Dragon

From what I understand, he started smelling himself and ended up in the doghouse, so this isn't surprising. It is kinda strange that he and his brother were basically cut at the same time tho. Wonder what's going on there. 

9 hours ago, BlueInCanada said:

That is the whole argument though, a good QB, pass catchers and defense are vastly more important to winning and even getting to the big show then having a top 5 RB.  

If you don't have an good combination of those three things then you can't keep up with modern NFL scoring. 

Which is why the RB position has been so devalued over the years, since outside of maybe three or four RBs in the NFL none of them bring that big play ability, or can be replaced with another typically cheaper RB in the league. 

And it's funny you mention Beckham because he was making 19 million that year he carried the Rams to the SB when he was traded.  

Do I think it sucks for RBs? Yeah you should get paid for what you produce on the field and it will clearly be a discussion for the NFLPA and the league to work out come negotiating time. 

But I also think it's just the current shift in the NFL landscape and has been onset the last five years or so, after CMC signed his contract and then got hurt for two years .

Beckham... literally what I said. We, fans and sports media, were having the same discussion about NOT paying him, and now it's commonplace to pay the WR as that narrative was disproven. Hell... just a few years ago the narrative was draft a young QB and stack the team as much as possible to try and win a Super Bowl before you have to pay the QB so these media talking points aren't anything new. They just seem to shift from one targeted position to another. 

Dropping 5% of the cap on a RB that's worth it shouldn't be that big of a deal regardless of how much the QB, WRs and D are making. Ex... don't believe the bullshit... the most Saquon was realistically offered was $11.5M/year. As per Ryan Dunleavy, the numbers that were leaked, the $13-14M/year, had escalators/incentives that would NEVER be reached with guaranteed money totaling less than both the 2 franchise tags and the top rookie rb until the 11th hour when the AAV was lowered and the guarantees were increased to the equivalent of the 2 tags. The current deal takes up 4.49% of the $224.8M cap. Even if we hypothetically gave him $15M/year, that's still just 6.67% when we have Leonard Williams just sitting there with a $32M cap number in his final year and no realistic solution next to Dex, unless Jordan Riley somehow becomes the next Aaron Donald. Simple solution... extend Williams to lower his cap number for this year and pay Saquon so that he and DJ are tied to each other throught the duration of both their contracts since your QB isn't costing you $55-60M. The Free Agent WR market is weak next year, so our best bet is to extend Campbell or draft another WR high, neither if which should cost a ton and we're currently projected to have around $60M in cap space when it jumps to around $256M. 

All that being said... what's (hypothetically) $15M/year to that when we have most of our key positions covered and what seems like a surplus when it comes to cap space on the horizon? And I'm not advocating for $15M/year. I'm just using it as an arbitrary number since Saquon said he wasn't trying to reset the market... which would be $16M+. 

Seems like a no-brainer, but I'm just a fan that wants my team to succeed. 

Is it bad that I really had to think about who "Smith" was???

3 hours ago, Iceman_NYG said:

The argument here is Jones with scrubs for WRs - Hodgins was on the practice squad - was effective with a proper game plan. But if there is a case to be made for an RBs value - it has to be the Washington game when Saquon took over in the 4th qtr. Literally grinded out 1st down after 1st down and swallowed the clock to keep the ball away from the Commanders. THAT is the value of the RB - but those situations are few and far in between - its all about quick scoring now and drawing penalties. And Saquon being a receiving QB - like Ekeler or Tomlinson - is that much more valuable. The way he turned that lost play against Chicago into a positive 1st down was a thing of beauty. But yeah I agree - an Eric Gray and Brieda at 1-2 mill a year is almost the same to a GM than a single back for 13-14mill - purely because of the nature of the game and the play of the QB and WRs/TEs and the soft rules to protect the passing game.

Eric Gray needs to learn how to pick up a blitz and catch a punt without giving me a heart attack before I put any kind of faith in him.

On 8/18/2023 at 3:10 PM, BlueInCanada said:

But that's what I'm saying, good QBs and defenses win in the NFL today, RBs help but aren't needed. 

You don't need a face of the franchise RB anymore, you can get by with rentals and rookies. 

You said it yourself only 5(6) QBs have won the SB since '13, how many different RBs were in the SB and how many were 1000 yard rushers?  How many were paid 10+ million? 

You either need a QB to win games because you need to score and score quickly in the NFL or a defense to stop the other team from scoring in under a minute.

The rules and pace no longer benefit long sustained drives, especially if your defense isn't good, because the other team is going to go down and score in 45 seconds. Just look at the championship games last year each one was decided in the final 30 seconds because offenses can just score at will. 

I'm not saying RBs shouldn't get paid I'm just saying that in today's NFL it's better to have the majority of your cap space going towards your QB/pass catchers and defense, because they are going to win you games in the final seconds.  

RBs contracts are a by product of the game today. Maybe one day the NFL returns to the grind out style but only a select few teams in the NFL even make it work (49ers/Titans) and even then they are victims of their lack of big play ability. 

 

I get your main point. You're not getting or you're just flat out ignoring what I'm saying, though. You keep saying "good" as if you can throw any 2nd or 3rd tier QB out onto the field and expect them to elevate everyone around them to a Super Bowl winner. There's smaller than a select few QBs that can do that and all of them in the last 10 years with the exception of Foles are at least borderline HoF QBs. So if you're specifically saying "you don't need to pay a RB to win as long as you have the greatest QB of all time, or his heir apparent" I agree with you, but that's not the argument. 

As far as your questions, there have been multiple cases with 1000+ yard rushers in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. I believe only 2 have been on the winning team... one of them beating another team with a 1000+ yard rusher (Pats-Falcons). Another case was Lynch for Seattle in 2013 and 2014 who WOULD HAVE won back to back had they actually ran the ball in for the GWTD instead of trying to make Russell Wilson the MVP, and Todd Gurley in 2018 lost to Brady's Pats after putting up nearly 1300 rushing yards... 1800+ in scrimmage yards. In that same time span you've had a bunch of others that have come just shy of 1000, but made up for it through receiving yards. The production has been there. It's just been overshadowed by those teams continuously running into the football GOAT. 

Asking about the $10M+ isn't a fair question as the salary cap has just gotten to the point where a RB can realistically be paid $10M+ over the last 3-5 years and with that all the sudden is this practice/theory of cheap rentals or running rookies into the ground and deliberately restricting their earning potential by keeping them under team control for their duration of their rookie contract and 2 franchise tags so that they cannot hit the open market while they're in their prime. The definition of legal loophole. And I know I've been going on for a minute, but we live in a world where Corey Davis, Cole Kmet and Evan Engram make more than Saquon, Josh Jacobs, Miles Sanders and Tony Pollard. That will never sit right with me and it's even worse in our case as we have every major position locked up with multi-year control except RB and Safety, but there's this Salary Cap excuse everyone keeps using as if Schoen couldn't manipulate the cap numbers the same way, if not better, than he did while negotiating DJ's contract. 

Now... the funny thing about saying QB/pass catchers and defense being better served getting the bulk of the salary cap money is that we were just having this exact same conversation about Beckham 5 years ago with similar terminology. "When was the last time a team paid a WR $xxM and won a Super Bowl?" was all we heard throughout all of sports media. Now it's commonplace and the argument has moved over to the RBs. 

9 hours ago, Mr. P said:

 

Listening to the VOD of a Patricia Traina podcast and she asked someone about the tape and they said today was one of the first days on the indoor field and sometimes players get taped or taped differently for turf vs grass. 

6 hours ago, BlueInCanada said:

But that is the whole argument.

You don't need a good RB, you need a good QB and good QBs now cost north of 50+ million a year.

You don't need to throw 10+ million at a RB anymore, when you can get a stable of two or three who run just as well for the same price.

That's the argument, but the reality has been you need a HALL OF FAME QB or a top 10 all time defense if you're gonna undervalue the RB position. How many of those are actually available? Since 2013 there have only been 5 QBs to win Super Bowls and excluding the outliers of the 2017 Eagles, all 4 of them are going to Canton. And again... $10M+ is a drop in the bucket with the $300M salary cap there's gonna be in a few years especially if that $10M+ is putting up 1700 scrimmage and 11 TDs. It can be done and with the way gms are able to manipulate the salary cap, there's literally no excuse. 

On 7/29/2023 at 11:12 AM, BlueInCanada said:

It's not so much the market as it's the NFL today.

QBs are getting paid x2 as much as they were 5 years ago, Carr signed the biggest contract in 2017 at 25 million a year, Herbert is now making north of 57 million a year.

Add to that fact that other positions such as OT/WR/DE/DT/DBs are now making what QBs used to make in the 20+ million range, the money a team can spend elsewhere is shrinking.

RBs are the ones taking the brunt of it simply because you don't need a premiere RB to win the NFL, you just need serviceable backs who can rotate in as a fresh set of legs.

The Eagles and Chiefs got to the SB without a 1000 yard rusher and not a single RB making more than 4 million a year.

 

Was in a debate a few weeks ago and someone asked me when the last time a team won the Super Bowl with a RB getting paid more than $3M/year so I looked it up. 2013. Marshawn Lynch was making a little over $3M a year. The time before that... 2011. Us. Both Jacobs and Bradshaw were over $4.5M AAV... Jacobs being over $6M. The thing about this convo is it completely ignores a vital side of the argument. Sure... maybe you don't need an all world RB to win a Super Bowl but you DO need... 

2014: the greatest QB of all time... Brady

2015: the 2nd Greatest QB of all time and an all world defense... Peyton and the 2015 Broncos

2016: the greatest QB of all time... Brady

2017: the outlier... who beat the Greatest QB of all Time

2018: the Greatest QB of all time... Brady

2019: Future HOF QB... Mahomes

2020: The Greatest QB of all time... Brady

2021: Future Hof QB and a front office that sacrificed the future for 1 quick run... Stafford

2022: Future HOF QB... Mahomes

It's not as simple as they're trying to make it seem. 

Lol nah. Ijs Kelce is the only C that stonewalled Dex and if he can stop one of the best then JMS needs to be taking notes. 

It makes my skin crawl a bit, but JMS needs to be watching Jason Kelce clips every day. 

2 hours ago, Nas said:

Makes you wonder how many kids would want to play the position.    I’m also beating a dead horse when I say the market is dead wrong on the value of running backs.

I was having this same convo with someone that made a good point, but idk how far it'd be pushed. RBs are always gonna be available cause those kids that aren't good enough to play WR are gonna get moved. It really fn sucks and honestly needs to be addressed if front office personnel are gonna continue to treat RBs as disposable. If we're specifically talking about 1st rounders, they get a 4 year contract with a team option attached and the team has the ability to tag the rb for 2 additional years. That's 7 years of control over a player that's entering the league at 20 at the earliest. So by the time they FINALLY hit free agency they're right on the cusp of that dreaded RB age and can't even hope to get paid to the level of their importance. That is actively stunting a player's earning capability through abusing a system put in place to protect players. 

Is it legal? Yes. Is it morally bankrupt? Also yes, and someone with a set of balls needs to be heading up the NFLPA to prevent this nonsense the next time a CBA gets negotiated. 

Im beating a dead horse but Its hilarious that Cole Kmet is making more than the top 3 free agent RBs from 2023. 

On 6/28/2023 at 8:15 AM, Iceman_NYG said:

And the Eagle bums are well known for cheering injuries?? Does that not factor into epic retardation?

Didn't a bunch of them eat literal horse shit when they 🤮 won the super bowl 🤮 a few years ago?

That's actually less than I thought it would be. I was thinking something closer to $25-26M/year. 

41 minutes ago, GorillaNJ said:

In a salary cap run sport I would look to save $ anywhere you can.     If this were baseball I would say throw all the cash at Saquon

I really hate this talking point. Its almost as if everyone thinks the cap never moves. The Salary cap is projected to be $256M in 2024, $275M in 2025, and if that trend continues... somewhere around $295+ in 2026. With the exception of a #1 WR, which ppl keep trying to convince us we don't need, and Safety (X) all of our major positions are locked into multi year contracts. I'm 100% positive we could've afforded $14-15M per year if that's truly what he was asking for to lock up our most dynamic offensive player without any major financial ramifications if his performance fell off a cliff. But... that's just me. 

10 hours ago, gmenroc said:

Rookie wage scale is a good call. 

I dunno about the "only 1 time" use of the tag...maybe heighten the increase or

maybe something crazy like require the team to pay double the salary of a tagged player to a charity so it costs the team triple the tag but goes to a good cause?  Could escalate it too...so 2x on 1st tag, 4x on 2nd tag.  So this year fo Saquon...he gets 10 mil, charity gets 20 mil.  Gets tagged next year...it's 12 mil for Saquon and 48 mil to charity

Possibly but there needs to be some downside to the organizations using the tag to essentially hold on to a RB for 7 years and destroy their earning potential and they're locked into the rookie scale and then prevented from earning anything significant beyond that. I'd say on top of the charity make it take up twice the space on the cap so if Saquon hits his incentives this year, which would raise his tag to $13M next year, and Schoen decides to be a dick and tag him again... $26M against the cap. 

Think twice about abusing the system. 

The first thing that needs to be done is the franchise tag needs to be adjusted so that it can only be used on a player once. I know it'll never be done away with entirely, but it's current setup allows for it to be abused. After that, I'd increase the rookie wage scale for RBs. If teams are gonna use them as disposable players then they need to be more immediately financially accommodated since their earning potential is significantly reduced. 

1 hour ago, TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt said:

For sure.  Plus Green Bay was only supposed to have Lombardi for two-three years maximum and then he would return to NY as head coach.  Lombardi was all game, then Green Bay said fuck you.  The Giants were the Chicago Bulls of the NFL from 1945-1964.  All things came through the NY Giants as far as football is/was.  Most of the Millennial and younger fans have no idea how big the Giants were.  They were the NY Yankees of football.  Wellington wanted the rest of the league to survive and thrive... with the league then putting a thumb up his ass.  Just terrible.  Us old guys don't say or write this enough.

Idk man. Seems to me like GB and Dallass both owe us like 10 1st rd picks each for our generosity. 

19 hours ago, TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt said:

I am so glad that the Giants ruinned all of those dreams.  Ever since the Broke Backs got Tom Landry (ex-Giants defensive coach), I have had nothing but hate for them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't that and Lombardi ending up in GB all Wellington Mara being way too giving to the rest of the league? 

42 minutes ago, TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt said:

Wow talking about cleaning the air.  Now get rid of the creep who owns the Nyets...uhh Jets.  While they are at, get rid of Jerrah (Jerry Jones) owner of the Broke Backs as well. That would just complete my life. 

No... noooooooo... Jerry has to live forever and continue owning and running the Dallass franchise forever too cause as long as he's in charge they'll never get it right and will continue to be failures. 

3 hours ago, gmenroc said:

Insurance should that be he case.  Still lots of time before week 1.

Didn't Robinson tear his ACL after the bye? How is he even close to ready rn? 😵😵😵

Was having a conversation with a few ppl about this the other day. The main talking points were that the new owners and the NFL would want to erase any and all connection to Snyder so how far would they go? 

We came up with changing the team name to something more patriotic, as well as the logo, the color scheme (to something similar to what the Bills used to wear in the mid 2000s) and moving to the Potomac area of Virginia and building a whole new stadium. 

Can he play RB? Cause we have 333847362787474 WRs already. 

18 minutes ago, jranieli said:

 

https://twitter.com/JordanRaanan/status/1679257119499907072?t=lXld-aa6Pd09BhYhwZ818Q&s=19

22 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

A'Shawn Robinson seems to be a very under-the-radar signing that I think is going to help this defense immensely. 

I'm worried cause I was hearing PUP for him not too long ago. I believe the knee is an issue. 😫😫😫