Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610
1) Getting the same level of production out of two players as you previously did out of one player illustrates the one player's value to me rather than negating it. For example, if player A produces 16 sacks, then the next year players B and C produce 9 and 7 sacks each, that tells me that if I still had player A, then players A, B, and C would likely all be more effective.
2) Who cares? Even if he peaked at 25, a player's prime is longer than one year, and anyone who would be counting on Bell for more than 3-4 years is foolish.
|
Sorry Dam, I see now that I wasn’t clear in my original post. Conner was generating more offense than Bell on his own, then got injured. Samuels came in next and is doing the same. They weren’t doing it at the same time. So my concern is that Bell has been easy to replace, so maybe it’s the offense, not the player.
I do care about whether he’s peaked, not because I was hoping he’d get better, but because he might not be able to deliver what we’d be expecting. We’d be paying $15M+ to a player on the downside of his career, which doesn’t seem wise to me. Take a look at the career stats of some of the great RBs and you’ll see what I mean. I had a link to an article about this in another post.