Sarkus
6121
I’m not sure all those examples suggest that Bacon is wrong. James was drafted by and had most of his success with Indy. Dillon had only one of his seven 1000+ yard seasons with New England. Etc. And some of those guys were castoffs who never did much with the team that drafted them and thus weren’t expensive free agents to begin with.
Lorini
6122
That’s a TOTALLY Al Davis thing to do, totally. I’m sure they’ll file a lawsuit against the Raiders just to keep the atmosphere just like it always was.
Sarkus
6123
Landry Jones says he’s not going pro this year so thats another QB to cross of the potential list if your team needs one.
What, no Ricky Williams or Priest Holmes? =P
I specifically said “a starting star RB that was allowed to walk and went to have monster success”.
Faulk is the only guy on that list that was a legitimate star starter who signed a big money FA contract elsewhere and then had huge success.
Edge saw his production plummet compared to Indy.
Bettis was traded, not allowed to walk, and he had a lackluster season before his trade and was asked to move to FB.
Watters was not a superstar. In 3 seasons in SF he broke the 1000 yard (barely) once.
Hearst bounced between three teams BEFORE signing with SFO, and only had one great season while there.
Garner…really? While better in SFO, I don’t think many people would have classified him as a superstar in either Philly or SFO.
Dillon was traded after a subpar season and losing his starting job to Rudi Johnson.
Portis was a trade.
Lynch was a trade AND lost his starting job in Buffalo AND isn’t a superstar and wasn’t one in Buffalo.
(And fwiw, Priest Holmes was not the starter when he was let go by the Ravens, Jamal Lewis had already come in and taken over – and Holmes signed a pretty modest contract with KC as well)
M. Faulk is probably the only example in recent memory of a star starting running back being allowed to walk and then going on to having huge success somewhere else. There might be another I’m forgetting but no one comes to mind immediately.
Actually, you could argue that Curtis Martin qualified, but he was effectively a trade since he signed a RFA and NWE got a 1st and 3rd for him.
It seems like you’re over qualifying your initial statement. You said it’s never worth overpaying a running back. What does the degree of star to superstar or whether they were traded or let go have to do with it?
Ryan is what I’d call a franchise QB, Big Ben is not really what I think of when I think of one.
Look at it another way. What did Stafford cost the Lions, spread over the years that they’ve had him versus what a free agent QB who just had a 5000 yd season would cost them for those same years?
I realize Stafford’s been hurt but I think it still makes the point. A new guy may cost you more upfront(under the old system) but you’ll have him trapped for longer at that price(no free agency for the first few years) no matter how awesome he performs.
A proven guy comes with the immediate cost PLUS he’s already in free agency, which means you can’t score extra value. In fact you can only lose value if he does not continue performing as well as he did in the past, the past performance which is the only reason you want him for by the way.
Thongsy
6127
I thought he was a senior, I guess not. Well yea there goes the whole front end of the draft with QBs. All the other names I hear are projected second-rounders but I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple of them get selected in the first round.
Shadarr
6128
Actually, if you’re qualifying it like that I’m pretty sure Marshall Faulk was traded for something piddly like a third round pick.
And I almost put Priest Holmes, but I couldn’t remember where he’d started, so then I thought I might be thinking of someone else.
But since we’re adding to the list:
Darren Sproles
Michael Turner
Reggie Bush
The Rams got Faulk for a 2 and 5 pick.
I think this applies to more teams than just the Browns, but it is especially appropriate for the Browns.
There are two separate assertions on my part. The first is that RBs are fungible and thus you should never overpay a FA RB (alternatively put, you should draft your RBs). The second assertion is just my supporting hypothesis for #1 – that there is very little history of successful FA RB mega contracts, where ‘successful’ is “A star RB was allowed to sign with another team for big money and then proceeded to have a monster year”.
That may sound overspecific, but there are plenty of examples of players at almost every other position where this has happened.
Sproles isn’t really a starting RB is he?
Turner was a backup when he left the Chargers.
Reggie Bush was never a star running back – fine receiver, but sucked as a runner.
One of our local sportswriters was ragging on Dolphin fans for being impatient.
I emailed him that “I have been waiting for another Super Bowl win since the 1973 season, is that patient enough for ya”?
Most of the RBs don’t seem to go FA until the twilight of their careers, ala Tomlinson.
I think the way it usually works is a contract is up after 4-5 years, and a RB is still in his prime then, so he gets a healthy contract from his team. Or more often, a year or two before the contract is up he gets offered a nice extension.
I agree that a RB that has about 7-8 years on him is not worth paying a lot for. Most of them hit a wall at about 30 years of age and their production starts to diminish.
However, it’s not like you can draft and replace a stud RB who still has a few good years left. You can’t count on some 2nd or 3rd round pick doing as well.
I agree with this – in particular, production can be huge right out the gate, rookie RBs can contribute significantly right away. So as a result they have a lot of mindshare when it’s time for their re-up, and if they’re a later round pick that will happen sooner than later.
I agree that a RB that has about 7-8 years on him is not worth paying a lot for. Most of them hit a wall at about 30 years of age and their production starts to diminish.
I would guess it’s even earlier than that. In the past 22 seasons the league’s rushing leader has been 29+ exactly twice (Sanders, 29; Martin, 31). A quick glance at the year by year seems to indicate that rushing leaders are around 24-25 years of age, which is right around the end of their first contract.
However, it’s not like you can draft and replace a stud RB who still has a few good years left. You can’t count on some 2nd or 3rd round pick doing as well.
It depends I think. The cliff is so sharp (Alexander went from league rushing champion to cut in 2 years; then out of the league one year later – 3 years from best to gone; Larry Johnson signed his mega contract and then never produced after that) that signing your feature back to a contract they think they deserve (i.e. a contract that takes into account prior performance) can backfire hideously.
But if you have a shot at a top RB in the first round, you may as well sign them and let your current one go if the other option is to overpay for a declining star. You’re still paying less and you’re getting less treadwear on your tires.
This seems to be a problem for RBs in general – they can contribute immediately (so they’re easier to replace); they accrue wear and tear at a precipitous rate; there is no value add to experience gained; and by the time they’re eligible for a big payday they’re used up enough that their value has diminished.
So it’s understandable when young RBs that are performing amazingly well choose to sit out and get a new contract instead of playing to completion, because unlike a QB or WR they’re not going to age well.
Why? Is Jim Harbaugh quitting or getting fired? Looking at Alex smith’s statistics over the past 2 years (he played in 11 games each of the last 2 seasons) and just this year, the two things I noticed were that while his rating jumped from the low 80s to 90.7, his completion % hovers right around 60%. This year’s Alex is the same Alex, he’s just in a better position, with better coaches and a better scheme.
I think RBs wear out faster than any other position. Lineman often play into their mid-thirties and really, same for all other positions. A 34 year old RB who is more than just a backup or part-time back is rare.
Shadarr
6137
Who cares whether Sproles is a typical RB or not. The man has something like 2400 total yards every year for the last four seasons. That is a good RB and a good receiver, all in one player.
Hey, if you want to limit the discussion to just guys who support your point, go nuts. But lots of teams have gotten quality and even star RBs without drafting them.
Sammich
6138
RBs have the shortest average career length among all positions, and the ones who sign lucrative deals/extensions after their initial contracts almost never live up to them.
This is currently an issue in Chicago. The Bears don’t really want to pay Forte, but may have little choice. They’re already in need of help at multiple positions (in order of urgency: WR, OT, S, CB, and DL), so adding “starting RB” to the shopping list might not be a feasible plan.
Of course, first they have to hire a GM. But not one who would want to, y’know, actually bring in his own people.
Thongsy
6139
He’s never had 2400 yards in any year. And this year, his best year he has around 1400 total yards. Usually averaging around 350 rushing and 500 receiving in prior years. He’s a nice player but let’s not be stupid and make him seem like a superstar rusher and receiver in one now.
I agree with Bacon, maybe there are other guys who done what you said, but Sproles, Bush and Turner would not be the guys I use for that example.
Hammet
6140
Raiders got Reggie McKenzie (Packers) as their new GM.
Fans might want to check out the linked articles upthread on how the Packers operate through the draft, interesting reading.
