jpzx
Supporter
- 57,586
- 27,267
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
Many Vikings fans wanted to keep Keenum and thought we were overpaying Cousins. It makes sense that that was his contract, at that time.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Many Vikings fans wanted to keep Keenum and thought we were overpaying Cousins. It makes sense that that was his contract, at that time.
Yea but he was the starting QB and took a below market deal for a starting QB . I hear what you’re saying but this game really ain’t about fairness. RBs are less valuable and play a more taxing position, so get cycled through with a shorter shelf life. Game is the game so you gotta max out your earnings when you can.Yeah but c’mon man. We all know he’s a bridge QB. If Denver had “faith” in him, he would’ve gotten a 4-140+ type deal.
Yea but he was the starting QB and took a below market deal for a starting QB . I hear what you’re saying but this game really ain’t about fairness. RBs are less valuable and play a more taxing position, so get cycled through with a shorter shelf life. Game is the game so you gotta max out your earnings when you can.
In a pass happy and friendly league it kind of makes sense that the folks, passing (Lamar), catching (Cheetah) and protecting the passer (Tunsil) make the most money. Same with the players rushing the passer on the defensive side of the ball (Donald).
You can’t really compare it to the NBA where the positions are fluid and players play both sides of the ball. Some football positions are just inherently more valuable. Also, because there is no cap on a single contract like the NBA, the market dictates the value for each position as we have been seeing every offseason with the QBs.
Brandon Jacobs back in the league!?!?
The only reason to play RB is that on most levels you’re the main guy on the team.
But as we’re seeing now, RB is a bad investment for teams and the athlete themselves.
Anyone with the athletic profile fitting of a RB needs to go ahead and play CB or WR early on.
If I was a GM I wouldn’t give Saquon or Josh anything beyond a two year deal. We’ve seen all these big RB paydays backfire and the nature of the game is so different that I’d rather have a 10-12 ish QB than the best RB in the league.
No team will ever run an empty set
when is the last time you watched a game
when is the last time you watched a game
I'm saying man He's going too far with the "doesn't need a RB" narrative like the poster in the NBA thread does with ratings and Mike Malone/The Lakers talk
The fact that those guys can do multiple-dimensional doesn't negate the fact that there are younger, lower-cost options after a certain point that are multi-dimensional as well.
I believe the Giants offered him ~$14MM per year is below CMAC and Kamara but above the tag and what the other highly regarded RBs are getting. That seems reasonable, especially if he truly isn't trying to reset the market.
personally i would diminish the role of a specific slot guy as well and merge the 2 roles of primary TB and designated slot guy
but i would want to maximize matchups.. i want both my 'outside' WRs getting snap slots, and my TEs and my RB
but i'd also want to have multiple guys active in getting handoffs and getting screen passes
but get a cheaper guy for depth who could get 10-15 carries.. but my main guy, i'd want a guy who could get 70 catches and around 200 carries per year and more of a weapon on the field that provides options
The running back position is just not worth allocating significant resources to. It sucks for the stars of the position but you're not going to give one player $13M/year when you could sign a committee of guys for a combined $8M/year and get similar production.
Every sport has had a play style/position that's been devalued due to advances in the game.