Twitter: Rams Release RB Todd Gurley

[quickccc]

103.3 ESPN Dallas is commenting on this subject now, and are indicating that maybe the Cowboys could be having some second thoughts on the Zeke extension. Archer randomly called in and debunked it, saying that the situations are different because the Rams knew he had a physical ailment before giving the extension. Archer seems to think that the Zeke contract isn't dangerous at all.

Alarming stat as it pertains to the RB position though - of the 22 RB's taken in the 2015 draft, now none of them are with the team that drafted them.

and i'm sure you are tuning into JJT Jam Sessions's Whispers from the Star , on what JJT hears from a Cowboys insider source in intangibles why they continue to like Zeke and what specialties they adore about him. ...

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

The Best Backs haven't been drafted yet. That's the role of the back. The backs who enter the league are the best backs. The best backs are not the ones who have already played 4 years in the league because they are closer to the end rather then the beginning.

Barkley, McCaffery and Cook will be paid.

 

[beware_d-ware]

I'm not sure if Cook is a guy I would pay. Dude is just not that durable and Minnesota wants to keep riding him in a high-volume role, that just screams future regret.

CMC is basically an elite rusher and a 1,000 yard WR and deserves to break the market, Saquon is RB Tyreek Hill (in a good way, like polar opposite as a person) and deserves to break the market.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Barkley, McCaffery and Cook will be paid.

Oh, I've no doubt but that doesn't necessarily make them the best Backs in the eyes of teams. I mean, we see it all the time right? A Back comes in and gives you 4 or 5 good years of production, they come off their rookie contract and they get signed by another team but most don't get bigtime long extensions or new contracts because teams know and understand that the NFL for Running Backs really does stand for, Not For Long. I mean, I get it. The question is, how much and who actually pays them. We did a good deal with Zeke, IMO, on his last contract. But I'm still of the opinion that we never should have redone his deal early and and I probably would not have paid him what we did. He's a great player but I play the odds in terms of RBs. Odds are, most of these guys are going to end up being Gurleys and not Emmitts.

JMO

 

[conner01]

3 years from now. LOL.

You could have said the exact same thing about Gurley. But he didn't make it those 3 years did he?

Rams cut Gurley. Cardinals trade Johnson. Cowboys sign Zeke to a huge contract. Steelers let Bell walk.

One of these teams gets it. The others don't.

Gurley production was a big part of him getting cut
And they tried to buy a super bowl and that bill is coming due so they are in cap issues

 

[USArmyVet]

Interesting what is happening to high paid running backs:


Ezekiel Elliot (DAL) - $15 million ACTIVE
Todd Gurley (LAR) - $14.375 million RELEASED (signed 1-year/$5M deal with Atlanta)
Le'Veon Bell (NYJ) - $13.125 million ACTIVE (signed w/Jets after fiasco in PITT. but stats have dropped dramatically and was rumored to be on trade block)
David Johnson (ARI) - $13 million TRADED (to Houston)
Devonta Freeman (ATL) - $8.25 million RELEASED
Saquon Barkley (NYG) - $7.798 million ACTIVE
Jerick McKinnon (SF) - $7.5 million RESTRUCTURED (to an essence a 1-year deal)
Leonard Fournette (JAC) - $6.787 million ACTIVE (entering last year of deal; Jags yet to extend)
Lamar Miller (HOU) - $6.5 million REHABBING (after torn ACL and MCL at start of 2019)
Duke Johnson (HOU) - $5.203 million TRADED (at start of 2019 to Houston)

*Melvin Gordon just signed 2-year/$16M deal with Denver*


50% of the Top 10 paid running backs based on salary were either traded, released, or restructured. The fact Dallas gave Zeke an extension based on beating Gurley's contract should worry people in that Dak is looking to be paid more than Jared Goff (both Goff and Gurley were given BS deals).

Moral: NFL runnings backs are not being paid the high contracts any longer except Jerry Jones giving Zeke a ******* contract extension.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Oh, I've no doubt but that doesn't necessarily make them the best Backs in the eyes of teams. I mean, we see it all the time right? A Back comes in and gives you 4 or 5 good years of production, they come off their rookie contract and they get signed by another team but most don't get bigtime long extensions or new contracts because teams know and understand that the NFL for Running Backs really does stand for, Not For Long. I mean, I get it. The question is, how much and who actually pays them. We did a good deal with Zeke, IMO, on his last contract. But I'm still of the opinion that we never should have redone his deal early and and I probably would not have paid him what we did. He's a great player but I play the odds in terms of RBs. Odds are, most of these guys are going to end up being Gurleys and not Emmitts.

JMO

That's not the case though. Gurley was cooked from start due to those injuries. Most didn't think he'd make it this long. Mind you had he not gotten hurt he probably wouldn't even be a Ram. He would've went much higher in the draft.

I think the decline of running backs are somewhat skewed. AP is still out here almost in his mid 30's and he's more durable than Guice is at this point. Not saying AP is the standard. I see Zeke living up to his contract. AFter that who knows. I'm not concerned with him. I just would've used that money else where.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Interesting what is happening to high paid running backs:


Ezekiel Elliot (DAL) - $15 million ACTIVE
Todd Gurley (LAR) - $14.375 million RELEASED (signed 1-year/$5M deal with Atlanta)
Le'Veon Bell (NYJ) - $13.125 million ACTIVE (signed w/Jets after fiasco in PITT. but stats have dropped dramatically and was rumored to be on trade block)
David Johnson (ARI) - $13 million TRADED (to Houston)
Devonta Freeman (ATL) - $8.25 million RELEASED
Saquon Barkley (NYG) - $7.798 million ACTIVE
Jerick McKinnon (SF) - $7.5 million RESTRUCTURED (to an essence a 1-year deal)
Leonard Fournette (JAC) - $6.787 million ACTIVE (entering last year of deal; Jags yet to extend)
Lamar Miller (HOU) - $6.5 million REHABBING (after torn ACL and MCL at start of 2019)
Duke Johnson (HOU) - $5.203 million TRADED (at start of 2019 to Houston)


50% of the Top 10 paid running backs based on salary were either traded, released, or restructured. The fact Dallas gave Zeke an extension based on beating Gurley's contract should worry people in that Dak is looking to be paid more than Jared Goff (both Goff and Gurley were given BS deals).

Except there are only 3 backs on that list that were suppose to be highly paid. That's Zeke, Leveon and Gurley. Gurley had a injuryhistory. Bell and Zeke didn't. Bell also was playing receiver and running back for the Steelers and getting ran into the ground.

4 of those deals are big money. The rest of those are just decent deals. Fournette and Barkely are on rookie deals.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That's not the case though. Gurley was cooked from start due to those injuries. Most didn't think he'd make it this long. Mind you had he not gotten hurt he probably wouldn't even be a Ram. He would've went much higher in the draft.

I think the decline of running backs are somewhat skewed. AP is still out here almost in his mid 30's and he's more durable than Guice is at this point. Not saying AP is the standard. I see Zeke living up to his contract. AFter that who knows. I'm not concerned with him. I just would've used that money else where.

It is the case. You don't know that Gurley or any of the rest of these guys don't have similar issues. The team knows but we don't. We comment on all of these things without a full knowledge of the situation. Zeke's contract is basically a 4 year deal so I would hope that he lives up to it. If he doesn't, then it just further illustrates the issue. Regardless, the fact that backs are at their best in their first 5 years is not in dispute. I mean, I assume you agree with this yes? It's pretty well established at this point. That's the key. Even if a back is exceptional, by the time the rookie contract is up, his most productive years are usually behind him. You hear it all the time, you don't pay players on what they've done, you pay them on what they project into the future. Well, RBs don't fit that mold and it's unfortunate, not fair, but that's the way it works. I didn't make those rules but, never the less, those are the rules in the NFL.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

It is the case. You don't know that Gurley or any of the rest of these guys don't have similar issues. The team knows but we don't. We comment on all of these things without a full knowledge of the situation. Zeke's contract is basically a 4 year deal so I would hope that he lives up to it. If he doesn't, then it just further illustrates the issue. Regardless, the fact that backs are at their best in their first 5 years is not in dispute. I mean, I assume you agree with this yes? It's pretty well established at this point. That's the key. Even if a back is exceptional, by the time the rookie contract is up, his most productive years are usually behind him. You hear it all the time, you don't pay players on what they've done, you pay them on what they project into the future. Well, RBs don't fit that mold and it's unfortunate, not fair, but that's the way it works. I didn't make those rules but, never the less, those are the rules in the NFL.

The thing is guys like Gurley and Johnson of the Cardinals or Texans now....are the ones making this a "issue".

If the argument is that you shouldn't invest in these guys because they will decline in production by year 5 or 6 than that's fair. I'm not arguing agains that. But in order to prove this to me don't bring up guys who have torn their ACLs or some one year wonder guys to prove your point is all i'm saying. Especially in regards to proving that the Zeke deal was dumb. Show me a guy that compares to Zeke that fell off. Because LT doesn't fit that mold. Frank Gore doesn't. AP hasn't yet.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The thing is guys like Gurley and Johnson of the Cardinals or Texans now....are the ones making this a "issue".

If the argument is that you shouldn't invest in these guys because they will decline in production by year 5 or 6 than that's fair. I'm not arguing agains that. But in order to prove this to me don't bring up guys who have torn their ACLs or some one year wonder guys to prove your point is all i'm saying. Especially in regards to proving that the Zeke deal was dumb. Show me a guy that compares to Zeke that fell off. Because LT doesn't fit that mold. Frank Gore doesn't. AP hasn't yet.

No. I don't agree. The issue is the fact that the position has changed and the league no longer values a back who can run between the tackles or who can do all the little things associated with a running game that are actually important, in terms of a physical running style. Today, the League is looking for splash players and guys who can be featured in the passing game. This is why RBs are no longer valued in the league, because today it's all about speed and quickness. Once that goes, the back is no longer as valuable. I mean, in the old days, a great back didn't need to have those things, necessarily, to be a good back. Today, if you don't have that, then you can be replaced by a younger guy who does and he will be cheaper.

See, here is the thing. I don't need to prove anything to you Rocy because you are in the minority here. The League is showing you what they believe and you can either accept that or not. Either way, it won't matter because the NFL is going to continue to treat the position as they do today. It's really only a few team who don't buy into this strategy. Sadly, we are one of those teams but I guess we'll have to hope for the best.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No. I don't agree. The issue is the fact that the position has changed and the league no longer values a back who can run between the tackles or who can do all the little things associated with a running game that are actually important, in terms of a physical running style. Today, the League is looking for splash players and guys who can be featured in the passing game. This is why RBs are no longer valued in the league, because today it's all about speed and quickness. Once that goes, the back is no longer as valuable. I mean, in the old days, a great back didn't need to have those things, necessarily, to be a good back. Today, if you don't have that, then you can be replaced by a younger guy who does and he will be cheaper.

See, here is the thing. I don't need to prove anything to you Rocy because you are in the minority here. The League is showing you what they believe and you can either accept that or not. Either way, it won't matter because the NFL is going to continue to treat the position as they do today. It's really only a few team who don't buy into this strategy. Sadly, we are one of those teams but I guess we'll have to hope for the best.

The league isn't showing anything. You guys keep trying to look and see what past champions have done to win in order to show what it takes to win in this league. No one team is the same. What they have all consistently had was good offensive play, good running back play, good defense, good head coaches and good quarterback play. That's your blueprint. Go get it. If you have to overpay for it then do it. I don't care. I dont' know what you are talking about splash players. The league may be "looking for" splash players but that surely isn't needed to contend consistently.

Answer this for me. If the Chiefs had Saquon Barkley they would've lost the Super Bowl? If they had Zeke they would've lost the Super Bowl? What if they had Leveon Bell?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The league isn't showing anything. You guys keep trying to look and see what past champions have done to win in order to show what it takes to win in this league. No one team is the same. What they have all consistently had was good offensive play, good running back play, good defense, good head coaches and good quarterback play. That's your blueprint. Go get it. If you have to overpay for it then do it. I don't care. I dont' know what you are talking about splash players. The league may be "looking for" splash players but that surely isn't needed to contend consistently.

Answer this for me. If the Chiefs had Saquon Barkley they would've lost the Super Bowl? If they had Zeke they would've lost the Super Bowl? What if they had Leveon Bell?

Who is "you guys"? Yeah, I roll solo so I don't know, maybe you got a mouse in your pocket? We'll see what the league has to say about RBs soon enough.

If the Chiefs had Barkley, would they have lost the Super Bowl? Humm......... let me see now, if the Chiefs had Barkley, that would mean that they would have had to trade up to the 2nd pick in the draft, from #27 overall. That would also mean that they wouldn't of had Frank Clark so no. I don't think they would have won the Super Bowl because I don't believe they would have made it to the Super Bowl at all. See, this is all good on a message board but it doesn't really translate to the real world. The reality is that numbers matter and what you suggest doesn't work out.

So the answer is no because it would have been impossible for KC to ever get Barkley in the first place.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Who is "you guys"? Yeah, I roll solo so I don't know, maybe you got a mouse in your pocket? We'll see what the league has to say about RBs soon enough.

If the Chiefs had Barkley, would they have lost the Super Bowl? Humm......... let me see now, if the Chiefs had Barkley, that would mean that they would have had to trade up for the 2nd pick in the draft, from #27 overall. That would also mean that they wouldn't of had Frank Clark so no. I don't think they would have won the Super Bowl because I don't believe they would have made it to the Super Bowl at all. See, this is all good on a message board but it doesn't really translate to the real world. The reality is that numbers matter and what you suggest doesn't work out.

So the answer is no because it would have been impossible for KC to ever get Barkley in the first place.

You roll solo but you keep telling me what the "league" is saying lol.

And I asked a simple hypothetical and you went too deep into it. If they had Saquon Barkley would they have lost the Super Bowl? Its a simple yes or no question. Trust you don't have to dig that deep into it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You roll solo but you keep telling me what the "league" is saying lol.

And I asked a simple hypothetical and you went too deep into it. If they had Saquon Barkley would they have lost the Super Bowl? Its a simple yes or no question. Trust you don't have to dig that deep into it.

So you can't distinguish between me and the league? I find that very, very difficult to believe. See, you said "You Guys" and you conveniently didn't answer the question of, who is "You Guys"? Instead, you tried to misdirect and well, you know me. That's not going to work so who is "you guys"?

Your hypothetical doesn't work. It's not fantasy football so no, I just kinda pointed out the obvious. I mean, I know you would like me to just pretend that KC could have somehow gotten Barkley but the truth of it is that they didn't and it could not have happened. So yes, if they could have had Barkley and kept the rest of the team intact, which would have been impossible as we all know, then yes. However, if you really want to have an honest discussion over the topic, ask yourself if KC would have drafted both Barkley and Mahomes (which would obviously have been impossible) and Barkley were coming up on a contract, would KC sign him to a big deal knowing that they would also have to sign Mahomes in a year? I mean, since we are engaging in fantasy, we should at least compare it in a way that actually addresses the issue adequately.

Clearly, KC would not be able to sign everybody so would they sign both to huge record deals and let everybody else walk or would they not?

 

[jay94]

If elite RBs were that easy to find, everyone would have a Zeke.

If elite rbs were needed to win super bowls every team would have one. Chiefs hold my beer.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

So you can't distinguish between me and the league? I find that very, very difficult to believe. See, you said "You Guys" and you conveniently didn't answer the question of, who is "You Guys"? Instead, you tried to misdirect and well, you know me. That's not going to work so who is "you guys"?

Your hypothetical doesn't work. It's not fantasy football so no, I just kinda pointed out the obvious. I mean, I know you would like me to just pretend that KC could have somehow gotten Barkley but the truth of it is that they didn't and it could not have happened. So yes, if they could have had Barkley and kept the rest of the team intact, which would have been impossible as we all know, then yes. However, if you really want to have an honest discussion over the topic, ask yourself if KC would have drafted both Barkley and Mahomes (which would obviously have been impossible) and Barkley were coming up on a contract, would KC sign him to a big deal knowing that they would also have to sign Mahomes in a year? I mean, since we are engaging in fantasy, we should at least compare it in a way that actually addresses the issue adequately.

Clearly, KC would not be able to sign everybody so would they sign both to huge record deals and let everybody else walk or would they not?

"You guys" are you and the "league" you keep referencing.

hy·po·thet·i·cal
/ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/
supposed but not necessarily real or true.

You are overanalyzing a hypotetical question. You can't tell me if a hypothetical can work or not. Its a simple question. You don't want to answer it because it doesn't agree with your point. This site is full of them. Its a message board. But when I ask you a simple question you want to overanalyze it.

The point isn't that you can't win with elite running backs. Teams have won without them. Teams have won without elite quarterbacks. Teams have won without elite linebackers. Doesn't mean you can't win with them.

 

[nightrain]

Zeke produced 1357 yards and 12 touchdowns, you’re calling that not producing much? We tried an RB by committee and it didn’t work which is why we drafted him. You need a runner that defenses have to account and game plan for. You can’t blame Zeke that we only have one playoff win. We’ve had coaching and defensive issues. The Cowboys have never won a championship without having an elite runner. They had Duane Thomas during the 1971 season. They had Tony Dorsett when they won their championship in 1977 and Emmitt during our championships in the 90s.

You want stats I want a perennial playoff contender. No one is arguing that Zeke is not a gifted back. The problem is the salary cap kills teams who spend foolishly on skill players. Didn't you notice the Cowboys have pretty much $%#@ the bed in the salary cap era? Have not even sniffed a 2nd round playoff win in a quarter century. Why is that? Didn't they have MBIII, Murray and now Zeke? Perhaps they had highly paid running backs and no D, or no OL, or no Special teams, or a combo of the three.

Keep your high priced RBs. It's the dumbest investment in football.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

"You guys" are you and the "league" you keep referencing.

hy·po·thet·i·cal
/ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/
supposed but not necessarily real or true.

You are overanalyzing a hypotetical question. You can't tell me if a hypothetical can work or not. Its a simple question. You don't want to answer it because it doesn't agree with your point. This site is full of them. Its a message board. But when I ask you a simple question you want to overanalyze it.

The point isn't that you can't win with elite running backs. Teams have won without them. Teams have won without elite quarterbacks. Teams have won without elite linebackers. Doesn't mean you can't win with them.

OK, I guess I just don't do hypotheticals. I actually did answer your question already.

Now you do the same for me. Do you acknowledge that the hypothetical you suggested was literally impossible?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

OK, I guess I just don't do hypotheticals. I actually did answer your question already.

Now you do the same for me. Do you acknowledge that the hypothetical you suggested was literally impossible?

No I don't think so. Chiefs could've traded.....let's say Frank Clark for Saquon Barkley. Is that a better hypothetical?