Ian Rapoport is reporting that the Rams and RB Todd Gurley contract extension worth up to $60M with $45M guaranteed.
Ian Rapoport is reporting that the Rams and RB Todd Gurley contract extension worth up to $60M with $45M guaranteed.
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute">
Hmmm........interesting.
Pretty pre-mature. Would have waited to see what the Cardinals would have done with David Johnson since Gurley had the 5th year option and Johnson didn't
- - - Updated - - -
P.S. Good like finding cap space for Aaron Donald, a better player at a more important position
There will be room for Donald money if they want to keep and pay him in 2019
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Gurley and his agent not the only folks happy about this
Sorry Bell, you're still trippin'. The Steelers aren't premature like the Rams.
The Rams are paying Gurley for one single rebound year after a forgettable 2016. Now good luck getting any more out of the guy. We've seen what fat contracts do to players (Woodley), and it isn't good.
And who's to say that your stupid rap songs and getting busted for weed two years in a row in 2014 and 2015 didn't have anything to do with not getting your big payday, Bell?
See you in October after you sit out again.
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
I’m still surprised at the low guaranteed money offered Bell.
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Not me - the same front office and owner who got burned on the Woodley (player who quit once he got his deal) and Troy (player who was past his peak once he signed his last deal) contracts are still calling the shots for the Steelers. Both factors may be a concern with Bell in addition to typical values assigned to RBs until today's Gurley contract
The Rams may be smarter than everyone else in doing Gurley's deal now and resetting the market value for RBs - then again maybe not
If they have the 2017 Gurley for the next 6 years, it’s a bargain.
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
That of course is the rub, as discussed on here at length with regard to Bell - having a RB perform at his early/mid-20s peak into his late 20s/30 could happen but is not the likely outcome
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
That’d be Jim Brown.
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Agreed that extending a RB two seasons before his rookie contract expires after the 2019 season appears odd, but I suppose it could depend on how important to the owner it is to get Rams fans excited right now for the 2020 season
This article on what might be driving the spending spree ran this spring after the Rams threw $$$ at Suh & Talib while trading for Cook, but before the Gurley announcement
A hidden, off-field motivation could be at work here, too: Last month, the Rams began selling pricey personal seat licenses for their new Inglewood, Calif., stadium that’s slated to open in 2020. It’d be impossible to overestimate just how crucial this sales period is.
“I think people don’t quite understand that, to some extent, the pre-stadium PSL sales cycle is for all intents and purposes 20 years of sales wrapped into 18 months,” says one stadium financing expert who used to work for an NFL team. “You get these guys on PSLs, get their down payments, and they’re locked in for a decade-plus.”...
The Rams are making fans pay a mint for PSLs for the best seats in the house. Last month, per the Register, some 13,000 premium club seats located mostly in the lower bowl went on sale to current season-ticket holders with a maximum PSL price tag of $100,000 for the Rams, and $75,000 for the Chargers. (Only the Cowboys, with their $150,000 tab for the highest-end PSLs at Jerry World, charge more.)...
“Of course the Rams are going to make moves like the not-all-that-smart long-term Cooks trade because this is as much about selling seats between now and next June as anything,” the stadium expert tells me. “And once those seats are sold, well, buyer beware. There’s no guarantee the Rams are going to keep spending like this beyond 2019.”
https://deadspin.com/why-the-rams-ar...now-1825023715
And now when the new stadium opens in 2020 the Rams can tell prospective PSL buyers Gurley will not be gone as a free agent
Array title="stillers4me has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Long analysis by Bill Barnwell of ESPN on the Rams spending spree - he has his doubts on breaking the bank to pay running backs
Once you get the price tags involved, though, there are fair questions to raise about what the Rams are doing....
It's not a surprise that the Rams would want to re-sign their former first-round pick, but the timing of this deal is out of left field. Gurley still had two years and just under $12 million remaining on his rookie deal, so even if the Rams needed to franchise him in 2020, they could have had him for the next three years at less than $30 million....
If the Rams get the 2017 version of Gurley, they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. If they get a lesser -- or injured -- version of the same player, the value proposition on this extension will be far dicier. And history suggests that they're more likely to get the latter than the former over the course of this extension....
Are productive backs lasting longer? Consider it this way. Let's go back five years to 2013 and look at the top of the charts at each offensive category. If you look at the top 15 quarterbacks by passing yards, 12 of the 15 signal-callers are still in the NFL. Take the top 15 receivers by receiving yards and 10 of them are still in the league, a number that could rise to 12 if Dez Bryant or Eric Decker find work.
If you look at the 15 leading rushers in the NFL from 2013, only three are still in the league...
This isn't the whole story on backs, of course, but there isn't some obvious, overwhelming piece of evidence suggesting that running backs are suddenly much better bets to deliver significant impact and age well over the course of their second contract than they were a decade ago, or that top-tier backs are worth more. The NFL got to this point with backs because it found that rookies on modest contracts were about as effective as veterans making top-level salaries. Recent history seems to suggest that's still true.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...on-donald-next
Array title="DesertSteel has a reputation beyond repute">
If you look at the 15 leading rushers in the NFL from 2013, only three are still in the league...
Ouch!!
And their average age was 26.13
Meanwhile Aaron Donald has not reported to camp
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-training-camp
This may have been mentioned earlier, and if so I don't care but Shaun Alexander signed a massive contract extension in offseason 2006 (he was set to turn 29 later that year). He was one of the best for a number of years prior to that contract, and the prior season in which he won MVP, he received a LOT of touches
https://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...on-1197619.php
After that though, his stats took a nosedive, and he was never the same back. Also with that money tied up to Alexander, they were unable to re-sign All-pro guard Steve Hutchinson, and he went to Minnesota that same offseason
That’s not at all surprising and really has nothing to do with Gurley being signed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote