RB and WR markets are actually insane.

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

?????

 

Calvin Ridley got $23M AAV that offseason.

 

Darnell Mooney got virtually the exact same contract Gabe did last offseason, coming off back to back 400 yard seasons.

 

"single outlier?" 

 

Bah

 

Ridley had over 1k yards in three of the last four seasons and was injured and out for most of the other one.

 

Mooney sandwiched a couple 1k seasons - including in the one right after he got the contract - tho, right? Oh, and he was in an inept Chicago offense for those two seasons you pointed to. 

 

They do not compare at all to Gabe Davis. Try again. 

Edited yesterday at 09:48 PM by BarleyNY

[MJS]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

If Gabe wasn't paid big money, paying Cook that money isn't big money either.

Don't pay either of them. Time for Ray Davis to step up. I don't like paying running backs unless they are one of the handful of elite ones that you would really be foolish to let leave. James Cook isn't one of those guys. He is a tier below. The fact that there is a huge contingent of the fanbase that believes that PROVES he isn't one of those guys. Otherwise, we'd all be clamoring to keep him.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Ridley had over 1k yards in three of the last four seasons and was injured and out for most of the other one.

 

Mooney sandwiched a couple 1k seasons - including in the one right after he got the contract - tho, right? Oh, and he was in an inept Chicago offense for those two seasons you pointed to. 

 

They do not compare at all to Gabe Davis. Try again. 

I didn’t realize all these teams knew what those guys were gonna do AFTER they gave them contracts lol.

 

What a strange way to evaluate a market. If Brandon Beane had paid Palmer $30M AAV, maybe he turns into the next JJ.

Edited yesterday at 10:43 PM by FireChans

[BADOLBILZ]

3 hours ago, FireChans said:

Oh I'm not arguing about talent or the need for quality pass catches. I agree with trying early and often to get them.

 

The problem I have is that Josh Palmer or Curtis Samuel have next to no chance to be in the top 32 of receiving options in 2025. Just like the story we were sold on having 5 #3 and #4 WR's with Mack, Claypool and MVS was last year.

 

So I don't want to play in a market where we are dedicating 17M AAV (Samuel + Palmer) for what? Maybe ~700 yards and a handful of TDs?

 

On the contrary, I would try to almost exclusively acquire WR talent from the draft. Maybe trade. Never FA.

 

The WR position is a marquee position. The great ones are rarely hitting the market.  There are a LARGE amount of overpaid bust FA WR signings. And IMO for a lot of them, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

 

I'm not a fan of the money given Samuel or Palmer either......but I also wouldn't say that they had "next to no chance" to be a top 32 receiving option when signed.

 

The figure to aim for is 60 yards per game.   That gets you inside that top 32.

 

Samuel hit 57 ypg in 2020 playing for Joe Brady...........so while you and I might see him as a sunk cost now........you can see the logic in thinking he could be a little better with Josh Allen.

 

Palmer had 58 ypg in 2023.   As a precise route runner who gets separation he sorta fits the profile of Brown, Beasley and Diggs.......players who did get a bump playing with Allen.

 

But those were their BEST seasons.  I'm the guy who always reminds @JerseyBills that when you sign Trent Sherfield you tend to get something close to the average Sherfield season and not the single outlier.

 

But in the end..........the cost of trying to back door your way to a very good 60 ypg option in free agency appears to be about 1/4 of the real cost of paying a 90-100 ypg  WR1 (if you could get one).

 

That really doesn't seem all that out-of-whack if you believe that individual passing game talent is much more important than individual running game talent.

 

Which it is.   JAG RB's can run for 1,000 yards with good blocking.   WR is more of an island spot so that individual production means more.

 

And as far as focusing on the draft over paying top dollar to retain or acquire WR talent..........I don't think there is a clear succeed/fail correlation there.

 

Your argument needs that to be convincing.

 

[FireChans]

15 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

And as far as focusing on the draft over paying top dollar to retain or acquire WR talent..........I don't think there is a clear succeed/fail correlation there.

 

Your argument needs that to be convincing

I feel like there is.

 

whats the line about having 2 of the top 32 pass catchers in almost every Super Bowl team?

 

How many of those guys were signed in FA vs were drafted or traded for?

 

Off the top of my head, guys like Hill, Brown, Kittle, Aiyuk, Smith, Kelce, etc etc.

 

I’d imagine next to none of them were Josh Palmer or Curtis Samuel tier FAs that got their best seasons at the right time, right?

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

I didn’t realize all these teams knew what those guys were gonna do AFTER they gave them contracts lol.

 

What a strange way to evaluate a market. If Brandon Beane had paid Palmer $30M AAV, maybe he turns into the next JJ.

 

You don’t think player performance projections for the coming season(s) is the biggest driver of their value? I sure do. 

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

You don’t think player performance projections for the coming season(s) is the biggest driver of their value? I sure do. 

Of course they do.

 

Usually, those projections are based on past performance at the time of signing. Not future performance that is completely unknowable at the time of signing.

 

So saying Darnell Mooney got paid by the Falcons because he had a 1000 yard season with the Falcons is completely nonsensical. 

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

I feel like there is.

 

whats the line about having 2 of the top 32 pass catchers in almost every Super Bowl team?

 

How many of those guys were signed in FA vs were drafted or traded for?

 

Off the top of my head, guys like Hill, Brown, Kittle, Aiyuk, Smith, Kelce, etc etc.

 

I’d imagine next to none of them were Josh Palmer or Curtis Samuel tier FAs that got their best seasons at the right time, right?

 

 

But your point is to draft and NOT PAY market rate when they hit free agency.   Correct?

 

Travis Kelce, Tyreek Hill, Mike Evans, George Kittle(or Deebo), AJ Brown & Devonta Smith........these guys have all played in SB's on second and/or 3rd contracts.

 

More often than not at least one of those two "top 32" guys is on a big second deal.  

 

The new "top of the market" might be a higher % of the cap than it ever was but it was also a year when a WR tandem earning $32M and $25M aav, respectively, just won the SB.

 

So that doesn't support the use em' up and draft a replacement model.

 

That's not to say there is a lot of support for the Palmer/Samuel approach of trying to sign a potential lower end top 32.   Smith-Schuster was that guy and it worked for the Chiefs but a lot of these teams have two studs that they drafted or traded for so they didn't need to venture into FA.

 

Nobody is disputing that the best way to fill premium positions is thru the draft but it's the part about not paying them and just trying to draft a replacement that likely doesn't work.    WR is one of the highest bust rate positions.   It's not as easy as replacing RB's.   When you get a very good WR you should endeavor to keep them. 

 

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

Of course they do.

 

Usually, those projections are based on past performance at the time of signing. Not future performance that is completely unknowable at the time of signing.

 

So saying Darnell Mooney got paid by the Falcons because he had a 1000 yard season with the Falcons is completely nonsensical. 

You play the odds though.  A 2nd contract for any position is more likely to hit than a 2nd contract to a RB.  It's why their franchise tag is the lowest of any position besides kicker and punter.

[Doc Brown]

14 hours ago, Steve Billieve said:

You say "market inefficiency" but how do you know you're not seeing market and analytics efficiency?

 

You can't pay top dollar at every position. There are absolutely running backs that can single-handedly take over a game. Do you honestly believe Cook is one of them?

It's so o-line dependent though.  You have to have the guts as a GM to give an elite RB like Barkley a big contract with the assumption that your o-line will stay good.  Barkley behind a crappy Giants o-line gained 3.9 ypc.  Behind a decent o-line in Philly he averaged 5.8ypc.  They can't showcase their skills until they get to that second level of the defense.  

 

Barkley amazingly had more yards before contact in 2024 for the Eagles (4.1 yards before contact) than he did yards per carry for the Giants in 2023 (3.9 yards per carry, 1.9 yards before contact).  The next closest running back to Barkley was Gibbs at 3.33 yards before contact.  For comparison, James Cook had 2.6 yards before contact which ranked 5th in the league last year.  Ray Davis only had 1.9 yards before contact mostly because he doesn't have the vision that Cook has and he faced way more stacked boxes.  Plus, he's just not as fast.

Edited 16 hours ago by Doc Brown

[BullBuchanan]

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

There's some market inefficiencies to take advantage of here.

 

First, let's set the stage:

 

In 2018, the salary cap was 177M. In 2025, its 279M.

 

In 2018, one of the best RB's of his era, Todd Gurley, who was second in MVP voting signed a massive extension.

 

That extension was 4 years for 57M.  An AAV of of $14M. 21M guaranteed at signing (with more guarantees later if he made the team). A record setting contract.

 

Those numbers, TODAY, would make him the 4th highest paid running back in the league. So when we are talking about a Cook extension, and how that fits in the salary cap, just remember, he is asking for a little more than 2018 Todd Gurley money with a $100M more in salary cap space.

 

Now, of course, other contracts have been inflated. QBs make more than ever. WR's make more than ever.

 

Odell Beckham set the WR market in 2018. He signed a 5 year, 95M deal, with 18M AAV and 41M in GTD.

 

in 2025, that would make him tied for the 20th highest paid WR, right next to Christian Kirk (who inked his deal in 2022). The guarantees are even close, with Kirk getting $37M over 4 years of his deal.

 

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

 

Nothing that we didn't already know. The NFL at large has decided that running backs aren't valuable and that WR's are crazy valuable.

 

However, I would argue that this points to a strategy to take advantage of NFL decision-making at large. In a league where there is 1 winner and 31 losers, you don't want to follow the pack. 

 

I suggest the Bills SHOULD meet Cook in the middle if he would take $15M AAV.  We don't have a WR worth $30M. We aren't sure we ever will, and we aren't sure that we would pay them even if we did.

 

I would also suggest the Bills should NEVER pay a WR anything ever. There is no point in playing in a market where JAGs or good players are having their value this inflated. I don't know where the WR carousel ends, but I don't want to be on it when it does. 

 

 

The analysis of the current market and strategy I agree with, but blowing all that money on Cook isn't leveraging the inefficiency of the market correctly.

Letting cook walk and signing someone like JK Dobbins who averaged 4.6 YPC last year for 2.4M would be leveraging inefficiency in the market. Similarly signing Nick Chubb to a 2.5m deal also would have been the same. The whole idea is to get value. Cook as the 4th highest paid RB will never be value.

[Sierra Foothills]

This discussion really doesn't work unless we're more specific about contract details.

 

Really the question is, what is a contract that is commensurate with the impact that Cook makes on the field?

 

That said I agree with the OP that there's this groupthink regarding running backs which causes teams (and fans) to be dogmatic and not diligent enough about running back valuation.

 

Philly and Baltimore are arguably the best managed franchises in the NFL and both saw the wisdom of a big money contract for a running back.

 

As a regular reader of this forum it's my opinion that James Cook is not valued as highly as he should be and I agree with the OP's thesis.

 

14 hours ago, Paup 1995MVP said:

There are a LOT of solid RB's in the NFL.  And James Cook falls into that category.  He is reasonably dynamic, but certainly not a unicorn in his abilities.

 

Cook to me is much closer to a "unicorn" than he is a "solid player" in my book.

 

14 hours ago, Steve Billieve said:

You can't pay top dollar at every position. There are absolutely running backs that can single-handedly take over a game. Do you honestly believe Cook is one of them?

 

I see where people here are devaluing Cook due to % of snap counts. Running back by committee is a widespread league practice which is ostensibly to keep the running backs fresh and reduce their injury risk. This is a legit reason for the practice.

 

However, limiting RB snaps also conveniently allows NFL teams to limit the contracts given to running backs and no one will ever convince me that the Bills aren't a better team with Cook in on 3rd downs instead of Ty Johnson.

 

How much is Cook worth if he's getting 300 touches per year? Well we don't know that because the Bills don't give him the opportunity. Could he "take over a game?" I don't see why not based on his elite 99th percentile yards per touch over 3 years.

 

13 hours ago, MJS said:

Davis wasn't paid big money. Too much for what he was worth, but not some massive contract.

 

Gabriel Davis' contract was 3 years, $39 million with $24 million guaranteed at signing. That's big money in my book.

 

12 hours ago, Einstein said:

That's a great point that I had repressed.

And its even more shocking considering Cook did this just a couple drives before that.
 

 

I'm not sure if @Simon was implying that the Bills don't trust Cook and have legit reasons to not trust him but it's unbelievable to me that in the Bills' biggest moment of need, that he was not on the field... and I don't chalk that up to to good decision making.

 

Final thought... there are plenty of posters here who want to go "all-in" to win a Super Bowl and cite actions such as trading for DJ Metcalf etc. If you want to go all-in to win a Super Bowl, how about simply paying James Cook a few more million dollars?

 

[Doc Brown]

34 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

The analysis of the current market and strategy I agree with, but blowing all that money on Cook isn't leveraging the inefficiency of the market correctly.

Letting cook walk and signing someone like JK Dobbins who averaged 4.6 YPC last year for 2.4M would be leveraging inefficiency in the market. Similarly signing Nick Chubb to a 2.5m deal also would have been the same. The whole idea is to get value. Cook as the 4th highest paid RB will never be value.

We already tried that with signing Damien Harris to replace Singletary because of Beane's whiff of a draft pick with Moss.  Dobbins has missed more games than he's played starting his rookie year.  Chubb was Cleveland Brown's fans most beloved player and his injury was so gruesome they didn't even resign him at $2.5m as he averaged 3.3 ypc last year.  Those are kind of worst case scenario signings when you don't draft and develop properly.

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, Sierra Foothills said:

Final thought... there are plenty of posters here who want to go "all-in" to win a Super Bowl and cite actions such as trading for DJ Metcalf etc. If you want to go all-in to win a Super Bowl, how about simply paying James Cook a few more million dollars?

No.  Trading for Metcalf for a 2nd like the Steelers did and signing him to a four year deal isn't going all in when they'll get him in a WR's prime years at age 27-30.  Our offense after trading for Diggs at 27 went on to average the four best seasons in offensive yards in franchise history.  RB was an afterthought.

[Sierra Foothills]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  Trading for Metcalf for a 2nd like the Steelers did and signing him to a four year deal isn't going all in when they'll get him in a WR's prime years at age 27-30.  Our offense after trading for Diggs at 27 went on to average the four best seasons in offensive yards in franchise history.  RB was an afterthought.

 

Wow Doc.

 

I really respect your opinions but I'm not really sure what to say except, what do you consider going all-in?

 

If the Bills sent a 2nd round pick for Metcalf and signed him to a 4 year $132 million contract with $60 million guaranteed at signing, you wouldn't consider the Bills as going all-in?

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Wow Doc.

 

I really respect your opinions but I'm not really sure what to say except, what do you consider going all-in?

 

If the Bills sent a 2nd round pick for Metcalf and signed him to a 4 year $132 million contract with $60 million guaranteed at signing, you wouldn't consider the Bills as going all-in?

 

First of all, please never respect my opinions.  I thought the internet was just for nerds when it first came out and turned my basement into a bunker for Y2K.  Secondly, signing a premium position player in his prime I don't consider going "all in" given it's a four year commitment.  The 2021  Rams went "all in" with the Miller and Beckham trades and it worked out for them.  We're overpaying for all these mediocre WR's (Palmer, Samuel) for about half the money that don't move the needle much at all.  I don't ever recall a time in Bills history where we traded for a 27 year WR with promising production that may have been underutilized in the previous offensive system that also has mixed character reports so I guess it's a risk in that sense.  Von Miller was a much bigger risk given his age and it backfired.  I just think when you have the opportunity to get an elite player in his prime (which I think Metcalf is) at a premium position you don't think twice and pull the trigger.  Hell, the Bengals just did with two WR's around the same ages.

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

He was paid more than what some folks think James Cook is worth.

 

His contract was a top 5 RB contract.

 

 

Right. That's why you can't compare RB and WR salaries and doing so will only confuse any issue you're looking at.

 

RBs are considered to be worth less. That's why they're paid less. 

 

Gabe was not paid more than Saquon. But yes, more than most RBs. 

 

Doesn't mean it was a good contract, obviously that Jax gave to Gabe. Might've looked a lot more reasonable if he hadn't been injured, but we'll never know. 

 

But the league finds RBs more fungible than WRs. With a few Saquon-like exceptions. Overall this seems pretty reasonable to most. Paying a guy at a more fungible position more than the league thinks he's worth does not seem like a way to get a competitive advantage. 

 

Not all zigging where they zag is good decision-making.

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

Fair points.

 

The snaps/dolllars amount makes Khalil Shakir's 13M AAV deal comparable to the tops in the league though.

 

 

 

 

Which is why snaps/dollars is a part of the argument, not all of it.

 

Touches/production is also part of it. RBs produce far less per touch. So is average length of productive career life, particularly when you're talking about longer contracts for players with shorter expected productivity. So is width of skillset. Cook's inability to pass block hurts him, but not Saquon, who's a bully when protecting his QB.  There are more factors involved. You know all this very well.

 

Another good reason why you can't reasonably compare contracts between RBs and WRs, or any other positions, really.

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, FireChans said:

I think at this point, the Bills are not going to chase a $30M WR like DK while Josh is here.

 

I would have less of a problem with an elite WR making elite money, but I think where the rubber meets the road is the "middle class" of WR's, that are also inflated relative to value.

 

The 32nd highest paid WR is making $11M AAV. That's 4% of the cap.

 

I can't easily pull the numbers, but in 2018, it was definitely less. John Brown was making like 2%. 

 

Personally, I would rather have Cook + OL and no Palmer. Just draft guys at WRs.  FA WRs aren't worth it.  See: Samuel, Curtis.

 

 

The receiver last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Pickens) got 900 yards in receiving while burning only 103 targets, leaving all the rest of the team's offensive snaps available for other players to be productive in.

 

The RB last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Tyler Allgeier) put up 644 yards, but required 137 attempts to do so, leaving fewer snaps available for others while producing less.

 

I'm not bothering to include pass stats for RBs there, or run yards for WRs. With unlimited time, I'd have done so, but I don't believe that would change the picture all that much. Some, but not all that much.

 

WRs also more directly make life easier for the QB in getting the ball out of his hands on plays when he's back there facing a rush pointed at him. And in the modern NFL, making life easier for your $50M QB is the name of the game. RBs also make life easier for QBs, of course. So does everyone on the team, certainly including the defense. But WRs do it more directly. RBs change the defense's moves formations and reactions and priorities, and that's valuable, but not as valuable. How do we know that? Look at what the league pays each position.

 

 

You're right that receivers have become more expensive. In the NFL's opinion, there's good reason for that.

 

[Gunsgoodtime]

Good thing we get our Wrs at Goodwill