Dcash4 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 On 3/11/2018 at 6:53 PM, FourThreeMafia said: If this team passes up that opportunity and goes into the season with him without having a long term deal in place and are just content on letting him walk next offseason, this team run by morons. Not sure I understand this logic. They would be moronic because we would be making a super bowl run with a superior player? I understand the letting him walk part vs having a first round pick, but I fail to see how winning a Super bowl (or at least putting the best team they have on the field to do so, especially with our Ben window) is moronic. Yes, the best interest in the future is having that pick, but the argument can be made that our best interest next year is to have Bell. Just feels like your judging a steep cliff to Moronicville....and that town could be the one with a championship... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Dcash4 said: Not sure I understand this logic. They would be moronic because we would be making a super bowl run with a superior player? I understand the letting him walk part vs having a first round pick, but I fail to see how winning a Super bowl (or at least putting the best team they have on the field to do so, especially with our Ben window) is moronic. Yes, the best interest in the future is having that pick, but the argument can be made that our best interest next year is to have Bell. Just feels like your judging a steep cliff to Moronicville....and that town could be the one with a championship... Bell has already stated he doesnt plan on giving it his all next year without a deal in place. We already seen how he looked the first half of 2017 when he wasnt playing hard and he looked very replaceable. Beyond that, with our defense in the shape that its in, we arent winning any championships, with or without Bell. You need a defense in the postseason....and we dont currently have one sufficient enough to win a title. Trading a disgruntled player for maximum return gives us a much better chance of improving our defense, which increases our chances of winning a Superbowl. As good as Bell is, RB is a supremely overrated position,. and his presence or departure isnt going to dramatically increase or decrease our chances of winning another title IMO. Our ability or inability to improve our defense will dictate our chances of winning another SB before Ben leaves. Thats what I worry about....not whether Bell is here or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 So with Bell's apparent departure which is the preferred Rookie? 1st Rd: Guice 2nd Rd: Jones II, Sony, K. Johnson 3rd Rd: Chubb, Penny 4th Rd: Somehow trade back or into the 4th: Kelly, Freeman I'm leaning towards Michel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 18 minutes ago, Chieferific said: So with Bell's apparent departure which is the preferred Rookie? 1st Rd: Guice 2nd Rd: Jones II, Sony, K. Johnson 3rd Rd: Chubb, Penny 4th Rd: Somehow trade back or into the 4th: Kelly, Freeman I'm leaning towards Michel. If we trade Bell before the draft, I'd be okay drafting one on day 2, depending how the board fell. If we dont trade Bell, I wouldnt draft one until the late rounds and then worry about drafting a better back NEXT year if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfelg Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 6 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: If we trade Bell before the draft, I'd be okay drafting one on day 2, depending how the board fell. If we dont trade Bell, I wouldnt draft one until the late rounds and then worry about drafting a better back NEXT year if need be. If we traded him, I'm leaning towards SF for #9. I really think they would do that. Get him out of the AFC, get a good return, they can pay him and afford it. I would to it id we can keep #28. This would allow us to take Roquan Smith or Derwin James high, and use the later pick on Ronald Jones. In fact #28 becomes more flexible. Say the Giants don't go QB early, and they want one. We could drop form #28 to #34 (2nd pick 2nd round) and pick up a 3rd or future 3rd. Still get Ronald Jones, stock us with an extra pick. ....hmmmmm. I've talked myself into something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcash4 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 8 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: Bell has already stated he doesnt plan on giving it his all next year without a deal in place. We already seen how he looked the first half of 2017 when he wasnt playing hard and he looked very replaceable. He has? Maybe I have missed it but I didnt see anywhere that said he wouldnt give his full effort when on the field. That's the only way he screws himself more than the franchise tag already has, So i have no issues with his effort when he hits the field. This is your own quote defending Bryant "Lets also not forget that early in the season, our entire offense stagnated." Bells production starting in week 6 - 143 total yards and over 1 TD a game. Bell was still the catalyst of this offense. We really didnt take off until after week 10 when they remembered how to use him in the passing game. I wont really debate you on the effort thing, though I dont share the same opinion. That's entirely up to you on how you viewed him. I didnt see a lack of effort at any point, I saw a guy that missed the 6 weeks of training camp....look what happened after week 6... 8 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: Beyond that, with our defense in the shape that its in, we arent winning any championships, with or without Bell. You need a defense in the postseason....and we dont currently have one sufficient enough to win a title. Trading a disgruntled player for maximum return gives us a much better chance of improving our defense, which increases our chances of winning a Superbowl. So you believe we will do nothing for the defense unless we move on from Bell? That's where my main confusion comes when you call them moronic if they dont take that deal (if presented). If we move Bell, we need to replace his entire position AND upgrade the defense -- something that, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, they are already planning on doing. With Bell and some possible lower level FA, we can almost dedicate our entire off-season to the defense. I just dont understand the hard stance of the FO being moronic if they didnt take that deal and kept a super star player. They are already going to put all resources possible into the defense....does that 1 extra spin at the roulette table really make or break the season to you? 8 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: Our ability or inability to improve our defense will dictate our chances of winning another SB before Ben leaves. Thats what I worry about....not whether Bell is here or not. Agreed, but the pieces are already in place for us to make or break the defense without giving up one of the best all around weapons in the game for an extra pick. Our coaching and improvement of the young players already on our team, our FA approach, and the draft being heavily defense since the offense is pretty much ready to go will dictate our SB run. That doesnt change whether we have Bell or we ship him...Shipping him just means we need to replace something else and hope we are the same offense without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 15 hours ago, Dcash4 said: He has? Maybe I have missed it but I didnt see anywhere that said he wouldnt give his full effort when on the field. That's the only way he screws himself more than the franchise tag already has, So i have no issues with his effort when he hits the field. This is your own quote defending Bryant "Lets also not forget that early in the season, our entire offense stagnated." Bells production starting in week 6 - 143 total yards and over 1 TD a game. Bell was still the catalyst of this offense. We really didnt take off until after week 10 when they remembered how to use him in the passing game. I wont really debate you on the effort thing, though I dont share the same opinion. That's entirely up to you on how you viewed him. I didnt see a lack of effort at any point, I saw a guy that missed the 6 weeks of training camp....look what happened after week 6... So you believe we will do nothing for the defense unless we move on from Bell? That's where my main confusion comes when you call them moronic if they dont take that deal (if presented). If we move Bell, we need to replace his entire position AND upgrade the defense -- something that, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, they are already planning on doing. With Bell and some possible lower level FA, we can almost dedicate our entire off-season to the defense. I just dont understand the hard stance of the FO being moronic if they didnt take that deal and kept a super star player. They are already going to put all resources possible into the defense....does that 1 extra spin at the roulette table really make or break the season to you? Agreed, but the pieces are already in place for us to make or break the defense without giving up one of the best all around weapons in the game for an extra pick. Our coaching and improvement of the young players already on our team, our FA approach, and the draft being heavily defense since the offense is pretty much ready to go will dictate our SB run. That doesnt change whether we have Bell or we ship him...Shipping him just means we need to replace something else and hope we are the same offense without him. Im on my phone, so Ill give a short response for now. He flat out said he wouldnt give anything "extra" without new deal. Look it up. He missed training camp because he was pouting over not having a long term deal. Either way, he looked pedestrian early on and he only had a few games the entire year he looked good in the running game. I never said it would be moronic to keep him long term. I said it would be moronic to keep him this year and not get max value for him if they werent close to signing him long term. Meaning, if we could get a first rounder for him, but decided to keep him just for one more year....yes, that would be beyond stupid, especially when said player may not give us his all. And no, I never said we wouldnt address the defense if we kept Bell. I said we would have better resources for fixing the D if we traded him...both in terms of draft picks and cap space....and thats not really debatable. Bell is a nice piece, but our offense does not revolve around him. Ben and the offense have had nice seasons without Bell. Our teams chances of winning a SB in the next few years are much better if we trade Bell and focus on rebuilding the D, rather than focusing on keeping a player FOR ONE YEAR who is more focused on getting paid than winning games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcash4 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 18 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: He flat out said he wouldnt give anything "extra" without new deal. Look it up Yeah....OTA's, training camp -- the "extras". That doesnt translate to "I wont give an effort on gameday". You have mentioned it in a few other places that you fear for his effort. I have no clue how that makes sense. The worst thing he could do for himself is not sign long term and give a terrible effort. He said he is betting on himself on a one year deal. That means he has to actually produce or he misses out on the bigger pay day. The most idiotic thing he could do was to not sign long term and then give a terrible effort on gameday. I'm more afraid of the effort I get from guys that just sign their LT deals, not a guy playing FOR one. 18 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: Meaning, if we could get a first rounder for him, but decided to keep him just for one more year....yes, that would be beyond stupid, especially when said player may not give us his all. All contracts come to and end, the goal is to win super bowls. Which brings me back to the main argument here. How far of a cliff you take it from keeping Bell being moronic (if we could trade him) vs. removing an All pro RB and completely redoing that position to gain an additional draft pick who you have no clue how they will be in the NFL or how quickly they will acclimate to being successful. I am not saying that you are wrong in that gaining an additional high end asset for the defense doesn't help us win the super bowl, but I cant believe its moronic to keep a valuable weapon that allows us to have the offense in tact and focus solely on the defense with our given assets -- which could also lead to a super bowl. It's two roads in the same direction, and I would argue that next year the best thing to do is to KEEP Bell. A trade may lead us to take a step back before we take a step forward and with Ben's closing (also unpredictable) window -- you need to take advantage ASAP. Moronic to me would be passing up a value trade for Bryant of a 2nd round pick. He is a third receiver on a top heavy talented receiving core on a team that constantly finds WR gems as of late. Bell IS a huge piece of the offense, whether you want to agree he is the focus or not (not against that line of thinking if that's your opinion, but I do not share it), and an top level tool for use. Replacing him will require either hitting a home run on draft pick or multiple pieces that have to fit just right with a first year NFL play caller (a major piece that continues to be discounted just because the two teams that played in a the super bowl have RB by committee). It will be more difficult than people want to believe. All in all I believe its much more of a gamble to take a pick for Bell and HOPE we can figure it all out sooner rather than later, rather than maintaining the consistency of a good player and upgrading the defense (something we are doing regardless of the move). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warfelg Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 As far as this topic: A guy with 3.7 YPA and 4.5 YPC just got $7.5 mil a year. Bell got leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Dcash4 said: Yeah....OTA's, training camp -- the "extras". That doesnt translate to "I wont give an effort on gameday". You have mentioned it in a few other places that you fear for his effort. I have no clue how that makes sense. The worst thing he could do for himself is not sign long term and give a terrible effort. He said he is betting on himself on a one year deal. That means he has to actually produce or he misses out on the bigger pay day. The most idiotic thing he could do was to not sign long term and then give a terrible effort on gameday. I'm more afraid of the effort I get from guys that just sign their LT deals, not a guy playing FOR one. All contracts come to and end, the goal is to win super bowls. Which brings me back to the main argument here. How far of a cliff you take it from keeping Bell being moronic (if we could trade him) vs. removing an All pro RB and completely redoing that position to gain an additional draft pick who you have no clue how they will be in the NFL or how quickly they will acclimate to being successful. I am not saying that you are wrong in that gaining an additional high end asset for the defense doesn't help us win the super bowl, but I cant believe its moronic to keep a valuable weapon that allows us to have the offense in tact and focus solely on the defense with our given assets -- which could also lead to a super bowl. It's two roads in the same direction, and I would argue that next year the best thing to do is to KEEP Bell. A trade may lead us to take a step back before we take a step forward and with Ben's closing (also unpredictable) window -- you need to take advantage ASAP. Moronic to me would be passing up a value trade for Bryant of a 2nd round pick. He is a third receiver on a top heavy talented receiving core on a team that constantly finds WR gems as of late. Bell IS a huge piece of the offense, whether you want to agree he is the focus or not (not against that line of thinking if that's your opinion, but I do not share it), and an top level tool for use. Replacing him will require either hitting a home run on draft pick or multiple pieces that have to fit just right with a first year NFL play caller (a major piece that continues to be discounted just because the two teams that played in a the super bowl have RB by committee). It will be more difficult than people want to believe. All in all I believe its much more of a gamble to take a pick for Bell and HOPE we can figure it all out sooner rather than later, rather than maintaining the consistency of a good player and upgrading the defense (something we are doing regardless of the move). And look how he played the beginning of last year without the extras. You actually believe it would be smart to pass on a first rounder for a guy we would be losing next year anyway, and may not give us everything he has? If so, thats the logic I dont get. Call me crazy, but I want players that want to be here. Trade Bell and move on....OR...sign him long term so we can get rid of the distraction. The only thing Im calling moronic is if they keep him one more year knowing they arent going to come to terms on a deal. Personally, looking at everything, I think keeping Bell holds us back more than it helps us. Thats me, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcash4 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 21 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said: And look how he played the beginning of last year without the extras. "Lets also not forget that early in the season, our entire offense stagnated." Why does Martavis get a pass but not Bell to some extent, especially if the whole offense struggles but you dont believe it revolves around Bell? Only 1 running back in the league averaged more total yards a game then Bell. Sure, I'd love for him to be more ready for football -- but being one of the best in the league seems like he did an alright job... 2 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said: You actually believe it would be smart to pass on a first rounder for a guy we would be losing next year anyway, and may not give us everything he has? Again, I am deleting the last part of this. Its complete speculation by you that he wont give us the effort he needs to and there is absolute no evidence that he will and there is too much at stake for him not to. He is in a contract year and turning down larger, long term contracts. If he doesn't give us his all, he is a bigger idiot than anyone could have ever imagined. And yes, if the goal is to win a Super Bowl I will say our best bet is WITH Bell next year. He is the known commodity. Another draft asset is great, but its still largely unknown. We could very well just be picking the next Dupree or Jarvis Jones and be no better off with that player and then adding in a hole at running back. Bell is an All Pro RB, who is a top 5 rusher, a top 2 receiving talent, and possibly the top pass blocker at his position -- That is what we know we have. We will already be using our resources to improve the defense. So the differences comes down to additional draft pick/overpaying in FA -- or All Pro Le'Veon Bell who we already know fits on our team and in another contract year. Gun to my head, win the super bowl next year or else-- Ill take the known guy and the consistency of the offense. You say its a moronic move which implies that you view it as the worst possible thing we could do. I view it as actually being the safer of the two options to get us to the Super Bowl. Like I mentioned in the first quote, if you are talking about the future of the franchise I can understand, but moronic in terms of getting to the super bowl its two roads leading to the same place, ones just more familiar roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: "Lets also not forget that early in the season, our entire offense stagnated." Why does Martavis get a pass but not Bell to some extent, especially if the whole offense struggles but you dont believe it revolves around Bell? I never once said Bryant gets a pass, nor have I ever once said Bell was the reason our offense stagnated. I blame the coaches more than anyone for our offenses issues early on. My comments regarding Bryant were in regards to the entire offense. Its not giving Bryant a pass....it was just looking at the facts. The entire offense stagnated (fact) and I also stated that he was out of football for an entire year (fact), so it wasnt really shocking it took him time to get back into the swing of things. Bell was a member of this team who chose to sit out because he didnt have a deal....which he had the right to do....but the FACT remains that it took him awhile to get back into the swing of things as well....and that was because of decision HE made. And the only reason I am noting that in regards to Bell is because of the point I am making regarding it being much smarter to trade him for a first (if the opportunity presents itself) than to keep a player for one year, who we may not get everything out of. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: Only 1 running back in the league averaged more total yards a game then Bell. Sure, I'd love for him to be more ready for football -- but being one of the best in the league seems like he did an alright job... Never said he didnt have a good year overall. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: Again, I am deleting the last part of this. Its complete speculation by you that he wont give us the effort he needs to and there is absolute no evidence that he will and there is too much at stake for him not to. Umm....not really. Its only "complete speculation"..... if you ignore what he said....which I guess youre choosing to do at this point. He openly said he isnt going to anything extra. If you want to ignore what that means, I guess thats up to you. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: He is in a contract year and turning down larger, long term contracts. If he doesn't give us his all, he is a bigger idiot than anyone could have ever imagined. Not really. As long as he can prove he still has the talent, he can still give less than everything and still get a huge contract next year. For example....lets say he has a sore calf or something. Nothing severely hurting or injured....just not feeling great. Whereas a totally committed guy would suck it up, he could just say "I dont feel like risking it". Bell is going to get paid next year.....alot. He isnt going to risk long term injury for us....nor should he. Basically...if we arent going to sign him long term, its much more beneficial for BOTH sides to move on immediately. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: And yes, if the goal is to win a Super Bowl I will say our best bet is WITH Bell next year. If we trade Bell, we have both more money to spend and more draft capital. Am I saying it would definitely pay off? No, but those assets could also pay off in next couple years. If we dont win with Bell THIS year, we are left with nothing except maybe a 3rd round comp pick in 2020. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: Another draft asset is great, but its still largely unknown. We could very well just be picking the next Dupree or Jarvis Jones and be no better off with that player and then adding in a hole at running back. Bell is an All Pro RB, who is a top 5 rusher, a top 2 receiving talent, and possibly the top pass blocker at his position -- That is what we know we have. Okay, thats the risk you run in the draft......its a gamble. However, Ill take potentially 2 defensive assets (one on free agency and one via the draft) that we could get from trading Bell over having Bell one more year, and MAY MAY MAY not even get 100% out of him. You can keep saying thats speculation on my part, but no....its wholly based on a statement he made. And that doesnt mean he wouldnt be good for us AT TIMES, but again......youre getting ONE year of him, and not necessarily getting all he has to give. So, its a gamble either way. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: We will already be using our resources to improve the defense. So the differences comes down to additional draft pick/overpaying in FA -- or All Pro Le'Veon Bell who we already know fits on our team and in another contract year. Gun to my head, win the super bowl next year or else-- Ill take the known guy and the consistency of the offense. I guess thats up to you. Not knocking you for it, but I COMPLETELY disagree... Potentially two impact players on defense for Ben's remaining tenure>>>>1 more year with a great RB who may or may not give us everything he's got. IMO, at least. Both have their risks....Im not denying that. History proves that a good defense is more important than having a top of the line RB when it comes to winning SBs. 7 hours ago, Dcash4 said: You say its a moronic move which implies that you view it as the worst possible thing we could do. I view it as actually being the safer of the two options to get us to the Super Bowl. Like I mentioned in the first quote, if you are talking about the future of the franchise I can understand, but moronic in terms of getting to the super bowl its two roads leading to the same place, ones just more familiar roads. The familiar road isnt necessarily the right road. How did the familiar road fair against the Jags this year? Is the familiar road going to prevent a Blake Bortles-led Jags team from dropping 45 on us? Im not going to keep debating it. You feel one way, and I feel another, and thats fine. If we resign Bell....fine, Even if its not exactly what I want, at the very least, I wont have to worry about him much going forward. If we keep him for one more year, Im going to constantly wonder for the next few years what couldve been if we had made what was, IMO, the smarter decision. Unless we win a SB and Bell is a major part of it....then I will have to eat crow for years on end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.