LaVeon Bell is the best RB in football and has been for a few years. he just turned 26 years old. In the absolute prime of his career. He has 4 seasons to even reach the “cliff” of 30 for RBs. A long term monster contract should be a slam dunk.
Yet for the second season Bell is in a standoff. Will the Steelers commit to the $14 mil per deal he is looking for?
Now, this would be no question if this was a QB. $14 mil is chump change for a QB.
21 NFL QBs made more than 14 mil last year. That’s the bottoms 1/3 rd of QBs.
This tells us that the top NFL RB is viewed less than 2/3rds of the leagues QBs.
Sam Bradford and Case Keenan were just signed to 18 & 20 mil contracts.
The point is if La’Veon Bell was a QB- the Steelers would not hesitate to get a long term deal. They would be be happy paying 20 mil, 25 mil to him. Maybe 30 mil.
They would run over their Grandmothers to sign a 5 year 14 mil per deal with him if he was a QB.
How does this relate to Saquon Barkley?
Because its all about the money.
Well, even IF Barkley turns out to be what he looks like- the best RB in football, it means would be worth signing a second contract at that money in 5 years?
If in 5 years, Saquon Barkley is Bell like- best RB in football and 26 years old. He wil command the equivalent of what Bell is today.
Is it possible that the Giants would not sign him because of the price? Would they hesitate like the Steelers are go through years of contract issues and tag him on 1-years?
This is all on the best case scenario on him being a full best in football RB.
Is there even the slightest doubt that if the Giants draft a QB and he turns out to be the best in football that they would hesitate to pay him whatever the top deal is in football? They would make him the highest paid player in football if need be.
They would do so if he is top 5 or top 10. Maybe even top 15 or so as Kirk Cousins has proven.
RB is one of the few positions in football that this is even a question. Usually teams would happily hand over big money deals to mid-20 yr olds if they are the best in their position. The Giants were ready to go highest paid G in football on 26 year old Norwell at 13 mil per.
But RB?
There is a serious financial component to this 2 pick.
Pretty sure that Pittsburgh wants to sign Bell because he adds huge value to their team. There are so many worse results, like we take a QB and he sucks (not saying that Rosen or whoever the flavor of the day will....)
It's also a position where it's extremely possible to find highly effective alternatives in the later rounds of drafts or even free agency.
Bottom line, it would be idiotic to take Barkley over a potential heir to Eli, or even a lineman (Nelson) who could be a staple of our line for the next decade.
You need a QB and an OL first, in order to justify a #2 pick on a RB.
Although "LaVeon" sounds pretty classy. Maybe like a brand of expensive sparkling water or some fancy perfume.
This is why I want a QB at 2. I don't care if Barkley or Nelson grade out better. Their value, even if they're all pros, will be far less long-term than a slightly above average QB.
Although "LaVeon" sounds pretty classy. Maybe like a brand of expensive sparkling water or some fancy perfume.
Then you missed a well-thought out thread...which can be a rarity these days.
Who gives a shit if he misspelled a proper name.
This is why I want a QB at 2. I don't care if Barkley or Nelson grade out better. Their value, even if they're all pros, will be far less long-term than a slightly above average QB.
If the prospects were equal, then yes. If there is a significant difference in grade from the best RB to the best QB, then you have to think about it, and you better be right on your QB.
You also set your franchise back more if you take the wrong QB and he busts.
What I said in that other thread is that you are lucky if you get an RB to be an every down back for more than 7 years. Meanwhile, a franchise QB can be an effective starter for double that. The value of a franchise RB is not even close to that of a QB. It is a moronic comparison and if you don't believe me, then let the laws of supply and demand tell you by analyzing the QB contracts vs the RBs. You could could be transported to earth from another planet and know nothing about football and figure out that the QB has a higher value simply by looking at an excel spreadsheet with the players, their positions and their salaries.
By the way, the Steelers scored the same number of points with Bell as they did when he missed games for his injuries and suspensions.
Pretty sure that Pittsburgh wants to sign Bell because he adds huge value to their team. There are so many worse results, like we take a QB and he sucks (not saying that Rosen or whoever the flavor of the day will....)
Is this a serious post? We will be happy having a hold out rb asking for 15 million a year and we must franchise him at huge money and pay ODB...I guess we throwing arena league qb on the team and force him to take low money because we got GENERATIONAL RB who is being tagged for 15-20 a year plus a WR making big money. If Big Ben was 29 or 30 years old today the Steelers would not tag bell period.
they're both an incident away from a year suspension.
I know this is the specific players, not the position per se, but that's their risk of each of them.
This takes a ton of pressure off QB, you can fill it with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran. All in all...it doesn't end up being less economical.
If he's that, he deserves to be paid. First world problem IMO, and one I'd like to have with my team's players. It would mean five years of watching great football with exciting plays left and right.
Where do I sign for this?
We could come up with two tight end look with Odell and Shephard and Barkley in the backfield and switch to am empty backfield. I think he could be used like Marshall Faulk.
If our GM is looking to win now. The one position that seems to come in and make a big impact the quickest in the NFL is running backs.
If our Oline can be solid, it could be made above average with a threat of a running game and back coming out of the backfield. It makes playaction effective for Eli again, holds the linebackers, and could change the whole offense pretty quickly. We could maybe start getting those 3rd and 1 and 2 yard runs again and even get the 4th down. Let Barkley be our Terrell Davis to Elway at the end of his career--I know Denver's team was better as a whole.
We could come up with two tight end look with Odell and Shephard and Barkley in the backfield and switch to am empty backfield. I think he could be used like Marshall Faulk.
If our GM is looking to win now. The one position that seems to come in and make a big impact the quickest in the NFL is running backs.
If our Oline can be solid, it could be made above average with a threat of a running game and back coming out of the backfield. It makes playaction effective for Eli again, holds the linebackers, and could change the whole offense pretty quickly. We could maybe start getting those 3rd and 1 and 2 yard runs again and even get the 4th down. Let Barkley be our Terrell Davis to Elway at the end of his career--I know Denver's team was better as a whole.
If you think the Giants have a chance to get back into the playoffs this year, then Barkley will do more to make that happen than any other pick at that time of the draft.
If Eli and the passing game is a complement to Barkley, that may be what this team needs to get back to winning football. Think Terrell Davis and Elway during his final years.
No matter where a running back is taken in the draft, if he's an exceptional player, a la Bell in this example, the money for that second contract will be the same. The round the player was drafted in makes no difference as to what they would earn on a 2nd deal.
At any case, you have 5 years with the fifth-year option, and then can franchise once, or twice if you really need/want to, before you have to re-sign to a 2nd contract.
Six years of a guy that can change the game before you have to worry about a new deal sounds good to me.
The only difference it makes if he is drafted early in the first is the money he makes in the first deal. And that isn't that important, Barkley will be a value on a first contract.
The premium positions get top dollar for a reason. That’s what they’re valued at. That’s why the Giants shouldn’t go RB or G at 2.
People say RB is a "dime a dozen" position, but when you have a true 3-down threat like Bell, it changes things.
He carries that team and takes a lot of heat off Brown.
Brown is fantastic in his own regard and would be an elite WR anywhere - but Bell is the lifeblood of the PIT offense. He sets everything up and teams have to keep tabs on him as a runner and a pass catcher at all times.
If Barkley is going to be anything like Bell in this league, forget about the contract shit and take him. Worry about that later.
The goal is to take the best player. If it's Barkley, take him.
This takes a ton of pressure off QB, you can fill it with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran. All in all...it doesn't end up being less economical.
Can you provide some examples in the last 10-15 years?
Even mid-tier veteran QBs are going for big money. Cousins just signed for 28 mil per. Bradford 20 mil. Keenum 18 mil.
Has a top 3 RB led team signed a mid-tier vet QB and won?
And mid-round QB picks have an enormous bust rate. Like cant get on the field at all bust rate.
The premium positions get top dollar for a reason. That’s what they’re valued at. That’s why the Giants shouldn’t go RB or G at 2.
Yeah, lets not draft great players who can help us win for fear of having to pay them big $$ in 5-6 years on their 2nd contracts.
By that logic we shouldn't have drafted OBJ either.
Plus none of these 4 guys will be at least in the top 2/3rds of their position
We have to choose RB or QB in this draft. That’s the choice. Its not theoretical. Its what’s happening.
This takes a ton of pressure off QB, you can fill it with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran. All in all...it doesn't end up being less economical.
+1,000. I don’t understand why so few posters on BBI seem to realize that the best remedy for Eli is an effective running game. The Giants haven’t had a reliable running game since the late 2000s. But ‘you can’t take a RB at #2’, even if he’s the BPA, apparently.
Plus none of these 4 guys will be at least in the top 2/3rds of their position
Disagree.
You just have to believe he's the best player on the board when you pick. If he's at a position of need who can come right in and make your team better immediately,it's a bonus.
If he ends up being the best in the league at his position, it's an even bigger bonus but certainly not a prerequisite to drafting him.
Quote:
Lets say Barkley turns out to be a top 3 back in the NFL.
This takes a ton of pressure off QB, you can fill it with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran. All in all...it doesn't end up being less economical.
Can you provide some examples in the last 10-15 years?
Even mid-tier veteran QBs are going for big money. Cousins just signed for 28 mil per. Bradford 20 mil. Keenum 18 mil.
Has a top 3 RB led team signed a mid-tier vet QB and won?
And mid-round QB picks have an enormous bust rate. Like cant get on the field at all bust rate.
Those are all mistake contracts so why should they impact anything with regard to what the Giants do?
But you are saying that they are equal in value only as to how much they are getting paid. Monetary/contract values and the value on the football field and how it pertains to wins and losses are two very different things. I think the comparison is wholly without merit.
If they love one of these QB's, they should take him @ 2.
My only argument this entire time has been this:
Do not draft a QB out of fear or desperation. That's how you make a big mistake.
If the Giants love a guy like Rosen and he's there @ 2 - take him!
But if the Browns take Darnold and the Giants have Barkley rated higher than any of the other QB's, they should take Barkley.
It's not worth getting hung up on the past. The league changes and evolves often. Some basic principles rarely change - but I don't think the Giants should pass on Barkley just because of how the RB position was filled by recent winners.
If we're using Bell as an example - this is what the Steelers have done since he was drafted:
8-8
11-5
10-6
11-5
13-3
4 out of 5 years in the playoffs. The only time they missed was Bell's rookie year.
We all know the playoffs can be a crapshoot sometimes.
Bell takes PIT to another level - he is a special player. If Barkley can do that here, you take him.
Maybe I'm missing something but what does that matter?
If DG isn't in love with one of the QBs but feels Barkley is can't miss and will be a great pick and fit, why does how he gets paid relative to the bottom 1/3 of QBs matter?
Should they take a QB just because he's supposedly worth more but isn't as valuable a player to the team? Makes no sense to me. It seems similar to drafting for need and not talent, IMO and that's a good way to get burned.
If they love one of these QB's, they should take him @ 2.
My only argument this entire time has been this:
Do not draft a QB out of fear or desperation. That's how you make a big mistake.
If the Giants love a guy like Rosen and he's there @ 2 - take him!
But if the Browns take Darnold and the Giants have Barkley rated higher than any of the other QB's, they should take Barkley.
It's not worth getting hung up on the past. The league changes and evolves often. Some basic principles rarely change - but I don't think the Giants should pass on Barkley just because of how the RB position was filled by recent winners.
If we're using Bell as an example - this is what the Steelers have done since he was drafted:
8-8
11-5
10-6
11-5
13-3
4 out of 5 years in the playoffs. The only time they missed was Bell's rookie year.
We all know the playoffs can be a crapshoot sometimes.
Bell takes PIT to another level - he is a special player. If Barkley can do that here, you take him.
That’s great and all. But the Steelers have Ben Roethlisberger. He happened to win 2 Super Bowls and go to a 3rd without Bell. So the Steelers have kinda underperformed since he’s been there.
This takes a ton of pressure off QB, you can fill it with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran. All in all...it doesn't end up being less economical.
fill QB with a mid round pick?
people see the Brady's and Wilson's and think that's a reliable plan. It's not, it's the exception.
"filling QB with a mid round pick or mid-tier veteran" is how you become the Browns, Jets, Dolphins or Bills stuck in QB hell for decades.
can it work? Maybe, but if it were that easy wouldn't you see more mid-round QB's winning super bowls?
How did it work for the Vikings with Peterson, or the Lions with Sanders (and many more).
Quote:
It all depends how the scouts have the players graded. I'm not in the Giants war room and I don't know what their board looks like.
If they love one of these QB's, they should take him @ 2.
My only argument this entire time has been this:
Do not draft a QB out of fear or desperation. That's how you make a big mistake.
If the Giants love a guy like Rosen and he's there @ 2 - take him!
But if the Browns take Darnold and the Giants have Barkley rated higher than any of the other QB's, they should take Barkley.
It's not worth getting hung up on the past. The league changes and evolves often. Some basic principles rarely change - but I don't think the Giants should pass on Barkley just because of how the RB position was filled by recent winners.
If we're using Bell as an example - this is what the Steelers have done since he was drafted:
8-8
11-5
10-6
11-5
13-3
4 out of 5 years in the playoffs. The only time they missed was Bell's rookie year.
We all know the playoffs can be a crapshoot sometimes.
Bell takes PIT to another level - he is a special player. If Barkley can do that here, you take him.
That’s great and all. But the Steelers have Ben Roethlisberger. He happened to win 2 Super Bowls and go to a 3rd without Bell. So the Steelers have kinda underperformed since he’s been there.
I'm aware of Ben Roethlisberger and who he is. Bell has made his life much easier as he's aged. Eli hasn't had a RB anywhere near this level in his 30's like Ben has.
The Steelers haven't finished under .500 one time since Bell has been there and they've finished with double-digit wins in 4 of the last 5 seasons.
When was the last time the Giants won 10 or more games in 4 consecutive seasons?
Never. Not even in the pre-SB era.
Ben has had some of his best seasons with Bell there. It's not a coincidence.
Barkley would be a major help for Eli.
For one, Ben has never had a losing season in his entire career with any RB.
And 2, Bell has only played 62 of a possible 90 regular season games in his 5 years.
in principle though I agree completely, elite RB's help QB's.
Quote:
It all depends how the scouts have the players graded. I'm not in the Giants war room and I don't know what their board looks like.
If they love one of these QB's, they should take him @ 2.
My only argument this entire time has been this:
Do not draft a QB out of fear or desperation. That's how you make a big mistake.
If the Giants love a guy like Rosen and he's there @ 2 - take him!
But if the Browns take Darnold and the Giants have Barkley rated higher than any of the other QB's, they should take Barkley.
It's not worth getting hung up on the past. The league changes and evolves often. Some basic principles rarely change - but I don't think the Giants should pass on Barkley just because of how the RB position was filled by recent winners.
If we're using Bell as an example - this is what the Steelers have done since he was drafted:
8-8
11-5
10-6
11-5
13-3
4 out of 5 years in the playoffs. The only time they missed was Bell's rookie year.
We all know the playoffs can be a crapshoot sometimes.
Bell takes PIT to another level - he is a special player. If Barkley can do that here, you take him.
That’s great and all. But the Steelers have Ben Roethlisberger. He happened to win 2 Super Bowls and go to a 3rd without Bell. So the Steelers have kinda underperformed since he’s been there.
Big Ben, he himself a 10th overall pick.
Even Beckham - unless he's willing to sign a deal that's team friendly in some way, it's entirely possible they just tag him, especially if he's looking to set records and be the highest paid player ever.
The only difference with the QB position is if you have the best guy in the NFL you give him a blank check no questions asked. But that's not a difference just with the RB position, it's a difference with every other position.
For one, Ben has never had a losing season in his entire career with any RB.
And 2, Bell has only played 62 of a possible 90 regular season games in his 5 years.
in principle though I agree completely, elite RB's help QB's.
For sure, I'm not dismissing Ben's impact entirely - he's had a hell of a career and deserves plenty of credit in his own right.
I just think a player like Bell is so huge because him being in the backfield isn't a tell on any down. Most teams don't have a player who can play all 3 downs like this - so when the early down RB's are in there, defenses aren't that concerned with them being a major threat on a pass play. It's different with Bell. He's an elite runner and an elite pass catcher.
If we look at Eli and the RB's we've had here since his elite 2011 season, there's just such a major difference.
2012: Bradshaw/Brown/Wilson
2013: Brown/Hillis/Jacobs (at the very end)/Wilson (5 games)
2014: Andre Williams/Jennings/Hillis
2015: Jennings/Vereen/Williams/Darkwa
2016: Jennings/Perkins/Vereen/Darkwa
2017: Darkwa/Gallman/Vereen/Perkins
Those are some pretty bad RB groups.
I think Eli is obviously in a natural decline as it is - he's 37, it would be strange if he hadn't declined at all. But if you look at when he's been at his best, it's been when he's had good RB production.
Even in 2015 - Jennings had a solid year. He had over 1k scrimmage yards and Vereen caught like 60 balls as a safety valve out of the backfield.
Barkley can do everything both of those guys did combined.
The OL has been a major reason why Eli's life has been difficult in recent years - but the RB situation hasn't been any better. I think a guy like Barkley would do wonders for him if he's going to remain the starter for another couple years.
Gurley was a legit MVP candidate. It's so hard for a non-QB to win that award, but I really did think he was the best player in football last year.
Goff took a big step forward, which also was a major key to the year LAR had - but I don't think it was a coincidence.
Look at how much Gurley struggled in 2016 behind that crappy line and look how much better he was in 2017. Gurley was incredible and opened up so many things for Goff.
This is also why so many people were singing Prescott's praises in 2016 - because of what Elliott opened up for him.
Do not discount the trickle-down impact of a great RB on QB and on an offense in general.
If Barkley is as good as some of the pundits are predicting, NYG should draft him.
Quote:
Forgetting where they were picked, just looking at the positional value - a very good case can be made that Gurley has been a more important pick for the Rams than Goff. I'm fairly certain the Cowboys would give up Dak before they give up Elliot.
Gurley was a legit MVP candidate. It's so hard for a non-QB to win that award, but I really did think he was the best player in football last year.
Goff took a big step forward, which also was a major key to the year LAR had - but I don't think it was a coincidence.
Look at how much Gurley struggled in 2016 behind that crappy line and look how much better he was in 2017. Gurley was incredible and opened up so many things for Goff.
This is also why so many people were singing Prescott's praises in 2016 - because of what Elliott opened up for him.
Do not discount the trickle-down impact of a great RB on QB and on an offense in general.
If Barkley is as good as some of the pundits are predicting, NYG should draft him.
I agree. Especially considering NYG won't necessarily have their choice of their top QB. Cleveland could take whoever that is. What if they aren't comfortable with Rosen's medical eval or Mayfield's personality in NY? If it's Barkley vs. whoever they think is the top QB in a good class I think they will probably go QB. But it's not such an obvious decision if it's Barkley vs. their 3rd or 4th ranked QB in terms of on-field performance.
I think it's simplifying things too much when people just say "well, the teams winning Super Bowls have non-elite RB's" - especially because that has never really been the Pats MO and they've won so many Super Bowls or played in them in recent years.
NE is a very anomalous team for several reasons.
Lynch was a first-team all-pro for the 2012 Seahawks that went 11-5 and was still a huge part of the team that won the SB the next year.
If they'd have just handed the ball to him in the 2015 SB against NE, they almost certainly win that game too.
A great RB can make a huge difference.
I like Wayne Gallman a lot. But Gallman is not that player. He's going to be a really nice complementary RB - but if we go into the year expecting he and Stewart to carry the load, I think we're going to have another underwhelming year running the ball.
Quote:
If you think the Giants have a chance to get back into the playoffs this year, then Barkley will do more to make that happen than any other pick at that time of the draft.
If Eli and the passing game is a complement to Barkley, that may be what this team needs to get back to winning football. Think Terrell Davis and Elway during his final years.
If you look at like that....I completely agree! Chances of them making the playoffs with a rookie QB at the helm; basically none. Take Barkley and they at least have a chance! Barkley adds to the team instantly, very little learning curve to boot.
Dawkins > McNabb
LT > Simms
I think it's simplifying things too much when people just say "well, the teams winning Super Bowls have non-elite RB's" - especially because that has never really been the Pats MO and they've won so many Super Bowls or played in them in recent years.
NE is a very anomalous team for several reasons.
Lynch was a first-team all-pro for the 2012 Seahawks that went 11-5 and was still a huge part of the team that won the SB the next year.
If they'd have just handed the ball to him in the 2015 SB against NE, they almost certainly win that game too.
A great RB can make a huge difference.
I like Wayne Gallman a lot. But Gallman is not that player. He's going to be a really nice complementary RB - but if we go into the year expecting he and Stewart to carry the load, I think we're going to have another underwhelming year running the ball.
It's almost as if having the greatest head coach and quarterback of all-time has something to do with it, huh?
Quote:
For sure.
I think it's simplifying things too much when people just say "well, the teams winning Super Bowls have non-elite RB's" - especially because that has never really been the Pats MO and they've won so many Super Bowls or played in them in recent years.
NE is a very anomalous team for several reasons.
Lynch was a first-team all-pro for the 2012 Seahawks that went 11-5 and was still a huge part of the team that won the SB the next year.
If they'd have just handed the ball to him in the 2015 SB against NE, they almost certainly win that game too.
A great RB can make a huge difference.
I like Wayne Gallman a lot. But Gallman is not that player. He's going to be a really nice complementary RB - but if we go into the year expecting he and Stewart to carry the load, I think we're going to have another underwhelming year running the ball.
It's almost as if having the greatest head coach and quarterback of all-time has something to do with it, huh?
A crazy notion, I know..! :)
Link - ( New Window )