Melvin Gordon ends hold out; to report Thursday

[Xenos]

29 minutes ago, jebrick said:

Gordon's smart move is to sit out 10 games and hit FA.  The Market can then decide.  Gordon's fear would be a James Conner type situation where his production is easily replaced.  I do not know the Charger's offense to say if that is possible.  Conner in Pittsburgh just showed that the system works.

IMHO, the Chargers will not trade him for many of the reasons given in this thread.  Unless a team tosses a 2nd round pick at them.  Teams tend to overvalue their draft picks so I just do not see it happening.

The Chargers offense is a weird hybrid that has a mix of Lynn's running attacks from his days with Buffalo, Mike McCoy's quick strike passing, and Norv's playaction deep throws. I would like to say that Lynn likes having a primary three down back like Gordon, with spells from others like Ekeler. We won't know how this team will do in long run without Gordon, even though we saw a little bit of it last year in the 4 game stretch where he was gone and they had to rely on Ekeler, Justin Jackson, and Detrez Newsome. Not exactly household names,  especially the latter two, but Lynn's background as a RB coach seems to have helped in allowing this team to not miss a beat during that 4 game window.

[jebrick]

I should have added that the Steelers had 2 years to really prepare for Bell's absence.  The Chargers do not have that luxury ( if Gordon sits out).

[Oregon Ducks]

3 hours ago, jebrick said:

I should have added that the Steelers had 2 years to really prepare for Bell's absence.  The Chargers do not have that luxury ( if Gordon sits out).

We’re ready.

[Dr LBC]

10 hours ago, jebrick said:

Gordon's smart move is to sit out 10 games and hit FA.  The Market can then decide.  Gordon's fear would be a James Conner type situation where his production is easily replaced.  I do not know the Charger's offense to say if that is possible.  Conner in Pittsburgh just showed that the system works.

IMHO, the Chargers will not trade him for many of the reasons given in this thread.  Unless a team tosses a 2nd round pick at them.  Teams tend to overvalue their draft picks so I just do not see it happening.

I don't know that one single back is going to replace Gordon's production singlehandedly, but I'd be very confident, given what I've seen from Austin Ekeler and Justin Jackson, that they could collectively pick up the slack left by him.  Gordon was due for TD regression this year for the same reason why, situationally, James Conner is: Both teams had a real knack in the red zone for receivers getting tackled at the 1-2 yard line, leaving a higher-than-average amount of goal-line carries for their respective running backs.  The Chargers OL certainly has it's question marks right now, but they're much more in the pass-blocking sphere than the run-block one.  They open holes at the 1st level pretty darn well.

[N4L]

Melvin Gordon is handling this holdout better than any player I have ever seen, in any sport. The amount of access he is giving the media right now is unprecedented for a guy holding out. He gave a personable press conference and then breaks down film with NFLN. He is charismatic and well spoken. 

I think he really learned from Leveon's hold out, who was basically MIA in MIAMI and completely inaccessible with the exception of his own social media accounts. Leveon left it up to the media to set/control the narrative and I think it hurt his 'brand' in the long run. 

Gordon is doing the exact opposite. He is getting himself out there and by doing so is controlling what the media is saying about him. Its a really savvy move. 

 

I honestly think they need to make an exception in the CBA for RBs. Its a unique position and should be treated as such. They take such a beating that their shelf life is so short. If they play 3-4 years in college, they are already a little worn down and probably have an injury history. As such, RBs should make a little bit more upfront and you shouldnt be able to tag them. I would also consider getting rid of the 5th year option as well. 

The problem is, if you raise their rookie salaries relative to other positions, there will be teams who dont draft them as high to save money.

[Shanedorf]

12 hours ago, N4L said:

I honestly think they need to make an exception in the CBA for RBs. Its a unique position and should be treated as such. They take such a beating that their shelf life is so short. If they play 3-4 years in college, they are already a little worn down and probably have an injury history. As such, RBs should make a little bit more upfront and you shouldnt be able to tag them. I would also consider getting rid of the 5th year option as well. 

The problem is, if you raise their rookie salaries relative to other positions, there will be teams who dont draft them as high to save money.

It comes down to this for me:

If you think playing RB in the NFL should result in a lifetime scholarship, then yes, some changes in contract structure may be in order
If you don't think that playing RB in the NFL should result in a lifetime scholarship, then things are fine the way they are

Melvin will have earned $ 16 million by the end of this season, is that a dire enough situation to warrant a significant change ?
Opinions vary. And that was a deal signed 4 years ago, the same draft pick in 2019 IS getting more

[Kiwibrown]

Runningbacks get a raw deal. So many are done by 30, they have a short shelf life. Also the market is flooded with players who can contribute. 

Outside of qb, you really want to be a premium defender or receiver  

[Nabbs4u]

17 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Melvin will have earned $ 16 million by the end of this season, is that a dire enough situation to warrant a significant change ?
Opinions vary. And that was a deal signed 4 years ago, the same draft pick in 2019 IS getting more

Why shouldn't it be? Every other posistion in the NFL has sky rocketed to absurd numbers.  Why shouldn't RB, the one position with the shortest shelf life?

Once again why should Julio Jones's production on the field 80-100 rec, 14-1700 yds and 6-10TD a year somehow warranting a $17-20M  yearly salary /extension but say a Zeke Elliots 400 touches 2000 total yds and 18TD only $12-13M? It's a rediculous double standard that needs to be changed.

[G]

5 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

 say a Zeke Elliots 400 touches 2000 total yds and 18TD only $12-13M? It's a rediculous double standard that needs to be changed.

Player's could add a performance to % of production cap bonus...It will be interesting to see what's important to players in the negotiations...

Raiders could 1 year rental a vet RB but neither the Chargers nor Gordon want that. Browns might have traded Duke Johnson but Hunt isn't instilling confidence in backing up Chubb. 

It's why RB's are underpaid. Huge supply of talent and short shelf life. Jacobs was smart to hold out for fully guaranteed... 

[Kiwibrown]

4 hours ago, G said:

Player's could add a performance to % of production cap bonus...It will be interesting to see what's important to players in the negotiations...

Raiders could 1 year rental a vet RB but neither the Chargers nor Gordon want that. Browns might have traded Duke Johnson but Hunt isn't instilling confidence in backing up Chubb. 

It's why RB's are underpaid. Huge supply of talent and short shelf life. Jacobs was smart to hold out for fully guaranteed... 

QBs have to have a good arm, good accuracy, read the feild and play the pocket well to be a starter, or something close to that. 

A runningback only has to do 1-2 things well of the entire skill set. Some guys are blockers who play st. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

On 7/20/2019 at 2:39 PM, Shanedorf said:

If you think playing RB in the NFL should result in a lifetime scholarship, then yes, some changes in contract structure may be in order
If you don't think that playing RB in the NFL should result in a lifetime scholarship, then things are fine the way they are

"Lifetime scholarship" is dumber branding to get away with not paying people than "student athlete". And that's saying something.

[Broncofan]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:40 AM, jebrick said:

Gordon's smart move is to sit out 10 games and hit FA.  The Market can then decide.  Gordon's fear would be a James Conner type situation where his production is easily replaced.  I do not know the Charger's offense to say if that is possible.  Conner in Pittsburgh just showed that the system works.

IMHO, the Chargers will not trade him for many of the reasons given in this thread.  Unless a team tosses a 2nd round pick at them.  Teams tend to overvalue their draft picks so I just do not see it happening.

People are confusing Leveon Bell's franchise tag situation and Gordon.   If Gordon doesn't report by August 6th - the Chargers control his rights for another year before UFA status hits.   So they basically have all the leverage.    Bell could hold out until Week 10 and then collect a year of service time because the franchise tag is non-binding until then, and only expires after that deadline - but once signed, the service time tolls for that year.  That deadline of Week 10 does NOT apply to players already under contract.  A player under contract like Gordon must report by 30 days before the 1st game of the year, or they lose the entire year of service time, even if they report a day later.  It's part of how the CBA is so ridiculously player-unfriendly.

Gordon's agent and he are leveraging the Chargers' status as a contender to try and get an extension done by keeping the house in order and on-track to start TC - which is understandable.  It's the only leverage they have.  But as of August 6th, if he hasn't reported - the Chargers get a free year of service time, and Gordon's in the exact same boat next offseason.   That's life with a player under contract.  Bell as a franchise-tagged player, didn't have to sign the tag, and could have held out for up to Week 10, and still hit UFA - he chose to not report at all, and the Steelers had enough of the drama.   But make no mistake here, this isn't the same as the Bell situation - this is more like Aaron Donald in 2017, who admitted later it was a brutal tactical error, as it only pushed the problem to 2018, and the Rams gained a year of service time.   

It would be a gross tactical error on Gordon's agent & him to not report by August 6th.  They'll be able to hit FA next year, and the franchise tag will be too prohibitive with Gurley/Bell's salaries driving up the # (it's now 11M and only going to go up with Bell/Gurley contracts kicking into high gear, as top 5 salaries drive the figure).    The Chargers might blink before Aug. 6th if a team-friendly # gets done that gives Gordon security in exchange for chasing top $, but otherwise come Aug. 7th, barring epic stupidity on Gordon's camp, the news will be about Gordon being back in camp, and looking forward to 2019 and hitting the market in 2020.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Broncofan

[Shanedorf]

3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

"Lifetime scholarship" is dumber branding to get away with not paying people than "student athlete". And that's saying something.

How is Gordon not getting paid ? Student athletes get zero while Gordon will have earned $16 million by the time January rolls around.
That's serious coin.
An UDFA RB who does the same exact job gets 1/16th of that total, if he's lucky. Gordon's also in line for another $ 20-30 million guaranteed depending on what the Chargers pay him. Suggesting that's like a student athlete is pretty silly.
You're campaigning for a guy who will earn $30+ million and saying its terribly unfair treatment ?
That's an interesting POV, one that I don't share. Gordon and his family will never have to work another day in their lives, where's the problem ?

Some jobs pay more than others ? BFD and welcome to reality. NFL running backs are not an aggrieved class, they are simply a part of the supply/demand curve. IF they don't like it, there are a myriad of other choices available to them. What you and others are suggesting is to throw out the supply/demand curve and create an un-natural pay scale - which will have its own set of repercussions & unintended consequences
(which often lead to even more rules and special exceptions)

I'm not seeing a problem. Melvin wants more money and he wants it now. Good for him, I hope he gets it. But suggesting he's getting taken advantage of or that there is some major problem ? I don't see it, but clearly opinions vary on the topic of RB pay.
QBs get over-drafted, RBs get under-drafted. Should we change the draft structure so the RBs are getting more of a fair shake every April ?
Or are we content to let the market forces handle that ? And if market forces are OK on draft day, why are they not OK on payday ?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Shanedorf

[JBURGE]

On 7/20/2019 at 8:14 PM, Kiwibrown said:

Runningbacks get a raw deal. So many are done by 30, they have a short shelf life. Also the market is flooded with players who can contribute. 

Outside of qb, you really want to be a premium defender or receiver  

Really just wanted to agree with this. It's a supply and demand issue. There are a lot of NFL quality running backs, and there are a lot of really good rookies coming into the NFL year after year (look at the 2020 class, sheesh). 

I guess the issue is how prevalent the running game is in high school and college. But the younger players/parents will see how RBs are treated in the NFL and they will have them play different positions - WR, DB and LB. So my guess would be 5 years down the line we see weaker RB draft classes

[ramssuperbowl99]

28 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

How is Gordon not getting paid ? Student athletes get zero while Gordon will have earned $16 million by the time January rolls around.
That's serious coin.
An UDFA RB who does the same exact job gets 1/16th of that total, if he's lucky. Gordon's also in line for another $ 20-30 million guaranteed depending on what the Chargers pay him. Suggesting that's like a student athlete is pretty silly.
You're campaigning for a guy who will earn $30+ million and saying its terribly unfair treatment ?
That's an interesting POV, one that I don't share. Gordon and his family will never have to work another day in their lives, where's the problem ?

Some jobs pay more than others ? BFD and welcome to reality. NFL running backs are not an aggrieved class, they are simply a part of the supply/demand curve. IF they don't like it, there are a myriad of other choices available to them. What you and others are suggesting is to throw out the supply/demand curve and create an un-natural pay scale - which will have its own set of repercussions & unintended consequences
(which often lead to even more rules and special exceptions)

I'm not seeing a problem. Melvin wants more money and he wants it now. Good for him, I hope he gets it. But suggesting he's getting taken advantage of or that there is some major problem ? I don't see it, but clearly opinions vary on the topic of RB pay.
QBs get over-drafted, RBs get under-drafted. Should we change the draft structure so the RBs are getting more of a fair shake every April ?
Or are we content to let the market forces handle that ? And if market forces are OK on draft day, why are they not OK on payday ?

Why are we limiting this to just one "lifetime scholarship"? What about a serial RB? Is he eligible for a double lifetime scholarship with the possibility for scholarship parole after 25 years?