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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
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.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn
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.
|
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.