Najee NO 5th yr Option

[Chieferific]

6 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

Based on tape they have would be no different than the tape they would have on a FA RB.

Correct. So add that to having a PERSONAL interaction with him. What your eyes see daily. Knowing his work habits. His leadership qualities. His understanding of concepts. His coachability...etc. All of that give Najee a huge advantage. Again, assuming he checks those boxes. 

Edited May 7 by Chieferific

[warfelg]

3 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

$9m total for my two starting/effective RBs? Yes please. 

So what’s the difference between that an $12mm to be 100% comfortable with the fit into the offense?

[Chieferific]

28 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So what’s the difference between that an $12mm to be 100% comfortable with the fit into the offense?

We declined the 5th year option. He can go anywhere for any amount. You can't assume he'll be here. 

[warfelg]

Just now, Chieferific said:

We declined the 5th year option. He can go anywhere for any amount. You can't assume he'll be here. 

We still have the franchise or transition tag to use. 

[Chieferific]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

We still have the franchise or transition tag to use. 

Which may needed elsewhere. Now because they're afraid of the guaranteed money (which is not much and a normal part of the business), they're gonna spend more and unnecessarily use the tags that are valuable tools. The ONLY way this makes sense is if they do not think he'll fit, which I find a=hard to believe. You drafted an OL that leans towards Bully Ball. 

[skywlker32]

1 hour ago, Chieferific said:

Correct. So add that to having a PERSONAL interaction with him. What your eyes see daily. Knowing his work habits. His leadership qualities. His understanding of concepts. His coachability...etc. All of that give Najee a huge advantage. Again, assuming he checks those boxes. 

You're the one that suggested tape would tell them how he is going to fit in a new offense. The face to face stuff and work ethic show nothing of his FIT in the new offense. Sure they may have an idea of how well he will pick up the concepts, but his ability to do the things that are needed for the offense is still a question mark.

[Chieferific]

5 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

You're the one that suggested tape would tell them how he is going to fit in a new offense. The face to face stuff and work ethic show nothing of his FIT in the new offense. Sure they may have an idea of how well he will pick up the concepts, but his ability to do the things that are needed for the offense is still a question mark.

Do you not agree? It does help. Just like it helps when scouting a prospect. But you also have the personal interaction with him. The FTF "stuff" is important. Maybe not for knowing fit in a system but for a fit on a team. They already KNOW that part. They do not KNOW that part for a prospect/FA. They have more info on how he fits into the system and Team than they could ever have with a prospect or FA. That is not debatable. What could be debated is my take that they know him well enough to "know" whether he is going to fit. Given what they see every day athletically and mentally, they can make an educated guess. 

[warfelg]

1 hour ago, Chieferific said:

Which may needed elsewhere. Now because they're afraid of the guaranteed money (which is not much and a normal part of the business), they're gonna spend more and unnecessarily use the tags that are valuable tools. The ONLY way this makes sense is if they do not think he'll fit, which I find a=hard to believe. You drafted an OL that leans towards Bully Ball. 

So $3mm when you have $80-100mm to spend is going to make or break you? That’s literally two minimum deals. 

[skywlker32]

21 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

Do you not agree? It does help. Just like it helps when scouting a prospect. But you also have the personal interaction with him. The FTF "stuff" is important. Maybe not for knowing fit in a system but for a fit on a team. They already KNOW that part. They do not KNOW that part for a prospect/FA. They have more info on how he fits into the system and Team than they could ever have with a prospect or FA. That is not debatable. What could be debated is my take that they know him well enough to "know" whether he is going to fit. Given what they see every day athletically and mentally, they can make an educated guess. 

That's the thing though, they DON'T know how he will do in the designed offense. That is the exact issue. Arthur Smith has no history with him either. Unless ALL of the face to face stuff is positive (I'd argue there are definitely signs that not all of them are positives at this point), then the face to face stuff may be neutral or worse.

As for the how debatable is can be that they know better his fit in the system vs. a FA or prospect, which it DEFINITELY IS, he has not been asked to do many of the things in this system to this point in his career. If you have tape of a FA in particular in the system or a similar system, you may know MORE about them.

Making an educated guess as you put it, does not necessarily give enough assurance in the decision to just take up the 5th year option just because it's "only" 7M (still can be a lot of money if the experiment doesn't work).

[Chieferific]

1 minute ago, skywlker32 said:

That's the thing though, they DON'T know how he will do in the designed offense. That is the exact issue. Arthur Smith has no history with him either. Unless ALL of the face to face stuff is positive (I'd argue there are definitely signs that not all of them are positives at this point), then the face to face stuff may be neutral or worse.

As for the how debatable is can be that they know better his fit in the system vs. a FA or prospect, which it DEFINITELY IS, he has not been asked to do many of the things in this system to this point in his career. If you have tape of a FA in particular in the system or a similar system, you may know MORE about them.

Making an educated guess as you put it, does not necessarily give enough assurance in the decision to just take up the 5th year option just because it's "only" 7M (still can be a lot of money if the experiment doesn't work).

To simplify, they have more info on him they would have on a prospect or a FA. I value that. to the tune of <$7m. You don't appear to. And that's ok. 

[warfelg]

3 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

To simplify, they have more info on him they would have on a prospect or a FA. I value that. to the tune of <$7m. You don't appear to. And that's ok. 

The issue those of us have is that what keep coming back is that it’s “only $7mm” and “complete turnover” which are both misleading statements. 

It’s $7mm fully guaranteed not knowing if he’s even a good fit for the offense. The difference of doing the 5th year option and the transition tag is $3mm which is a worthwhile risk to fee if he works in Smith’s offense. And this new reasoning of “he’s been there so they should know” isn’t that great because this happens all the time. 

And because Warren was an UDFA we have 2 years for a total of $4mm worth of control left with him. So we know at least Warren is here. And you still have the Transition/Franchise tag for Nader which I’m sure he would prefer over the 5th year option from a money standpoint. 

Lastly they have already started scouting next years class. That means all year they will be looking at RBs that fit within the offense that Smith runs. 

The best way I heard a former GM on one of the 33rd team podcasts talk about turning down the 5th year option. Basically you have a number in mind for AAV or total guarantees that’s lower than the option price. Effectively you are gambling the difference between the tag and your price that they become a top 5-10 player at their position. 

So let’s say they think Najee is worth $5mm AAV. They likely have looked at the cap with the number in there. So if that’s what they value him/the position at, they are making a $5-8mm gamble that he won’t suddenly become a top 5-10 RV. 

[Dcash4]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

Colbert-stans and Kahn-stans than this

No idea why this is a thing here? You know people can really like Khan and the job he has done and not agree with everything right? I understand defending a guy you like, but there are plenty of respected Steelers voices on this that were also surprised because it seemed like a lock. It's not out of left field to question the move. 

I agree with @Chieferificthat fit is being overblown. Let's just use data rather than opinions:

Smith w/ Atlanta comparison
Smith w/ Tennessee comparison

We aren't talking apples to oranges here, fellas. This isn't asking Najee to be a wing back in a triple option. It's also a coordinator who has shown flexibility to have his own ideals, but also do the things that work best for his teams structure. "Fit" was a nice PR thing to say instead of "no, we don't value you are $7M and/or your position on a guarantee". 

There just isn't a world for me where I think Najee falls so flat on his face in an offense with a far better play caller, a much more talented OL, and the best QB room of his career where it wasn't worth a total of $10M to completely skip the running back room until 2026. And that's the biggest value for me, allowing Khan and Co to continue their great draft work without using any form of quality asset on a position everyone is in agreement about not being worth it. Especially when premier positions like DL and CB only have one viable stater each on the 2025 roster at this stage. 

I can understand the business decision of not guaranteeing a RB a year out, but I don't think we are in a space to HAVE to be that choosey. My guess is it's a no go for Smith and he wants "his" guy ASAP. But good lord it better not be in the first 4 rounds. 

 

Edited May 7 by Dcash4

[Chieferific]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

The issue those of us have is that what keep coming back is that it’s “only $7mm” and “complete turnover” which are both misleading statements. 

It’s $7mm fully guaranteed not knowing if he’s even a good fit for the offense. The difference of doing the 5th year option and the transition tag is $3mm which is a worthwhile risk to fee if he works in Smith’s offense. And this new reasoning of “he’s been there so they should know” isn’t that great because this happens all the time. 

And because Warren was an UDFA we have 2 years for a total of $4mm worth of control left with him. So we know at least Warren is here. And you still have the Transition/Franchise tag for Nader which I’m sure he would prefer over the 5th year option from a money standpoint. 

Lastly they have already started scouting next years class. That means all year they will be looking at RBs that fit within the offense that Smith runs. 

The best way I heard a former GM on one of the 33rd team podcasts talk about turning down the 5th year option. Basically you have a number in mind for AAV or total guarantees that’s lower than the option price. Effectively you are gambling the difference between the tag and your price that they become a top 5-10 player at their position. 

So let’s say they think Najee is worth $5mm AAV. They likely have looked at the cap with the number in there. So if that’s what they value him/the position at, they are making a $5-8mm gamble that he won’t suddenly become a top 5-10 RV. 

I've said I'm ok with the $7m not "knowing the fit" because I'm confident, given the type of OL they have and his past performance, he will fit the scheme. I also know that given Najee's statements, he will be looking to get paid. He was a top 10 RB last year and, assuming he gets a similar load", I have no reason to believe he won't be again (I think he'll do better). We've already discussed how I'd prefer to gamble on the front end. I feel I have enough information to make an educated guess on his effectiveness but understand the guaranteed $ comes with risk of injury or not fitting in. You appear to want to gamble on the back end. Again, neither is right or wrong...yet.  

[skywlker32]

31 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

To simplify, they have more info on him they would have on a prospect or a FA. I value that. to the tune of <$7m. You don't appear to. And that's ok. 

They don't necessarily though. They have information about him in previous offenses he has been in. That doesn't always translate to a new offense. Meanwhile, Arthur Smith may see someone from another team running an offense that asks the RB to do similar things to his offense and be MORE sure that they will be a fit.

EVERY roster move is a gamble. 7m GUARANTEED is tough when you can transition tag if he shows out. If he walks after this year, you still have Warren on the team and would only need a secondary back. It's not as if Harris is the only back in the room or has shown that much more than Warren (if at all) to this point.

[warfelg]

3 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

You appear to want to gamble on the back end.

You should always want to with RBs. Personally I don’t think it’s that big a gamble to be more confident in knowing it would work. 

 

11 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

There just isn't a world for me where I think Najee falls so flat on his face in an offense with a far better play caller, a much more talented OL, and the best QB room of his career where it wasn't worth a total of $10M to completely skip the running back room until 2026.

Ok. That’s fine you feel that way but at minimum, stating it again, the different is $3m going this route, max $6m if you exclusive tag him.