I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Odell got 95 million. Let me ask you... Right now, who would you rather have making 95 million on your team? Odell, or Saquon? Who provides more value? They are both a threat to take it to the house every time they touch it.
The era of devaluing the RB is over. I'm sure like everything else in the NFL, it will come again. But this is now gearing back towards a running driven league, especially with mobile QB's in style the way they are.
Saquon isn't just a great RB, he's a great football player, period.
Nice to see you posting again. Weird season ahead.
Hey buddy. Hope all's well.
Weird season indeed. Without any preseason and such limited access to the team, I really don't know what to expect this year. But, I'm glad football is back and there's a Giants game in a couple of days.
New seasons are always exciting. Clean slate. Chance to turn things around.
Just want to see progress and a smarter, better-coached football team on the rise this year. I don't know if you can put an exact win total on that, but if we beat a couple of good teams and compete with others and don't keep beating ourselves with stupid penalties and mistakes, I'm good with it.
I'm hoping the weirdness, along with a couple of lucky breaks/bounces here and there, and if the team is as scrappy as I hope it is, they can claw out a .500 or even above record. You never know. I'm hopeful every season until there's reason not to be (lately around week 2).
Anyways, clean slate like you said. Take the wrapper off Monday night. A new era begins.
But really, I'm just looking for some normalcy once a week.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
Two of the other headline running backs that BBI used as justification were shipped out by their respective teams... pay a running back at your own peril.
Two of the other headline running backs that BBI used as justification were shipped out by their respective teams... pay a running back at your own peril.
They got shipped out because they were jerks. Just like Odell.
He only got $28 million guaranteed so not exactly breaking the bank. If Barkley gets an extension and we do a similar amount I'm all for it but otherwise should probably let him walk.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
RB is devalued because it's much harder to win games on their own
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
Plenty have, you must not be paying attention. Their contracts have less guaranteed money than many other positions too, so IMO the risk is lower yet their production is sky high.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
His year last year also doesn't scream "mistake" and holding singular players accountable for team records is lazy. Paying him isn't the sole reason they finished 8-8.
Dallas amassed more offensive yardage than any other team in football last year and were 6th in points scored. Elliott should be a top flight player for another few years.
There are no guarantees in football. You're taking on a risk with any player you pay big money to. Elliott has barely missed any time due to injury to date and has carried heavy workloads each year. Anyone can get hurt. Elliott is only 25 years old.
RE: RB is devalued because it's much harder to win games on their own
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
It won't come to an end until these deals work out for teams on a consistent basis.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Well the deals all just happened, clearly front offices of successful franchises don’t feel the same way you do. The guarantees are low as well, so much risk has already been accounted for.
25% of the total guaranteed essentially makes it a big 1 year deal for some of these guys yet it’s being talked about like they are getting fully guaranteed contracts.
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
I truly think people are so dig in on the whole RB debate that they either don’t want to actually look at how favorable some of these terms or or do and simply pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Out of all the top players in the NFL on deal #2 CMCs is incredibly attractive. Elliots is great too and Cooks is fantastic. I don’t know the Kamara details but it sounds like his is right in line as well.
Neither of those look like huge extensions — 34 and 28 million guaranteed respectively put both of those deals outside of the top 60 in the NFL.
The details will probably mirror the other high profile running back deals lately, geared towards having an option to cut ties with the player after their 6th NFL season.
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Zeke Elliott article on his performance last season
Without a decent line. You think EE would have the same success without Dallas o-line?
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
I don't agree with this at all. ALL of those positions need line play.
The QB can't find the open WR if he's constantly on his back or running for his life. Isn't that what we've been watching for the better part of the last decade?
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Of course all of that stuff matters - my question was, given Carolina's actual situation, would anyone here have just not offered McCaffrey anything and let him go?
I have a hard time believing that anyone would say yes for any reason other than playing Devil's Advocate.
This is a 1st team, All-Pro player. The goal is to accumulate talent, not refuse to pay for it.
I don't think every good RB should get paid, but players like McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott... these guys are game-changers who are a threat to score every time they have the football. If it's my money, I am willing to pay for that.
RE: RE: Paying for Barkley isn't the issue as much as
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
It's just not a wise allocation of resources to devote huge bucks to a position that has such a short shelf life. What are the chances we will be in contention in Barkley's prime? It'll just be eating into the cap significantly and prevent us from filling other holes.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
The 5th year option plus a franchise tag is likely about 2/3 maybe more of the guaranteed money CMC just got. It’s way more than what Cook just got.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
3rd year (completed in the books) rbs should get paid
It's just not a wise allocation of resources to devote huge bucks to a position that has such a short shelf life. What are the chances we will be in contention in Barkley's prime? It'll just be eating into the cap significantly and prevent us from filling other holes.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
Our defensive line is among the worst in the league?
I don't agree with that at all.
RE: RE: RE: Paying for Barkley isn't the issue as much as
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
For more than both Cook and Kamara. I think just about everybody would be in agreement that Cook and Kamara are “better” players. Neither deal is larger than what Gurley signed a few years back despite other positions increasing in value over that time (ie Ramsey crossing the 20m/yr threshold). The position has most certainly been devalued.
Teams are being more careful with big money extensions at the position in the way they structure these deals and RBs are pushing for extensions earlier in their rookie deals. The market has actually settled.
They are all multi-dimensional offensive talents. The Giants should absolutely give Barkley another contract (and they will). I just wish they were more proactive about it and did it before these deals.
RE: These players are more than just “running backs”
They are all multi-dimensional offensive talents. The Giants should absolutely give Barkley another contract (and they will). I just wish they were more proactive about it and did it before these deals.
I'm not sure Barkley and his agent would have agreed to that. I think he knows what he's worth. If he has a monster year this season, in year three, I think we'll start to see some movement towards this.
I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Dalvin Cook - 2nd round pick #41
Alvin Kamara - 3rd round pick #67
I might consider giving him the Kamara deal before it gets even higher.
Odell got 95 million. Let me ask you... Right now, who would you rather have making 95 million on your team? Odell, or Saquon? Who provides more value? They are both a threat to take it to the house every time they touch it.
The era of devaluing the RB is over. I'm sure like everything else in the NFL, it will come again. But this is now gearing back towards a running driven league, especially with mobile QB's in style the way they are.
Saquon isn't just a great RB, he's a great football player, period.
Kenyan Drake should get paid soon.
Hey buddy. Hope all's well.
Weird season indeed. Without any preseason and such limited access to the team, I really don't know what to expect this year. But, I'm glad football is back and there's a Giants game in a couple of days.
New seasons are always exciting. Clean slate. Chance to turn things around.
Just want to see progress and a smarter, better-coached football team on the rise this year. I don't know if you can put an exact win total on that, but if we beat a couple of good teams and compete with others and don't keep beating ourselves with stupid penalties and mistakes, I'm good with it.
Anyways, clean slate like you said. Take the wrapper off Monday night. A new era begins.
Serious question. Can you explain to me why it's okay to pay a WR that kind of money but not a RB?
I posed the question above, who do you think you get more value from? Odell for $95 million or Saquon?
That is a dual thread.
Look at Christian McCaffrey. Same thing. Dual threat.
These guys are just as much a threat to catch a 30 yard pass over the shoulder downfield for a score as they are to bust one from scrimmage.
Bottom line, they are great football players. You're putting limiting them when you call them "just a RB".
Great players get paid.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
They got shipped out because they were jerks. Just like Odell.
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
Plenty have, you must not be paying attention. Their contracts have less guaranteed money than many other positions too, so IMO the risk is lower yet their production is sky high.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
Quote:
In comment 14968128 eugibs said:
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Didn't Dallas give Elliott a 90M extension before the start of last year?
He ran for like 1300 yards, rushed for 12 scores and added 54 receptions.
Was he a bad spend for Dallas? I don't think he was, personally. He's an elite player. I hate the guy, but I don't really believe in just letting talent like that walk away. I think they'll get solid value out of it.
One good statistical season for an 8-8 team is not worth $90 million. Let’s see him do it for a few more years first. Elliott is 4 years in, the statistical odds are that he has maybe 1 or 2 more big years left (if he doesn’t get hurt) before he’s a replacement level player. Maybe he’s different or one of these other guys will be different in terms of their impact and longevity, but as I already said, if any of them are, it will be the first time it’s happened.
His year last year also doesn't scream "mistake" and holding singular players accountable for team records is lazy. Paying him isn't the sole reason they finished 8-8.
Dallas amassed more offensive yardage than any other team in football last year and were 6th in points scored. Elliott should be a top flight player for another few years.
There are no guarantees in football. You're taking on a risk with any player you pay big money to. Elliott has barely missed any time due to injury to date and has carried heavy workloads each year. Anyone can get hurt. Elliott is only 25 years old.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
Assuming you are ranking just these 3 positions, and not all of them, right? Because OT, ER and CB probably need to get above WR and RB imv.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Quote:
that works out will be the first.
Serious question. Can you explain to me why it's okay to pay a WR that kind of money but not a RB?
I posed the question above, who do you think you get more value from? Odell for $95 million or Saquon?
Because WR's primes are generally into their 2nd contract.
RB's 95% of the time their primes are on their rookie deal.
Signing them to a big money deal doesn't mean they made the right decision.
People said the same thing here when Gurley signed his massive deal. That one didn't take long to blow up in their faces.
Well the deals all just happened, clearly front offices of successful franchises don’t feel the same way you do. The guarantees are low as well, so much risk has already been accounted for.
25% of the total guaranteed essentially makes it a big 1 year deal for some of these guys yet it’s being talked about like they are getting fully guaranteed contracts.
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
I truly think people are so dig in on the whole RB debate that they either don’t want to actually look at how favorable some of these terms or or do and simply pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Out of all the top players in the NFL on deal #2 CMCs is incredibly attractive. Elliots is great too and Cooks is fantastic. I don’t know the Kamara details but it sounds like his is right in line as well.
The details will probably mirror the other high profile running back deals lately, geared towards having an option to cut ties with the player after their 6th NFL season.
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
https://sportdfw.com/2020/06/10/dallas-cowboys-teams-still-fear-ezekiel-elliott/
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
That's why qb play will always be the key to a successful offense. If the defense doesn't respect the qb or o-line play, it's load up the box to stop the rb. How many times have we seen, 'load the box make Prescott beat you'? It worked to his advantage his rookie year quite well
If you have a good cheap o-line, you can pay the rb, but it's a lot harder if you have an expensive o-line.
If I am ranking position players on importance relative to independence on other positions:
QB
WR (needs QB play)
RB (needs o-line and QB play)
I don't agree with this at all. ALL of those positions need line play.
The QB can't find the open WR if he's constantly on his back or running for his life. Isn't that what we've been watching for the better part of the last decade?
Quote:
So, just to be clear, the "don't pay RB's" crowd would have let Christian McCaffrey walk?
No extension, no offer, just let him go and take the compensation?
That's a hell of a football player that you'd be wiling to just let waltz out of the building because of the position he plays and would be a tough one to justify to fans. The guy has over 200 receptions in the last 2 years to go with about 2500 rush yards and 32 scores.
You don't just say "eh, hes a running back" and wave goodbye to a player like that. Obviously Carolina didn't.
It's not that black and white. How expensive is your QB? How expensive is your defense? Are you going to have to cut good players because you paid an RB?
You can pay a RB, but you need a lot of good young talent on cheaper contracts to make it work. Like the Rams and Gurley. Then they had to pay everyone else and cut him.
Of course all of that stuff matters - my question was, given Carolina's actual situation, would anyone here have just not offered McCaffrey anything and let him go?
I have a hard time believing that anyone would say yes for any reason other than playing Devil's Advocate.
This is a 1st team, All-Pro player. The goal is to accumulate talent, not refuse to pay for it.
I don't think every good RB should get paid, but players like McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott... these guys are game-changers who are a threat to score every time they have the football. If it's my money, I am willing to pay for that.
Quote:
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
I'd utilize the franchise tag. If the player doesn't like it too fucking bad, don't show up and you don't get paid.
Utilize the 5th year option, franchise after that, and after 6 years say adios.
There’s plenty of ways to build successful teams. I know for a fact it’s harder with less talent. The tough guy act of take it or leave it rarely works. Outside of Belichick who earned the ability to get away with that, it’s almost guaranteed to backfire way more than it will workout.
We have an infinite amount of holes - O-Line, WR, CB, S, DL, LB. The offensive and defensive lines are both among the worst in the league, and we have a lack of playmakers.
We can't have a WR eating up so much of our cap when we're so far away from contention and have so many holes. Saints, Cowboys, and Vikings can all sign RBs to massive deals because they are legitimate contenders.
This is not a knock on SB's talent, he's just not the right fit at the right time for our team.
Our defensive line is among the worst in the league?
I don't agree with that at all.
Quote:
In comment 14968148 LBH15 said:
Quote:
its whether the team can foresee actually competing before the bulk of that second contract/useful life wears out.
Otherwise deal him and start the restructuring over again.
I understand this conservative approach, but I look at it like a poker tournament.
If you keep folding, you're eventually going to blind out. Eventually, you have to commit to hands in order to advance.
Its not a fold if you can still extract trade value to rebuild properly. Consider it more like the dealer gave you another hand for free to find the next good running back.
Committing to Barkley is much easier than some other types of players but he is far more marketable to other GMs.
I liken letting arguably one of the best players walk, in their prime, because of what might happen in the next year or two to folding a pair of Aces because you're scared of what's going to come on the river.
Teams are being more careful with big money extensions at the position in the way they structure these deals and RBs are pushing for extensions earlier in their rookie deals. The market has actually settled.
Not really sure how that works...
I'm not sure Barkley and his agent would have agreed to that. I think he knows what he's worth. If he has a monster year this season, in year three, I think we'll start to see some movement towards this.