I don't think there is much evidence that teams aren't staying with players throughout their rookie contracts as long as they have been effective. I think Fournette was a special circumstance.
Fournette isn't a star player, but almost 1700 all purpose yards last year does not indicate a bust. It all depends on his attitude.
I disagree - not every RB is capable of 1,100+ rushing yards and 500+ receiving yards. And while it may be true there are some others that might put up similar stats with the same volume, if they did they wouldn't be busts either. They would be considered to have done a strong job at their position. And before you say the difference is that some of those may not have been drafted as high, Fournette's draft position could mean he isn't as strong as the Jags had hoped for, but that is not the same as a bust. The standard isn't either superstar or bust. There are levels in between.
I guess we just disagree on the term "bust". To me a bust is a player who comes nowhere near the potential he was thought to have - a complete failure. Not one who does well but falls a little short. If that's the standard almost every player is either a bust or a draft steal because almost no player is going to be exactly the player the team hoped for when they were drafted. I just don't see everything in extreme terms like that.
around that 5 year mark? He has on played 3 years
They didn't cut him because of his production, but I guess it doesn't really matter even if it was an attitude problem that caused them to cut him, so this is a fair enough point. The one caveat to that would be that it isn't too late for him to get his act together, and if he does that he can make sure he isn't an NFL bust even if he was one for Jacksonville.
