DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 2019 Free Agency Part II

A lot of TV people have been crushing Bell recently, but I think they're missing the key point, Bell didn't want to get hurt under the franchise tag and ruin any future ability to earn.

Sure, maybe the contract he has now is less than what the Steelers were offering and/or taking in account the missed franchise tag money, but doesn't he now have more guaranteed money? And again, he got that guaranteed money without having to jeopardize his future playing under a 1-year tag.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, like if the Steelers long term offer had as much or more guaranteed money, but then that might be him just trying to remove himself from Pittsburgh, which he won there too.

Bell was guaranteed like $12 million with the franchise tag. That, on top of whatever he would have gotten even if he was injured, is probably equal to what he got this off-season. He bungled the whole situation.

j/c...

The details...

Bell is rightfully getting blasted. He lost out on $15M he'll never recoup.

As far as risking getting hurt, it worked out well for Earl Thomas...

I don't remember Chad Thomas being injured other than missing time in OTA's with groin injury/sports hernia. He passed his physical and was cleared for training camp. He was a healthy scratch during most games this past season.

I doubt it. He will get signed somewhere long before we find out about Hunt. Seems the NFL makes those decisions in late May or early June. All attention is being given to FA and the draft at this point.

Ride the positive PR before they take a PR hit a few weeks before camps open. Then camp opens and nobody is talking about Hunt anymore.

I don't understand the "on top of whatever he would have gotten even if he was injured" part. If he signed the $12 franchise tag and tore his Achilles in week 5, would he still be getting a like-sized deal for this season? I doubt the Jets would be offering the same contract. Assuming that specific injury, he'd probably need to sit out most of this season to rehab with no pay. Coming into the 2020 season, he could get a new contract, but it would be small compared to what he has now.

IMO, I don't see the problem with what Bell did. Sure, if he signed and played under the franchise tag and never got hurt, he'd be ahead of where he is now, but that's only assuming he wouldn't get hurt (maybe severely). Plus, it sounds to me he was pissed at the Steelers for tagging him and not giving him an AB-like contract, so therefore, he wanted out of town. To get out of town, he had to sit out and risk losing the guaranteed tag, as I mentioned above, he's still ahead because he's now guaranteed more than the franchise tag (again, assuming an injury were to happen that could derail his career earnings potential).

And this sort of did happen to Boogie Counsins. While not exactly the same, he played out the final year in New Orleans and tore his Achilles then got a 1-year $5M deal in Golden State. Maybe that wasn't the best he could have received, but let's not pretend teams were still willing to offer a max or super max to him. Meaning, and I'm sorry for rambling, playing the last year with no guarantee is risky. In the NFL, the money they get is so much smaller than the NBA or MLB, so they need to maximize their earning potential even if that means risking a 1-year payout.

Some people just want to look at the dollar figure and say, "Ah ha!".

They're not looking at the guaranteed money and the risk of injury in a one year, franchise signing.

It's about the big picture and he played it right.

But he sat out a year in his prime behind a great OL which he's not getting back. If he got out of shape while not playing, that could increase his injury risk. The argument also doesn't really take into account the time-value of money. Interest on tens of millions of dollars can be pretty good. If invested wisely, returns can be quite good.

He might have gotten more "guaranteed" money for two years, but does it matter if he performs at a lower level (due to surrounding pieces, etc) and gets cut/injured after that? He was in a pretty good situation on the field-wise. He was on pace for the Hall of Fame, now that is kind of murky. That has some long-term financial ramifications.

The life span of a RB is usually based on carries, not age.

Grimm, I'm not saying you're wrong. It's a valid argument. For one of us, we'd all take the $12-14M tag, play and see what happens in 2019. He's a different cat. He saw it as Pit and I mentioned, "the risk of injury + he'll get more guaranteed Jets money later + he wants to stick it to the Steelers for 'disrespecting' him = sit out the 2018 year".

Sure, I'd be worried if I were a Jets fan those legs are still like the 2018 legs. A year off could have made him prone to injury. And yeah, his HOF resume takes a hit too, but I don't think Bell cares about that.

This was about maximizing his total guaranteed money while factoring injury risk AND giving a fat middle finger to the Rooney's. Well, in my opinion at least. Some would play and risk it, I would probably play (and maybe get an insurance policy for future earnings), but Bell drew a line in the sand and I don't think he came out with less.

been pretty quiet. Wonder if we're pretty much down now

Based on what? It sounds good on the surface. Not sure the numbers back it up.

Obviously, too many carries is bad, but time catches up with RBs regardless.

Adrian Peterson is still playing, but he's not as good as he used to be... and he's not normal.

It doesn't seem like Le'Veon takes care of himself as well as he could. Putting it mildly.

During his year off, Le'Veon also must have been dipping into his savings which hurts his compound interest. If he was careless with his money, which wouldn't overly surprise me, he could have even taken on debt, which would lead to the bad version of compound interest.

This article explains it pretty well.

Measuring NFL Running Back Longevity: Falling Off the 1,800-Carry Cliff

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/4940...800-carry-cliff

Le'Veon Bell has had a total of 1,229 attempts and is only 27 years old.

Yeah, take away the trades and we signed one named FA in Richardson and a few warm bodies\ST'ers

Again, it sounds great. It's a lot of extrapolation from 8 data points, though. If I liked statistics, I'd crunch all the numbers and look at coefficients of correlations for more than a single factor. However, getting the A in statistics class was painful. I'm guessing that while there is a correlation with 1800 carries, there may be stronger ones.

We've had this same discussion many times over the years in this forum. There's a direct correlation between the number of carries and the life span of a running back. The evidence of it is everywhere.

Grimm, you asked Pit the question that was worded something like: "Based on what?" He provided a source.

Come on, man!

The Browns announced 4 free agents signings. Harris, Taylor, and Kush all are described as good special teams players. Looks like Dorsey used FA to address special teams.

makes you wonder what is going on in Pittsburgh...


2 star playing trying like mad to get the heck out of there.

I'm guessing there is a power struggle ora ton of drama brewing behind the scenes.

I'm really not hating on Pit. I agree there is a correlation. I just think the source he referenced greatly oversimplifies things. A statistical study based on 8 outliers seems inherently flawed. Carries is one factor. I also think age irrespective of carries is a factor.

I'm trying to approach these arguments a lot more "lightedheartedly," but if things don't quite add up, I'm going to comment. I'll try to do it respectfully.

I asked "based on what?" because I wanted to see the source. I wanted to see what the data really was. I wasn't trying to call him out. I can see how it may have been read that way, history being what it is. Most of my posts should be read from the intended viewpoint of curious neutrality. They have undoubtedly devolved into hostility in the past, but let's avoid that.

That would seem to point to Teddy in Miami.

Another comp pick for NE?

It's a shame he hasn't been able to stay healthy.

Golden Tate, WR, New York Giants
The deal: Four years, $37 million with $23.5 million guaranteed
Grade: D+

Do you remember Memento, the movie in which Guy Pearce's short-term memory was destroyed and he lost the ability to remember anything in the recent past? Is it possible the Giants are struggling with the same condition? Days after trading Odell Beckham Jr. to signal that they were going to build around Saquon Barkley and the running game, the Giants reversed course and gave Tate a four-year deal with $23.5 million fully guaranteed at signing.

It's bizarre for many reasons. To start, while the franchise buried Beckham on his way out of town and called him a distraction, the Giants responded by signing a wideout who was once cited with the Seahawks for breaking into a donut store and who reportedly got into a fistfight with Percy Harvin the week before the Super Bowl. (To be clear, I don't think those are actual character concerns, but they're more meaningful than, say, getting into a fight with a kicking net or simulating urination during a touchdown celebration.)

Tate is a strange fit for a Giants team in the middle of a rebuild, even if they want to pretend otherwise. He's a tough receiver and a willing blocker, but his best spot in the lineup is in the slot, where he caught 150 passes from 2015-17. That was the sixth-highest total in the NFL over that time frame. The Giants already have a slot receiver in Sterling Shepard, who is far cheaper than Tate; the Oklahoma product has 149 receptions in the slot over his first three seasons in the league, which is third in the NFL. We already saw what happened last season in Philadelphia when the Eagles traded for Tate and were stuck trying to fit Tate, Nelson Agholor, Jordan Matthews, and Zach Ertz in the slot for targets. Tate got lost in the shuffle.

Furthermore, Tate turns 31 in August. He's smart enough to get by without every ounce of athleticism, but the Giants guaranteed him enough money to make this a very expensive two-year deal or a reasonably expensive three-year pact. The Giants are blindly backing Eli Manning, who will receive a $5 million bonus Saturday, for 2019; even if we assume that they'll have a new quarterback in 2020, Tate is not going to be a long-term solution for a team that needs to be looking for long-term solutions right now. General manager Dave Gettleman is papering over the holes in this offense with trades and free-agent signings, just as Jerry Reese did with the defense years ago.

To add insult to injury, the one positive coming out of the Landon Collins situation is that the Giants were going to get a third-round compensatory pick for their star safety, who left for Washington. By signing Tate, the Giants will cancel out the compensatory pick and instead send another third-rounder to the Eagles, who are already getting one for Nick Foles.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26152...ig-signing-move

Wow.

lol that's insane