ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:09 AM
Oldcolt Oldcolt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,257
Thanks: 2,551
Thanked 2,430 Times in 1,092 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-14-2018, 11:38 AM
southside asshole southside asshole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: take a guess
Posts: 118
Thanks: 157
Thanked 126 Times in 43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty46953 View Post
So would 30 seconds with Jennifer Aniston
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to southside asshole For This Useful Post:
Oldcolt (12-14-2018), Pez (12-14-2018), Racehorse (12-14-2018), smitty46953 (12-15-2018), VeveJones007 (12-14-2018)
  #73  
Old 12-14-2018, 06:24 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
Technically, it is a tender, not a tag. Each tender is its own entity, and the tenders escalate if used in conjunction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
No question it's 100% my take on the situation
That's fine, I think it irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-14-2018, 06:57 PM
YDFL Commish YDFL Commish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Mt. Pleasant Wisconsin
Posts: 3,379
Thanks: 1,973
Thanked 2,211 Times in 1,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-14-2018, 07:37 PM
chicagocolt chicagocolt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 46
Thanks: 81
Thanked 34 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Looks like Kelly will play but T.Y.'s status will be decided tomorrow. Hopefully he can go, we need him.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chicagocolt For This Useful Post:
JAFF (12-14-2018), Racehorse (12-15-2018), TheMugwump (12-14-2018)
  #76  
Old 12-15-2018, 05:29 AM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.

Last edited by Chaka; 12-15-2018 at 05:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-15-2018, 10:32 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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)_/¯

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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 contracts. 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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
Then you shouldn't have used the cap hit chart to try and prove your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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...
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
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
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-16-2018, 06:33 AM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromeburn View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:46 AM
albany ed albany ed is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 1,590
Thanks: 232
Thanked 971 Times in 476 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Hey, it's your world. I'm just gonna play in it for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-16-2018, 10:45 AM
Oldcolt Oldcolt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,257
Thanks: 2,551
Thanked 2,430 Times in 1,092 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albany ed View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oldcolt For This Useful Post:
Racehorse (12-16-2018)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.