Najee NO 5th yr Option

[Chieferific]

$7m is worth it to not have to rely on a Rookie to be the backup or starter if injury occurs. Give him the 7m and draft a RB. If the Rookie looks like he can handle the position year 1, either trade Najee or mix them both in. IMO anyway. 

[warfelg]

7 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

$7m is worth it to not have to rely on a Rookie to be the backup or starter if injury occurs. Give him the 7m and draft a RB. If the Rookie looks like he can handle the position year 1, either trade Najee or mix them both in. IMO anyway. 

Teams rely on rookie RBs all the time including us 3 times since 2000 in FWP, Mendenhall, and Najee. Also Warren is a FA next year and I think it’s more likely they retain him.  

[Chieferific]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Teams rely on rookie RBs all the time including us 3 times since 2000 in FWP, Mendenhall, and Najee. Also Warren is a FA next year and I think it’s more likely they retain him.  

I'm not saying they don't do it all the time but again, $7m isn't much for the insurance. Giving the $7m gives options, not picking it up makes you rely on a Rookie/FA for "cheap". I'd prefer Warren too btw. 

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, Chieferific said:

I'm not saying they don't do it all the time but again, $7m isn't much for the insurance. Giving the $7m gives options, not picking it up makes you rely on a Rookie/FA for "cheap". I'd prefer Warren too btw. 

That $7mm if fully gtd. I’m not 100% sure what happens with if I’d you trade him with the option picked up whether it goes with him or stays, but that’s an expensive insurance policy. 

As much of a Najee supporter I am, he’s about a $6mm with low GTD money back. He’s not super well rounded as he’s been a minus on 3rd down with poor pass pro and has been average as a pass catcher. He hasn’t shown to be the game breaker that Henry can be, especially late, he’s a game manager of a running back. 

[AFF]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

That $7mm if fully gtd. I’m not 100% sure what happens with if I’d you trade him with the option picked up whether it goes with him or stays, but that’s an expensive insurance policy. 

As much of a Najee supporter I am, he’s about a $6mm with low GTD money back. He’s not super well rounded as he’s been a minus on 3rd down with poor pass pro and has been average as a pass catcher. He hasn’t shown to be the game breaker that Henry can be, especially late, he’s a game manager of a running back. 

The option was for $6.8 mill…I’m not worried about 800K in an offseason with them having $90-$100 mill in cap space with serious issues at secondary and DL and possibly QB.

I want them to be able to concentrate on 3-4 areas instead of more.

And here’s the thing…you have to replace him whether it’s in all likelihood a 2nd-4th round pick or a vet that costs a few mill still.

If they had cap issues or a young guy in the pipe 3rd on the depth chart I’d understand it a lot more.

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, AFF said:

The option was for $6.8 mill…I’m not worried about 800K in an offseason with them having $90-$100 mill in cap space with serious issues at secondary and DL and possibly QB.

I want them to be able to concentrate on 3-4 areas instead of more.

And here’s the thing…you have to replace him whether it’s in all likelihood a 2nd-4th round pick or a vet that costs a few mill still.

If they had cap issues or a young guy in the pipe 3rd on the depth chart I’d understand it a lot more.

I don’t care about the camp impact. I care about not overpaying. 
 

If you want to make the argument of cap impact, what’s the worse case here? It costs ~$7m more to tag him? Or better yet $4m more to transition tag him? If he has that kind of year then it should be fine. If you are questioning his fit as a FO/Coaching staff, this is a good $4M gamble to take. If he’s just an ok fit, and he hits the market, gets what far more RBs tend to get, then you should just let him walk. And if he does bad, then it’s a ~$7m mistake avoided. 

[skywlker32]

First we had issues with all holes not being filled before the draft this year, now we're already concerned with "creating" holes next year? Give me a break. Harris has been OK, and they could still extend him depending on what kind of year he has. If they don't, you potentially had Warren or you find guys in FA. It is VERY reasonable that they don't give him an extra guaranteed year.

[JustPlainNasty]

12 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

As far as Najee's option not being picked up, as I said in the other thread, I read an article today that mentioned all the other aspects to declining it.  

1.  You get a motivated player that might run his butt off this year and really produce for you in a contract year.

2.  You get to see how he fits your scheme without committing 6.79 mill guaranteed to it ahead of time.

3.  If you sign him to the usual 4 year deal after the season, he'll be inked up at ages 27-30, not beyond when he'll more likely be in decline.  

 

On the other hand, 6.79 is far below the # it'll take to resign him if he has a good year.  So you could've rented him for another year, and then just drafted another guy to replace him.  Better business sense that way.  RBs, unless they're a Christian McCaffrey, are a dime a dozen, and Najee isn't that explosive to be considered an exception to that rule for me.  I do like him though!  

I agree they could resign him, but if I were doing him a solid and working in the future interests of the team Id be working on the extension for this year , guaranteeing this years money and only half of next years. The future guarantee seems to be a lot of the teams trip up in most contracts/negotiations. 

The other hand the vast majority of running backs begin their decline after year 26. The anomaly is similarly or more productive running backs 27 years of age and beyond. Also Jaylen Warren is due for a contract next season, who has less wear and has been more productive per touch throughout their careers. 

I would be surprised again if they didn't have some long term intention with Najee because of Tomlins supposed admiration for him. It can be a cold business. 

[warfelg]

12 minutes ago, JustPlainNasty said:

I agree they could resign him, but if I were doing him a solid and working in the future interests of the team Id be working on the extension for this year , guaranteeing this years money and only half of next years. The future guarantee seems to be a lot of the teams trip up in most contracts/negotiations. 

His deal this year is $2.439 mil

I could see a 2 year $12mil deal done with forwarding about $8m of that to this year and leaving next year with little gtd money so you can walk if it doesn’t work. 

[3rivers]

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

https://x.com/theponiexpress/status/1786130770047664433?s=46&t=xd5QJpZuXv2k7qD0xqd6aA

and even if the coach tolerated it, maybe the new FO isn't tolerating this. It could be cleaning house chapter 2 next offseason.   The team is on notice

 

2 hours ago, skywlker32 said:

If something needed to be done about rules, take care of it in-house IMO. Making it public is directly undermining your leadership. If it was brought up to the coaches and they didn't change anything, maybe they had a reason that they felt additional rules weren't necessary. Calling out the lack of rules not only claims that the coaches aren't doing their job, but also claims that the player leadership isn't doing theirs either. No one on the team should be happy about it.

this is how I see it. Today social media is a problem but the players should know better, same with the media, they need to know what to say.  The team was no good and Najee might be correct but he needed to go about this differently.   

[3rivers]

49 minutes ago, JustPlainNasty said:

It can be a cold business. 

what if the new FO has had enough and wants to clean house?

they had no problem overpaying mitch and chuks, so why not keep Harris for what appears to be a decent amount? I can only think that they want to see how he is in the new offence and go from there.    Why not keep the plays that work for Najee and this new OL, and go from there?

The FO might also have a low fixed cap value for the RB room, and Warren will be getting most of that.  If the draft is loaded with RB's in 25, factor that into the reason

I think this OL could be good at both schemes, and that would add pressure to the defence.  

How would a durable player like Harris feel about being snubbed like this by a team that overpaid and overdrafted players like KP, mitch, chuks etc...?

Edited May 3 by 3rivers

[AFF]

1 hour ago, skywlker32 said:

First we had issues with all holes not being filled before the draft this year, now we're already concerned with "creating" holes next year? Give me a break. Harris has been OK, and they could still extend him depending on what kind of year he has. If they don't, you potentially had Warren or you find guys in FA. It is VERY reasonable that they don't give him an extra guaranteed year.

For the 382 time…I never said fill all holes….i wanted another long term impact player(or 2) added.

It’s also very reasonable to have done it since you already know what he is.

 

[AFF]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

I don’t care about the camp impact. I care about not overpaying. 
 

If you want to make the argument of cap impact, what’s the worse case here? It costs ~$7m more to tag him? Or better yet $4m more to transition tag him? If he has that kind of year then it should be fine. If you are questioning his fit as a FO/Coaching staff, this is a good $4M gamble to take. If he’s just an ok fit, and he hits the market, gets what far more RBs tend to get, then you should just let him walk. And if he does bad, then it’s a ~$7m mistake avoided. 

You care about overpaying but you are ok with them transition tagging him or the Franchise tag him?

Hes not going to get substantially better or worse…he’s shown he can handle a workload and is at least average in facets of the game and you don’t have to use draft assets to replace him.

Plus why sign him long term?

He would be turning 28 at end of the option year…use him and then let him go.

[warfelg]

5 minutes ago, AFF said:

You care about overpaying but you are ok with them transition tagging him or the Franchise tag him?

That’s not what the point was. 
 

 

6 minutes ago, AFF said:

Hes not going to get substantially better or worse…he’s shown he can handle a workload and is at least average in facets of the game and you don’t have to use draft assets to replace him.

 

Why does it matter if you do this in 2025 (good RB draft) or 2026. 

 

7 minutes ago, AFF said:

Plus why sign him long term?

Huh? Who’s saying sign him long term?

8 minutes ago, AFF said:

He would be turning 28 at end of the option year…use him and then let him go.

Again. Huh? If the guy isn’t part of the long term view then keeping him around is just wasting snaps, cap, and time. 
 

For the record - I personally wouldn’t extend Najee over $6mm. But the gamble of having to franchise/transition tag him at the end of a great year is worth not guaranteeing $7m now. I honestly find it strange you want to pick up the option because of all the cap space but the gamble of an extra $4-8m isn’t worth it. 

[C$!]

Its also good to remember that Harris was a Colbert pick. Maybe Khan and Weidl have a different opinion on how, if at all, Harris fits with the team moving forward.

The unfortunate reality for running backs is they are the most replaceable position in the league at the moment. Even if Harris balls out, the Steelers might still let him go and replace him with a cheaper option. I am sure if Harris has a big year, he would still want an extension before going into his option year.