Najee NO 5th yr Option

[Dcash4]

24 minutes ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

I also think he's replaceable

I don’t disagree with you, but just because you can doesn’t mean you have to. 

I don’t want to put any sort of substantial draft asset into a position that everyone here seems to agree is largely replaceable. If it just takes money (which comes back each season), why not do it and remove the necessity to find a replacement for another year at least? 

Perfect world: we aren’t looking for a starter for 2/3 years with an extension in Warren next year. But if you just picked up the option on Najee, we aren’t considering any sort of RB asset until 2026 at minimum. 

Khan and Weidl have done such a great job drafting, IMO, I don’t want them wasting picks on RB. I don’t view it as paying $6.8m for some stud running back, I look at it as securing a position we can not think about for another season. That has major value to me. 

[Magnus-Viktor]

5 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

I don’t disagree with you, but just because you can doesn’t mean you have to. 

I don’t want to put any sort of substantial draft asset into a position that everyone here seems to agree is largely replaceable. If it just takes money (which comes back each season), why not do it and remove the necessity to find a replacement for another year at least? 

Perfect world: we aren’t looking for a starter for 2/3 years with an extension in Warren next year. But if you just picked up the option on Najee, we aren’t considering any sort of RB asset until 2026 at minimum. 

Khan and Weidl have done such a great job drafting, IMO, I don’t want them wasting picks on RB. I don’t view it as paying $6.8m for some stud running back, I look at it as securing a position we can not think about for another season. That has major value to me. 

I basically agree with you there.  It's always good to not have to spend picks on a position.  I personally like Najee and think we should keep him, at the right price.  I think waiting and seeing how he fits the scheme and everything is a great way to go about it.  As others have said, you can extend him this season, in-season, and get the use of him in his prime more that way.  Lower the guaranteed money (risk) that way too.  Giving him, before this season, another season entirely guaranteed, is not a good move for someone you're not sure on.  So, I personally, would like to see him return at a good price, for a SHORT term deal.  Or at least a deal where there's no penalty for cutting him if his production falls off (in other words, the guaranteed money is primarily, if not all, this season and next).  

[rlon]

2 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

I basically agree with you there.  It's always good to not have to spend picks on a position.  I personally like Najee and think we should keep him, at the right price.  I think waiting and seeing how he fits the scheme and everything is a great way to go about it.  As others have said, you can extend him this season, in-season, and get the use of him in his prime more that way.  Lower the guaranteed money (risk) that way too.  Giving him, before this season, another season entirely guaranteed, is not a good move for someone you're not sure on.  So, I personally, would like to see him return at a good price, for a SHORT term deal.  Or at least a deal where there's no penalty for cutting him if his production falls off (in other words, the guaranteed money is primarily, if not all, this season and next).  

Najee is not looking for a good price for the Steelers. He’s a big part of the running back movement against the devaluing trend. On principle alone, he’s going to be a difficult signing. The Steelers will be moving on from him IMO.

[warfelg]

https://x.com/alex_kozora/status/1786434092717760824?s=46&t=xd5QJpZuXv2k7qD0xqd6aA

[warfelg]

1 hour ago, rlon said:

Najee is not looking for a good price for the Steelers. He’s a big part of the running back movement against the devaluing trend. On principle alone, he’s going to be a difficult signing. The Steelers will be moving on from him IMO.

The only reason RBs got paid was the draft sucked for RBs this year. Draft is good for RBs next year so I bet we see the position devalued again. 

This year was good evidence of WR deep and OR deep means those positions got screwed in FA. 

[rlon]

18 minutes ago, warfelg said:

The only reason RBs got paid was the draft sucked for RBs this year. Draft is good for RBs next year so I bet we see the position devalued again. 

This year was good evidence of WR deep and OR deep means those positions got screwed in FA. 

I agree with you, but I think the actual starting NFL running backs believe that this is the beginning of a trend they can impact. It’s not, and they really can’t. I believe Najee will be a bit of a particular testadura about it…not saying they should give up on him now or anything, just have an instinct in terms of how he will be and that the Steelers will move on.

[Dcash4]

5 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

So, I personally, would like to see him return at a good price, for a SHORT term deal.  Or at least a deal where there's no penalty for cutting him if his production falls off (in other words, the guaranteed money is primarily, if not all, this season and next)

I hear ya. So what about something like a one year extension that pays him $9.2M over the this season and next? Seems fair. 

[warfelg]

12 hours ago, Magnus-Viktor said:

think that's a really fair assessment.  I personally like Najee.  I also think he's replaceable.  I think most players in the NFL, especially on offense outside of QBs, are very easily replaceable if you have a competent front office to pick them and coaching staff to develop them. 

Ok here’s the unpopular part. Unless you are a top 2 at your position, you shouldn’t pick up a 5-the year option on RBs period. 

[Chieferific]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Ok here’s the unpopular part. Unless you are a top 2 at your position, you shouldn’t pick up a 5-the year option on RBs period. 

That's not a rule, that's an opinion which can sometimes be right and can sometimes be wrong and is always debatable.  

[warfelg]

Just now, Chieferific said:

That's not a rule, that's an opinion which can sometimes be right and can sometimes be wrong and is always debatable.  

That’s why I said it’s the unpopular opinion. But it’s a rule I would go by as a GM. Maybe top 5 ish. But gtd money for RBs has rarely proven worth it tbh. So I would not want to fully gtd years at all. 

[Chieferific]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

That’s why I said it’s the unpopular opinion. But it’s a rule I would go by as a GM. Maybe top 5 ish. But gtd money for RBs has rarely proven worth it tbh. So I would not want to fully gtd years at all. 

You didn't say "opinion" but I understand it was implied. However, there are too many variables in play to make that your "rule" as a GM. We are moving to a power running scheme. That's his game. There were 2 1st round RBs taken in 2021 with Etienne being the other one. His option was picked up. So if next year's class is so great, why did his get picked up? Because there are other variables in play. Has he been so much better that Najee? The answer is "No".  He has 1000 less rushing yards than Najee which is comparable because he missed a whole season due to injury (which could influence a team to decline the option). This has less to do with my thinking Najee isn't replaceable (he is) and more to do with seeing how he fits into the new scheme and if he does it can be had for under $7m. That seems reasonable. 

[warfelg]

10 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

You didn't say "opinion" but I understand it was implied. However, there are too many variables in play to make that your "rule" as a GM.

I’m a big “RBs are fungible” guy. Once you get out of the top few they are so interchangeable where it’s more about scheme than ability. I mean, hell Jonathan Taylor basically got replaced by Zack Moss and that was with a worse QB. 

11 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

We are moving to a power running scheme. That's his game.

It is but at the same time all reports are this is happening because they don’t know how they (Warren included) will fit.  For as much crap as we give this team for continually trying something that doesn’t work as all that, we’re now giving them crap for…making sure this works?

14 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

There were 2 1st round RBs taken in 2021 with Etienne being the other one. His option was picked up. So if next year's class is so great, why did his get picked up?

Because teams make bad decisions. Etienne is a home run hitter but he needs a guy like Harris who can take the tough runs. Etienne 1 year $6mil gtd is more than I think he’s worth in gtd money. 

22 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

So if next year's class is so great, why did his get picked up? Because there are other variables in play.

Jac also thinks they are closer than they are. 

23 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

Has he been so much better that Najee? The answer is "No".  He has 1000 less rushing yards than Najee which is comparable because he missed a whole season due to injury (which could influence a team to decline the option).

Uh I believe he is. Etienne performs better on all levels at a per rate. The only thing he lags on is volume. 

26 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

This has less to do with my thinking Najee isn't replaceable (he is) and more to do with seeing how he fits into the new scheme and if he does it can be had for under $7m. That seems reasonable. 

What if he doesn’t fit? Now you wasted $7mil in replacing him. 

[warfelg]

https://x.com/steelersdepot/status/1786751161699381271?s=46&t=xd5QJpZuXv2k7qD0xqd6aA

[Chieferific]

4 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I’m a big “RBs are fungible” guy. Once you get out of the top few they are so interchangeable where it’s more about scheme than ability. I mean, hell Jonathan Taylor basically got replaced by Zack Moss and that was with a worse QB. 

It is but at the same time all reports are this is happening because they don’t know how they (Warren included) will fit.  For as much crap as we give this team for continually trying something that doesn’t work as all that, we’re now giving them crap for…making sure this works?

Because teams make bad decisions. Etienne is a home run hitter but he needs a guy like Harris who can take the tough runs. Etienne 1 year $6mil gtd is more than I think he’s worth in gtd money. 

Jac also thinks they are closer than they are. 

Uh I believe he is. Etienne performs better on all levels at a per rate. The only thing he lags on is volume. 

What if he doesn’t fit? Now you wasted $7mil in replacing him. 

$7m is worth it. It's not a lot all things considered. Don't forget, you would have to subtract the cost of replacement from that $7m. Etienne is not a top 2 RB which goes against your rule and Najee has more yards after contact. Two completely different RBs with similar stats. What I think will happen is Najee will do well this year with the additions to the OL and Smith's scheme. He will then cost more to retain, and we won't do it. The crazy part is, with this being a transition year with at least 2 Rookies starting, the OL will be better in '25 but that will leave us with Warren and an unproven Rookie. We won't agree with each other. That's because neither of us is wrong (yet). I think there are more Pros to the <$7m "gamble". You think there are more Cons.

[warfelg]

23 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

$7m is worth it. It's not a lot all things considered. Don't forget, you would have to subtract the cost of replacement from that $7m. Etienne is not a top 2 RB which goes against your rule and Najee has more yards after contact. Two completely different RBs with similar stats. What I think will happen is Najee will do well this year with the additions to the OL and Smith's scheme. He will then cost more to retain, and we won't do it. The crazy part is, with this being a transition year with at least 2 Rookies starting, the OL will be better in '25 but that will leave us with Warren and an unproven Rookie. We won't agree with each other. That's because neither of us is wrong (yet). I think there are more Pros to the <$7m "gamble". You think there are more Cons.

One thing for me to put out there. It’s not the $7mil. It’s that it’s GTD. That’s why I keep bringing that up. I don’t like the concept of GTD fully for RBs. At all. It’s why I don’t mind not doing it, having him perform, then using the transition rage for $3mil more. And if he isn’t a fit? Oh well you aren’t committed to anything.