McCoy contract good/bad? Will he last?

[Dibs]

Though the McCoy trade has been talked to death on the board, I have noticed that an aspect to those talks has not really been focused on for discussion....and that is the reworking of McCoy's contract. Two main questions seem to stick out in the trade conversations. A) Is the contract that the Bills gave McCoy reasonable? and B) Will he maintain production throughout the entire contract?

 

As I have a bit of spare time I thought that I would do some research regarding these questions.

 

This undoubtedly will be a long post full of clumsily shuffled together numbers. If that isn't your thing, I recommend you stop reading now. You have been warned.

 

Notes:

The age of player that I will use throughout will be the player's age as of December 31st for the correlating season.

The contract dollars/year is determined upon cap value, not salary.

 

 

Is the McCoy contract reasonable?

 

Firstly I thought to compare McCoy to equivalent level talent/production. As a vague benchmark I compiled all RBs currently on rosters who have achieved four 1,000+ yard seasons in their first six years in the league.

 

4x1,000+ yd season in first 6 yrs:

McCoy, Lynch, Forte, Foster, Gore, Charles, Peterson

 

At this point I will take Peterson out of any comparisons. He is clearly a level above all other RBs which is reflected in all stats that I compiled. For interest sake, his numbers are: Age: 30, 6 pro-bowls, 3 All-pro, Contract ends age 32, $15.8/yr...23.5% guaranteed, 1st 6 season workload of 1754 carries, 3x300+ carry seasons(1 being 350+).

 

I determined that Gore should also be removed from comparison as even though he has maintained production(1106 yds last season), his age(32) puts his contract after the standard age that we are looking at. His $4M/yr reflects this.

 

Noticeably missing from this list is Murray(4 seasons, 2x1,000+ years). As he not only got a new contract at the same time as McCoy but is also of the same age(27) and of a theoretically equivalent talent I felt he should be added.

 

Comparative RBs(Age now, Age in last year of contract):

McCoy(27, 31), Lynch(29, 31), Forte(30, 30), Murray(27, 31), Foster(29, 30), Charles(29, 31)

 

We can see that the standard final year age for this level of RB contract is 31(Forte and Foster being at 30).

 

Comparative RBs(Pro-bowls/All-pro):

McCoy(3/2), Lynch(5/1), Forte(2/0), Murray(2/1), Foster(4/1), Charles(4/2)

 

McCoy and Charles lead this group(Charles after 6 seasons was same as McCoy with 3/2).

 

Comparative RBs(Contracts):

Name(year contract was started): Dollars/year(years left on contract)...the guaranteed percent of entire contract when signed.

 

Lynch(15): $10.8M(3)...50%

Forte(12): $9.2M(1)...45.4%

Foster(12): $9.2M(2)...47.7%

Murray(15): $8M(5)...45%

McCoy(15): $8M(5)...39.3%

Charles(14): $7M(3)...14.2%

 

We can see that 2012 contracts are somewhat higher than the 2015 contracts(sans Lynch), and that the McCoy contract has the lowest guaranteed monies upon contract signing(sans Charles, see below).

 

Notes:

It should be noted that Jonathan Stewart is actually comparable in regards to contracts(signed in 2014 for high value) but has only achieved one 1,000+ season with no pro-bowls to this point.

His stats for above would be: Jonathan Stewart(14): $8.7M(3)...31.5%

(Does anybody know how he obtained such a high contract? I'm baffled.)

 

It should also be noted that Charles has suffered regularly from injuries which undoubtedly kept his dollars(and guaranteed dollars) down.

 

Comparative RBs(workload in first 6 seasons):

Name: Number of carries, 300+ carry seasons(350+ carry seasons)

 

Forte: 1551, 1(0)

McCoy: 1461, 2(0)

Lynch: 1452, 1(0)

Foster: 1391, 2(1)

Charles: 1043, 0(0)

Murray: 934, 1(1)

 

In terms of comparable workload all but Charles seems somewhat comparable(Charles injury history reduces his numbers). Foster and Murray(only 4 years playing) have somewhat less carries but is possibly counteracted by their workhorse 350+ carry seasons.

 

 

Dibs' conclusion:

From all of the data, it seems obvious that the McCoy contract was not out of the ordinary. There are very few RBs who produce at a consistent high rate(regular 1,000+ yard seasons) and these RBs get paid roughly the same amount of money for a contract period that culminates when they reach the age of 31(or 30). McCoy's lower guaranteed monies combined with his greater accomplishments suggest that the contract is perhaps better for the Bills than the standard.

 

 

 

Will McCoy maintain productivity through to the end of the contract?

 

Here I thought to look at comparable RBs to McCoy through history. Again using the "4x1,000+ season in first 6 years" as a benchmark I compiled a list of RBs from over the past 20 years. I then determined when said RBs "hit the wall". I determined this by when a RB no longer achieved the 1,000+ yards benchmark. I also pinpointed(to the best of my ability) those RBs who's production stopped due to injuries.

 

I know this is all rather simplistic but it does give a rough age where one can expect a RBs production to reduce.

 

Hitting the Wall:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 28(1): Chris Johnson

Aged 29(5): Ahman Green, Steve Jackson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Edgerrin James

Aged 30(2): Eddie George, Thurman Thomas

Aged 31(2): Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin

Aged 32(2): Ricky Williams, Emmitt Smith

 

Injury Players:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 26(1): Terrell Davis

Aged 27(2): Clinton Portis, Marshall Faulk

Aged 28(3): Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, Terry Allen

Aged 29(1): Jerome Bettis

Aged 30(2): Corey Dillon, Priest Holmes

Aged 31(1): Ricky Watters

 

Additional Players(still playing or retired early):

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 30(1): Barry Sanders

Aged 31(2): Frank Gore, Tiki Barber(was a back up for first 3 years but fits this category I think).

 

 

Totals(25 players):

13 RBs(52%) did not produce(1,000+ yards) after the age of 29.

7 RBs(28%) produced 1,000+ yards at age of 31(or older)(age of McCoy in final year of contract).

 

 

Dibs' Conclusion:

From looking at comparable RBs through recent(ish) history, we can guestimate that....

 

McCoy has roughly a 1 in 2 chance of not being productive in the last 2 seasons of his contract(aged 30 & 31)

He has roughly a 1 in 4 chance to remain productive throughout the entire contract.

There is roughly a 1 in 4 chance of him not being productive in the last 3 seasons of his contract(aged 29, 30 & 31).

There is roughly a 1 in 2 chance of him remaining productive for at least 4 of the 5 contract years.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Dibs

[John from Riverside]

Not nearly as long as your post but

 

This team is in "Win now" mode........

 

That is why McCoy is here......

[Webster Guy]

Dibs you sly bastard, nice breakdown. Mama dibs didn't raise no dummy

 

I like the 50% chance shady has 4 good years in the next 5.

 

The one variable almost impossible to quantify is running style as it relates to wear and tear on the runner. Some guys just take more direct hits and a harder beating per carry (lynch, Bettis etc) and shady claims he's the type that avoids the big hits, which might skew the odds a bit more in our favor.

[Dibs]

Not nearly as long as your post but

 

This team is in "Win now" mode........

 

That is why McCoy is here......

Surely you aren't saying that only teams in "win now" mode covet star RBs?

 

And I was hoping to leave the aquisition of McCoy alone(covered in many other threads) and focus on the contract that we gave him.

....

The one variable almost impossible to quantify is running style as it relates to wear and tear on the runner. Some guys just take more direct hits and a harder beating per carry (lynch, Bettis etc) and shady claims he's the type that avoids the big hits, which might skew the odds a bit more in our favor.

Agreed. Also natural variants in runners' durability (some people can naturally take more punishment than others) is impossible to factor as well.

[What a Tuel]

Nice stats.

 

Also worth noting is that the cap hit for releasing him if his production does decline at 30 is $5.2 million, and decreases to $2.6 if we had to cut him at 31.

 

Just for a comparison, we got hit with a dead cap $3m in 2013, and $7m in 2014, when we cut Fitzpatrick in 2013.

 

Sure, different situation, but I find this to be a much more acceptable risk, and a better chance for a far greater reward.

Edited May 31, 2015 by What a Tuel

[Dibs]

Nice stats.

 

Also worth noting is that the cap hit for releasing him if his production does decline at 30 is $5.2 million, and decreases to $2.6 if we had to cut him at 31.

....

It's actually better than that. If he declines at 30, that will be during the 4th year...therefore we cut him for the 5th costing $2.6M. He would need to decline in his 3rd year(when he is 29) in order for us to cut him when he is 30. If he declines at the age of 31, at the end of that year his contract will be finished(no need to cut him).

[What a Tuel]

It's actually better than that. If he declines at 30, that will be during the 4th year...therefore we cut him for the 5th costing $2.6M. He would need to decline in his 3rd year(when he is 29) in order for us to cut him when he is 30. If he declines at the age of 31, at the end of that year his contract will be finished(no need to cut him).

 

Oh yeah, that is true. I guess the optimist in me thinks we will get a solid year before we know he is going to decline

[QCity]

I thought the restructure was terrible. He had almost no leverage whatsoever coming in (~1M Gtd) and for some reason we felt it necessary to give him ~26.5M Gtd. When you are comparing his salary to other RB's, keep in mind he wasn't a FA at the time we did this. Well, I guess he did have some power - he could could whine about the trade and make veiled threats about not coming here, which seemed to work perfectly for him (no doubt Rosenhaus was right there in his ear). I think your odds are a bit optimistic IMO.

[Dibs]

I thought the restructure was terrible. He had almost no leverage whatsoever coming in (~1M Gtd) and for some reason we felt it necessary to give him ~26.5M Gtd. When you are comparing his salary to other RB's, keep in mind he wasn't a FA at the time we did this. Well, I guess he did have some power - he could could whine about the trade and make veiled threats about not coming here, which seemed to work perfectly for him (no doubt Rosenhaus was right there in his ear). I think your odds are a bit optimistic IMO.

I am pretty sure that McCoy would have only been here for the 3 seasons left on his contract had we stubbournly refused the small extension we gave him. That might have been fine if he gets injured or hits the wall....but since there is a good chance that he remains productive for a few more years, it is not a smart way to build a solid team....nor does it send a good message to the rest of the players.

 

We would have also had to handle his hefty $9M cap hit this season(which is now $5.5M).

 

The guaranteed monies are not as they used to be. His SB of $13.125 is the only real guaranteed money. His 2015 money is guaranteed...but that would virtually always be paid anyway. And his 2016 money is guaranteed as of the first league day in 2016...which means if we we want to cut him at the end of this year we can, for no additional money. If we don't cut him after 1 year, just like the first year, his money most very likely would be paid regardless(very few big FA signings like this don't see 2 years of their contracts).

 

As to your last comment....my odds, as you put it, were directly taken from previous players history. They are what they are. Unless one can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why McCoy should be an outlier I see no reason not to accept them. They weren't even that good IMO. The odds showed a 50% chance that giving the 2 year extension becomes a total waste of money.

[bowery4]

Great stuff as always Dibs, thanks.

[YoloinOhio]

Very interesting! Good read, thanks.

I thought the restructure was terrible. He had almost no leverage whatsoever coming in (~1M Gtd) and for some reason we felt it necessary to give him ~26.5M Gtd. When you are comparing his salary to other RB's, keep in mind he wasn't a FA at the time we did this. Well, I guess he did have some power - he could could whine about the trade and make veiled threats about not coming here, which seemed to work perfectly for him (no doubt Rosenhaus was right there in his ear). I think your odds are a bit optimistic IMO.

the Jets just gave Brandon Marshall a new deal as well. I assume the teams know why they do what they do with these things.

[KingRex]

Dibs thanks first off for the great work you are sharing with the rest of us. My answers to your two questions is that a fuller and more accurate analysis needs to articulated to

 

A:: The question whether his contract is comparable to similar RBs of his age and past production. does not take into account that though a dollar bill owned by you or I. and a dollar bill owned by Pacula are the exact same amount, there still is a difference between the value of that same dollar bill to Pacula or to you and me.

 

The salary cap to some extent even things out. However, it is still a fact that a thousand (or ten thousand bucks makes a real difference to you and me, but still is little more than a rounding error to Pacula.

 

In the end, Pacula and his band of high priced lawyers and accountants have the ability to front load or guarantee contracts that have real value to McCoy or some future Andrew Luck while you or me cannot do that. The questions of comparable worth or in the end simply eating a contract may be the same exact amounts for all of us but actually are quite different for someone like Pacula who has cashed in on his hydrofracked wealth. Add to this a variance for Pacula placing a higher value on winning now than I can because even though I want win now but I cannot ignore the future monetarially, your comparison of our two contracts with the exact same dollar amounts is simply comparing orangess to bananas.. They are both fruit, but one I can put in my milk with cereal and one I cannot.

 

2. The same comparison holds true to how long a player lasts in this league. Ultimately its all the same as no one gets out of here alive. However, there is a huge difference because Pacula can back-up Shady with Fred Jax and I have to back him up with Byron Brown (or maybe all I can afford today is to hire Steve Tasker to play for ne today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pa

[BarleyNY]

That was very nicely done, Dibs. I guess the last question is: Is a RB of McCoy's quality, being paid market value, worth the premium paid versus a lesser back making market value? The general public/media perception is that RB isn't a position worth spending a lot of money on, but here we are with a nice, set market value for RBs of McCoy's caliber that says otherwise.

[Dorkington]

I think as long as we don't run him into the ground, we'll be in good shape. This year we have FredEx, Brown, Williams, and Boobie as possible change of pace candidates. As long as our other guys run well enough, we can distribute nicely to ensure he has a longer career. Having RB depth is really important if we're going ground and pound.

 

I hope that Brown proves his worth during the off/preseason, if we can keep him on board, and have Brown/Williams as young depth for a few years, it'd be great. Unfortunately that'd likely mean a cut of Fred, so I'm not sure how I feel about it.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Dorkington

[CSBill]

The one factor not considered here, but may be the biggest, is this guy's attitude. Consider this about him since he has been a Bill:

• His negative reaction when he was first traded—until the restructuring happened
• His irresponsible comments about Chip Kelly
• According to CK, he is not man enough to call him back = twice

To me, he has not made a good first impression. I think he has not represented himself well, and the Bills nation in general has not warmed up to him (see the article in the Rochester D&C about his charity event).

 

To me, this is the biggest reflag. Let's hope his performance on the field helps us forget these above issues.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Good post, Dibs, thanks! Ima edit this to get down to the bottom line.

 

Though the McCoy trade has been talked to death on the board, I have noticed that an aspect to those talks has not really been focused on for discussion....and that is the reworking of McCoy's contract. Two main questions seem to stick out in the trade conversations. A) Is the contract that the Bills gave McCoy reasonable? and B) Will he maintain production throughout the entire contract?

 

Dibs' conclusion:

From all of the data, it seems obvious that the McCoy contract was not out of the ordinary. There are very few RBs who produce at a consistent high rate(regular 1,000+ yard seasons) and these RBs get paid roughly the same amount of money for a contract period that culminates when they reach the age of 31(or 30). McCoy's lower guaranteed monies combined with his greater accomplishments suggest that the contract is perhaps better for the Bills than the standard.

 

 

Will McCoy maintain productivity through to the end of the contract?

 

Dibs' Conclusion:

From looking at comparable RBs through recent(ish) history, we can guestimate that....

 

McCoy has roughly a 1 in 2 chance of not being productive in the last 2 seasons of his contract(aged 30 & 31)

He has roughly a 1 in 4 chance to remain productive throughout the entire contract.

There is roughly a 1 in 4 chance of him not being productive in the last 3 seasons of his contract(aged 29, 30 & 31).

There is roughly a 1 in 2 chance of him remaining productive for at least 4 of the 5 contract years.

 

I'm not on board with the odds, but I think the overall conclusion is sound: The Bills are paying McCoy like a top RB, but not over-paying; McCoy (like other big-contract, big money years) may or may not make it to the end of his contract productively, but since the guaranteed $$ are lower it's probably a moot point.

 

Really, if a guy makes it to the end of his contract at a high level depends on so many things - his personal attitude to offseason training and conditioning; what luck he has with injuries; what kind of player he is (does he take a lot of big hits, or is he more elusive?); how much does his production depend upon factors that don't age well (straight speed in a burst), that I don't feel you can put such a number on it based on the relatively small sample size of elite backs in today's pass-heavy game. None of which takes away from the base conclusion.

 

Thanks for the post!

The one factor not considered here, but may be the biggest, is this guy's attitude. Consider this about him since he has been a Bill:

• His negative reaction when he was first traded—until the restructuring happened
• His irresponsible comments about Chip Kelly
• According to CK, he is not man enough to call him back = twice

To me, he has not made a good first impression. I think he has not represented himself well, and the Bills nation in general has not warmed up to him (see the article in the Rochester D&C about his charity event).

 

To me, this is the biggest reflag. Let's hope his performance on the field helps us forget these above issues.

 

I think you're being overly critical in some regards. First, McCoy is a loyal Pennsylvania guy through and through. He played his heart out for the Iggles and was deservedly very popular. To be traded to an area of the country and a team he knows nothing about beyond 1) they haven't been to the playoffs in 15 years 2) Buffalo hits the news for snowfall and bad weather, I think a negative first reaction is understandable (and also common - Cassel was said to be unhappy as well, initially). Once coaches and players in B'lo started reaching out to him and he learned a little he seems to have accepted it.

 

As far as his negative comments on Chip Kelly and racism, my feeling is split. I do think it's irresponsible, but a lot of people in the league make irresponsible comments. At bottom, he's entitled to his opinion of the coach who dumped him. And he really has no obligation to answer the phone from an ex-coach, any more than you or I have the obligation to pick up the phone if an ex-boss or an ex-romance or spouse (absent kids) phones us up. I really don't think it has a bearing on his manhood.

 

Let's see how he plays.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Hopeful

[YoloinOhio]

The one factor not considered here, but may be the biggest, is this guy's attitude. Consider this about him since he has been a Bill:

• His negative reaction when he was first tradeduntil the restructuring happened
• His irresponsible comments about Chip Kelly
• According to CK, he is not man enough to call him back = twice

To me, he has not made a good first impression. I think he has not represented himself well, and the Bills nation in general has not warmed up to him (see the article in the Rochester D&C about his charity event).

 

To me, this is the biggest reflag. Let's hope his performance on the field helps us forget these above issues.

i don't see his comment about Chip as any worse than Brandon Spikes "4 years a slave." I don't know if Belichik ever tried to call Spikes last year when their relationship soured but if he did i wouldn't be surprised if Spikes didnt answer. Now, a year later, they've "kissed and made up" because lo and behold they both have something they need from one other and its a business.

 

And, I won't assume that Chip didn't enable a culture that treated certain types of black players differently, because I wasn't there. Mccoy is more outspoken than we are used to but as Whaley said "they knew what they were getting when they traded for him." Since his contract isn't in place to pay him to teach classes on etiquette, I don't think it will have an effect on how his production aligns to his paycheck.

Edited May 31, 2015 by YoloinOhio

[Buffaloed in Pa]

Why would he not last ?? Fred was on NFL network a few weeks ago saying he has 3 yeah, 3 good yrs left. Duh Bills.

[Manther]

Great post!!! I am fine with the trade and resign. Leaning strongly towards like it. After reading this well thought out post and breakdown I am even more pleased with the trade and resign.

Nice stats.

 

Also worth noting is that the cap hit for releasing him if his production does decline at 30 is $5.2 million, and decreases to $2.6 if we had to cut him at 31.

 

Just for a comparison, we got hit with a dead cap $3m in 2013, and $7m in 2014, when we cut Fitzpatrick in 2013.

 

Sure, different situation, but I find this to be a much more acceptable risk, and a better chance for a far greater reward.

Great points!

[NoSaint]

Great post/efforts.

 

I think it's a fair contract but might be a little riskier. I'd be curious to see some layering of not just age but total carries (and perhaps more importantly seasons overs benchmark of like 375 or 400 total touches)

 

I appreciate the thought and organized reasoning to back up the opinions though!

That was very nicely done, Dibs. I guess the last question is: Is a RB of McCoy's quality, being paid market value, worth the premium paid versus a lesser back making market value? The general public/media perception is that RB isn't a position worth spending a lot of money on, but here we are with a nice, set market value for RBs of McCoy's caliber that says otherwise.

Something to consider is elite market value RBs are getting 8m as opposed to pass rushers, corners, tackles (o and d) qb, and WRs that are just very good seem to start at 10m and up. It's valued less but the contracts reflect that.

[YoloinOhio]

Link to Brandon Marshall new contract that I mentioned... I realize it's not the same since he's older and plays a different position but just from the similarity of giving him a new deal after trading for him, before he's played a snap for the team...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494807/article/jets-raise-brandon-marshalls-salary-with-reworked-deal?campaign=twitter_atn_sessler

[billykaykay]

The one factor not considered here, but may be the biggest, is this guy's attitude. Consider this about him since he has been a Bill:

• His negative reaction when he was first traded—until the restructuring happened
• His irresponsible comments about Chip Kelly
• According to CK, he is not man enough to call him back = twice

To me, he has not made a good first impression. I think he has not represented himself well, and the Bills nation in general has not warmed up to him (see the article in the Rochester D&C about his charity event).

 

To me, this is the biggest reflag. Let's hope his performance on the field helps us forget these above issues.

Isn't he also the guy who tipped the waitress peanuts after a meal in Philly ?

[Buffaloed in Pa]

Though the McCoy trade has been talked to death on the board, I have noticed that an aspect to those talks has not really been focused on for discussion....and that is the reworking of McCoy's contract. Two main questions seem to stick out in the trade conversations. A) Is the contract that the Bills gave McCoy reasonable? and B) Will he maintain production throughout the entire contract?

 

As I have a bit of spare time I thought that I would do some research regarding these questions.

 

This undoubtedly will be a long post full of clumsily shuffled together numbers. If that isn't your thing, I recommend you stop reading now. You have been warned.

 

Notes:

The age of player that I will use throughout will be the player's age as of December 31st for the correlating season.

The contract dollars/year is determined upon cap value, not salary.

 

 

Is the McCoy contract reasonable?

 

Firstly I thought to compare McCoy to equivalent level talent/production. As a vague benchmark I compiled all RBs currently on rosters who have achieved four 1,000+ yard seasons in their first six years in the league.

 

4x1,000+ yd season in first 6 yrs:

McCoy, Lynch, Forte, Foster, Gore, Charles, Peterson

 

At this point I will take Peterson out of any comparisons. He is clearly a level above all other RBs which is reflected in all stats that I compiled. For interest sake, his numbers are: Age: 30, 6 pro-bowls, 3 All-pro, Contract ends age 32, $15.8/yr...23.5% guaranteed, 1st 6 season workload of 1754 carries, 3x300+ carry seasons(1 being 350+).

 

I determined that Gore should also be removed from comparison as even though he has maintained production(1106 yds last season), his age(32) puts his contract after the standard age that we are looking at. His $4M/yr reflects this.

 

Noticeably missing from this list is Murray(4 seasons, 2x1,000+ years). As he not only got a new contract at the same time as McCoy but is also of the same age(27) and of a theoretically equivalent talent I felt he should be added.

 

Comparative RBs(Age now, Age in last year of contract):

McCoy(27, 31), Lynch(29, 31), Forte(30, 30), Murray(27, 31), Foster(29, 30), Charles(29, 31)

 

We can see that the standard final year age for this level of RB contract is 31(Forte and Foster being at 30).

 

Comparative RBs(Pro-bowls/All-pro):

McCoy(3/2), Lynch(5/1), Forte(2/0), Murray(2/1), Foster(4/1), Charles(4/2)

 

McCoy and Charles lead this group(Charles after 6 seasons was same as McCoy with 3/2).

 

Comparative RBs(Contracts):

Name(year contract was started): Dollars/year(years left on contract)...the guaranteed percent of entire contract when signed.

 

Lynch(15): $10.8M(3)...50%

Forte(12): $9.2M(1)...45.4%

Foster(12): $9.2M(2)...47.7%

Murray(15): $8M(5)...45%

McCoy(15): $8M(5)...39.3%

Charles(14): $7M(3)...14.2%

 

We can see that 2012 contracts are somewhat higher than the 2015 contracts(sans Lynch), and that the McCoy contract has the lowest guaranteed monies upon contract signing(sans Charles, see below).

 

Notes:

It should be noted that Jonathan Stewart is actually comparable in regards to contracts(signed in 2014 for high value) but has only achieved one 1,000+ season with no pro-bowls to this point.

His stats for above would be: Jonathan Stewart(14): $8.7M(3)...31.5%

(Does anybody know how he obtained such a high contract? I'm baffled.)

 

It should also be noted that Charles has suffered regularly from injuries which undoubtedly kept his dollars(and guaranteed dollars) down.

 

Comparative RBs(workload in first 6 seasons):

Name: Number of carries, 300+ carry seasons(350+ carry seasons)

 

Forte: 1551, 1(0)

McCoy: 1461, 2(0)

Lynch: 1452, 1(0)

Foster: 1391, 2(1)

Charles: 1043, 0(0)

Murray: 934, 1(1)

 

In terms of comparable workload all but Charles seems somewhat comparable(Charles injury history reduces his numbers). Foster and Murray(only 4 years playing) have somewhat less carries but is possibly counteracted by their workhorse 350+ carry seasons.

 

 

Dibs' conclusion:

From all of the data, it seems obvious that the McCoy contract was not out of the ordinary. There are very few RBs who produce at a consistent high rate(regular 1,000+ yard seasons) and these RBs get paid roughly the same amount of money for a contract period that culminates when they reach the age of 31(or 30). McCoy's lower guaranteed monies combined with his greater accomplishments suggest that the contract is perhaps better for the Bills than the standard.

 

 

 

Will McCoy maintain productivity through to the end of the contract?

 

Here I thought to look at comparable RBs to McCoy through history. Again using the "4x1,000+ season in first 6 years" as a benchmark I compiled a list of RBs from over the past 20 years. I then determined when said RBs "hit the wall". I determined this by when a RB no longer achieved the 1,000+ yards benchmark. I also pinpointed(to the best of my ability) those RBs who's production stopped due to injuries.

 

I know this is all rather simplistic but it does give a rough age where one can expect a RBs production to reduce.

 

Hitting the Wall:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 28(1): Chris Johnson

Aged 29(5): Ahman Green, Steve Jackson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Edgerrin James

Aged 30(2): Eddie George, Thurman Thomas

Aged 31(2): Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin

Aged 32(2): Ricky Williams, Emmitt Smith

 

Injury Players:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 26(1): Terrell Davis

Aged 27(2): Clinton Portis, Marshall Faulk

Aged 28(3): Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, Terry Allen

Aged 29(1): Jerome Bettis

Aged 30(2): Corey Dillon, Priest Holmes

Aged 31(1): Ricky Watters

 

Additional Players(still playing or retired early):

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 30(1): Barry Sanders

Aged 31(2): Frank Gore, Tiki Barber(was a back up for first 3 years but fits this category I think).

 

 

Totals(25 players):

13 RBs(52%) did not produce(1,000+ yards) after the age of 29.

7 RBs(28%) produced 1,000+ yards at age of 31(or older)(age of McCoy in final year of contract).

 

 

Dibs' Conclusion:

From looking at comparable RBs through recent(ish) history, we can guestimate that....

 

McCoy has roughly a 1 in 2 chance of not being productive in the last 2 seasons of his contract(aged 30 & 31)

He has roughly a 1 in 4 chance to remain productive throughout the entire contract.

There is roughly a 1 in 4 chance of him not being productive in the last 3 seasons of his contract(aged 29, 30 & 31).

There is roughly a 1 in 2 chance of him remaining productive for at least 4 of the 5 contract years.

Where`s Fred. Says he has 3 good yrs left. Td machine.

[Beerball]

And I was hoping to leave the aquisition of McCoy alone(covered in many other threads) and focus on the contract that we gave him.

 

The contract won't be an impediment to the Bills on the business side of the line of scrimmage IMO.

 

I foresee 3 to 4 years with him as a feature back. How long he cares to carry on in a lesser role is up to him.

[jumbalaya]

Good post. I hate to say this but only time will tell if he is the Real McCoy.

[JohnnyK]

should we remind/ask ourselves about the risk/reward involved with undersized middle linebackers with 2 major knee injuries? (I think this might have come up a few times before)

[John from Riverside]

Surely you aren't saying that only teams in "win now" mode covet star RBs?

 

Dibs....a little more time to chew on this on a Sunday.

 

No we are not the only team that covet's star RB's........but maybe it is we are in a position to actually be able to PAY a star running back.

 

I really hate to do this because like 80 percent of the threads are about QB.....but this really does go back to the QB position. We are able to biuld a dominant defense (we have been successful here with both draft and free agency) and we are able to trade assets and take on salary for a star RB because WE ARE NOT PAYING A STAR QB.....this puts us in a position to have a McCoy on the team

 

As far as McCoy's durability.....quite honestly shady reminds me of Thurman Thomas in this regard.......Thurman was really good at making himself really small at the point of impact deflecting a hit....Shady does the same thing.

 

On a interesting note.......there have been some who complain that we got McCoy rather then a back like Murray (how anyone could complain about having a top 5 back on the team is baffling to me but I digress) Murray RUNS OVER people....Shady MAKES PEOPLE MISS.......the latter running style allows for a longer career at a high level.

 

I would also like to include in this that regardless of McCoy's salary or his durability I still am a fan of platooning backs to make sure everyone makes it through the season healthy.......I know McCoy is gonna get the bears share of the load.....but keep giving Freddie some carries here and there and make him a part of the offense this year........then next year let Fred ride off into the sunset and inster Karlos WIlliams into that role.

 

And I was hoping to leave the aquisition of McCoy alone(covered in many other threads) and focus on the contract that we gave him.

 

Agreed. Also natural variants in runners' durability (some people can naturally take more punishment than others) is impossible to factor as well.

[papazoid]

a good deal, worth every penny for an ELITE (top 5 ) RB

 

shady is 26, fred is 34.

 

looks like a 4 year deal to me before they think about getting out. no reason he won't be productive for all of them.

[dave mcbride]

Great post, but for touches, two things: you should include receptions and postseason stats. Terrell Davis, for instance, had 1200 rushing yards in 8 postseason games. Thurman basically played an extra season in all those playoff games. The hits are even harder in the playoffs ...

Edited May 31, 2015 by dave mcbride

[K-9]

I gotta wait to hear what JTSP thinks about the McCoy deal first.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Gugny]

I gotta wait to hear what JTSP thinks about the McCoy deal first.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dibs]

Great post/efforts.

 

I think it's a fair contract but might be a little riskier. I'd be curious to see some layering of not just age but total carries (and perhaps more importantly seasons overs benchmark of like 375 or 400 total touches)

 

....

Great post, but for touches, two things: you should include receptions and postseason stats....

 

Thanks guys,

I was initially compiling some of those stats but stopped due to them showing no correlation to virtually anything. The numbers are all over the place, particularly in regards to number of carries. Injuries, specifically at what time in a players career they occurred, greatly affected the numbers of carry statistics. The only conclusions one could draw from the number of carries stat were that players who played longer tended to have more carries, and that players who's careers were cut short due to injury tended to have less carries.....which was obviously expected prior to seeing any stats.

 

I have however gone through and done the complete stats compiling playoff numbers into the season numbers(as Dave suggested)(see below). I have chosen not to add the receiving stats into the numbers as I am not only uncertain as to whether RB hits are fully comparable to WR hits, but also because upon seeing the final numbers feel that adding the WR stats into the mix will not alter things. If you feel strongly otherwise, I am fully willing to listen to good logical reasons to do it in the future.

 

Though, as I said, the stats for this come across largely irrelevant, there was one aspect which I think was extremely interesting. I compiled numbers as NoSaint suggested into heavy run season categories(300-324, 325-349, etc). I should note at this point that prior to adding in the playoff stats there were remarkably few heavy run seasons. There was only 1 season from the 25 RBs that was over 400(Eddie George), and only 7 seasons in the 375-399 category. After adding in the playoff numbers, these fields were greatly expanded(17 over 400).

 

Back to the point, the extremely interesting part is that the concept that a RB's heavy run seasons will effect their long term durability or lead to serious injury seems to be spurious logic. Using the "29 years old" from the OP as the 50/50 benchmark(roughly 50% chance that a RB will play well after 29 years of age)....the numbers break down as follows.

 

2x450+ seasons(2 players):

1 by 29 years or less(1 players)

1 by 30 years or older(1 players)

 

7x425+ seasons(4 players):

3 by 29 years or less(2 players)

4 by 30 years or older(2 players)

 

17x400+ seasons(11 players):

9 by 29 years or less(6 players)

8 by 30 years or older(5 players)

 

21x375+ seasons(12 players):

10 by 29 years or less(6 players)

11 by 30 years or older(6 players)

 

17 of the 25 players had 350+ seasons.

 

As you can see, the heavy rush seasons are evenly split along the age delineation, and when you look at the numbers below you will see that similar to the basic rush number stats, the heavy rush season stats roughly followed the base rule of, "the more you play, the more you'll have"....meaning that compiling multiple heavy rush seasons didn't seem to have any affect on a player's longevity.

 

I think the spurious logic involved with this is fairly obvious. One sees a top RB get injured....one notices that they had a lot of carries the previous few years....one sees it happen to multiple RBs.....one draws a causal relationship between the two things. We tend not to notice the many instances where RBs go through heavy rush seasons(and following) when they don't get injured, just as we don't look for reasons when a non-heavy rush seasoned RB gets injured(FJ is a good example in 2011). Obviously rushing 400 times in a season will increase ones chances of injury due to the extra touches, but I cannot see any correlation that it is a precursor to ending careers.

 

Here is the list of RBs. If anybody can do better than myself and spot a pattern or trend I would love to know.

 

Same criteria as in OP.

Age of player's last 1,000 season("i" is injury finished, "*" is no wall or still playing)....Name....rushes(regular+post) to that point....(300-324 rush seasons, 325-349, etc)

 

Sorted by rush attempts:

 

28i Deuce McAllister: 1325 (0,1,1,0,0)

28i Terry Allen: 1346 (0,2,0,0,0)

30i Priest Holmes: 1461 (1,2,0,0,0)

26i Terrell Davis: 1547 (0,0,1,0,0,1,1)

28 Chris Johnson: 1753 (1,0,1,0,0)

28i Shaun Alexander: (1,1,1,0,0,1)

29 Ahman Green: 1987 (0,1,0,0,1)

27i Clinton Portis: 2122 (1,2,2,0,0)

32 Ricky Williams: 2174 (1,0,0,2,0)

30i Corey Dillon: 2275 (2,1,0,0,1)

27i Marshall Faulk: 2281 (3,0,0,0,0)

31* Tiki Barber: 2337 (1,1,2,0,0)

29 Steven Jackson: 2412 (1,2,0,0,0)

31 Fred Taylor: 2412 (1,1,0,0,0)

29 Jamal Lewis: 2529 (1,1,0,0,2)

31* Frank Gore: 2572 (4,0,0,0,0)

31i Ricky Watters: 2725 (1,1,2,0,0)

29 LaDainian Tomlinson: 2741 (1,3,3,0,0)

29i Jerome Bettis: 2781 (2,0,2,0,1)

30 Thurman Thomas: 2893 (2,2,1,0,1)

30 Eddie George: 2939 (1,2,2,0,0,2)

29 Edgerrin James: 3006 (1,1,3,1,1)

30* Barry Sanders: 3153 (3,3,1,0,0)

31 Curtis Martin: 3480 (2,1,2,0,2)

32 Emmitt Smith: 4147 (0,3,1,1,1,1,1)

 

McCoy for comparison:

26* LeSean McCoy: 1499 (1,1,0,0,0)

Edited June 1, 2015 by Dibs

[NoSaint]

Interesting. Good stuff!

 

For me, and several on the board, I think it comes from a blog/article from a few years back that looked at every back that had 400(?) carries and what their next season/career looked like from there. The huge drops seemed more than coincidental.

 

Just thinking out loud, it may be a better spot for YPC than breaking 1000. If these are guys expected to get 300+ carries they should meet that barring injury. 1000 can be a volume of carries stat as much as an efficiency stat. If a guy had 400 carries at 4.5 and then 300 and 3.5 he'd show those seasons the same, but I think we'd agree that as a workhorse back those are wildly different outputs.

 

I'll take a look today to see if I can find it to share.

Edited June 1, 2015 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

Here's the post I mentioned- there are a few others that are more updated through the years as fantasy exploded, but this was one of the earlier ones so a lot of people saw it-

 

http://www.footballdocs.com/running_back_carries.html

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Though the McCoy trade has been talked to death on the board, I have noticed that an aspect to those talks has not really been focused on for discussion....and that is the reworking of McCoy's contract. Two main questions seem to stick out in the trade conversations. A) Is the contract that the Bills gave McCoy reasonable? and B) Will he maintain production throughout the entire contract?

 

As I have a bit of spare time I thought that I would do some research regarding these questions.

 

This undoubtedly will be a long post full of clumsily shuffled together numbers. If that isn't your thing, I recommend you stop reading now. You have been warned.

 

Notes:

The age of player that I will use throughout will be the player's age as of December 31st for the correlating season.

The contract dollars/year is determined upon cap value, not salary.

 

 

Is the McCoy contract reasonable?

 

Firstly I thought to compare McCoy to equivalent level talent/production. As a vague benchmark I compiled all RBs currently on rosters who have achieved four 1,000+ yard seasons in their first six years in the league.

 

4x1,000+ yd season in first 6 yrs:

McCoy, Lynch, Forte, Foster, Gore, Charles, Peterson

 

At this point I will take Peterson out of any comparisons. He is clearly a level above all other RBs which is reflected in all stats that I compiled. For interest sake, his numbers are: Age: 30, 6 pro-bowls, 3 All-pro, Contract ends age 32, $15.8/yr...23.5% guaranteed, 1st 6 season workload of 1754 carries, 3x300+ carry seasons(1 being 350+).

 

I determined that Gore should also be removed from comparison as even though he has maintained production(1106 yds last season), his age(32) puts his contract after the standard age that we are looking at. His $4M/yr reflects this.

 

Noticeably missing from this list is Murray(4 seasons, 2x1,000+ years). As he not only got a new contract at the same time as McCoy but is also of the same age(27) and of a theoretically equivalent talent I felt he should be added.

 

Comparative RBs(Age now, Age in last year of contract):

McCoy(27, 31), Lynch(29, 31), Forte(30, 30), Murray(27, 31), Foster(29, 30), Charles(29, 31)

 

We can see that the standard final year age for this level of RB contract is 31(Forte and Foster being at 30).

 

Comparative RBs(Pro-bowls/All-pro):

McCoy(3/2), Lynch(5/1), Forte(2/0), Murray(2/1), Foster(4/1), Charles(4/2)

 

McCoy and Charles lead this group(Charles after 6 seasons was same as McCoy with 3/2).

 

Comparative RBs(Contracts):

Name(year contract was started): Dollars/year(years left on contract)...the guaranteed percent of entire contract when signed.

 

Lynch(15): $10.8M(3)...50%

Forte(12): $9.2M(1)...45.4%

Foster(12): $9.2M(2)...47.7%

Murray(15): $8M(5)...45%

McCoy(15): $8M(5)...39.3%

Charles(14): $7M(3)...14.2%

 

We can see that 2012 contracts are somewhat higher than the 2015 contracts(sans Lynch), and that the McCoy contract has the lowest guaranteed monies upon contract signing(sans Charles, see below).

 

Notes:

It should be noted that Jonathan Stewart is actually comparable in regards to contracts(signed in 2014 for high value) but has only achieved one 1,000+ season with no pro-bowls to this point.

His stats for above would be: Jonathan Stewart(14): $8.7M(3)...31.5%

(Does anybody know how he obtained such a high contract? I'm baffled.)

 

It should also be noted that Charles has suffered regularly from injuries which undoubtedly kept his dollars(and guaranteed dollars) down.

 

Comparative RBs(workload in first 6 seasons):

Name: Number of carries, 300+ carry seasons(350+ carry seasons)

 

Forte: 1551, 1(0)

McCoy: 1461, 2(0)

Lynch: 1452, 1(0)

Foster: 1391, 2(1)

Charles: 1043, 0(0)

Murray: 934, 1(1)

 

In terms of comparable workload all but Charles seems somewhat comparable(Charles injury history reduces his numbers). Foster and Murray(only 4 years playing) have somewhat less carries but is possibly counteracted by their workhorse 350+ carry seasons.

 

 

Dibs' conclusion:

From all of the data, it seems obvious that the McCoy contract was not out of the ordinary. There are very few RBs who produce at a consistent high rate(regular 1,000+ yard seasons) and these RBs get paid roughly the same amount of money for a contract period that culminates when they reach the age of 31(or 30). McCoy's lower guaranteed monies combined with his greater accomplishments suggest that the contract is perhaps better for the Bills than the standard.

 

 

 

Will McCoy maintain productivity through to the end of the contract?

 

Here I thought to look at comparable RBs to McCoy through history. Again using the "4x1,000+ season in first 6 years" as a benchmark I compiled a list of RBs from over the past 20 years. I then determined when said RBs "hit the wall". I determined this by when a RB no longer achieved the 1,000+ yards benchmark. I also pinpointed(to the best of my ability) those RBs who's production stopped due to injuries.

 

I know this is all rather simplistic but it does give a rough age where one can expect a RBs production to reduce.

 

Hitting the Wall:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 28(1): Chris Johnson

Aged 29(5): Ahman Green, Steve Jackson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Edgerrin James

Aged 30(2): Eddie George, Thurman Thomas

Aged 31(2): Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin

Aged 32(2): Ricky Williams, Emmitt Smith

 

Injury Players:

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 26(1): Terrell Davis

Aged 27(2): Clinton Portis, Marshall Faulk

Aged 28(3): Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, Terry Allen

Aged 29(1): Jerome Bettis

Aged 30(2): Corey Dillon, Priest Holmes

Aged 31(1): Ricky Watters

 

Additional Players(still playing or retired early):

Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season.

 

Aged 30(1): Barry Sanders

Aged 31(2): Frank Gore, Tiki Barber(was a back up for first 3 years but fits this category I think).

 

 

Totals(25 players):

13 RBs(52%) did not produce(1,000+ yards) after the age of 29.

7 RBs(28%) produced 1,000+ yards at age of 31(or older)(age of McCoy in final year of contract).

 

 

Dibs' Conclusion:

From looking at comparable RBs through recent(ish) history, we can guestimate that....

 

McCoy has roughly a 1 in 2 chance of not being productive in the last 2 seasons of his contract(aged 30 & 31)

He has roughly a 1 in 4 chance to remain productive throughout the entire contract.

There is roughly a 1 in 4 chance of him not being productive in the last 3 seasons of his contract(aged 29, 30 & 31).

There is roughly a 1 in 2 chance of him remaining productive for at least 4 of the 5 contract years.

 

 

Wow.

 

Nice post man

 

 

 

CBF

[dave mcbride]

Hoo boy - I expect that if McCoy stumbles here, we'll be hearing the term "jingle-footed back" before too long: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/02/chip-kelly-has-always-disliked-jingle-footed-running-backs/

Edited June 2, 2015 by dave mcbride

[GG]

Hooh boy - I expect that if McCoy stumbles here, we'll be hearing the term "jingle-footed back" before too long: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/02/chip-kelly-has-always-disliked-jingle-footed-running-backs/

 

Saw the original article yesterday, and still get pi**ed that they keep referring to DeMarco as the prototypical Kelly back, all but ignoring that Kelly traded McCoy because he was certain he was getting Gore.

[papazoid]

jingle footed ?

 

 

is that code for something derogatory ?......(laffin)

[YoloinOhio]

Hoo boy - I expect that if McCoy stumbles here, we'll be hearing the term "jingle-footed back" before too long: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/02/chip-kelly-has-always-disliked-jingle-footed-running-backs/

that style of running can be effective in the short term but is the exact type of running that causes murray and Mathews to be hurt a lot and shortens RB careers. McCoy's style is effective in the right scheme, just not Chip's way (or the highway)

[Rob's House]

I have mixed feelings. It's highly likely that by the end of his 3rd year he'll be a JAG. He's got a lot of miles on him, and the quick-twitch speed and agility that separate him from the pack are among the first to go. The odds of him being worth what he's scheduled to make in the last 2 years of his deal are slim. The fact that the dead money to cut him in his final year is relatively low makes it better, but I don't understand why the extension in the first place. Was it just to make him happy? And why would you pay millions of dollars to placate a disgruntled player who's already playing under a fair contract?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Rob's House