Marlon Mack / Le'Veon Bell

[lollygagger8]

Mad props to the O-Line!  

 

That one hole that Wilkins ran through (I think in the first quarter) was so big you could drive a garbage truck through it. 

[NewColtsFan]

5 hours ago, Rally5 said:

If you know what you're looking at he showed tons of promise, a few people saw it clearly.  I had people telling me he was only "a scat back," "we need a true plow horse", "dude is injury prone," most recently "go spend a fortune on  L Bell."  All of that is wrong. Now, if 'stud' means filling a stat box last year then you would be correct he's not a stud.    And I'm no clock... 

 

For what little it's worth,  I've never been in the Bell camp.    And I like him.   But not THAT MUCH.

 

I just think there's a difference between showing flashes,  whch he did,  and being a stud.   I'm sorry,  I don't mean to split hairs, or give you a hard time over a single word.    But that word has meaning here,  so I wanted to be clear about why we disagreed.

 

Again,  I'm in the Mack-camp.    I'm on the bandwagon.    I just think the mark of a really talented back is the ability to perform at a high level over multiple years.    I hope to see that from Mack.

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

Why do you hate Mack so much????     

 

Look at the thread....     read all of my posts....

 

You'll see that I actually really like Mack.     I really do.

 

(If you were being sarcastic,  then,  fair enough.....)

 

[MikeCurtis]

42 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Look at the thread....     read all of my posts....

 

You'll see that I actually really like Mack.     I really do.

 

(If you were being sarcastic,  then,  fair enough.....)

 

Its funny...... Its like we are in North Korea

 

If you dont like absolutely EVERYTHING or bring up a caution, about THE popular Colts player (insert name) of the week, You will get 8 people (10 in your case) that tell you how wrong you are 

 

Its all good..... just get in line with the REST of the communists.... or ELSE!

[jvan1973]

13 hours ago, horseshoecrabs said:

Why must every thing always come back to the way the Patriots do things ? If it was that simple then the copy cats who have tried to follow that way over the many years of trying has failed miserably 

How about any recent Superbowl winner? Not many teams give huge contracts to running backs

[aaron11]

12 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

How about any recent Superbowl winner? Not many teams give huge contracts to running backs

seahawks 

[Rally5]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

For what little it's worth,  I've never been in the Bell camp.    And I like him.   But not THAT MUCH.

 

I just think there's a difference between showing flashes,  whch he did,  and being a stud.   I'm sorry,  I don't mean to split hairs, or give you a hard time over a single word.    But that word has meaning here,  so I wanted to be clear about why we disagreed.

 

Again,  I'm in the Mack-camp.    I'm on the bandwagon.    I just think the mark of a really talented back is the ability to perform at a high level over multiple years.    I hope to see that from Mack.

 

All good brother, semantics, not worth it! Go Colts!!!!!

[horseshoecrabs]

5 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

sHow about any recent Superbowl winner? Not many teams give huge contracts to running backs

Not to play the devil's advocate  but The same thing could apply to  giving QB's a ridiculous amount of money for players who don't live up to there position at QB, as well as remember

a few decades ago giving  Albert Hainsworth 100 million for DE  the Redskins payed to a guy whole said he would not play In the defensive format they wanted him to play?  So don't put this on only running backs being over paid. Every position over the years has had that problem. And besides that , At Running  back Your longevity is pretty  short , so I commend them for getting the most out of their obviously  limited career  in the NFL

[jvan1973]

7 hours ago, aaron11 said:

seahawks 

That's a good one.   

[Superman]

23 hours ago, Surge89 said:

Which is still overpayment I'm not sure how you justify that it wasn't.  

 

You're only thinking about how you value the RB position, which is probably similar to the way I value the RB position; I'm not trying to justify paying a RB this kind of money. I'm talking about the fair use of the franchise tag, and how good faith negotiations go when players are tagged, or even when franchise level players get signed before the tag comes into play.

 

Khalil Mack got tagged, and if the Raiders used the tag three times in a row, Mack would have made about $65m in three years. That was his starting point in negotiations. The Raiders traded him to the Bears, who gave him a contract that essentially guarantees him $73m in the first three years.

 

Todd Gurley was two years away from being tagged. The Rams could have played out the fifth year option at $10m, and tagged him two more years for about $30m. The starting point in contract negotiations was $40m over the first three years. They gave him a deal that essentially guarantees him $48m over the first three years. (The Rams deal with Donald followed similar principles.)

 

Bell's position is this: "You're tagging me, you obviously agree that I'm valuable, I'm asking you to commit to that value." And that's a fair stance; if the Steelers valued backs like you and I do, they probably wouldn't have tagged him in the first place, or would have traded him in 2017. Instead, they gave him 400 touches and let him pace their offense. Their intention was to tag him and run him into the ground, then let him walk. Their 2018 offer makes it clear that they had no intention to commit to him beyond this season (if reports about the structure are true). 

 

You're presenting that offer as if it were an actual commitment, and we all know it wasn't. 

 

The point of the tag is to allow teams to negotiate with their most valuable players without worrying about a free market bidding war. More often than not, teams use the tag to get another year out of a good player without making a long term commitment. And they use the July deadline as a bully negotiation tactic to get marginalized players to jump at a soft offer. 

 

NFL players need to stop talking about guaranteed contracts and commissioner authority, and get united on majorly reforming the tag. I would say the exclusive tag should be worth 15% of the salary cap, or make the player the highest paid at his position by 5%, whichever is higher. And it can't be used in consecutive seasons on the same player. Also allow a non-exclusive tag with matching rights (and the ability for the matching team to restructure to avoid poison pills) worth the average of the five highest paid players at the position.

[Superman]

14 hours ago, John Waylon said:

 

The Bills defense, heading into that game, actually was not bad. In fact, they were a pretty stout unit. The Jets defense is no slouch, either. 

 

They're holding up in the first half tonight...

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

They're holding up in the first half tonight...

 

Yeah. They really aren’t a bad unit by any measure. 

[Surge89]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You're only thinking about how you value the RB position, which is probably similar to the way I value the RB position; I'm not trying to justify paying a RB this kind of money. I'm talking about the fair use of the franchise tag, and how good faith negotiations go when players are tagged, or even when franchise level players get signed before the tag comes into play.

 

Khalil Mack got tagged, and if the Raiders used the tag three times in a row, Mack would have made about $65m in three years. That was his starting point in negotiations. The Raiders traded him to the Bears, who gave him a contract that essentially guarantees him $73m in the first three years.

 

Todd Gurley was two years away from being tagged. The Rams could have played out the fifth year option at $10m, and tagged him two more years for about $30m. The starting point in contract negotiations was $40m over the first three years. They gave him a deal that essentially guarantees him $48m over the first three years. (The Rams deal with Donald followed similar principles.)

 

Bell's position is this: "You're tagging me, you obviously agree that I'm valuable, I'm asking you to commit to that value." And that's a fair stance; if the Steelers value backs like you and I do, they probably wouldn't have tagged him in the first place, or would have traded him in 2017. Instead, they gave him 400 touches and let him pace their offense. Their intention was to tag him and run him into the ground, then let him walk. Their 2018 offer makes it clear that they had no intention to commit to him beyond this season (if reports about the structure are true). 

 

You're presenting that offer as if it were an actual commitment, and we all know it wasn't. 

 

The point of the tag is to allow teams to negotiate with their most valuable players without worrying about a free market bidding war. More often than not, teams use the tag to get another year out of a good player without making a long term commitment. And they use the July deadline as a bully negotiation tactic to get marginalized players to jump at a soft offer. 

 

NFL players need to stop talking about guaranteed contracts and commissioner authority, and get united on majorly reforming the tag. I would say the exclusive tag should be worth 15% of the salary cap, or make the player the highest paid at his position by 5%, whichever is higher. And it can't be used in consecutive seasons on the same player. Also allow a non-exclusive tag with matching rights (and the ability for the matching team to restructure to avoid poison pills) worth the average of the five highest paid players at the position.

 

Very interesting take. This is why I enjoy talking about this side of the game with you.  Thank you for the insight.

 

Still here is my issue with the particular stance on the Steelers use of the tag.  2 problems.  First the tag is an inflator.  It inflated the base number to an extremely high salary based off inflated free agent money that was far from the norm.  To say the Steelers were obviously going to run him into the ground and cut him seems a little bit off as not only did they offer him 3 decent contracts (I understand the stance that the value of those contracts were lower than the value of 3 consecutive tags) but the fact still remains that all 3 were quite higher than the previous standard non franchise tag contracts. 

 

And the second issue is do the Steelers have any history of doing a run him into the ground and cut dealing with players?  For the life of me I can't remember ever hearing of an issue with money in fact (and I may be wrong) but usually the Steelers are in cap hell because of their committed approach to paying players their value...  That's why I second guess when you say it's obvious that was their intention as I just don't understand how you come to that conclusion based simply on the fact that the guaranteed wasn't more than three consecutive tags. Maybe I'm just naive, who knows...

 

Also I'd like to add that you insinuated that the Steelers only offered him the tag. 

 

"Bell's position is this: "You're tagging me, you obviously agree that I'm valuable, I'm asking you to commit to that value." And that's a fair stance;..."

 

This is just not a fair paragraph as the Steelers offered him 12 million per year before the tag was even in the conversation and he refused it because he had his eyes set on the 14 million tag that was coming the next year. He forced the situation for the Steelers to place that tag as yes they did value him and they showed him how much but he wanted an absurd number and used his negotiating tactics to get to that number by playing hard ball. I don't see how that is bad practice by the Steelers when from the beginning they have been trying to avoid the tag (since their salary cap situation is a mess right now anyways) and Bell is the one who keeps pushing the number as far as he can go.  I see it as a very smart move from the Steelers to use him as much as possible if he doesn't agree with the value you have on him as an org and you aren't even close.  The only tactic the Steelers have in response is ok we will use whatever we can and pay a consecutive tag which will still get you your money and give us another year to try and reach on a higher market.  Yet still the offer was below Bell's standard.  

 

As far as Mack goes and the pay equal to 3 consecutive tags.  I can see how that type of negiating tactic works for a pass rusher or QB who not only have the leverage to pull that off but also have actual business sense to invest in those positions.  If you let a RB use those same tactics with much less leverage you are going to run into huge problems with contract inflation. (Yet another issue with this dang tag).  I am just too ignorant of the subject to offer any resolutions but I do agree the tag needs reform and seems abusive no matter which way you slice it.

[shasta519]

Mack is definitely the best RB on this team. But for some reason, they don’t involve him in the passing game much. Could be a durability thing...but there is definitely a reason for it. 

 

Maybe I am greedy...but I want all of my RBs to be threats in the passing game...so the team has flexibility on every play. Mack is...but they don’t seem to use him that way.

[Yoshinator]

38 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

Mack is definitely the best RB on this team. But for some reason, they don’t involve him in the passing game much. Could be a durability thing...but there is definitely a reason for it. 

 

Maybe I am greedy...but I want all of my RBs to be threats in the passing game...so the team has flexibility on every play. Mack is...but they don’t seem to use him that way.

I do too. I would honestly prefer that Mack, Hines, and Wilkins all get at least 3-5 receptions a game. It would completely open up the offense even more and make the RBs that much more unpredictable.

[#12.]

48 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

Mack is definitely the best RB on this team. But for some reason, they don’t involve him in the passing game much. Could be a durability thing...but there is definitely a reason for it. 

 

Well, his first play back was a pass, but it went for 6 the other way.  

 

They did try to hit Hines on a 30 yard sideline route, but I think he mistimed his leap.  It was in the Texans game, deep in our end - the play before the errant snap that went for 6.  

[Rally5]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You're only thinking about how you value the RB position, which is probably similar to the way I value the RB position; I'm not trying to justify paying a RB this kind of money. I'm talking about the fair use of the franchise tag, and how good faith negotiations go when players are tagged, or even when franchise level players get signed before the tag comes into play.

 

Khalil Mack got tagged, and if the Raiders used the tag three times in a row, Mack would have made about $65m in three years. That was his starting point in negotiations. The Raiders traded him to the Bears, who gave him a contract that essentially guarantees him $73m in the first three years.

 

Todd Gurley was two years away from being tagged. The Rams could have played out the fifth year option at $10m, and tagged him two more years for about $30m. The starting point in contract negotiations was $40m over the first three years. They gave him a deal that essentially guarantees him $48m over the first three years. (The Rams deal with Donald followed similar principles.)

 

Bell's position is this: "You're tagging me, you obviously agree that I'm valuable, I'm asking you to commit to that value." And that's a fair stance; if the Steelers valued backs like you and I do, they probably wouldn't have tagged him in the first place, or would have traded him in 2017. Instead, they gave him 400 touches and let him pace their offense. Their intention was to tag him and run him into the ground, then let him walk. Their 2018 offer makes it clear that they had no intention to commit to him beyond this season (if reports about the structure are true). 

 

You're presenting that offer as if it were an actual commitment, and we all know it wasn't. 

 

The point of the tag is to allow teams to negotiate with their most valuable players without worrying about a free market bidding war. More often than not, teams use the tag to get another year out of a good player without making a long term commitment. And they use the July deadline as a bully negotiation tactic to get marginalized players to jump at a soft offer. 

 

NFL players need to stop talking about guaranteed contracts and commissioner authority, and get united on majorly reforming the tag. I would say the exclusive tag should be worth 15% of the salary cap, or make the player the highest paid at his position by 5%, whichever is higher. And it can't be used in consecutive seasons on the same player. Also allow a non-exclusive tag with matching rights (and the ability for the matching team to restructure to avoid poison pills) worth the average of the five highest paid players at the position.

Well written, great points.  It will be interesting in the next CBA if the union spends negotiating capital on this 1% of their workforce.  It's fair to say the franchise tag is no longer being used as intended.  I would like to see the league enable teams to keep the players they draft without impacting their earning opportunities.

[shasta519]

5 hours ago, #12. said:

 

Well, his first play back was a pass, but it went for 6 the other way.  

 

They did try to hit Hines on a 30 yard sideline route, but I think he mistimed his leap.  It was in the Texans game, deep in our end - the play before the errant snap that went for 6.  

 

That’s true. And then last game he dropped another. 

 

 

[Pacergeek]

Spending big money for RB does not make any sense. Guys play well for maybe 2 years, get injured, and are never the same. Look at David Johnson for example. Steelers don't even really need Bell. Connor is just fine

[Coffeedrinker]

On 10/28/2018 at 6:41 PM, jskinnz said:

Can we please put the Le'Veon Bell to Indy rumor's out of their misery?  That dog don't hunt and frankly never did.

 

Mack looks to have the makings of a feature back and is complemented very nicely by Hines and Wilkins.  

 

200+ yards in two straight games by a younger and far cheaper group.  Why would they ever consider giving up the asset or dollars required to get Bell?  

You know, I was one thinking that Bell would be a nice addition to the offense.  I didn't have much faith in Mack coming and and providing a lot more than what Hines and Wilkins had been providing.  But I will admit, I was wrong.  The addition of Mack and the stabilization of the offensive line has shown that a player like Bell is not needed for the team to be successful.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 10/28/2018 at 10:05 PM, Surge89 said:

 

Hmm 

 

So here is one. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/leveon-bell-reportedly-turned-down-a-monstrous-70-million-deal-from-the-steelers/amp/

 

That's 14 mil per year.

 

Then we have this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/platform/amp/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2017/7/19/15994860/steelers-rejected-5-year-offer-to-leveon-bell-released-to-the-public-franchise-tag

 

This was 12mil per year a whole year before.

 

Then we have the original offer that you are mentioning https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2799309-report-leveon-bell-offered-3-year-47m-contract-from-steelers-in-summer.amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjl4r2exKreAhVIC6wKHRFyAWUQFjAGegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0mQlD4lTRLRIjiST0UoR2w&ampcf=1

 

Which is still overpayment I'm not sure how you justify that it wasn't.  

 

As Superman stated, the best guaranteed money was 10 million.

 

“Mentioned yesterday the #Steelers final offer to RB Le’Veon Bell was 5 years, $70M. More context today: The fully guaranteed part was his signing bonus of just over $10M. He would’ve made $33M over the 1st two years — in a rolling guaranteed structure. $45M over the 1st 3 years.

 

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) July 17, 2018 “

 

Sure, there was ‘potential’ to make huge money, but no full guarantee to do so.  Evidently, the Steelers are really stingy in guarantee department. That was the fly in the ointment.

[jskinnz]

54 minutes ago, Pacergeek said:

Spending big money for RB does not make any sense. Guys play well for maybe 2 years, get injured, and are never the same. Look at David Johnson for example. Steelers don't even really need Bell. Connor is just fine

 

Holy guacamole - the world just stopped turning.  Dogs and cats are playing together.  I believe hell just froze over.

 

Why you ask?

 

You just posted something reasonable that I can agree with.

[NewEra]

7 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Holy guacamole - the world just stopped turning.  Dogs and cats are playing together.  I believe hell just froze over.

 

Why you ask?

 

You just posted something reasonable that I can agree with.

I even read a really good comment in another thread from him. Hallelujah!

[Finball]

11 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Khalil Mack got tagged

 

Good post but Mack didn't get tagged, he was on his 5th year option this year.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

We really could use another very good rb. It doesn't have to be Bell. I'd like someone that compliments Mack's style and insurance if Mack is unavailable 'caus of injury.

[aaron11]

10 hours ago, shastamasta said:

Mack is definitely the best RB on this team. But for some reason, they don’t involve him in the passing game much. Could be a durability thing...but there is definitely a reason for it. 

 

Maybe I am greedy...but I want all of my RBs to be threats in the passing game...so the team has flexibility on every play. Mack is...but they don’t seem to use him that way.

because he isnt good at catching

 

if its a "concentration" problem, then that has been an issue for a year and a half now

[aaron11]

dont know why i got so much backlash for that comment, some running backs just dont catch well

 

OJ stunk at it, AP has never really got it down either.  Gore was just ok at it.  maybe its not one of Macks strengths.  

[Surge89]

3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

As Superman stated, the best guaranteed money was 10 million.

 

“Mentioned yesterday the #Steelers final offer to RB Le’Veon Bell was 5 years, $70M. More context today: The fully guaranteed part was his signing bonus of just over $10M. He would’ve made $33M over the 1st two years — in a rolling guaranteed structure. $45M over the 1st 3 years.

 

— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) July 17, 2018 “

 

Sure, there was ‘potential’ to make huge money, but no full guarantee to do so.  Evidently, the Steelers are really stingy in guarantee department. That was the fly in the ointment.

 

Right I completely understand that part but I still don't see how that is bad practice from the Steelers side when A. Even though it's not a high guarantee like consecutive tags it's still much higher than the previous average in an effort to avoid the tag and B. We are talking about a running back before the Gurley deal.  There was just no precedent about giving running backs 3 tags worth of guaranteed money.

[shasta519]

40 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

dont know why i got so much backlash for that comment, some running backs just dont catch well

 

OJ stunk at it, AP has never really got it down either.  Gore was just ok at it.  maybe its not one of Macks strengths.  

 

I don't either. I don't think it's an unfair comment. 

 

The coaches don't really involve him...and he wasn't as heavily involved last season either (despite the Colts desperately needing the RBs more involved in the passing game). I chalked that up to bad coaching with Chud...but now Reich isn't really using him in that way either.

 

So there could be something there. His catch % is pretty low...compared to other RBs in the NFL. Granted, it's a small sample size...but it wasn't very high last season as well.

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Right I completely understand that part but I still don't see how that is bad practice from the Steelers side when A. Even though it's not a high guarantee like consecutive tags it's still much higher than the previous average in an effort to avoid the tag and B. We are talking about a running back before the Gurley deal.  There was just no precedent about giving running backs 3 tags worth of guaranteed money.

 

It doesn’t seem right when a team offers a long term contract, but the guaranteed money mostly isn’t, and what is guaranteed is less than what a year to year franchise tag is (which goes up dramatically each successive tag) would bring.  But for the franchise tag, if injured, only rest of that year is paid.  Player doesn’t like it and wants offers from other teams (he’s a free agent) but team tags him.  Now he’s a frozen Free agent.    Not a member of the team, but can’t negotiate with other teams.  Either accept the tag, or sit.  Bell doing latter until he has to sign and get his accrued season and where another tag is prohibitively expensive.

 

He will sign his tender after 4:01 pm ET, because HE wants to determine where he goes next year, not where the Steelers (via trade) send him.

[Cynjin]

33 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

dont know why i got so much backlash for that comment, some running backs just dont catch well

 

OJ stunk at it, AP has never really got it down either.  Gore was just ok at it.  maybe its not one of Macks strengths.  

 

I guessing it's because several posters don't agree with you about Mack.

 

8 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I don't either. I don't think it's an unfair comment. 

 

The coaches don't really involve him...and he wasn't as heavily involved last season either (despite the Colts desperately need the RBs more involved in the passing game). I chalked that up to bad coaching with Chud...but now Reich isn't really using him in that way either.

 

So there could be something there. His catch % is pretty low...compared to other RBs in the NFL. Granted, it's a small sample size...but it wasn't very high last season as well.

 

 

The Colts have not involved any of the RBs, except for a few targets, since the Patriots game.  The RBs only have either one of two receptions/game since week 5.

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

I guessing it's because several posters don't agree with you about Mack.

 

 

The Colts have not involved any of the RBs, except for a few targets, since the Patriots game.  The RBs only have either one of two receptions/game since week 5.

 

They have 6 targets/game over the past few weeks...which is down from some previous games. But I am guessing it's probably more of a byproduct of not having to play catch-up...like the HOU and NE games. Not to mention having success just running the ball.

 

They were down big agianst the NYJ...but Mack had been part of that INT earlier in the game (so I can imagine they were gun shy about going back to him).

 

I don't know if Mack is a good or bad pass catcher...I just don't think we have enough to say one way or the other...so I can see why someone might have that opinion (especially given some recent examples).

 

 

 

[cbear]

49 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

They have 6 targets/game over the past few weeks...which is down from some previous games. But I am guessing it's probably more of a byproduct of not having to play catch-up...like the HOU and NE games. Not to mention having success just running the ball.

 

They were down big agianst the NYJ...but Mack had been part of that INT earlier in the game (so I can imagine they were gun shy about going back to him).

 

I don't know if Mack is a good or bad pass catcher...I just don't think we have enough to say one way or the other...so I can see why someone might have that opinion (especially given some recent examples).

 

 

 

With the pass protection, Luck also has more time to look down field, so that will also be a factor in less back field catches.  

[Cynjin]

52 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

They have 6 targets/game over the past few weeks...which is down from some previous games. But I am guessing it's probably more of a byproduct of not having to play catch-up...like the HOU and NE games. Not to mention having success just running the ball.

 

They were down big agianst the NYJ...but Mack had been part of that INT earlier in the game (so I can imagine they were gun shy about going back to him).

 

I don't know if Mack is a good or bad pass catcher...I just don't think we have enough to say one way or the other...so I can see why someone might have that opinion (especially given some recent examples).

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that they were gun shy about passing to Mack after the int., although he should have caught the pass.

 

IMO, Mack is avg. to good at catching the ball, not great, but definitely not bad.

 

IIRC, the last game the passes that Mack caught were check downs.

[cbear]

In this case Bell was not under contract, so I don't have a problem with his holdout.  As stated by many here, I wouldn't pay him the money.  The three we have are good and young.  I don't think they've come close to reaching their ceiling. 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Very interesting take. This is why I enjoy talking about this side of the game with you.  Thank you for the insight.

 

Still here is my issue with the particular stance on the Steelers use of the tag.  2 problems.  First the tag is an inflator.  It inflated the base number to an extremely high salary based off inflated free agent money that was far from the norm.  To say the Steelers were obviously going to run him into the ground and cut him seems a little bit off as not only did they offer him 3 decent contracts (I understand the stance that the value of those contracts were lower than the value of 3 consecutive tags) but the fact still remains that all 3 were quite higher than the previous standard non franchise tag contracts. 

 

And the second issue is do the Steelers have any history of doing a run him into the ground and cut dealing with players?  For the life of me I can't remember ever hearing of an issue with money in fact (and I may be wrong) but usually the Steelers are in cap hell because of their committed approach to paying players their value...  That's why I second guess when you say it's obvious that was their intention as I just don't understand how you come to that conclusion based simply on the fact that the guaranteed wasn't more than three consecutive tags. Maybe I'm just naive, who knows...

 

Also I'd like to add that you insinuated that the Steelers only offered him the tag. 

 

"Bell's position is this: "You're tagging me, you obviously agree that I'm valuable, I'm asking you to commit to that value." And that's a fair stance;..."

 

This is just not a fair paragraph as the Steelers offered him 12 million per year before the tag was even in the conversation and he refused it because he had his eyes set on the 14 million tag that was coming the next year. He forced the situation for the Steelers to place that tag as yes they did value him and they showed him how much but he wanted an absurd number and used his negotiating tactics to get to that number by playing hard ball. I don't see how that is bad practice by the Steelers when from the beginning they have been trying to avoid the tag (since their salary cap situation is a mess right now anyways) and Bell is the one who keeps pushing the number as far as he can go.  I see it as a very smart move from the Steelers to use him as much as possible if he doesn't agree with the value you have on him as an org and you aren't even close.  The only tactic the Steelers have in response is ok we will use whatever we can and pay a consecutive tag which will still get you your money and give us another year to try and reach on a higher market.  Yet still the offer was below Bell's standard.  

 

As far as Mack goes and the pay equal to 3 consecutive tags.  I can see how that type of negiating tactic works for a pass rusher or QB who not only have the leverage to pull that off but also have actual business sense to invest in those positions.  If you let a RB use those same tactics with much less leverage you are going to run into huge problems with contract inflation. (Yet another issue with this dang tag).  I am just too ignorant of the subject to offer any resolutions but I do agree the tag needs reform and seems abusive no matter which way you slice it.

 

We agree on positional value. I probably would have tagged and traded him. I definitely wouldn't have committed big, long term money to him. 

 

But they tagged him, then ran him into the ground with over 400 touches. RBs typically fall off after a 400 touch season. Then their "five year" offer in July was basically one year and we'll see. I think it's pretty obvious they were going to either run him into the ground, or make him split time with Conner, and either way his value would take a hit. 

 

And you're right, in this case, the tag inflated his value, ironically (another reason I wouldn't have tagged him). And the out of whack tag value was partly based on Adrian Peterson's old Vikings contract, which makes it even more ridiculous. But that proved to be the basis for Gurley's deal also. So it is inflated, and now the market is reset again based on old RB values.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

On 10/28/2018 at 8:28 PM, Superman said:

 

Yup. I don't agree with the way the Steelers have handled it, either. The tag should be for players you actually want to pay, not just to force players to take a weak offer at the deadline.

 

But I definitely think Bell got some bad advice, and I highly doubt he gets the kind of offer he wants. He probably doesn't even get an offer as good as what the Steelers reportedly made at the deadline. 

Agree, imo he has really hurt his value to any possible suitors or the Steelers. Im not saying he isnt worth a contract, but not what he's thinking. One thing is for certain, he is really making himself look bad, dont care what the talent level is anymore.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

5 hours ago, Cynjin said:

 

I don't believe that they were gun shy about passing to Mack after the int., although he should have caught the pass.

 

IMO, Mack is avg. to good at catching the ball, not great, but definitely not bad.

 

IIRC, the last game the passes that Mack caught were check downs.

He did drop another one that was in the numbers, but I have to believe that he makes that catch more often than not. 

[MikeCurtis]

9 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

We really could use another very good rb. It doesn't have to be Bell. I'd like someone that compliments Mack's style and insurance if Mack is unavailable 'caus of injury.

I am sure that I will get tarred and feathered....... BUT

 

I actually would STILL like Bell.... for some of the reasons that you brought up

 

Ask yourself a question.... If cost was no issue......would we be BETTER as a team if we had Bell?  

 

I think the honest answer is YES

 

He is a 2 times an ALL Pro.... He is still 26. (without this years wear and tear)

 

We have the cash...... When he hits FA....... It wouldnt cost us draft capitol

 

Can you imagine how tough it would be to defense this offense with Bell and Mack interchangable..... and in some cases one at HB, at the same time?

 

Imagine this with a healthy TY, with our improving OL mashing people, With a great QB, With very good TEs...........Add in a decent 2nd WR.....  We could actually have an UNSTOPPABLE offense not in 5 years.........NEXT year..........  

 

If we could get 3-4 players on defense, (draft and FA) for next year.........  We could make a real run.... in 2019

 

A top 3 offense, and a top 15 defense, could do the trick.......

 

This defense is at its best, when it has a lead......

 

Also.......... Both Bell and Mack would have longer careers by spreading the carries, and both would be fresh in the 4th quarter.

 

I know....its a pipe dream, but the Colts DO have the cash to make this happen and STILL have $90-100 Million left over (Which would STILL be more than almost all other teams to play with)

 

I dont know if Bell is a prima donna or not. (and neither does anyone here on the board) If he is...... I dont want him,..... if he is a locker-room cancer...... I dont want him.

 

The guy was offered HALF of the guaranteed money of the top WRs....... WHY should he be happy with that?  A RB's career is almost always shorter.

 

This doesnt make him some evil guy.

 

My belief is he is a great talent that would help this football team and add depth where we need it

 

Lastly

Luck has probably completed ONE THIRD of his career.......  We dont need to win the SB this year..... But.......  the clock is ticking......

 

Bell MIGHT be that missing piece to get us there

 

 

[braveheartcolt]

1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

I am sure that I will get tarred and feathered....... BUT

 

I actually would STILL like Bell.... for some of the reasons that you brought up

 

Ask yourself a question.... If cost was no issue......would we be BETTER as a team if we had Bell?  

 

I think the honest answer is YES

 

He is a 2 times an ALL Pro.... He is still 26. (without this years wear and tear)

 

We have the cash...... When he hits FA....... It wouldnt cost us draft capitol

 

Can you imagine how tough it would be to defense this offense with Bell and Mack interchangable..... and in some cases one at HB, at the same time?

 

Imagine this with a healthy TY, with our improving OL mashing people, With a great QB, With very good TEs...........Add in a decent 2nd WR.....  We could actually have an UNSTOPPABLE offense not in 5 years.........NEXT year..........  

 

If we could get 3-4 players on defense, (draft and FA) for next year.........  We could make a real run.... in 2019

 

A top 3 offense, and a top 15 defense, could do the trick.......

 

This defense is at its best, when it has a lead......

 

Also.......... Both Bell and Mack would have longer careers by spreading the carries, and both would be fresh in the 4th quarter.

 

I know....its a pipe dream, but the Colts DO have the cash to make this happen and STILL have $90-100 Million left over (Which would STILL be more than almost all other teams to play with)

 

I dont know if Bell is a prima donna or not. (and neither does anyone here on the board) If he is...... I dont want him,..... if he is a locker-room cancer...... I dont want him.

 

The guy was offered HALF of the guaranteed money of the top WRs....... WHY should he be happy with that?  A RB's career is almost always shorter.

 

This doesnt make him some evil guy.

 

My belief is he is a great talent that would help this football team and add depth where we need it

 

Lastly

Luck has probably completed ONE THIRD of his career.......  We dont need to win the SB this year..... But.......  the clock is ticking......

 

Bell MIGHT be that missing piece to get us there

 

 

A good argument. I don't see it happening though, not a Ballard phillosophy type move I'm afraid. His line of thinking is that a top level big money aquisition like Bell could upset the locker room vibe.....