Le'Veon Bell, Steelers fail to reach long-term deal ahead of deadline

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DesertSteel

Obviously

---

https://i.imgflip.com/shzeq.jpg

We seem to be talking past each other.

Bell's production comes with the setting of the offense overall, as does any players. Removal of one player could alter the functioning of that system.

Take a look at this article -- https://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/1...ssing-offense/

Or this one from a season or so ago -- https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...bell-is-to-ben

There are a staggering amount of data points that all say the same things:

1. The offense is more efficient, productive, and turns the ball over less when Bell is on the field.
2. Other skill players on the team are even more effective when Bell is in the lineup.
3. Bell accounts from somewhere between 30-40+% of the offensive output each season.

All I am saying is that the assumption that is all readily replaceable appears to fly in the face of all available data.

Remember in last SB defensive core whenever Aaron Smith would get hurt? Many other players on those defenses had better stats, were more lauded, etc BUT whenever Smith would get hurt and miss games the defense would significantly drop in performance. Smith made everyone else on those units better. It took a long time for the Steelers to find a way to replace Smith.

Hopefully it won't be a similar struggle to replace/replicate what Bell brings to the offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

We seem to be talking past each other.

---

Sometimes you try to be so thorough (and you do a very good job of it), I'm not even sure what side of the issue you are on :).

Quote:

---

Bell's production comes with the setting of the offense overall, as does any players. Removal of one player could alter the functioning of that system.

Take a look at this article -- https://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/1...ssing-offense/

Or this one from a season or so ago -- https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...bell-is-to-ben

There are a staggering amount of data points that all say the same things:

1. The offense is more efficient, productive, and turns the ball over less when Bell is on the field.
2. Other skill players on the team are even more effective when Bell is in the lineup.
3. Bell accounts from somewhere between 30-40+% of the offensive output each season.

All I am saying is that the assumption that is all readily replaceable appears to fly in the face of all available data.

Remember in last SB defensive core whenever Aaron Smith would get hurt? Many other players on those defenses had better stats, were more lauded, etc BUT whenever Smith would get hurt and miss games the defense would significantly drop in performance. Smith made everyone else on those units better. It took a long time for the Steelers to find a way to replace Smith.

Hopefully it won't be a similar struggle to replace/replicate what Bell brings to the offense.

---

No doubt, the offense will be vastly different. I contend that as long as an NFL team trots out a top 10 QB that their offense will be good. Ben is top 5 and should be that for another couple-three years. I really think they can offset the loss of Bell. Especially since it's my main point that they weren't going to have the 2014 Bell anyway, whether he stayed of went.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

We seem to be talking past each other.

Bell's production comes with the setting of the offense overall, as does any players. Removal of one player could alter the functioning of that system.

Take a look at this article -- https://www.steelersdepot.com/2017/1...ssing-offense/

Or this one from a season or so ago -- https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.co...bell-is-to-ben

There are a staggering amount of data points that all say the same things:

1. The offense is more efficient, productive, and turns the ball over less when Bell is on the field.
2. Other skill players on the team are even more effective when Bell is in the lineup.
3. Bell accounts from somewhere between 30-40+% of the offensive output each season.

All I am saying is that the assumption that is all readily replaceable appears to fly in the face of all available data.

Remember in last SB defensive core whenever Aaron Smith would get hurt? Many other players on those defenses had better stats, were more lauded, etc BUT whenever Smith would get hurt and miss games the defense would significantly drop in performance. Smith made everyone else on those units better. It took a long time for the Steelers to find a way to replace Smith.

Hopefully it won't be a similar struggle to replace/replicate what Bell brings to the offense.

---

Pro Football Focus has attempted to calculate the value Bell brings to the offense using the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) value that has become a key baseball analytic

This from Peter King's Football Morning In America (King has left SI for NBC and SI owns the right to use the MMQB brand) column this morning

Pro Football Focus mined WAR data (Wins Above Replacement) for me to determine whether Bell did the right thing in turning down a long-term deal—keeping in mind that the guarantees in the contract offer are still cloudy. But assume for the sake of argument that Bell could have made $45 million over the next three years. Did he do right by turning down this deal and being free next March?...

WAR, or wins above replacement. PFF is using this previously noted baseball stat to judge value of player and position. How many wins is Bell responsible for, compared to the back behind him on the roster? (In 2018, it’s likely to be James Conner.) In the PFF metrics, which isolates on things like yards per route run, wide receiver Antonio Brown was judged to be worth 2.22 wins over his projected replacement in 2013; Bell was judged to have a WAR of 0.48 that year. Big edge, Brown. Comparing the two Steeler mega-stars who do not play quarterback illustrates one of the core tenets of PFF research: quarterback, wide receiver and cornerback are more valuable to a team’s won-loss record than running back. And performance of the offensive line—PFF judges offensive lines, logically, to be a major factor in rushing efficiency—also helped Bell. Brown is going to average more yards per target than a running back—9.49 yards produced per targeted throw in his career, compared to 6.97 yards per target for Bell. It all goes into the mix. Here is their tale of the tape with respect to wins above replacement since they’ve played in tandem in Pittsburgh:

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wor...bell-brown.jpg

I can’t blame the Steelers for not over-extending to do the deal. Blame the position.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ter-king-fmia/

Is Bell valuable - no doubt. But given the position he plays a top flight RB is easier to replace than his peers at WR. NFL contracts reflect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtlantaDan

Pro Football Focus has attempted to calculate the value Bell brings to the offense using the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) value that has become a key baseball analytic

This from Peter King's Football Morning In America (King has left SI for NBC and SI owns the right to use the MMQB brand) column this morning

Pro Football Focus mined WAR data (Wins Above Replacement) for me to determine whether Bell did the right thing in turning down a long-term deal—keeping in mind that the guarantees in the contract offer are still cloudy. But assume for the sake of argument that Bell could have made $45 million over the next three years. Did he do right by turning down this deal and being free next March?...

WAR, or wins above replacement. PFF is using this previously noted baseball stat to judge value of player and position. How many wins is Bell responsible for, compared to the back behind him on the roster? (In 2018, it’s likely to be James Conner.) In the PFF metrics, which isolates on things like yards per route run, wide receiver Antonio Brown was judged to be worth 2.22 wins over his projected replacement in 2013; Bell was judged to have a WAR of 0.48 that year. Big edge, Brown. Comparing the two Steeler mega-stars who do not play quarterback illustrates one of the core tenets of PFF research: quarterback, wide receiver and cornerback are more valuable to a team’s won-loss record than running back. And performance of the offensive line—PFF judges offensive lines, logically, to be a major factor in rushing efficiency—also helped Bell. Brown is going to average more yards per target than a running back—9.49 yards produced per targeted throw in his career, compared to 6.97 yards per target for Bell. It all goes into the mix. Here is their tale of the tape with respect to wins above replacement since they’ve played in tandem in Pittsburgh:

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wor...bell-brown.jpg

I can’t blame the Steelers for not over-extending to do the deal. Blame the position.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ter-king-fmia/

Is Bell valuable - no doubt. But given the position he plays a top flight RB is easier to replace than his peers at WR. NFL contracts reflect that.

---

good post , interesting logic


if we lived in the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era still than I would say Bell is worth every penny of what he is asking , that said we live in a passing league now and if going to throw that sort of money around it better be for a guy who averages 10 yards per touch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

good post , interesting logic


if we lived in the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era still than I would say Bell is worth every penny of what he is asking , that said we live in a passing league now and if going to throw that sort of money around it better be for a guy who averages 10 yards per touch

---

Another recent PFF article on Bell's value that concurs with your views (and mine as well) on the diminished value of RBs in today's NFL

What is Le'Veon Bell's true value?


https://media.profootballfocus.com/2...l2-768x432.jpg
There is a definite bump with Bell on the field, but it’s not what makes this offense truly elite as evidenced by the much higher Wins Above Replacement numbers for both Roethlisberger and Brown (Brown is about 9.0 WAR above Bell since 2013, while Roethlisberger is about 18.0). ...

Bell has certainly been a main target for Big Ben in the passing game but just how much value is there to targeting running backs? Since 2014, targeting a running back is nearly a third as valuable as targeting a wide receiver or a tight end. Even when the running back is targeted from the slot they generate less than half the value of a slot target to a receiver or tight end.

Among running backs and receivers with at least 30 slot targets since 2014, Bell ranks 70th of 139 in EPA per slot target and 134th in yards per target. The player who leads those categories, Bell’s teammate Juju Smith-Schuster, will make less than a million dollars in the second year of his rookie deal.
https://media.profootballfocus.com/2...n3-768x432.jpg

Bell is hurt by the simple fact that what he does most frequently – carry the ball from seven yards behind the line of scrimmage – is both his least-valuable asset and also the most damaging to his physical ability.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/new...m_campaign=nfl

Glad to read the shout out to JuJu but his ranking as a slot receiver obviously is skewed by the outlier of his 97 yard catch and run TD in Detroit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Bs...layer_embedded

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtlantaDan

Another recent PFF article on Bell's value that concurs with your views (and mine as well) on the diminished value of RBs in today's NFL

What is Le'Veon Bell's true value?


https://media.profootballfocus.com/2...l2-768x432.jpg
There is a definite bump with Bell on the field, but it’s not what makes this offense truly elite as evidenced by the much higher Wins Above Replacement numbers for both Roethlisberger and Brown (Brown is about 9.0 WAR above Bell since 2013, while Roethlisberger is about 18.0). ...

Bell has certainly been a main target for Big Ben in the passing game but just how much value is there to targeting running backs? Since 2014, targeting a running back is nearly a third as valuable as targeting a wide receiver or a tight end. Even when the running back is targeted from the slot they generate less than half the value of a slot target to a receiver or tight end.

Among running backs and receivers with at least 30 slot targets since 2014, Bell ranks 70th of 139 in EPA per slot target and 134th in yards per target. The player who leads those categories, Bell’s teammate Juju Smith-Schuster, will make less than a million dollars in the second year of his rookie deal.
https://media.profootballfocus.com/2...n3-768x432.jpg

Bell is hurt by the simple fact that what he does most frequently – carry the ball from seven yards behind the line of scrimmage – is both his least-valuable asset and also the most damaging to his physical ability.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/new...m_campaign=nfl

Glad to read the shout out to JuJu but his ranking as a slot receiver obviously is skewed by the outlier of his 97 yard catch and run TD in Detroit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Bs-ehMFOQ&feature=player_embedded

---

and he refers to himself as #2 WR and RB in 1 .... however ..... a little tid bit that many over look and under state is Bell averaged LESS yards per reception than Jesse James last year and most here want James replaced because he lacks inherent value to the passing game ...

Todd Gurley just signed a 4 year, $60,000,000 contract with the Los Angeles Rams, including $45,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $15,000,000.

Todd Gurley is now the highest paid RB in the league. Perfect timing Rams!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawaiiansteeler

Todd Gurley just signed a 4 year, $60,000,000 contract with the Los Angeles Rams, including $45,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $15,000,000.

---

Wish there was a side by side comparison of Gurley's deal and Bell's offer. Feel like the Steelers were only off by a some guaranteed cash?

Long story short, Bell will get a similar deal as soon as he enters free agency this upcoming off-season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Wish there was a side by side comparison of Gurley's deal and Bell's offer. Feel like the Steelers were only off by a some guaranteed cash?

Long story short, Bell will get a similar deal as soon as he enters free agency this upcoming off-season.

---

Bell probably would have signed if offered that much guaranteed money. However, if he played this season and next, he would have gotten $33M from what I understand? Does Bell have so little faith that he won't play for more than 2 more years? That contract averaged 14M a year which isn't far off what TG's contract was worth.

With that said, I side with the Steelers FO. Giving a ton of guaranteed money is not a smart business decision when dealing with someone who's only finished one season without injury / suspension. Sure, it might not be totally fair to still hold his past actions against him, but on the other hand, you sleep in the bed you make.

Gurley - 3 years younger - Less wear on the body -less injury history - no league suspensions for drug use .......

anyone think any of that factors into the equation ......

Wow we got some real knuckle draggers on Steelersdepot, I think I'm officially done with the comments section there. Some morons think Bell is better than Gurley, I want whatever they're smoking.

Gurley set the market for the top RB. Bell, nor any other RB in the league is going to get more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fire Goodell

Wow we got some real knuckle draggers on Steelersdepot, I think I'm officially done with the comments section there. Some morons think Bell is better than Gurley, I want whatever they're smoking.

Gurley set the market for the top RB. Bell, nor any other RB in the league is going to get more than that.

---

the best QB in the NFL is not currently the highest paid one...

Additionally the Steelers have always held to a pecking order when they do salaries. Bell wasn't going to get above Ben and AB.

The Rams are in a totally different situation in that Gurley and Aaron Donald (despite their refusal to pay him...he has to be pissed at this point) should dominant the salary cap table for them - since Goff and the wideouts are not all that special.

I agree that the Steelers offer was in their best interests and stuck to their pattern when dealing with big money second contracts for players. I do not disagree totally.

The limited point I am trying to make is that the broad outlines of the deal Bell wanted and the deal the Steelers offered seems to be far less outlandish with Gurley's deal coming in where it did. And, what if the Steelers "lose out" (your concern over this may vary based on individual opinion) on 2-4 years of "prime" Leveon Bell for something like $10-15 million more in guarantees?

If that was the real sticking point (the guaranteed cash), then I'm going to throw out an extremely unpopular take: Colbert and Company screwed up.

1. Gurley's deal shows that Bell and the Steelers were playing in the right ball-park.
2. Steelers players typically see the first 1-3 years of their big money 2nd contracts. This is well documented.
3. IF you (the team) are 80-100 % likely to pay out years 1-3 of the contract anyway -- why not offer to guarantee more than just the reported $10 million?

The way I see it, is that the team wanted Bell. They were willing to pay in the right neighborhood. Why not offer to guarantee a bit more of money you were willing to spend anyways? Now they have consolation prizes as the 2019 RB committee or they have to spend a Round 1 Draft pick (that is the new "going rate" based on 2018 draft).

On the other hand, you can only pay what you can pay...

I seem to remember many on here claiming "no RB is worth $15M/year". Now I am seeing Gurley deserves it because he's "better than Bell". Just wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

Gurley - 3 years younger - Less wear on the body -less injury history - no league suspensions for drug use .......

anyone think any of that factors into the equation ......

---

Gurley sustained a torn ACL in his left knee while at Georgia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

IF you (the team) are 80-100 % likely to pay out years 1-3 of the contract anyway -- why not offer to guarantee more than just the reported $10 million?

The way I see it, is that the team wanted Bell. They were willing to pay in the right neighborhood. Why not offer to guarantee a bit more of money you were willing to spend anyways?

---

this should answer both questions ...

https://drugabuse-com.s3.amazonaws.c...ve-620x260.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

this should answer both questions ...

https://drugabuse-com.s3.amazonaws.c...ve-620x260.jpg

---

You can easily write in a clause that drug suspensions or naughty instagram posts invalidate any and all guarantees etc.

We will never know what really went down because the Steelers don't discuss/leak this stuff. We can only speculate, but all I wanted to point out is that there is a version of this where for refusing to guarantee money you were going to pay ANYWAY, the team has a 2019 backfield of an unproven Conner and a totally unknown Samuel instead of a bona-fide high performing RB.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the Steelers were wrong, but I think it needs injected into the overall discussion that the Gurley contract #'s provide tangible evidence that there is a legitimate chain of logic that they were not totally right either.

Now all this can change at a drop of a hat once the actual real contract #'s for Gurley's deal come out and/or Bell's agent leaks more of the Steelers offer in response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

3. IF you (the team) are 80-100 % likely to pay out years 1-3 of the contract anyway -- why not offer to guarantee more than just the reported $10 million?

The way I see it, is that the team wanted Bell. They were willing to pay in the right neighborhood. Why not offer to guarantee a bit more of money you were willing to spend anyways?

---

I don't disagree with your line of reasoning but it flips just as easily. If Bell knows they pay out the first 3 years or more 90% + of the time why not take the deal knowing the money is coming anyway? He is willing to bet on himself well, why not bet on himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

You can easily write in a clause that drug suspensions or naughty instagram posts invalidate any and all guarantees etc.

We will never know what really went down because the Steelers don't discuss/leak this stuff. We can only speculate, but all I wanted to point out is that there is a version of this where for refusing to guarantee money you were going to pay ANYWAY, the team has a 2019 backfield of an unproven Conner and a totally unknown Samuel instead of a bona-fide high performing RB.

Doesn't necessarily mean that the Steelers were wrong, but I think it needs injected into the overall discussion that the Gurley contract #'s provide tangible evidence that there is a legitimate chain of logic that they were not totally right either.

Now all this can change at a drop of a hat once the actual real contract #'s for Gurley's deal come out and/or Bell's agent leaks more of the Steelers offer in response.

---

there is always 3 sides to the story .... we will only ever hear 2 of them at most ..

so like you said we likely will never know what REALLY happened in negotiations


Agent will leak things that make his client look like a victim and the team likely wont leak anything and if they do it will make Bell look like a villain if anything ( not normally a steeler move )

and then there is the truth where everything in in context and that story will never be told

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojouw

Additionally the Steelers have always held to a pecking order when they do salaries. Bell wasn't going to get above Ben and AB.

The Rams are in a totally different situation in that Gurley and Aaron Donald (despite their refusal to pay him...he has to be pissed at this point) should dominant the salary cap table for them - since Goff and the wideouts are not all that special.

---

If the Rams do not do a deal with Goff in 2 years as he enters the last yera of his contract they will have screwed up the first overall pick in the 2016 draft - I would be surprised if they do not negotiate a QB market rate deal with Goff - having to concede they screwed up and bring in a new QB while Gurley is contracted to be in his prime presumably is not the plan

As far as the wideouts, the Rams just gave Brandin Cooks a 5 year/$80 million contract with $20 million guaranteed

I would not want to be the agent trying to calm Aaron Donald down this afternoon (which I would do by phone rather than in person :chuckle: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyphon25

I don't disagree with your line of reasoning but it flips just as easily. If Bell knows they pay out the first 3 years or more 90% + of the time why not take the deal knowing the money is coming anyway? He is willing to bet on himself well, why not bet on himself?

---

Catastrophic injury. Without guaranteed cash there is little protection for the players from career ending or life changing injury.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

there is always 3 sides to the story .... we will only ever hear 2 of them at most ..

so like you said we likely will never know what REALLY happened in negotiations


Agent will leak things that make his client look like a victim and the team likely wont leak anything and if they do it will make Bell look like a villain if anything ( not normally a steeler move )

and then there is the truth where everything in in context and that story will never be told

---

Very true. Would be absolutely fascinating to know.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtlantaDan

If the Rams do not do a deal with Goff in 2 years as he enters the last yera of his contract they will have screwed up the first overall pick in the 2016 draft - I would be surprised if they do not negotiate a QB market rate deal with Goff - having to concede they screwed up and bring in a new QB while Gurley is contracted to be in his prime presumably is not the plan

As far as the wideouts, the Rams just gave Brandin Cooks a 5 year/$80 million contract with $20 million guaranteed

I would not want to be the agent trying to calm Aaron Donald down this afternoon (which I would do by phone rather than in person :chuckle: )

---

I forgot about Cooks!

Still, at what point does Donald just tell the Rams to go to hell? If anyone in the league has a case to simply refuse to report, it would be Aaron Donald.

Wonder how a bunch of newish guys getting paid (Rams roster has some recent imports) and Donald kinda getting strung along plays out in the locker room? I'm not usually one to give a ton of credence to that stuff, but this is just getting weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Born2Steel

I seem to remember many on here claiming "no RB is worth $15M/year". Now I am seeing Gurley deserves it because he's "better than Bell". Just wow.

---

I still contend in a passing league no RB is worthy of 15 mil a year , far to much cap space in this era

3 yards and a cloud of dust era with current cap figures ...sure why not but not in a passing league

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwinsgames

I still contend in a passing league no RB is worthy of 15 mil a year , far to much cap space in this era

3 yards and a cloud of dust era with current cap figures ...sure why not but not in a passing league

---

Although Gurley was a more productive receiver than Bell.

Todd Gurley’s deal makes sense, given the running back market

Posted by Mike Florio on July 24, 2018

When Rams running back Todd Gurley recently visited the #PFTPM podcast, he seemed to be more than willing (or maybe just regular willing) to wait his turn for a new contract. His turn unexpectedly came quickly.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the deal was negotiated over the past week or so. In the end, the Rams made Gurley an offer that it would have been difficult for him to refuse.

While the details still aren’t known (we’re efforting), the guts of the contract permit a basic level of analysis. The four-year, $60 million extension, when coupled with the money Gurley was due to make over the next two years, puts him under contract for six years, at a total value of $71.949 million. That’s a total average of $11.99 million over all six years, giving him the most valuable multi-year running back deal in the NFL, by far.

He’ll hold that title until Le'Veon Bell signs his new deal next year. And, in theory, Gurley could have waited for Bell to set a new bar next year. But Gurley was due to make only $2.3 million this year. That will now change, dramatically.

Given that the Rams could have tagged Gurley in 2020 (the tender would have been at least $11.556 million) and 2021 (at least $13.86 million), Gurley swapped a four-year, year-to-year total of $37.3 million for six years and nearly $72 million.

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...g-back-market/

Gurley wants to play and Bell wants to party. When Bell said he wants to retire a Steeler I did not believe him..

Todd Gurley had more rushing yards, receiving yards, rushing TDs, receiving TDs, a better YPC, and a better yards per reception than Le'Veon Bell last year. He's also three years younger. In Summation , Le'Veon Bell may have messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 86WARD

Although Gurley was a more productive receiver than Bell.

---

Hands down. 12YPC vs 7TPC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawaiiansteeler

Todd Gurley’s deal makes sense, given the running back market

Posted by Mike Florio on July 24, 2018

When Rams running back Todd Gurley recently visited the #PFTPM podcast, he seemed to be more than willing (or maybe just regular willing) to wait his turn for a new contract. His turn unexpectedly came quickly.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the deal was negotiated over the past week or so. In the end, the Rams made Gurley an offer that it would have been difficult for him to refuse.

While the details still aren’t known (we’re efforting), the guts of the contract permit a basic level of analysis. The four-year, $60 million extension, when coupled with the money Gurley was due to make over the next two years, puts him under contract for six years, at a total value of $71.949 million. That’s a total average of $11.99 million over all six years, giving him the most valuable multi-year running back deal in the NFL, by far.

He’ll hold that title until Le'Veon Bell signs his new deal next year. And, in theory, Gurley could have waited for Bell to set a new bar next year. But Gurley was due to make only $2.3 million this year. That will now change, dramatically.

Given that the Rams could have tagged Gurley in 2020 (the tender would have been at least $11.556 million) and 2021 (at least $13.86 million), Gurley swapped a four-year, year-to-year total of $37.3 million for six years and nearly $72 million.

to read rest of article:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...g-back-market/

---

What makes him assume that Bell is going to get more than Gurley? I'm not so sure he will. Either way, I'm glad that it won't be the Steelers paying it.