Najee NO 5th yr Option

[Magnus-Viktor]

I'll say this much.  If I was running a team, I'd do what the Steelers have done the last few drafts:  spend early and often on the OL in the draft.  Then I'd maintain a top notch, cohesive unit.  I'd just plan on burning a day 1 or 2 pick on a RB every 4 or 5 years, so I'd always have a RB in his prime, and on a rookie deal.  UNLESS, I got someone truly special, like McCaffrey, or a healthy Saquon, etc, who can do everything, including things no one else can.  If you have a good QB off a rookie deal, a top notch OL, and a good D, there's simply no money for a star RB unless they're dominant.  Najee is not dominant.  He's the type you can draft EVERY year, and not even need to use a first rounder on him. 

As a former RB myself, I can understand why they'd be pissed at that type of mentality, but it is what it is.  I live in Vikings' territory and made it to quite a few games when Adrian Peterson was playing.  I would've preferred to use that HIGH draft pick on a LB like Willis, or CB like Revis, etc, (if I'm remembering the draft correctly), or a top notch OL, and then roll with a Chester Taylor or a Toby Gerhart.  (Gerhart actually made the offense function better, because he could run out of the shotgun and it opened up the playbook, because AD was one-dimensional:  a liability in the passing game in every facet of it, and couldn't run out of the gun, plus the D would run blitz up the A-gap, resulting in blowing up pass plays too)  Then after his rookie deal, you're forced to pay a fortune to a RB, which you could've instead spent on the OL or D.  Team would've been much better off with Taylor or Gerhart on the cheap, and using that pick and cap space elsewhere.  Same concept applies here, although Najee is nowhere near as good of a runner, but is much more complete, than AD.  

[warfelg]

On 5/25/2024 at 9:24 PM, Magnus-Viktor said:

  If I was running a team, I'd do what the Steelers have done the last few drafts:  spend early and often on the OL in the draft.  Then I'd maintain a top notch, cohesive unit.  I'd just plan on burning a day 1 or 2 pick on a RB every 4 or 5 years, so I'd always have a RB in his prime, and on a rookie deal.

I asked this question on the Locked On Steelers phone line, but it's interesting to me when you look at the RB/OL synergy that we've had since the 2000's:

- OL good, declining Bettis. Willie Parker was able to come in as an UDFA and really be a stud from day one.

- OL bad, drafted Rashard Mendenhall (1).  Looked ok early, then really took off when the line got it's boost of talent.

- OL ok, played Dwyer and Redmond in a time share after Mendenhall's injury, got 1200 yards out of all of them.

- OL "bad" again, drafted Bell (2).  He looked decent early, then took off when the line got reshuffled.

- OL in a good place, let Bell walk.  Conner stepped in and performed like nothing was missed from the RB position.

- OL in decline, drafted Najee Harris early (1).  Najee looks good early but isn't a world beater.  Now we invest in the line as time comes.

It seems to really be a pattern for us. When the line is bad, there's complaints about the lack of a run game, and we 'solve' it by going and getting a RB.  They don't change it all so we invest in OL.  Then we change RB's because at that time we can't tell how good they are.  So is that an issue with team building philosophy that leads to why so many RB's have been let go, or is that an issue with the actual talent at RB's we draft?

Personally I think that's an issue with philosophy. Again, I tend to think lines elevate RB's to one tier higher than they are. So in building a team a OL is much more important to me than the RB because a good OL can make an ok back look good. And when you look at teams where Weidl really learned a lot in Baltimore and Philadelphia, that's what they do. They prioritize OL and supplement with RB's. That's why Baltimore seems to have an endless string of RB's and despite not having a 'stud' at the position at all times never worry about it. That's what allows Philadelphia to go 'star' hunting at RB once in a blue moon (Barkley) knowing they should really jump in production because of what they did behind a poor line.

I really do love Najee because of the tenacity that he brings. But like you said you can draft his type yearly and get away with it, as long as the line is good. I kind of suspect that Najee is going to have a good year. Both him and Warren will go over 1,000 yards on the ground. Warren will get is RFA tender unless everything goes wrong for him. But I expect with a 4th straight 1,000 yard season some 'bad' team on the run game side will offer Najee more money than we would be happy giving and he's going to end up with under 1,000 yards the first two years and they'll be really disappointed, he'll get cut, maybe be with another team or two, then out of the league (FWIW my money is he'll be RB2 with SF if he wants to win, RB1 with LV if he wants money).  

[MOSteelers56]

I wouldn't be opposed with getting a comp pick for Najee. I also wouldn't mind to sign him to an affordable deal. 

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

I wouldn't be opposed with getting a comp pick for Najee. I also wouldn't mind to sign him to an affordable deal. 

I think getting a comp pick is going to be very difficult with how much cap space we'll have.

[MOSteelers56]

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

I think getting a comp pick is going to be very difficult with how much cap space we'll have.

Yeah, I forgot about that. Good call

[Magnus-Viktor]

On 5/27/2024 at 7:57 AM, warfelg said:

I asked this question on the Locked On Steelers phone line, but it's interesting to me when you look at the RB/OL synergy that we've had since the 2000's:

- OL good, declining Bettis. Willie Parker was able to come in as an UDFA and really be a stud from day one.

- OL bad, drafted Rashard Mendenhall (1).  Looked ok early, then really took off when the line got it's boost of talent.

- OL ok, played Dwyer and Redmond in a time share after Mendenhall's injury, got 1200 yards out of all of them.

- OL "bad" again, drafted Bell (2).  He looked decent early, then took off when the line got reshuffled.

- OL in a good place, let Bell walk.  Conner stepped in and performed like nothing was missed from the RB position.

- OL in decline, drafted Najee Harris early (1).  Najee looks good early but isn't a world beater.  Now we invest in the line as time comes.

It seems to really be a pattern for us. When the line is bad, there's complaints about the lack of a run game, and we 'solve' it by going and getting a RB.  They don't change it all so we invest in OL.  Then we change RB's because at that time we can't tell how good they are.  So is that an issue with team building philosophy that leads to why so many RB's have been let go, or is that an issue with the actual talent at RB's we draft?

Personally I think that's an issue with philosophy. Again, I tend to think lines elevate RB's to one tier higher than they are. So in building a team a OL is much more important to me than the RB because a good OL can make an ok back look good. And when you look at teams where Weidl really learned a lot in Baltimore and Philadelphia, that's what they do. They prioritize OL and supplement with RB's. That's why Baltimore seems to have an endless string of RB's and despite not having a 'stud' at the position at all times never worry about it. That's what allows Philadelphia to go 'star' hunting at RB once in a blue moon (Barkley) knowing they should really jump in production because of what they did behind a poor line.

I really do love Najee because of the tenacity that he brings. But like you said you can draft his type yearly and get away with it, as long as the line is good. I kind of suspect that Najee is going to have a good year. Both him and Warren will go over 1,000 yards on the ground. Warren will get is RFA tender unless everything goes wrong for him. But I expect with a 4th straight 1,000 yard season some 'bad' team on the run game side will offer Najee more money than we would be happy giving and he's going to end up with under 1,000 yards the first two years and they'll be really disappointed, he'll get cut, maybe be with another team or two, then out of the league (FWIW my money is he'll be RB2 with SF if he wants to win, RB1 with LV if he wants money).  

I agree with pretty much everything you said.  Years ago, when Adrian Peterson was the talk of the town, I went down a rabbit's hole about how I thought it was a joke to spend that high of a draft pick, and that kind of money, on a RB.  At that time, I looked at the last 5-10 SB winners, and almost all of them got by with a RB that was a late pick, and not getting paid a ton.  I think that's the criteria I looked at anyway.  My post-covid brain doesn't remember things like it used to anymore.  Regardless, I remember looking into it and seeing a direct correlation with your teams who didn't burn premium commodities on RBs being the most successful.  I think that's because of everything we discussed.  The OL helps the passing and run game, and can easily elevate an average RB to star-status in the right system.  Shanahan for example.  Both Shanahans that is lol.  It's their scheme and zone blocking that does it.  Obviously a stud like McCaffrey will be unbelievable in it, but as far as the running aspect only is concerned, any RB will do.  Then you get the Vikings with Adrian Peterson.  He was their offense, but they just run blitzed up the gut and that blew up every play.  The fact he couldn't run out of the gun also hurt their passing offense, as did his lack of picking up a blitz or running anything resembling a route.  They had, what, one year during his entire tenure there where they were a legit contender?  That's the perfect example of how not to build a team.  

I'm all for keeping that cap space clear for your OL, QB and D, and just burning a late 1 to 3rd rounder every 4-5 years if your mid-late rounder doesn't pan out to replace your starter.  It's just business and common sense.  

I'm looking forward to seeing Saquon in Philly now, assuming their OL is still good without Kelce.  He's my 2nd favorite all-time RB prospect coming out of college, behind only McCaffrey.  I'm definitely not an Eagles fan, but they do have a couple South Dakota boys now (including a guy whose dad is from the same area I'm from and who was my favorite player in college the last few years), and a RB I really like, so I might have to start watching them some more now!  I forgot they had Saquon until you just now mentioned it again!