Jump to content

Let’s say Bell is gone...

AFF

By AFF
in Pittsburgh Steelers

Recommended Posts

mwalker

mwalker

Posted
Posted

If it was a for sure thing, I'd try and trade him for something. A second and third? More?

Then I'd consider..

D.Guice and R.Jones II in RD1

S.Michel in RD2

R.Penny, M.Walton (stud before injury) and N.Chubb (a lot of wear) in RD3

R.Freeman (very under rated), K.Johnson and N.Hines (not a full time back) in RD5

I'd then consider a FA as well. Let's say Hyde.

 

A backfield of R.Jones or S.Michel, J.Conner and C.Hyde, wouldn't be bad at all.

Especially if it allowed us the cap flex to keep our best players longer than just the Ben window.

I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer this, in all honesty, if Bell keeps up with the unrealistic demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AFF

AFF

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, 3rivers said:

supposedly Bell will be getting the Franchise tag again. Thoughts?

I know I’m in the minority, but I don’t think I’d even tag him...let alone long term deal.

You can draft say a RB in rd 2 like Jones from USC...sign a solid starter on defense, and even sign one of the free agent Pats RBs in Lewis or Burkhead for about 3/4 of the Tag...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chieferific

Chieferific

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 3rivers said:

supposedly Bell will be getting the Franchise tag again. Thoughts?

Curious to see if he goes through with the threat of sitting out. It doesn't appear TO ME that Bell is an invested Steeler. It would be nice to have him around during Ben's last years but I don't know if that's gonna work out. And sorry, but I don't see Connor as "that guy". I know a lot really like him and are proud of him being a Steeler. I just don't see him as a top every down back. So with that said, RBs not named Bell may need to be addressed this Off Season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
43M

43M

Posted
Posted

Give him the non exclusive franchise tag and see if anyone bites.    If not, keep working for a long term deal (which I dont necessarily want, but if we tag him, thats the main purpose), and if we cant strike a deal by say, July, explore trade options with teams who arent able to adequately address RB via the draft or free agency.  49ers, Colts, Jets, Redskins, Lions, Broncos, Giants and Raiders are all options.        Do I think it will happen?  No, but its worth looking at.

Best case scenario....we tag Bell and trade him off for a nice return.

Worst case scenario....we tag Bell, arent able to sign him long term, arent able to trade him and he either sits out half the season or simply doesnt give us 100%.

Bell only seems to care about the money....and Im not even really knocking him for that seeing how short of a shelf life RBs have....but Im not comfortable giving him a huge, long term deal.    We worked him way too hard last year and I simply dont trust his character after he gets a ton of guaranteed money.     Id rather just let him walk straight up and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3rivers

3rivers

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, AlanFanecaFan said:

I know I’m in the minority, but I don’t think I’d even tag him...let alone long term deal.

You can draft say a RB in rd 2 like Jones from USC...sign a solid starter on defense, and even sign one of the free agent Pats RBs in Lewis or Burkhead for about 3/4 of the Tag...

like many here,  I agree. I just don't see the value in assigning  that much cap to a player at the RB position that has yet got use to the SB, injuries , suspensions and other excuses aside. Time to move on, but if we get 2 RD1 picks for Bell, then not a bad move to tag the RB .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grubs10

grubs10

Posted
Posted
On 2/23/2018 at 8:35 PM, Chieferific said:

Curious to see if he goes through with the threat of sitting out. It doesn't appear TO ME that Bell is an invested Steeler. It would be nice to have him around during Ben's last years but I don't know if that's gonna work out. And sorry, but I don't see Connor as "that guy". I know a lot really like him and are proud of him being a Steeler. I just don't see him as a top every down back. So with that said, RBs not named Bell may need to be addressed this Off Season. 

I think with all the complaints about the defense, that Conner +1 should be more than enough in committee with the oline, quarterback, receiving combo we have to win games.  In a perfect world they use the money they could spend on Bell to get real contributors on defense and balance the team out.  My fear in that scenario is that they let Bell go and spend the money on people that don't perform.  And in that case I'd rather bring Bell back who is a known productive commodity than spending the money on a group of guys that don't move the needle on improving our defense.

I don't think there's any problem with fans expecting players to perform.  But a lot of Steelers fans I know will complain about any weakness on the team as being unacceptable.  Very rarely do teams have "zero" weak units on their team and the few times that does occur its generally on a team where the quarterback is over performing relative to how he is being paid.  You can't expect every unit on your team to be upper echelon in the salary cap era.  There's obviously nuance involved when talking about special players like Bell and  how much they can impact the game, but in today's NFL I think the running back position is one of the prime areas where a team can rely on a group of average guys who fill a role and are cheap if they can build up the other units on the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3rivers

3rivers

Posted
Posted
On 2018-02-23 at 8:35 PM, Chieferific said:

Curious to see if he goes through with the threat of sitting out. It doesn't appear TO ME that Bell is an invested Steeler. It would be nice to have him around during Ben's last years but I don't know if that's gonna work out. And sorry, but I don't see Connor as "that guy". I know a lot really like him and are proud of him being a Steeler. I just don't see him as a top every down back. So with that said, RBs not named Bell may need to be addressed this Off Season. 

if he does, it would be nice to know before the draft but we won't.  I can't blame him, as  from a contractual view he wants to get paid a deal comparable to other top RB's in recent time. If we weren't in cap trouble, I would say the FO would have signed him and overpaid him like they did with pouncey for example.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chieferific

Chieferific

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, 3rivers said:

if he does, it would be nice to know before the draft but we won't.  I can't blame him, as  from a contractual view he wants to get paid a deal comparable to other top RB's in recent time. If we weren't in cap trouble, I would say the FO would have signed him and overpaid him like they did with pouncey for example.  

Well I'd blame him. It's been a debate since FA began. I understand there are others that just go for the money but I'm on the side of take a little less and play for contender. I have no respect for the other side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chieferific

Chieferific

Posted
Posted
On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:04 PM, wwhickok said:

There is not a chance in hell we pay Le'Veon Bell 100 million dollars. Having said that all indications suggest that the Steelers will franchise tag Le'Veon Bell again. Which ultimately means that the upcoming season will most likely be his last season as a Pittsburgh Steeler

Guice in Rd 1 wouldn't surprise me and I'd be all for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...