Any news on Kelly?

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

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.

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

[smitty46953]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

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

So would 30 seconds with Jennifer Aniston

[Chromeburn]

[QUO

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

2011 is not current, it will be 2019 in a few days.

Originally Posted by Chaka

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

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

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

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.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

2011 is not current, it will be 2019 in a few days.

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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

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

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

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

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.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by smitty46953

So would 30 seconds with Jennifer Aniston

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

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Wyatt

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

Wipe the biggest grin off my face

[sherck]

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,

[smitty46953]

Originally Posted by Wyatt

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

I think they call that foreplay and a cigar?

[GoBigBlue88]

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.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88

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.