.

I did not say the collective bargaining agreement, I said the franchise tag. The concept of the tag is over 20 years old, it was created around '93 for a situation that has largely changed due to the rookie draft scale and positions settling under certain values. The strictures it uses are dated because the cap has outpaced them. No negotiation is fair and balanced, some sides have more leverage than others. That is life, and if you don't agree with that I don't know what to tell you.

The RB position was devalued for around a decade, it has evolved somewhat since then and hence become more valuable. You can see that reflected in the draft. But not all RB's are the same, the position name covers a wide range of players and their level of contribution and the scheme that uses them. QB's are largely the same, WO's are largely the same, Oline is largely the same, TE's and RB's are all over the place in terms of use and contribution. Some are much more valuable than others and I do not believe that is reflected in the franchise tag salary estimates.

You keep explaining how the system works as if by explaining it in further detail it will suddenly change my opinion. I understand how the franchise system works and whence it came. How it was negotiated. I understand the Steelers are going by the rules negotiated, I understand Bell is asserting the only leverage he has. I find it unfair and ineffective in this instance, regardless whether the player's union agreed to it in negotiations or not. They did not anticipate a situation like this, and I am sure they will look at it when they go back to the table in 2020. As I said, I think the Steelers are violating the spirit of what the tag was created for. The tag is designed to force both parties to the negotiating table and come to a conclusion. It is not working in this case. However, instead of both sides moving on, the Steelers would rather force Bell into playing for them or not playing at all. That hurts both sides but really hurts the individual player more. It is utterly relevant because that is the very heart of the matter and what is motivating his holdout. Bell has a perceived value of his contribution, the Steelers do not agree or are simply not willing to meet it. Things have ground to a halt. If Bell did not have a value attached to his services, we would not be having this conversation.

I just explained, in length, why your Cousins analogy does not work. Just because two players are tagged doesn't make their situation the same. I will ask a simple question "Are QB's and RB's paid the same amount of money and does that money impact the cap in the same way?" If they do in your mind then it is a valid comparison. I do not think it is and explained why. Yet they are held to the same strictures.

Connor has been hot and cold this year, that's it. He did little to nothing last year. Bell has done more for much longer. If Connor does the same then you can put him in that category. Skill and style wise... He is a bigger back and runs a little high. That type of running style takes a lot of hits IMO. Lot of hits doesn't usually equate to a long career.

Colts won the Super Bowl with Addai

My point exactly. We had a good O-Line, and decided we could run the ball when ever we wanted to.

We also can't omit Dom Rhodes impact in the playoffs. It was a total team effort and a great coaching effort...as well as discipline by PM to commit to the running game that produced that SB.

But it never required an elite RB to do so.

Well, I wasn’t really apologizing for the tone of my post – more like trying set the tone of the post at the outset because I was going to disagree with most of what you said. People with thin skin can get irritated with that, and it ends up getting in the way of a meaningful discussion because they assume that I’m trying to insult them. To your credit, you don’t seem to be that way.

As to the substance of your response, I disagree. I am resisting the urge to put together a really long – and perhaps boring – post (but it’s far too late, I sense many of you thinking), so I’ll just set out the points of my disagreement for simplicity’s sake:

1. The franchise tag is part of the collective bargaining agreement, so it has been revisited, tweaked and renegotiated as well. It is current just like the collective bargaining agreement.

2. The RB position is subject to the same market forces as the QB position, and the market currently values RB much less than QB. By the way it’s calculated, the franchise tag will naturally adjust whatever the market value of a particular position is, so it doesn’t make sense to saying that it’s been outpaced by the cap. According to this NFL.com article, the highest paid RB in 2018 is Todd Gurley at $15 million. Second highest is Davonta Freeman at just over $8 million.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap30...-running-backs

3. Yes, I suppose Bell is free to take his ball and go home, but I think it’s really unwise for several reasons:
a. He’s giving up a year’s salary in his prime. And that salary would be the second highest RB salary in football.
b. By staying he would have forced himself into free agency like Cousins did.
c. He alienates his former teammates, most of whom work just as hard as he does but aren’t lucky enough to earn a cap designation, so his actions will look selfish.
d. He’s basically giving the NFLPA and their negotiators the finger
e. It won’t improve his market value to other teams if he’s viewed as a malcontent.
f. I really don’t think he’ll get a better contract through free agency, but I guess we’ll see.

4. Sorry, I just don’t understand the point you are trying to make regarding the differences between the salaries paid to QBs and RBs. They are both subject to the same market forces, and the tag works the same as to both of them. If you think RBs should be paid more, the market disagrees with you.

...but an elite RB would still be nice to have.

So would 30 seconds with Jennifer Aniston :eek:

[QUO2011 is not current, it will be 2019 in a few days.

The tag was created so teams could keep their best players. It was designed so that it puts pressure on the team to sign the player to a long term contract or let them go. But it is doing neither in Bell's case.

The cap is growing faster than contracts can keep up. That makes the tag numbers unreliable because they are not reflecting the current value, just the past value of contracts made under a smaller cap. The market is behind, but it is starting to catch up. A host of young backs will start to get paid soon. Gurley is an example of the new franchise RB that will get bigger contracts. Bell and Elliot will be next, then Kamara, maybe Hunt, then Barkley. But the current window penalizes Bell because the contract number the tag draws its own estimate from does not reflect the emerging importance of do-it-all backs today. If Gurley didn't sign that contract Bell's number would be even lower. The ever-increasing cap benefits the teams and gives them an unfair advantage by allowing them franchise tag numbers they can afford unless you are a QB or pass rusher. To me that is bad design.

Ehh this seems like speculation. Age will be the biggest determining factor in Bell's next contract.

Correct, they are both subject to the same market forces, but the results are not the same. That is why it is a bad analogy, the outcomes differ. Why should one position be able to hit FA faster when if anyone needs to, it is RB's due to the shorter halflife. That is an inequality, and that undermines the spirit and design of the tag. It isn't the market that disagrees with me, it is the franchise tag. The market will adjust soon and agree with me. Gurley's contract shows that.

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man. It's as current as it can be, not an artifact of an earlier agreement as you had suggested.

I kinda agree with you as to the purpose of the tag, but I think you're interpreting it incorrectly. While I'm not sure I agree with you that the tag was originally designed to put pressure on the team to sign their franchise player to a long term contract or to let them go, it has definitely moved in this direction in later versions of the CBA.

More importantly, under the current rules, the pressure you're referring to is not from the initial tag itself, but rather from the escalator clauses that kick in if the team insists on re-tagging a player for multiple years. This is what Cousins took advantage of, but what Bell balked at for some reason. I can virtually guarantee to you that no non-QB will ever be tagged for more than two years under the current system.

I think it was working as intended for Bell, and was keeping up with the "emerging importance" of the RBs you referred to (incidentally, not sure I agree that there's a new trend with RBs, but we'll see). Remember, under the escalator clause he was going to receive $14.5 million for 2018 - that's right behind the highest paid RB in the league. The salary is also fully guaranteed - not sure if Gurley's salary is. Also, the $14.5 million is not based on Gurley's salary as you suggested, but rather is solely based upon 120% of Bell's salary from the prior year (around $12 million).

Lastly, you're explanation of the franchise tag adjustments is slightly off. The franchise tag amounts are not calculated based directly on old, outdated contracts as you suggest. Rather, the tag amount for each position is based upon the prior years' tag amounts for that position, relative to the overall cap amount for those years. It's a percentage that is then applied to the current cap - in other words, it adjusts the moment the current cap is increased so by design it will always keep pace. Simply put, if the franchise tag for RBs was previously $10M under a $100M cap, it will automatically become $20M under a $200M cap - it doesn't matter what older RBs contracts say. If you are right that we are in the middle of a some sort of RB revolution where they are becoming much more important and valuable than before, the nice thing is that the system will adjust on its own to capture this after a year or two.

No question it's 100% my take on the situation

Actually, it's the QBs who are the most restricted under the tag. This is because the escalator clauses for the third tagged year are brutal - for a QB, its a 44% increase over their prior year's salary (which itself has been jacked up by the prior tag amounts and escalator clauses). Hence, you get a $34 million tag for Cousins as I mentioned.

For teams considering a third tag on a non-QB, however, the tag price will in all likelihood be based upon the top QB salaries (NOT the salaries of the position involved). I won't go into the painful details, but to take an extreme example, a punter tagged for three straight years would be paid like a top-five QB. So that will never happen and, as a practical matter, a non-QB will never be tagged for more than two years under the current system.

yeah but what would you do with the other 28.5 seconds?

Wipe the biggest grin off my face

My free agency shopping list for a veteran RB would be, in order:

1. T.J. Yeldon, 25 years old, JAX.

Coming off his rookie contract, he can get tough yards on the ground but is also a threat out of the backfield and is a solid pass blocker. He does not change the needle much for the RB room as a whole (he is more of the same as we have now) but I would be interested to see what he could do with a real QB and O-Line to play behind; he has had neither at JAX over his career. He would not cost much for a 3-year contract.

2. Kareem Hunt, 23 years old, formerly KC.

Potential PR nightmare and possible suspension target but talented. Would be a clear cut RB1 in our system and would elevate the entire room. Would probably play for a 1 year low contract to rehibilitate his image and then we would get first shot at signing him to a longer contract assuming he fit the team. Obviously, this is all dependend on if he is not charged with criminal charges and faces jail time.

3. Le'veon Bell, 27 years old, formerly PIT.

Talent on the field. Huge price tag attached. I have little to no worries about his attitude; he was a team player before being tagged a second time and would not be the focus in Indy (that would be Capt Luck). I would only lament the lost opportunity cost of those dollars not being spent on a veteran stud WR or defensive player.

4. Tevin Coleman, 26 years old, ATL.

Much like Yeldon, Coleman would not move the needle in our RB room but would be more of the same.


That's it from my perspective. Yeldon is my top choice because of cost and the potential he has shown when paired with a real QB and O-line. Hunt and Bell would transform the room but at cost (in PR or cap space) and Coleman basically a safe fallback position to add NFL talent to the roster but he would be more of the same.

Otherwise, lets use either our lower 2nd round choice or 3rd round choice on a rookie who might be able to grab the RB1 spot from Mack and Hines.

Walk Worthy,

I think they call that foreplay and a cigar? :cool:

You guys do realize the Colts could give $30M upfront guaranteed to Bell and still have, like, $100M left to spend, right?

Money ain't an issue. At all. Short or long term. They could structure that deal in a million ways.

The issue is simply culture fit and positional emphasis. Nothing about Ballard suggests the Colts would invest in Bell from those aspects. BUT Ballard has also shown that he'll take a winning player against the risk factor, so we really don't know.

Personally, if I'm going to take a $30M cap hit for 2-3 OK players or 1 playmaker, I'll take the playmaker. Especially at this point in Colts' evolution where they don't need as many bodies as years past.

I think Shrek needs to join the discussion to show how many players we have who need re-signed/replaced that are not on contract before we throw out the $130M number.

There is no way I would take Hunt over Bell. Bell is a man that wants money. Hunt is a punk that beats up women. Having said that Ballard has a track record of giving guys second chances if he thinks they have turned a corner. I may end up having to root for the punk.

I'd need more than 30 seconds

Not because I'm so great

It would just take longer than that for me to prepare her for the disappointment

Current as it can be is not the same as current, pretty cut and dry. If it was five years ago I might say fairly current, but the last CBA is approaching ten years ago. I said the franchise tag was created over 20 years ago, which is true.

Why else would they have the tags escalate unless it was meant to resolve the situation? If they wanted the player tied up in perpetuity they would not put it in there. It is there to discourage teams from using it over and over again to tie up a player and to force a conclusion to the process. I believe the players union added that if memory serves.

Technically, it is a tender, not a tag. Each tender is its own entity, and the tenders escalate if used in conjunction.

How do you know Bell balked at this? Maybe it was the intended heavy usage the Steelers had planned and he thought it would hurt his negotiations for a long-term contract the following season. At least that is what most media reported. Again, Cousins' situation is not the same as Bell's because Cousins took more money from the cap and has a potentially longer career. The factors for making a decision by each player are not the same.

You can't guarantee that. I guarantee Bell would have been tagged a third year if his production was consistent and their Superbowl window remained open. My statement has just as much relevancy and maybe more since mine has a pattern of behavior to back it up.

Two years is a long time for a player that is not a QB. QB's can wait for that escalation to force a front office's hand. A non-QB player may have missed his second contract window, or have the time shorten his next contract.

It is working as it is currently designed, I never disputed that. It is not working as intended in this case.

I don't think it is a new trend to have a dual-threat RB. Dual-threat RB's have been around awhile, just lately more have come out of the draft. There has been a lack of talent at the position and the position was devalued in recent years by the committee approach. That led to lower contracts, money allocated to multiple RB's instead of one elite back. There has been a reemergence of good dual-threat RB's in recent years. They have also achieved more relevance in schemes. This has been reflected in the stats of these players and RB's being picked high in the draft again. Hence the market will adjust and pay these backs more money. Gurley's contract is the start of that and the difference between his contract and Freeman's illustrates the value placed on elite backs. Elliot will be next and he will start at 15 million using Gurley's contract as a base. However, the league is not filled with them, just like elite QB's, there are the elite backs and the average backs.

Ok, your comprehending of what I was saying is off. Bell was tagged with the exclusive rights tag for a second time. They are using the 120% of the prior year's salary instead of the average because the 120% is greater. However, neither approaches what he is arguing is his market value. With Gurley signing at 15 million a year, Bell will argue he should have more based on his production. The tag does not fairly compensate for what his new contract would be, it will when the average grows, but it does not today. That is not usually the case with other positions. It is weighted down by lower-paid running backs. An adjustment in a year or two, unfortunately, will not do help Bell's negotiation today. So, therefore, the franchise tender is not working as intended in this case.

That's fine, I think it irrelevant to the discussion.

Don't you mean the tag is more restrictive for teams trying to keep a QB? Seems this would be beneficial to the QB, allowing him to become a FA sooner, not restrict his movement. The higher salaries of QB's allowed Cousins to become a FA sooner than a non-QB under the same system.

Yes, the next escalation will be expensive. Bell could make 25 million with another one year tender. The team will have to decide if it is worth it to them. If you thought you could win another Superbowl would you pay that 25 million? It is difficult to measure how much a Superbowl win gains a franchise, but I would think it is more than 25 million. I think you would make that back if you won. It also depends on if the team can afford it, the Colts could as they are currently constructed. So no, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility if the money and opportunity is there.

All well and good. I don't care if it's 30 million or 100 million to retain Bell's services. He is not going to improve this team enough to contend for a SB.

Looks like Kelly will play but T.Y.'s status will be decided tomorrow. Hopefully he can go, we need him.

Wow, these posts are getting long. I'll limit my response to those points that are more substantial, rather than disputes over wording or the content of prior posts:

How do I know that Le'Veon Bell balked at the second tag? Because he didn't sign it.

As far as guarantees are concerned, I was trying to state a practical reality. Yes, of course it's technically possible that some rogue team could tag a non-QB like Bell for three years in a row, but I think it's pretty far-fetched. And I think that player would be delighted, given that they'd now be paid on par with the top five QBs in the game. Here's a list of the top cap hits in 2018 per Spotrac:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/

Notice anything about the top of that list? It's all QBs. The top 14 are all QBs. And consider that several other top QBs can't even be on this list because they're still on their rookie contacts. Incidentally, the top RB in this chart (which includes Gurley, by the way) is LeSean McCoy at just under $9 million - and isn't he one of those all-purpose backs that was doing the kind of things Bell does long before Bell came in the league?

The bottom line is that I simply don't think it's reasonable to think that anybody is going to pay top-five QB money to a RB or any other non-QB - particularly on a one-year fully guaranteed contract - and that's exactly what they'd have to do under the CBA if they tagged a non-QB for a third year. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it ever will.

And before you complain that I used a "cap hit" chart instead of a "salary" chart, the truth is that I couldn't find a dependable salary chart since salaries are so fluid in the NFL - influenced by signing bonuses, non-guaranteed amounts, playing incentives, etc. - so this was the best I can find on short notice.

I'll believe it when I see it. YDFL Commish made the point earlier in this thread that there's no convincing historical support for the idea that an elite RB is a necessary ingredient for a Super Bowl team. I agree with this idea, so I don't think these players will start being paid on par with the upper echelon of QBs

I was responding to the statement you made in post #63 that the tag amounts were "unreliable because they are not reflecting the current value, just the past value of contracts made under a smaller cap". I simply pointed out that this was incorrect. The salary paid to a current RB who is tagged is in no way affected by the fact that RBs in prior years received lower salaries because of a lower salary cap. What is important is the proportionate relationship between those earlier RB salaries and the overall cap amount in place at the time. Man, this must sound boring to anyone reading this...

As far as your current post, your making a lot of assumptions and are getting fairly deep into a scenario that I'm not sure is true. Because Bell thinks he's entitled to more than Gurley means that a $14.5 million tag is unfair? Setting this aside, and at this risk of going even deeper, I'll just say this: it's a zero sum game. If you're now going to say that the cap figures for RBs are too low because they don't account for a gathering RB storm on the horizon, then the counterweight to that position is that another position is overpaid and the cap figure for that position is too high. What position is this? You're going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

In any event, as I said, the system certainly allows for some temporary (1-2 year) inefficiencies, but even during those periods the tagged player is going to be paid under a fully guaranteed contract at a level near the top of his position. And, again, this is what Bell agreed to under the collective bargaining agreement.

Nope, it is more restrictive on QBs, since nobody other than a QB is realistically in danger of being tagged for more than two years for the reasons set forth above. While it's true the Redskins declined to do so for Cousins, I really doubt they would have let a Luck or Rodgers get away in the same situation. Though QBs already dominate the top of the salary chart, the truly good ones are underpaid given the enormous influence they have on the outcome of a game. In fact, I recall during one offseason Polian or Irsay saying something to the effect that the Colts were prepared to pay any tag price to keep Manning, even if they had to cut other critical players to do so.

What? No, that was not the question. The question was: "How do you know Bell balked at signing the second tender for the reason you stated?"

You know the reason Bell did not sign the tender for the reason you stated is because he didn't sign the tender? huh

That is like me seeing someone get on the freeway and I say:

"Oh that guy must be going to see the doctor."

My wife asks, "How do you know he is going to see the doctor, all he did was get on the freeway?"

I reply, "Because he got on the freeway!"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A practical reality... so is that a guarantee or sort of like a guarantee but with a caveat for when you are wrong? You overcomplicate a simple thing. When will a team use the franchise tag a third consecutive year? When the need fits the demand. That's it, very simple. Is it common? No. Will it happen, eventually. Especially when a team can fit it under the cap and I bet it will be a non-QB position. There is no "rogue" teams or other nonsense. Just if the team needs the player's services and they can afford it. Most likely motivation in that scenario; going for a Superbowl.

Cool link! So QB's are the highest paid players in the NFL. Wait, what does that have to do with anything? Everyone knows QB's are the highest paid players.

This is a cap hit chart, it doesn't prove your point. Team's spread contracts around so they can pay more money some years and less money other years. I know you know this. That is why Gurley is below McCoy there. A better way to look at is just to take the amount of their contract and divide it by the number of years. It doesn't need every penny laid out. I believe LeSean McCoy makes around 8 million a year, that is a very reasonable number for his services, but of course, he is older, this was made in 2015, and he has a ton of wear and tear. Now the question is he better than say Gurley and Bell? I will say no. The question for you is will Bell and Elliot sign contracts that pay them more in line with McCoy's salary or Gurley's salary?

One other thing to point out
the top 7 RB's of 2015 according to SI:

Marshawn Lynch
Bell
Demarco Murray
Eddie Lacy
Jeremy Hill
Jamaal Charles
Arian Foster

Only one dual threat on that list, and only one that is still relevant today. McCoy isn't even in the top ten on that list.

Top 7 RB's today (subjective, but I think it is fair):

Todd Gurley
Le'Veon Bell
Ezekiel Elliott
Saquon Barkley
Alvin Kamara
David Johnson
Kareem Hunt

Very different style of runners in the second list. To date, running backs are on a pace to shatter the league records in a season for both receptions and touchdown catches. They have caught 77.5 percent of their targeted passes, a rate 12 percentage points higher than receivers and tight ends, and higher than in any full season since at least 2001. -http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25459151/nfl-2018-offensive-scoring-explosion-numbers

See if I was a douche canoe, I would just up that link of yours two years to the 2020 season where David Johnson is making 14.2 million and Gurley is making 17.2 to illustrate a point. But I'm not a douche canoe. Just a prick. Use the average.

[QUOTE=Chaka;98038]The bottom line is that I simply don't think it's reasonable to think that anybody is going to pay top-five QB money to a RB or any other non-QB - particularly on a one-year fully guaranteed contract - and that's exactly what they'd have to do under the CBA if they tagged a non-QB for a third year. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it ever will.

This is the problem, it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is reasonable or not. It only matters what will happen. As I stated above, if the need is great enough, someone will.

Then you shouldn't have used the cap hit chart to try and prove your point.

What is with you and the strawman arguments? Just stick to what I say please. I never said elite running backs were going to be paid the same as QB's. No where did I say this. QB's will always be the highest paid people as long as offenses run through them.

As for elite dual-threat RB's not getting paid. Whelp, Gurley just signed a 4 year 57 million deal, with 45 guaranteed and averaged over 14 a year. I wonder what Ezikiel Elliot and Bell will get paid? Kamara? Hunt? McCaffrey? I think it is already being proven. And since you have pretty much no evidence to prove otherwise besides your opinion. I would say this point is closed.

YDFL Commish is right, this idea has been around for quite a while. You do not need an elite RB to win a Superbowl. Guess what you also don't need; an elite QB, an elite WR, an elite TE, an elite defense to win a Superbowl. But you do need some form of them combined to win. Do you think the Rams needed Faulk, or the Cowboys needed Smith? This is what you need, a defense that is above average at least. You need offensive weapons that can create mismatches. That can be WR's, TE's, or even running backs. And it really helps if you have a franchise QB. If you don't have a franchise QB your other areas need to be near perfect. But YDFL's statement really has little to do with this argument.

The tag does 120% or top five at his position yada yada. Elite dual-threat running backs are going to receive higher contracts. But Bell is unlucky enough to be at the front of that line, not the back. So the average of the top five, nor the 120%, doesn't come close to what his perceived market value is. So he is getting hosed by the tag. This benefits the Steelers more than Bell, makes Bell more affordable for the Steelers to tag him consecutive years. Upteenth time I've said it.

I don't know if Bell thinks he's entitled more than Gurley, it really has little to do with what Bell thinks he is entitled to or not. This is how agents start their negotiation. They look at the last contract that was signed by a player at or below the same talent level and try to get more money. Demarcus Lawrence will try to make more money than Khalill Mack. It isn't like Marlon Mack is trying to make more money than Gurley, Bell has a legitimate argument.

Why are you introducing yet another strawman argument into this? I never said another position is getting overpaid and never made a leap of logic that ridiculous. The cap is not an either/or situation. First of all, for this to even be an issue, each team would have to be spending the max at the cap. That would mean everyone is getting money from the exact same amount. Then, there would have to be a position group that was underperforming as a whole but getting overpaid as a whole. This isn't the case. If elite dual-threat RB's are taking money from somewhere, maybe a team feels it doesn't need a great 2nd receiver or great TE. There is only one football to go around. But for what you suggested, no.

However, there will occasionally be players that supersede the play of their position group. It's these guys that will be hurt by the averages at their position, coincidentally, they are also the likely players to attract the franchise tender.

And technically I didn't say RB's are underpaid, just that Bell's tender is substantially under what he is asking for. That should not be the case. NFL average and above average running backs are getting about what they deserve. But young dual-threat running backs are coming off their rookie contracts and are going to make more money because they are more important to their offense.

A concession!!! Very big of you. Unfortunately, I think that 1-2 year inefficiency is costing Bell several million. If he was tagged a third year I think it would even out.

See, I disagree with this. Not with QB's eventually getting paid and teams will do anything to keep them. This is true. It's that the franchise tag will only be used on a QB more than two years. Especially when they just tried to use it a second time on a RB.

The tag may be used on QB's but it rarely is. It's all the other players that have to deal with it the majority of the time. The odds are that it will be some lower paid position because that is like 95% of the guys it is used on. And since it is a lower cap hit, it will be an easier pill for that team to swallow. It will likely be an extraordinary player that supersedes his position group. That is why I think it needs some fine-tuning. To illustrate this, below is the list of guys tagged the last five years. I think I counted 6 QB's total the last 11 years.

2018
Franchise-tagged players[15]
Chicago Bears – Kyle Fuller, CB (Transition): Signed 4-year contract for $56 million
Dallas Cowboys – DeMarcus Lawrence, DE (Non-Exclusive)
Detroit Lions – Ezekiel Ansah, DE (Non-Exclusive)
Los Angeles Rams – Lamarcus Joyner, CB (Non-Exclusive)
Miami Dolphins – Jarvis Landry, WR (Non-Exclusive): Signed 5-year contract for $75.5 million

2017
Franchise-tagged players[16]
Arizona Cardinals – Chandler Jones, LB (Non-Exclusive)
Carolina Panthers – Kawann Short, DT (Non-Exclusive): Signed 5-year contract for $80.5 million
Los Angeles Rams – Trumaine Johnson, CB (Non-Exclusive)
Pittsburgh Steelers – Le'Veon Bell, RB (Exclusive)
Washington Redskins – Kirk Cousins, QB (Exclusive)

2016
Franchise-tagged players [17]
Baltimore Ravens – Justin Tucker, K (Non-Exclusive): signed 4-year contract for $16.8 million
Buffalo Bills – Cordy Glenn, OT (Non-Exclusive): signed 5-year contract for $65 million
Carolina Panthers – Josh Norman, CB (Rescinded April 20, 2016)
Chicago Bears – Alshon Jeffery, WR (Non-Exclusive)
Denver Broncos – Von Miller, OLB (Exclusive): signed 6-year contract for $114.5 million
Kansas City Chiefs – Eric Berry, S (Non-Exclusive)
Los Angeles Rams – Trumaine Johnson, CB (Non-Exclusive)
New York Jets – Muhammad Wilkerson, DE (Non-Exclusive): signed 5-year contract for $86 million
Washington Redskins – Kirk Cousins, QB (Non-Exclusive)

2015
Franchise-tagged players [18]
Dallas Cowboys – Dez Bryant, WR: signed 5-year contract for $70,000,000
Denver Broncos – Demaryius Thomas, WR (Non-Exclusive)
Kansas City Chiefs – Justin Houston, LB (Non-Exclusive)
Miami Dolphins – Charles Clay, TE (Transition)
New England Patriots – Stephen Gostkowski, K (Non-Exclusive)
New York Giants – Jason Pierre-Paul, DE (Non-Exclusive).

2014
Franchise-tagged players
Carolina Panthers – Greg Hardy DE[19]
Cleveland Browns – Alex Mack C (Transition)[20]
New Orleans Saints – Jimmy Graham TE (Non-Exclusive)[20]
New York Jets – Nick Folk K (Non-Exclusive)[21]
Pittsburgh Steelers – Jason Worilds DE (Transition)[20]
Washington Redskins – Brian Orakpo OLB (Non-Exclusive)[22]

2013
Franchise-tagged players [23][24]
Buffalo Bills – Jairus Byrd S (Non-Exclusive)
Chicago Bears – Henry Melton DT
Cincinnati Bengals – Michael Johnson DE
Dallas Cowboys – Anthony Spencer LB
Denver Broncos – Ryan Clady OT
Indianapolis Colts – Pat McAfee P
Kansas City Chiefs – Brandon Albert OT (Non-Exclusive)
Miami Dolphins – Randy Starks DT

Dude, I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well, or whether you're just intentionally missing my points. Are you just trying to test me to see how long I will continue responding to you? If so, you're making headway.

I'm confused by your response - what was the reason you think I stated? Please go back and read at my post again (post #64) - I said "the pressure you're referring to is not from the initial tag itself, but rather from the escalator clauses that kick in if the team insists on re-tagging a player for multiple years. This is what Cousins took advantage of, but what Bell balked at for some reason."

I did not give a reason why he balked, because I don't have a clue. I only know that he didn't sign the tender, so he didn't go the Cousins path for some reason. I think that was a mistake for all the reasons I've stated previously.

All your sarcasm is duly noted. I don't even know where to begin with this one because there are so many problems with what you've said:

1. So you're point is that it's not impossible that a team could use the tag on a non-QB for three years in a row? Of course that's true, and I never said otherwise. But as a practical matter, I just don't think it's ever going to happen for the reasons I've stated. I won't repeat them again. That's what it comes down to.

2. As to your fixation on my use of the term "guarantee", it's an expression of strong belief, ok? It doesn't even mean what you seem to think it means, so look it up. And, if we're going to be microanalyzing every word, you may want to look back at my original post because I actually said "virtually guarantee" in recognition of the possibility that the Raiders or some organization like that could do something stupid.

3. QB salaries obviously have everything to do with our discussion. Please go read the language of the CBA if you don't believe me - particularly Article 10, Section 2(a)(ii). Here's a link for your convenience:

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com...-2011-2020.pdf

Bottom line: No matter what position they play, if you tag a player three times in a row they will be paid - at a minimum - the average of the top 5 players at the most expensive position (so, QB). This means that if you tag a non-QB a third time, you automatically make him one of the top 2 or 3 paid players in the entire league (because the top 5 are all QBs - are you following my logic now?). And that salary is 100% guaranteed. Again, I don't see any team doing this.

4. Cap hit v. Salary - I note that you don't provide a better chart in response. I'm assuming that's because you can't find one. You're proposal is to take the contract and divide it by the years? Are you kidding? That only works if its 100% guaranteed, and there are very few such contracts out there - probably none for RBs. And even that's not enough unless you know what the contract is specifically guaranteed against. There are many, many articles out there which outline why this is. As to your speculation about what the younger RBs will be paid when the reach free agency, we'll see - but regardless of the amount, I think the salaries of QBs will keep pace well ahead of the RB salaries.

5. Re "Douche Canoe" - go ahead and cite to the 2020 versions of Gurley and David Johnson. Even at those salaries, and assuming neither is cut or renegotiates their deal, Gurley is 28th and Johnson is 58th overall in salary for that year. And they will fall down the list further as new contracts are put in place over the next two offseasons.

But by saying you think there's a serious chance that a team will tag a RB for three straight seasons, you are essentially saying that a RB should be paid - not only the same as a QB - but more than nearly all but the top 2 or 3 QBs in the league. See above explanation.

As to Gurley's newly-signed "guaranteed" contract, here's a link to Over the Cap which gives a bit more detail about those so-called guarantees:

https://overthecap.com/player/todd-gurley/3858/

Essentially, only the $22 million is truly guaranteed at signing. The other payments appear to be guaranteed on a rolling basis as each season arrives. So if Gurley tears his knee up, well, those later "guarantees" probably don't amount to much. This is a good example of why you can't just take the contract amount and divide it by the years.

Not "yada yada" - please look at the CBA I cited to above. It doesn't work the way you are saying.

As to Bell getting "hosed", I'll go back to my original points - I don't think getting paid a fully guaranteed $14.5 million is getting 'hosed". More importantly, if everyone in your mind is entitled to be paid 100% of their open market value, then why have a CBA at all? Just let everyone become a free agent! No - the teams and the players negotiated a deal which is far more complicated, and has many more pulleys and levers than simply the franchise tag. To get the franchise tag, rest assured the owners had to concede to the players on other issues which benefit the players. So don't vilify the Steelers for making use of a term they all agreed to.

Please read my post again - While you never said this explicitly, it is the necessary consequence of what you are saying. As I said, it's a zero sum game. If the RB revolution you are predicting takes place and RBs take on greater relative importance under the salary cap, this has to come at the expense of another position(s). There is only 100% of the pie to go around.

Make valid points and I will concede more. As to Bell, this isn't a free market and nobody is obligated to "even out" any of his perceived underpayments. It's a contract, and the players union has done a good job installing protections to limit any losses due to the inefficiencies you've referenced. But I'm not convinced there are any monetary losses here - just Bell's desire for a long term contract that the Steelers don't have to provide. Now if he'd played out this year...

See above. There is a massive difference between using a tag twice on a player, and using it three times. It is apparent the players union would tolerate it twice, but made it so difficult to do a third time that no team is likely to attempt it except in the most extreme situations (i.e. top QB).

You'll need to open the vault to sign Bell. He's worth it, but all that guaranteed money scares me because RBs can get hurt so easily. Hunt would be available for very cheap, except for the PR nightmare.

Agreed except I think it is more than a PR nightmare. Beating a woman like that show a deep character flaw that takes real commitment and work to heal. How many of you guys would hang with a guy who does shit like that? How many of the female fans would? If he is sincere and gets help (and I will have to trust Ballard/Reich to make that call as there is zero way I'll be able to know his mind) maybe, but I'd rather take a chance with Bell, injury and Irsay's money or a draft pick.