- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Le'Veon Bell talks retirement if tagged again
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:04 am to Chad504boy
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:04 am to Chad504boy
I recall Big Ben also talking retirement after last season but came back. I don't think his talk had anything to do with contract issues. If Ben retires after this year (which I'm guessing is unlikely), then Bell might not want to play on a franchise tag as it could hurt his value. Bell is a stud RB but probably doesn't put up quite the same numbers without Big Ben.
0
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:20 am to UltimateHog
quote:
I mean, RB in the NFL has a very short shelf life, what is wrong with him wanting to get a max contract? One injury on a tag and he can kiss half his salary goodbye, possibly even his career. Makes total sense
What you wrote makes sense but taking $0 forever over taking $14.5 million for one year makes zero sense.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 10:27 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Just wanted to say I love watching him play and think he should be paid $1 more than the 2nd highest paid RB.
Well due to the franchise tag, Bell is making 12.12 million this year. The next highest average salary is Devonta Freeman with 8.25 million/year since he signed a new contract recently. So Bell is easily the highest salary RB for 2017 and would be again if franchise tagged in 2018.
In terms of total money paid this year, I think Fournette and Freeman (who both signed long-term deals) got more total money this year but less salary. But that just illustrates why most people sign long-term contracts but . . .
Just want to point out that Bell turned down an offer for a 5 year contract that would have paid him 30 million in the first 2 years (when being franchised would net him 26 million) and 42 million over the first 3 years. Granted, it looks like he only averages 9 million the final two seasons, I think it would have been wiser to take the contract.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 11:11 am to UltimateHog
quote:
I mean, RB in the NFL has a very short shelf life, what is wrong with him wanting to get a max contract?
1st round rookie RBs got fricked hard by the CBA. The team controls you for at least 5 years and then can franchise you for a year. By then you probably have a ton of mileage and won't get nearly as good of a deal on the open market. I'd hold out as early as possible if I were a stud RB
Posted on 1/12/18 at 3:55 pm to BilJ
Sad that people cant LIVE off of 14 million a year!
Poor Bastards.
Poor Bastards.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:01 pm to dirtbag lsu
Shut up
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:15 pm to JBeam
quote:
Imagine him linking up with Andrew Luck in Indy.
Luck would turn over the ball too much for any real increase in production from him (when compared to Pittsburgh).
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:15 pm to Chad504boy
This is the thing with him, he's going to be 26 in 2018 and that is PRIME years. Locking him up is the smartest thing to do for both.
Why? Because he's a top 3 RB, you pay slightly above market value, you continue to improve the skills guys around Ben, and you get a happy RB...that matters.
What Pittsburgh should also do is draft a potential 3-down back in the next 2 drafts and allow Bell to reduce touches from 350-400 a year down to 300. You get an elite Bell for 5 years at a very reasonable cost still, but you also get his heir in the meantime.
There's no reason to move on from him as he's still a top 3 RB, but there's no reason to run him into the ground and only get 3 quality years out of him as opposed to 5.
Why? Because he's a top 3 RB, you pay slightly above market value, you continue to improve the skills guys around Ben, and you get a happy RB...that matters.
What Pittsburgh should also do is draft a potential 3-down back in the next 2 drafts and allow Bell to reduce touches from 350-400 a year down to 300. You get an elite Bell for 5 years at a very reasonable cost still, but you also get his heir in the meantime.
There's no reason to move on from him as he's still a top 3 RB, but there's no reason to run him into the ground and only get 3 quality years out of him as opposed to 5.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:20 pm to htran90
quote:Top 3? Who’s better than him? David Johnson, maybe, and...?
Because he's a top 3 RB
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:21 pm to dirtbag lsu
He's not threatening to go on welfare if he doesn't get the contract he wants. It's precisely because he can live off of 10s of millions he already made that he could consider retiring.
At over 20 million career earnings, he's getting diminishing returns on another 14 million. Meanwhile, there is exponential costs to destroying his body for another year. Retiring healthy with 20 mil in the bank at 24 with no injuries isn't bad. If we are being realistic, his quality of life is now more determined by how much more he breaks his body down than how many more million dollar paychecks he gets.
At over 20 million career earnings, he's getting diminishing returns on another 14 million. Meanwhile, there is exponential costs to destroying his body for another year. Retiring healthy with 20 mil in the bank at 24 with no injuries isn't bad. If we are being realistic, his quality of life is now more determined by how much more he breaks his body down than how many more million dollar paychecks he gets.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:22 pm to htran90
So you propose to pay him over market value (you're saying he's a Top 3 RB, so essentially make him the highest paid RB) and then reduce his touches? GTFO. He wants top money, he's getting top workload. There'll be another Bell in 3 years.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:22 pm to dirtbag lsu
quote:
Sad that people cant LIVE off of 14 million a year! Poor Bastards.
you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
living off 14 million (which you will see maybe 6 million of) for the rest of your life (RBs generally retire by 32) is much different than living off 50 million
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:25 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
Top 3? Who’s better than him? David Johnson, maybe, and...?
I'd argue Todd Gurley made his case as best RB in the league this year. Maybe its McVay's playcalling, but Gurley was better per touch and was a focal point in his offense. Bell at least has AB, Juju, Big Ben to help out.
Gurley has Goff, Kupp, Woods, and Watkins?
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:25 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
I don't buy one freaking lick of it and it quite pisses me off that you even think such thing.
Sounds like you've got a bad case of bitter bitch face.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:28 pm to htran90
I’ll take gurley over bell.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 4:31 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
So you propose to pay him over market value (you're saying he's a Top 3 RB, so essentially make him the highest paid RB) and then reduce his touches? GTFO. He wants top money, he's getting top workload. There'll be another Bell in 3 years.
You pay him like a top 3 back and you still use him like a top 3 back. But, 400 touches this season was absolutely too much.
Top 6 in carries: Bell, Gurley, Hunt, McCoy, Gordon, and Howard along with their reception totals.
Bell 321 + 85 receptions = 406 touches
McCoy 287 + 59 receptions = 346 touches
Gordon 284 + 58 receptions = 342 touches
Gurley 279 + 64 receptions = 343 touches
Howard 276 + 23 receptions = 299 touches
Hunt 272 + 53 receptions = 325 touches
Literally has 60 more touches than the 2nd most used RB. He is literally 10th in the league in receptions, among ALL receivers (TE/WR).
What's wrong with paying him like a top 3 back and using him 300-350 times a game as opposed to 400? It prolongs his shelf life, keeps him fresher come playoff time, and you get the most out of him for 5 years instead of 3 or 4 and then having to cut him in year 4 or 5.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News