[Chaka]

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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!"

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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).