Where will Le'Veon Bell sign in the offseason?

[DigInBoys]

Opinions can differ on how things ended in Pittsburgh, but Bell is a game-changing talent and can help transform a club overnight.

Who should sign him, and who will sign him?

Here's a breakdown of some potential suitors:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-whats-next-for-leveon-bell-and-the-steelers-including-seven-potential-suitors-for-the-rb/

[JMG5]

Colts.

 

[Soko]

Colts/Jets immediately stand out because neither have difference makers at running back and both have a ton of cap space. I think from Bell’s perspective, playing with a QB like Luck behind a young, up-and-coming offensive line has to seem desirable too. 

Bills/Texans make a ton of sense too. The BIlls have holes everywhere, although I’m not sure they’re all too desirable a destination. In Houston, Bell would be stuck with BoB for at least a year or so but playing with Watson and Nuk has to be exciting (albeit behind a trash OL).

After those two, Tampa and Philly make sense. Neither have a ton of cap room, but both can clear things up if they actually wanted a shot at Bell. Both could use a stud running back, obviously. 

I’d like him in SF. IIRC, McKinnon’s contract is relatively escapable.

 

[brownie man]

2 hours ago, JMG5 said:

Colts.

 

Makes too much sense

Luck

Young great cheap oline 

play in a dome

AFC

[43M]

Bell would be perfect for the Colts and Andrew Luck IMO.   

Bell with the Texans would just be unfair.    A trio of Watson, Bell and Hopkins would be lethal.

Bell said last year that the Jets would have to pay him an insane amount to play there.     If they are willing to do that, maybe it could happen.

 

 

[ET80]

3 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

In Houston, Bell would be stuck with BoB for at least a year or so but playing with Watson and Nuk has to be exciting (albeit behind a trash OL).

Ideally, it's addressed in a similar fashion as the Colts did over this past draft - OL after OL with first/second round talent (Greg Little and Michael Deiter could bookend for a good decade together). The Texans have an extra 2nd to boot, so you could add in a G as well.

The only advantage to having such a bad OL is you can literally take the best OL available at those picks and see a significant improvement over the incumbent.

2 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Bell with the Texans would just be unfair.    A trio of Watson, Bell and Hopkins would be lethal.

Demaryius Thomas and Will Fuller, too. So, there's a lot to work with...

...this all being said, I wouldn't want to spend the money it would take to bring in Bell. I'd much rather take on guys like Mark Ingram, Tevin Coleman or TJ Yeldon. Yeah, none of these guys are as good as Bell, but the cost difference is significant and the offense is already potent without a high end RB.

If Bell is looking for money, Houston has it - but if Houston is looking to be smart with money, Bell isn't the guy you want.

[rich homie]

I don't know if I see the Colts going in for Bell. Marlon Mack is currently averaging 5.3 yards per carry. Nyheim Hines is averaging 4.4 yards per carry, and Jordan Wilkins is 5.4 yards per carry. Sure Le'Veon would be a huge upgrade over all of them but not only do the Colts have much more pressing needs at the wide receiver and cornerback positions if they want to overpay, we've seen that the OL can make any RB look good, so spending huge money there is a waste.

[Matts4313]

3 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

After those two, Tampa and Philly make sense. Neither have a ton of cap room, but both can clear things up if they actually wanted a shot at Bell. Both could use a stud running back, obviously. 

As I said in the other thread, it seems completely illogical to think Philly has any real shot at Bell. Right now they are like $20m over the cap for next year with only ~35 people under contract. They are going to have to cut 3-5ish people *JUST* to be able to afford their draft class alone. So now they are down to ~30 people under contract for 2019 + a draft class. But what are they losing?

Starting LT

2 Starting WRs + 2 back ups

2 Starting DE + 1 back up

Starting DT + 1 back up

Starting CB

Kicker

Back up QB

That team is screwed for 2019. They can get Bell, but he better play RB/WR/CB/K.

[big_palooka]

Raiders.. He's the type back Gruden would love and he'd be willing to throw money at. If it's about the money for Bell, Oakland will pay him.

[Soko]

4 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

After those two, Tampa and Philly make sense. Neither have a ton of cap room, but both can clear things up if they actually wanted a shot at Bell. 

 

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

As I said in the other thread, it seems completely illogical to think Philly has any real shot at Bell. Right now they are like $20m over the cap for next year with only ~35 people under contract. They are going to have to cut 3-5ish people *JUST* to be able to afford their draft class alone. So now they are down to ~30 people under contract for 2019 + a draft class. 

Doesn’t really refute what I said. They get to about even by parting ways with Foles alone. Peters doesn’t stay at his current figure. Neither will Long/Bennett. That’s enough for Bell right there. 

Come in red in the face that the Eagles can’t get Bell without gutting their roster, doesn’t bother me because it doesn’t really have anything to do with my claim at all.

[Malik]

Whoever gives him the most money. Winning doesn't seem like a big priority for him.

[Trentwannabe]

Houston or Baltimore would be great.

[Matts4313]

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

Doesn’t really refute what I said. They get to about even by parting ways with Foles alone. Peters doesn’t stay at his current figure. Neither will Long/Bennett. That’s enough for Bell right there. 

Come in red in the face that the Eagles can’t get Bell without gutting their roster, doesn’t bother me because it doesn’t really have anything to do with my claim at all.

Okay, so with your suggestions they now have 31 people under contract with about 10-15 people who play significant roles not being on the team. How do you suppose they fix that?

I didnt say that they couldnt afford him, I said there is no logical way they afford him. 

 

I could afford a Lambo... I just wouldnt be able to pay my house payment. There is no logical way I am moving out of my home for a sports car. It would be illogical. 

[Soko]

9 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Okay, so with your suggestions they now have 31 people under contract with about 10-15 people who play significant roles not being on the team. How do you suppose they fix that?

I didnt say that they couldnt afford him, I said there is no logical way they afford him. 

I could afford a Lambo... I just wouldnt be able to pay my house payment. There is no logical way I am moving out of my home for a sports car. It would be illogical. 

I don’t care how they fix it. You’re so triggered over Bell (or is it the Eagles?) you’re hopping all over everything. 

I said if the Eagles want to make the money available to get him, they can. Literally nothing you have said refutes that because, it is a fact. I’m not even going to prove your “10-15 people” statement wrong because I don’t care about getting into a debate about the Eagles financials. 

When you can tell me how the Eagles have no way of creating cap room for Bell - then we can talk.

[Matts4313]

11 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I don’t care how they fix it. You’re so triggered over Bell (or is it the Eagles?) you’re hopping all over everything. 

I said if the Eagles want to make the money available to get him, they can. Literally nothing you have said refutes that because, it is a fact. I’m not even going to prove your “10-15 people” statement wrong because I don’t care about getting into a debate about the Eagles financials. 

When you can tell me how the Eagles have no way of creating cap room for Bell - then we can talk.

Im not triggered over anything. I was copying and pasting a debate I got into earlier in the week to explain why its illogical. 

I am getting a tad bit triggered on you not understanding possible vs logical. 

You literally said it was possible. I did not refute that. I said it was illogical. Is this a hard line of discussion to follow along with?

Here, I will simple it down:

1. You said "Philly make sense. Neither have a ton of cap room, but both can clear things up if they actually wanted a shot at Bell. "

2. I responded that it was illogical. It was a direct response to "philly makes sense". It in no way makes sense when you look at the bigger picture.

3. You said they dont have a ton of cap room.

4. I explained how they have negative cap room and need about 20 people to just fill out their roster. They have to shed $20-30m just to pay their draft class.

5. I concluded with "They can get Bell, but he better play RB/WR/CB/K." => admitting it was in fact possible. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

pos·si·ble

/ˈpäsəb(ə)l/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

Quote

log·i·cal

/ˈläjək(ə)l/

adjective

 

1. of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.

   "a logical impossibility"

   • characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

     "the information is displayed in a simple and logical fashion"

     synonyms:

     reasoned, well reasoned, reasonable, rational, left-brained, sound, cogent, well-thought-out, valid; More
   • (of an action, development, decision, etc.) natural or sensible given the circumstances.

     "it is a logical progression from the job before"

     synonyms:

     natural, reasonable, sensible, understandable; More

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PS - in both the NFL News thread and the Philly forum, all the responses I have seen from Eagles fans is the idea of getting Bell is dumb. Which is the opposite of 'Makes Sense'