Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Le'Veon Bell 2018 Outlook


afl5013
Message added by tonycpsu

[Automated message: This outlook thread for the 2018 season will be locked on 2019-01-31. Please finish any 2018 discussions here, and take any 2019 outlook discussions to the 2019 outlook thread . If one does not exist, feel free to create one. Thanks!]

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, psygolf said:

Stud QBs that wouldn't have a SB without their stud RB:

Aikman

Favre

Elway

Warner

?

 

 

 I'm not a GB historian but I do remember reading somewhere that the defense won it for them in the last quarter with drive killing plays not the offense

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dashoe said:

 I'm not a GB historian but I do remember reading somewhere that the defense won it for them in the last quarter with drive killing plays not the offense

 

It was a complete team effort. Favre threw 2 TDs (and no picks!), the defense turned over Bledsoe 4 times, and Super Bowl MVP Desmond Howard had over 200 return yards and put the final nail in the coffin with his KR TD after a strong NE drive that made it a 6 pt game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, P@ckersFan said:

 

It was a complete team effort. Favre threw 2 TDs (and no picks!), the defense turned over Bledsoe 4 times, and Super Bowl MVP Desmond Howard had over 200 return yards and put the final nail in the coffin with his KR TD after a strong NE drive that made it a 6 pt game. 

 

 I didnt know Desmond howard had a super bowl ring. I always thought he was a tv analyst because he won the heisman.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question here shouldn't be how many teams this century have won a SB with a "stud" RB. Obviously all teams would rather have an RB that's very effective during a playoff run. 

 

The real interesting question is how many teams have won a SB with their RB making x amount of money that year? So let's see...

 

2000 - Marshall Faulk - $440,000

2001 - Jamal Lewis - $298,000

2002 - Antowain Smith - $700,000 base (1.4m with incentives)

2003 - Michael Pittman - $1.5m

2004 - Antowain Smith - $4.2m

2005 - Corey Dillon - $1m

2006 - Willie Parker - $309,840

2007 - Joseph Addai - $275,000 - Dominic Rhodes - $585,000

2008 - Brandon Jacobs - Rookie Deal, Ahmad Bradshaw - $285,000

2009 - Willie Parker - $3.4m

2010 - Pierre Thomas - $460,000, Reggie Bush - $2,858,000

2011 - James Starks - $320,000

2012 - Bradshaw - $1.5m, Jacobs - $6.25m

2013 - Ray Rice - $2m base (+15m signing bonus this year)

2014 - Marshawn Lynch - $7m

2015 - Legarrette Blount - $257,000, Vereen - $746,975

2016 - CJ Anderson - $585,000

2017 - Blount - $760,000  (plus another 750k with achieved incentives)

2018 - Blount - $900,000, Ajayi - $325,588

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, P@ckersFan said:

The question here shouldn't be how many teams this century have won a SB with a "stud" RB. Obviously all teams would rather have an RB that's very effective during a playoff run. 

 

The real interesting question is how many teams have won a SB with their RB making x amount of money that year? So let's see...

 

2000 - Marshall Faulk - $440,000

2001 - Jamal Lewis - $298,000

2002 - Antowain Smith - $700,000 base (1.4m with incentives)

2003 - Michael Pittman - $1.5m

2004 - Antowain Smith - $4.2m

2005 - Corey Dillon - $1m

2006 - Willie Parker - $309,840

2007 - Joseph Addai - $275,000 - Dominic Rhodes - $585,000

2008 - Brandon Jacobs - Rookie Deal, Ahmad Bradshaw - $285,000

2009 - Willie Parker - $3.4m

2010 - Pierre Thomas - $460,000, Reggie Bush - $2,858,000

2011 - James Starks - $320,000

2012 - Bradshaw - $1.5m, Jacobs - $6.25m

2013 - Ray Rice - $2m base (+15m signing bonus this year)

2014 - Marshawn Lynch - $7m

2015 - Legarrette Blount - $257,000, Vereen - $746,975

2016 - CJ Anderson - $585,000

2017 - Blount - $760,000  (plus another 750k with achieved incentives)

2018 - Blount - $900,000, Ajayi - $325,588

 

 

 

 

This is an awful comparison.  2000 NFL salary cap was $62 million.  2018 $177.2 million.

 

Starting with Faulk, that isn't very accurate.  It is one of his down contract years.  In 1999 he made $9.6 million. In 2000 $690,000.  In 2001 $3.05 million.  In 2002 $11.3 million. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/st.-louis-rams/marshall-faulk-11671/cash-earnings/

 

August 05, 1999

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 said negotiations picked up after he saw a TV report suggesting he wanted no part of the training camp grind." I want to be there with them, I want to sweat with them, I want to cramp up with them," Faulk said in St. Louis. "You pegged me wrong." Faulk was the league's top all-purpose back last season with Indianapolis. He rushed for 1,319 yards and caught 86 passes. The Rams acquired Faulk from Indianapolis two days before the NFL draft in April. pixel.gifFaulk 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."This is by far the biggest contract in Rams' history, and we really expect Marshall to make a significant contribution," team President John Shaw said. Faulk had two years to go on a deal that was scheduled to pay him $2.2 million in base salary this year. 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

 

Next, Jamal Lewis was on a rookie deal, he was drafted in 2000.

 

I don't have the time to go through all of this, but this comparison seems very uneven and frankly, doesn't prove anything.  I'm only two players in.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

 I didnt know Desmond howard had a super bowl ring. I always thought he was a tv analyst because he won the heisman.  :lol:

 

You're really going to be shocked by this news then...

 

... he was the Super Bowl MVP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dreams And Dwightmares said:

 

Lol. OK. If you make your own rules you will never lose. 

 

My dad taught me that when I was finally able to physically beat him in basketball. 

 

I see he taught you as well. 

Lol. That’s the best u can do. Fine all give u Faulk. Once again name another besides lynch. U tried and failed miserably 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

 

 I'm not a GB historian but I do remember reading somewhere that the defense won it for them in the last quarter with drive killing plays not the offense

So now we're going to go back and evaluate the last drive of every championship-!?   I guess we have the time...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, P@ckersFan said:

 

It was a complete team effort. Favre threw 2 TDs (and no picks!), the defense turned over Bledsoe 4 times, and Super Bowl MVP Desmond Howard had over 200 return yards and put the final nail in the coffin with his KR TD after a strong NE drive that made it a 6 pt game. 

You both are missing the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sternes said:

This is an awful comparison.  2000 NFL salary cap was $62 million.  2018 $177.2 million.

 

Starting with Faulk, that isn't very accurate.  It is one of his down contract years.  In 1999 he made $9.6 million. In 2000 $690,000.  In 2001 $3.05 million.  In 2002 $11.3 million. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/st.-louis-rams/marshall-faulk-11671/cash-earnings/

 

August 05, 1999

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 said negotiations picked up after he saw a TV report suggesting he wanted no part of the training camp grind." I want to be there with them, I want to sweat with them, I want to cramp up with them," Faulk said in St. Louis. "You pegged me wrong." Faulk was the league's top all-purpose back last season with Indianapolis. He rushed for 1,319 yards and caught 86 passes. The Rams acquired Faulk from Indianapolis two days before the NFL draft in April. pixel.gifFaulk 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."This is by far the biggest contract in Rams' history, and we really expect Marshall to make a significant contribution," team President John Shaw said. Faulk had two years to go on a deal that was scheduled to pay him $2.2 million in base salary this year. 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

 

Next, Jamal Lewis was on a rookie deal, he was drafted in 2000.

 

I don't have the time to go through all of this, but this comparison seems very uneven and frankly, doesn't prove anything.  I'm only two players in.

 

I wasn't making a comparison, I just took my time to compile all of salaries of the RBs on each team that's won the Super Bowl until now. 

 

The fact that you only made it two players in presents the only real skew, because Marshall Faulk is the only Hall of Famer on the entire list. 

 

Regarding the salary cap, it's been $120m+ since 2011 and of all 11 productive RBs on Super Bowl teams since then only 3 of them made over $1m that year. 

 

Regarding rookie contracts and "down contract years," I think that's kind of the point that those who oppose RBs making huge money are making. Yes Jamal Lewis did get signed to a huge contract following his rookie deal, but the Ravens didn't return to Super Bowl during any of those years. A lot of people say you don't need a superstar RB to win the Super Bowl. While I don't necessarily believe that it does appear that in this century the RBs on Super Bowl winning teams certainly aren't being paid like superstars - teams are spending their money elsewhere those seasons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, P@ckersFan said:

 

I wasn't making a comparison, I just took my time to compile all of salaries of the RBs on each team that's won the Super Bowl until now. 

 

The fact that you only made it two players in presents the only real skew, because Marshall Faulk is the only Hall of Famer on the entire list. 

 

Regarding the salary cap, it's been $120m+ since 2011 and of all 11 productive RBs on Super Bowl teams since then only 3 of them made over $1m that year. 

 

Regarding rookie contracts and "down contract years," I think that's kind of the point that those who oppose RBs making huge money are making. Yes Jamal Lewis did get signed to a huge contract following his rookie deal, but the Ravens didn't return to Super Bowl during any of those years. A lot of people say you don't need a superstar RB to win the Super Bowl. While I don't necessarily believe that it does appear that in this century the RBs on Super Bowl winning teams certainly aren't being paid like superstars - teams are spending their money elsewhere those seasons. 

 

 

How about plugging in the correct years then?  Faulk was paid $9.6 for the 1999 season, which the Super Bowl in 2000 qualifies for, since it was the conclusion of the 1999 season.   Faulk was 15% of his teams entire salary cap.

 

You are telling me Michael Pittman making $1.5 million in 2003 doesn't mean more than someone making a million in 2017?  I don't understand the Lewis point.  He got a bigger deal and thus held them back?  I don't understand the point you are driving at.

 

People who say you don't need a superstar RB can also be countered by saying you don't need a superstar QB.  Foles just won a SB.  Again, football is a team sport, if any variable is true about performance is that typically the best defense wins the SB.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

 

This is why you dont lock bell into a long term contract and pay him like a top WR

I do not know where he looked up his stats....but I do not believe it takes DLs take that long to hit on their 1st pro bowl.  

I recall seeing that it was earlier....if they are going to be dominant, it tends to be right away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sternes said:

How about plugging in the correct years then?  Faulk was paid $9.6 for the 1999 season, which the Super Bowl in 2000 qualifies for, since it was the conclusion of the 1999 season.   Faulk was 15% of his teams entire salary cap.

 

You are telling me Michael Pittman making $1.5 million in 2003 doesn't mean more than someone making a million in 2017?  I don't understand the Lewis point.  He got a bigger deal and thus held them back?  I don't understand the point you are driving at.

 

People who say you don't need a superstar RB can also be countered by saying you don't need a superstar QB.  Foles just won a SB.  Again, football is a team sport, if any variable is true about performance is that typically the best defense wins the SB.

 

I wanted to change the Faulk $ but didn't have an edit option on that post on Friday after I made it. 

 

Michail Pittman making 1.5m in 2003 is definitely relatively more than it would be now. According to the inflation of the salary cap it's about $3.54 million...still not exactly breaking the bank. 

 

I think that you're involving yourself in the discussion without fully understanding the context. There is buzz all over the internet and sports talk radio that very few teams have won the Super Bowl recently with one of the league's superstar RBs (Tomlinson, Peterson, Holmes, Alexander, Bell, Gurley, Freeman). Therefore they claim that you don't need to pay for a superstar RB if you want to win a Super Bowl, and thus, the Steelers shouldn't sign Le'Veon to a longterm deal. I thought it would be interesting to compile the data to see how much these Super Bowl teams were paying their RBs. The data shows that clearly the majority of these teams are paying more money at other positions during their Super Bowl years than they are at RB -- that much can't be disputed. 

 

I personally would love to see the Steelers pay Bell, I just offered up historical salaries to drive conversation -- don't hate me just because you're a Lions fan ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

2017: Sat out the whole pre season because of being franchise tagged. 

2016: Suspended for the first 3 games because of failing a drug test + he was coming off a torn MCL  

2015: Suspended because of the DUI and weed possession

2014: No off season drama or injury = Career year

2013: Missed a pre season games because of knee problems and foot problems. Lisfranc Surgery was avoided but the mere thought of it as a possibility was scary. He was barely a Top 100 pick that year

 

It is looking like 2018 is going to be a repeat of 2017. At some point all of this will catch up to him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the Steelers are screwing up Le'Veon Bell's contract situation so badly?  Great list.  It seems having a very fine running back, signed to a pretty cheap contract, is one fairly common component of Super Bowl winning teams.  Bell at $14 million or whatever does not fit that bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2018/06/12/Ed-Bouchette-Steelers-chat-6-12-18/stories/201806120066?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1529071548

 

Quote

Trumpist: Will lev bell be in a Steelers uniform come next season? 


Ed Bouchette: I believe he will sign his franchise tag on Labor Day and attend his first practice in a Steelers uniform that week.

 

Quote

JohnP: Thought Bell wanted $17 a year, now reports are he wants no less than 14.5/year Is that not in the realm of what we offered him last year? 


Ed Bouchette: They offered him slightly more than $13 million. His agent wanted to take it, Bell declined.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, NYR Fan 116894 said:

As a Steeler fan, I give him almost no chance to be in the black and gold after this year. He might end up have a slow start to the season like last year since he wont be practicing with the team at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Sun Tzu changed the title to Le'Veon Bell 2018 Outlook
  • Sun Tzu locked and unlocked this topic
  • Sun Tzu locked this topic
  • Sun Tzu unlocked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...