Todd Gurley II 2018 Outlook

[Dislimb 1,411]

43 minutes ago, pastorofmuppets2 said:

 

this. 

 

Gurley is 23, and entering his *third NFL season right now... Bell will be 27 next year, and about to enter his *eighth ...

 

now, Bell will get paid, but he isn't sniffing anywhere near the coin TG just bagged. 

 

*fourth

*sixth

[Sternes 5,010]

1 minute ago, devaster said:

That is quite a contract for a RB. Effectively 15mil/year and 3 years of that guaranteed. Will have to see how much of the guarantee they put in the 1st two years of the deal.

 

Really wondering now how much room they have left to pay Donald. I doubt they can extend Suh or Peters. And even Goff in two seasons may be rough.

 

I'm happy to see RB get paid.  The pendulum of them not being valuable, or that anyone can fill their shoes has gone too far.  You see it all the time with some of the crappy replacements out there.  I'm happy that the most punished position is getting paid like they used to.

[joshua18 7,029]

1 minute ago, Sternes said:

 

Which, IMO, screams he could have pushed for more next year.  Like I said before, maybe he didn't care.  Now is now, and there are always risks.  However, I find it incredible his contract has less guaranteed money than Cooks, and $20 million less possible.

 

Only if he was as great as he was last year, which is unlikely given the rarity of RBs posting consecutive league-winning seasons. Likely to be very good this year but not great. Plus he has the injury history as well.

[devaster 4,400]

I also don't know why people think Bell should have taken the offer he had on the table. This deal for Gurley helps Bell's chances of maximizing his contract. Bell is older and carries more risk, but the RB market was just reset.

[Sternes 5,010]

Just now, joshua18 said:

 

Only if he was as great as he was last year, which is unlikely given the rarity of RBs posting consecutive league-winning seasons. Likely to be very good this year but not great. Plus he has the injury history as well.

 

His 2017 season was very similar to his 2015 season, just with more pass catching.  Why pay him if they think he can't duplicate that?  Injury history of an ACL tear in college? 

[pastorofmuppets2 10,634]

9 minutes ago, Dislimb said:

 

*fourth

*sixth

 

no, THIS year Gurley is entering his THIRD - reread the post, ty

 

i was wrong on Bell, next year he will be entering his SEVENTH, not eighth

 

plz be better next time. 

[devaster 4,400]

1 minute ago, Sternes said:

 

I'm happy to see RB get paid.  The pendulum of them not being valuable, or that anyone can fill their shoes has gone too far.  You see it all the time with some of the crappy replacements out there.  I'm happy that the most punished position is getting paid like they used to.

I'm happy for Gurley and it is nice to see an organization reward their players, especially a RB. But financially this just doesn't make any sense for any team to do when it comes to paying RB's.

 

RB's have the shortest careers. They are often near the end of their prime at the end of their rookie contracts and will be out of their prime at the end of their 1st contract. Financially it makes far more sense to use the 4-5 years of a RB's rookie contract and then franchise them two straight seasons if they are a legit top-5 RB talent. It saves the team money. And by the time the RB goes through their rookie contract and two franchise tags they will likely be past their prime nearing age 30. Of course the downside to this is it ties up the team's franchise tag at the RB position. But the RB position is one of the cheaper franchise tags out there.

[Sternes 5,010]

1 minute ago, pastorofmuppets2 said:

 

no, THIS year Gurley is entering his THIRD - teread the post, ty

 

i was wrong on Bell, next year he will be entering his SEVENTH.  

 

plz be better next time. 

[pastorofmuppets2 10,634]

... and let's not forget that Bell is a ganja peel away from palookaville - eff that, i wouldn't pay him top guaranteed coin, either

[Gohawks 10,166]

Is there a correlation between production before and after a paycheck?

[pastorofmuppets2 10,634]

10 minutes ago, Sternes said:

 

duly noted, my bad/eff up/etc

 

well played - i frizzed out there on Gurley's tenure - 

[devaster 4,400]

2 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

Is there a correlation between production before and after a paycheck?

If your name is Albert Haynesworth, then yes. Some players definitely mail it in after getting paid. Career years aren't often repeated though. They are career years for a reason. We haven't seen many RB's dominate for a period of years like we used to with LT, Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Deuce, SJax, and AD. Bell is that guy right now.

[Sternes 5,010]

1 minute ago, devaster said:

I'm happy for Gurley and it is nice to see an organization reward their players, especially a RB. But financially this just doesn't make any sense for any team to do when it comes to paying RB's.

 

RB's have the shortest careers. They are often near the end of their prime at the end of their rookie contracts and will be out of their prime at the end of their 1st contract. Financially it makes far more sense to use the 4-5 years of a RB's rookie contract and then franchise them two straight seasons if they are a legit top-5 RB talent. It saves the team money. And by the time the RB goes through their rookie contract and two franchise tags they will likely be past their prime nearing age 30. Of course the downside to this is it ties up the team's franchise tag at the RB position. But the RB position is one of the cheaper franchise tags out there.

 

Isn't that true of just about every position other than QB?  The only reason it works with RB is because their top positional players salaries are suppressed and the franchise tag is cheap.  I'm not saying they should be the highest paid on field, but their wages do feel very suppressed. 

 

When Kearse, Pryor, and Lafell would be slotted at #15 for RB salaries in the league, you know there needs to be an adjustment.

[Dislimb 1,411]

17 minutes ago, pastorofmuppets2 said:

 

no, THIS year Gurley is entering his THIRD - reread the post, ty

 

i was wrong on Bell, next year he will be entering his SEVENTH, not eighth

 

plz be better next time. 

 

[devaster 4,400]

8 minutes ago, Sternes said:

 

Isn't that true of just about every position other than QB?  The only reason it works with RB is because their top positional players salaries are suppressed and the franchise tag is cheap.  I'm not saying they should be the highest paid on field, but their wages do feel very suppressed. 

 

When Kearse, Pryor, and Lafell would be slotted at #15 for RB salaries in the league, you know there needs to be an adjustment.

 

It is especially true for the RB position because it has been devalued recently and also the average career length is the shortest in the NFL compared to other positions.

[Sternes 5,010]

8 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

Is there a correlation between production before and after a paycheck?

 

I think it falls along the lines of when the deal happens, workload to that point, injury (luck involved there), and surrounding talent.

 

For example, Marshall Faulk:

 

Saying his 12-day holdout was not about money, running back Marshall Faulk signed a seven-year, $45.15-million contract Wednesday to become the highest-paid St. Louis Ram in history. Faulk is guaranteed $9.6 million. That includes a $7-million signing bonus and $2.6 million base salary this season. He'll make $19 million in the first four seasons. The sticking point in negotiations was the fifth year, in which Faulk will get a $7 million salary and a $5-million roster bonus. The deal was structured that way to prevent the Rams from designating Faulk as a transition or franchise player.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/05/sports/sp-62979

 

They got Faulk for the 1999, 2000, 2001 years which were all great. 2002 injuries I think caught up with him and he started trending down.  I'm sure he never saw the backside money on that contract and it was constantly restructured once that happened.  He was still serviceable, but he wasn't as good.  Definitely got their value out of him.

[joshua18 7,029]

3 minutes ago, Sternes said:

 

I think it falls along the lines of when the deal happens, workload to that point, injury (luck involved there), and surrounding talent.

 

For example, Marshall Faulk:

 

Saying his 12-day holdout was not about money, running back Marshall Faulk signed a seven-year, $45.15-million contract Wednesday to become the highest-paid St. Louis Ram in history. Faulk is guaranteed $9.6 million. That includes a $7-million signing bonus and $2.6 million base salary this season. He'll make $19 million in the first four seasons. The sticking point in negotiations was the fifth year, in which Faulk will get a $7 million salary and a $5-million roster bonus. The deal was structured that way to prevent the Rams from designating Faulk as a transition or franchise player.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/05/sports/sp-62979

 

They got Faulk for the 1999, 2000, 2001 years which were all great. 2002 injuries I think caught up with him and he started trending down.  I'm sure he never saw the backside money on that contract and it was constantly restructured once that happened.  He was still serviceable, but he wasn't as good.  Definitely got their value out of him.

 

But Faulk got value as well. Bill Polian didn't think he was worth paying, which is why Faulk was shipped to STL in the first place. Edge did replace much of Faulk's value at about 20% of the cost, though. 

[Sternes 5,010]

2 minutes ago, devaster said:

 

It is especially true for the RB position because it has been devalued recently and also the average career length is the shortest in the NFL compared to other positions.

 

Yes, but it isn't that much shorter.  That is also something that is exaggerated in my opinion.  Everyone talks about short RB careers, but never WR careers. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-career-length-in-the-national-football-league/

Average NFL career length 3.3 length. 

RB = 2.57. 

WR = 2.81

CB = 2.94

 

 

 

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/index.php?q=stat-analysis/2016/are-nfl-careers-really-getting-shorter

 

Now this article points out that, as does the other article, that those that make the roster tend to have a 6 year career on average.   The main point is that there is not a significant difference in career length in RB vs WR.  Yet, RB are touted as disposable and WR aren't.

[Sternes 5,010]

7 minutes ago, joshua18 said:

 

But Faulk got value as well. Bill Polian didn't think he was worth paying, which is why Faulk was shipped to STL in the first place. Edge did replace much of Faulk's value at about 20% of the cost, though. 

 

Sure, but what are the odds of getting a potential HoF to replace a HoF guy?  Reminds me of the 49ers fans who had Montana, Young, Garcia and acted like that was normal. 

 

For those easily replaceable moves that support a decision like that, there is Ahmad Bradshaw being replaced by Trent Richardson.

 

edit: Though IIRC, they were supposed to share the backfield, but then Bradshaw injured his neck.

[lolcopter 7,883]

8 minutes ago, Sternes said:

Now this article points out that, as does the other article, that those that make the roster tend to have a 6 year career on average.   The main point is that there is not a significant difference in career length in RB vs WR.  Yet, RB are touted as disposable and WR aren't.

 

WR is very much disposable, even more so because there will always be more competition on the active roster as compared to RB. Within the context of fantasy, you’re much more concerned with the shelf life of the team’s RB1 instead of WR1, because stats and value at the WR position is typically easier to replace than RB. That is why the top RBs always get drafted early and often (before the zero-RB strat popped on the scene a couple years back). I think this helps frame the conversation a little better within the context of fantasy production, where stud RBs are typically the prized possessions.

[ragrag 1,494]

1 hour ago, joshua18 said:

 

Not really. He's unlikely to have as much value again as he does right now given his recent production and young age.  

 

Totally.  He just locked up his nest egg.  Still plenty of meat left on the bone in endorsement deals.  Had he passed on this deal maybe the team lets him play his rookie deal out, tag him a time or two and badda-bing he's in Bell's situation.

[Ddam2013 607]

People are saying Gurley reset the market, which he did, but seem to forget that Saquon who's who's never even stepped foot on the field reset the RB market about 3 days ago when he signed his rookie contract. Gurley got IMO less than what he deserved but RBs are extremely devalued and Barkley gave a benchmark for the current backs to aim for. DJ and Bell will probably beat Gurleys AAV (if I had to guess I would go with 16 mil and 17.5 respectively) but fall short on the guaranteed side due to their age. Will gurley be as productive as he was last year? Probably not but that doesn't mean he won't be a top 3 back, expecting someone to get 1900 and 19 TDs (should be 20 but the NFL has some of the dumbest rules) is pretty insane. But I would set the O/U for total yards at 1800, 1200 rushing and 600 receiving. The biggest area of regression should be touchdowns and I would go with 12 TDs to go along with 55 catches, still top RB numbers but probably not another top 10 season of all time.

[Sternes 5,010]

1 hour ago, lolcopter said:

 

WR is very much disposable, even more so because there will always be more competition on the active roster as compared to RB. Within the context of fantasy, you’re much more concerned with the shelf life of the team’s RB1 instead of WR1, because stats and value at the WR position is typically easier to replace than RB. That is why the top RBs always get drafted early and often (before the zero-RB strat popped on the scene a couple years back). I think this helps frame the conversation a little better within the context of fantasy production, where stud RBs are typically the prized possessions.

 

Right, but I am talking outside of fantasy.

 

Cameron Meredith just got $5 million guaranteed after he didn't play a season.  Moncrief $10 million.  Torrey Smith is making $5 million a year.  Albert Wilson just got a 3 year/$24 million deal with $14.45 million guaranteed.

 

CJ Anderson gets a 1,000 yards and gets cut because $4.5 million is too pricey.   Now gets $500,000 guaranteed on a $1.75 million deal from Carolina.

 

I'm not saying those are good moves.  What I'm saying is that teams are willing to gamble on WR, pay up for them, and then when it comes to RB say they can find the next great one or easily replace lost talent.  There shouldn't be charity contracts, but at times I find this baffling.  I'm not the biggest Dion Lewis fan, but I will tell you I'd pay him more than Albert Wilson 10 times out of 10 from what I've seen on the field so far.  Not to mention they are nearly identical sizes.

[lolcopter 7,883]

1 hour ago, Sternes said:

Cameron Meredith just got $5 million guaranteed after he didn't play a season.  Moncrief $10 million.  Torrey Smith is making $5 million a year.  Albert Wilson just got a 3 year/$24 million deal with $14.45 million guaranteed.

 

in all fairness, any GM who made any of these deals should probably be fired, but very good point about the salary differences

[The Invictus 66]

1 hour ago, Sternes said:

 

Right, but I am talking outside of fantasy.

 

Cameron Meredith just got $5 million guaranteed after he didn't play a season.  Moncrief $10 million.  Torrey Smith is making $5 million a year.  Albert Wilson just got a 3 year/$24 million deal with $14.45 million guaranteed.

 

CJ Anderson gets a 1,000 yards and gets cut because $4.5 million is too pricey.   Now gets $500,000 guaranteed on a $1.75 million deal from Carolina.

 

I'm not saying those are good moves.  What I'm saying is that teams are willing to gamble on WR, pay up for them, and then when it comes to RB say they can find the next great one or easily replace lost talent.  There shouldn't be charity contracts, but at times I find this baffling.  I'm not the biggest Dion Lewis fan, but I will tell you I'd pay him more than Albert Wilson 10 times out of 10 from what I've seen on the field so far.  Not to mention they are nearly identical sizes.

Pretty much, sometimes it's just a matter of availability, need, and cap space. This was a down year/market for WR FA's so the lucky ones scored. It was a stocked year for RB's especially if GM's took the deep Rookie draft class into account. Some of the honest GM's will tell you they have to burn the money somewhere each season so there will always be cases that are unjustified and other players who should've cashed but didn't. There is also many reasons bad clubs stay bad too.