Originally Posted by
steelreserve
Imagine how nice of a position we'll be in if/when Sutton and Allen have shown themselves to be capable CBs ... we'll have Bell's money AND Haden's money to use on other stuff. And most likely Shazier's $9 million too.
I get what you're saying about the past RB situation given our recent history there, but I think it's a different situation for a few reasons. One is that between Bettis and Bell, the rest of the offense was not quite the powerhouse it is now. Not counting Willie Parker, since I think he was a problem rather than an asset, but that's another story. Anyway, during that entire stretch, either the WRs were not quite as good, the line was not as good, the depth was a problem, we had smaller thorns in our side like having no real fullback (not a killer in itself, but becomes a problem when it prompts you to try a bunch of useless H-back bullshit, etc., etc.) Basically, the offense probably has more talent right now than it's had since 2004, maybe ever. So while losing an important piece of that would not help, overall it is in a position to keep performing at a high level.
Second is the nature of the position. Some positions are ones where your success is determined by, "How good is your best player?" WR, QB, pass rushers, and I would put RB on that list too. With others, it's "How bad is your worst player?" Offensive line and DB especially are the ones where the unit overall is only as good as the weakest link that can be exploited. In the first group, you pretty much get a 1:1 return in terms of performance for the money you spend (assuming you're not overpaying). In the second group, you can get a 2:1 or 3:1 return if it fixes a fatal problem. In these terms, Ramon Foster may provide the most "value" of any player on the team. In other words, Joe Haden playing like a $5 million player can come out more or less even for us; for Bell at $17 million, there's almost no way to come out even unless he was to smash every record in the books, have a 3,000-yard rushing season with 100 receptions and such.
The third part of it is just the sheer amount of money involved. I don't know that we've ever had a player where the difference between what he wanted and what other star players were making was literally DOUBLE. Enough to actually sign a different star player and fit another full player in completely, and a very good one at that. Other times it's been "well, we could save $3 million and put it toward a better safety" or some hypothetical thing like that, followed by "how much better safety could you really get for another $3 million, it'd be almost the same situation," and so on. This is literally like - keep the existing guy, or fill two positions of need with star-level talent or very close, and try to draft his replacement.
I also don't think Conner or anyone else has shown anything to indicate we have his replacement on the roster. We'd have to go out and get someone. It may be a moot point anyway, because as I've said repeatedly, I don't think Bell is signing a long-term deal with us at any price. So we might as well treat that eventuality as the one we have to plan for.