Would you trade a 1 for Zeke?

[Rochesterfan]

21 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

I wouldn’t..but it seems things are getting pretty toxic between Zeke and Jerry in Dallas just curious if you’d be willing to trade a 1 for him and then give him a contract extension 

 

 

I wouldn’t - not because I don’t think he is a great offensive talent and not because I don’t think he can help my team, but because as we move forward I want my offense money spent on protecting Josh and catching passes from Josh.

 

A running back is great and we know that being a top running team helps, but it is not where I want to be over the next 4 years.  I think you can get a majority of the production from 1 or 2 less known RBs at a fraction of the cost and use that money on whatever weak points continue to show up on Offense - like O-line or WR or even a quality TE if the drafts picks struggle.

 

I can totally understand those that would because Zeke is a top end talent that every team craves, but from a money allocation point of view - I would like to move away from the high priced RB positions and use that money in other ways.

 

JMO

[T master]

NO NO & NO he is subscribing to the diva program known as Bell/AB syndrome the Bills don't need any prima donna's on their squad i prefer the direction that Beane & McD have them going in !!

 

 

[GreggTX]

Well, we have a lot of pretty good players. What we need now are a handfull of elite players at key positions. QB and RB (Allen, Zeke) sounds good. DT and S (Hyde, Oliver) sounds good too. I'd kinda like to see what we have in Singletary & Wade first, though.

Edited August 22, 2019 by GreggTX

[3rdand12]

20 hours ago, H2o said:

The exact opposite. I like both. I just don't think Elliott puts us over the top. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be one of the posters who's head would explode if we did make such a trade though. 

I am the exploding head guy : )
I do not agree with our friend No Saint on this matter of of "over the top" player for the Bills at this juncture. or potentially ever.

Cowboys have fielded a pretty solid or better O line and might well again.

 Bills are still sorting their's out.

Our new Kid might be the future sate anyways and cost nothing (nearly )

and we can/will draft another next year.

 Bills are working on the passing game and have decent enough guys to give the ball to already.

7 hours ago, jeremy2020 said:

 

If you were getting a Zeke who would play under his existing deal, sure. Zeke wants to be the highest paid RB out there. He's turned down a very good deal already and has invested into getting the deal he wants. It's the fact you're paying him ***** wide receiver money that's the reason you don't give up a pick for him. Connor replacing AB should teach people a lesson about even all world rbs in the league right now.

This is the most logical factor to say no.

even if Bills have the money today, that is future money spent on a suspension risk.

which makes my other point..

 

 no way McBeanes want a guy like this.

They run a tight program i believe. and Elliot does not fit regardless of talent

[LSHMEAB]

5 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Kareem Hunt, Alvin Kamara, Jordan Howard, James Connor, Tarik Cohen, Marlon Mack all went in 3rd round or later last few years. Ekeler in San Diego and Breida in SF undrafted in 2017. Zero chance I am giving a first rounder for a running back.

This list is precisely why I don't understand the relatively low expectations for Singletary. 

 

If Beane hit on this pick, Singletary should be an instant producer. Full disclosure; I'm not bullish on Devin. But if I were, I would expect a significant impact. I think it's irrational to LIKE/LOVE the pick and NOT expect semi-significant results.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Trade a 1 as in a one dollar bill? I’d consider it

[JoeF]

Zeke just retweeted this tweet. Contract would average annual value of $14.375 (Todd Gurley) X 17.5% = $16.9 Million Average Annual Value

@joethomas73

· 5h

Throughout the course of NFL history, if you are the best player at your position (or clearly one of the best) when you re-sign a second contract with the team that drafted you, you usually beat the highest paid current contract at your position by 15 to 20%.

[QCity]

On 8/22/2019 at 7:03 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

I really never understand why fans side with billionaires over millionaires? Why does how much they make change their right to maximize their value? What is the number when you are no longer allowed to ask for a raise? What’s the number when someone has “enough?”

 

The median salary for an NFL player is $860k. Keep in mind you need to pay Uncle Sam & your agent. So if you say 40% of that is gone and the average career is 3 years, It comes to about $1.5M after taxes. That’s not life changing (especially for someone that’s about 26 or 27). Now obviously, guys in position to hold out are going to earn more. They are less easily replaced. Why should they not capitalize while their earning window is open? Why is it okay for someone in every other profession to get market value?  We live in a capitalistic society. 

 

Also, you never see players hold out in any other sport. There’s really no such thing because their money is guaranteed (just like yours). I’m not suggesting that works in the NFL but holding out is all that they have vs. a unilateral contract. An owner can decide at ANY point and for ANY reason that the “contract” you agreed to is no longer valid. 

 

Now again, if people don’t think a 1st is worth it that’s perfectly reasonable. I just will never understand anyone begrudging someone for maximizing their worth. We all do it.

 

 

 

 

It's less about maximizing your worth, and more about playing out the contract you signed. After what time period is it acceptable to demand that you want your contract torn up? If Ed Oliver gets 10 sacks this year, is it OK with you if he holds out and threatens not to play next year unless he gets a new deal? Why not? He's just trying to maximize his worth. It may be a ridiculous scenario, but it highlights the issue with this "maximize your worth" argument. The time for that is when you are a FA. When the ink is dry on the contract, play ball.

[Kirby Jackson]

16 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

 

It's less about maximizing your worth, and more about playing out the contract you signed. After what time period is it acceptable to demand that you want your contract torn up? If Ed Oliver gets 10 sacks this year, is it OK with you if he holds out and threatens not to play next year unless he gets a new deal? Why not? He's just trying to maximize his worth. It may be a ridiculous scenario, but it highlights the issue with this "maximize your worth" argument. The time for that is when you are a FA. When the ink is dry on the contract, play ball.

It’s a contract that you don’t have a say in. That’s the difference. It’s a slotted contract where your money isn’t guaranteed. They can decide at any point that you get $0 (other than the guaranteed portion). Again, in my example of you earn $3M and play like an $8M player you get $3M. If you are an $8M player playing like a $3M player you’ll get $0. That is a player’s only defense/leverage.

 

The Oliver example is irrelevant. A player isn’t eligible for an extension until after his 3rd season. 

[dave mcbride]

47 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s a contract that you don’t have a say in. That’s the difference. It’s a slotted contract where your money isn’t guaranteed. They can decide at any point that you get $0 (other than the guaranteed portion). Again, in my example of you earn $3M and play like an $8M player you get $3M. If you are an $8M player playing like a $3M player you’ll get $0. That is a player’s only defense/leverage.

 

The Oliver example is irrelevant. A player isn’t eligible for an extension until after his 3rd season. 

But that's the system that the players negotiated! The change to the rookie salary structure was made in large part because unproven players drafted in the first round were getting massive - and in retrospect often ridiculous - contracts at the expense of proven players. From an individual perspective, Elliott can certainly make the case that he's underpaid relative to his production, but in truth he's "underpaid" for sound structural reasons. The current system is far more rational than the previous one with regard to how player salary dollars are allocated. Elliott's unique misfortune is that he's a running back, and he fears that he won't be able to capitalize on his elite skills because elite running backs don't have long shelf lives relative to other players. But he's one person, and his argument amounts to a fight against a greater good -- i.e., a more rational allocation of salary dollars based on actual (not projected) NFL-level production across all positions. Don't ever forget the days when a guy like Charles Rodgers deposited a $14.4 million check when he signed his first rookie contract or when Cedric Benson deposited a $16 million bonus check when he signed his first contract.  And christ - it's not as if the players overall are receiving less than before. Collectively, they're doing pretty darn well. 

Edited August 23, 2019 by dave mcbride

[QCity]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

A player isn’t eligible for an extension until after his 3rd season. 

 

 

So is that the line for you? Anytime after the 3rd year (for rookies) it becomes acceptable to "maximize your worth?"  Or is it a percent-based thing? Like after 60% of your contract is up it becomes OK to hold out for a new one?

[mannc]

1 hour ago, QCity said:

 

 

 If Ed Oliver gets 10 sacks this year, is it OK with you if he holds out and threatens not to play next year unless he gets a new deal? Why not? He's just trying to maximize his worth. It may be a ridiculous scenario, but it highlights the issue with this "maximize your worth" argument. The time for that is when you are a FA. When the ink is dry on the contract, play ball.

Bad analogy.  The rules prohibit teams from extending a rookie deal until after year three, so the Bills couldn't tear up Oliver's contract after this season even if they wanted to. 

 

The selective outrage at football players for holding out is misplaced.  People in all walks of life renegotiate contracts all the time.  Elliott has three options: play under his current deal, negotiate a new deal, or don't play at all.  He's got every right to use whatever leverage he has to negotiate a better deal for himself.  The fact that holdouts are rare these days shows that the players typically have very little leverage.

Edited August 23, 2019 by mannc

[Kirby Jackson]

19 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

 

So is that the line for you? Anytime after the 3rd year (for rookies) it becomes acceptable to "maximize your worth?"  Or is it a percent-based thing? Like after 60% of your contract is up it becomes OK to hold out for a new one?

It’s more years of service and performance to me. So if, like Zeke & Gordon, they have way outplayed their contract I’m good with the holdout. The problem that both face (which is why they will inevitably report) is that they won’t enter FA the following year. It’s different than Bell was. 

47 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

But that's the system that the players negotiated! The change to the rookie salary structure was made in large part because unproven players drafted in the first round were getting massive - and in retrospect often ridiculous - contracts at the expense of proven players. From an individual perspective, Elliott can certainly make the case that he's underpaid relative to his production, but in truth he's "underpaid" for sound structural reasons. The current system is far more rational than the previous one with regard to how player salary dollars are allocated. Elliott's unique misfortune is that he's a running back, and he fears that he won't be able to capitalize on his elite skills because elite running backs don't have long shelf lives relative to other players. But he's one person, and his argument amounts to a fight against a greater good -- i.e., a more rational allocation of salary dollars based on actual (not projected) NFL-level production across all positions. Don't ever forget the days when a guy like Charles Rodgers deposited a $14.4 million check when he signed his first rookie contract or when Cedric Benson deposited a $16 million bonus check when he signed his first contract.  And christ - it's not as if the players overall are receiving less than before. Collectively, they're doing pretty darn well. 

I 100% agree with all of this. This system makes WAY more sense. The 1st overall pick shouldn’t instantly become the highest paid player in the league. 

[ChattanoogaBills]

No ... There isnt a rb I'd give a 1st for in the nfl. Definitely not that dbag Elliott...

[foreboding]

Good lord no. To make him the richest RB in history, zerooooo chance.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

22 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Trade a 1 as in a one dollar bill? I’d consider it

...he's 45 minutes away from his NEXT indiscretion.......HARD pass.......

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...he's 45 minutes away from his NEXT indiscretion.......HARD pass.......

Correct sir