What Does the LeVeon Bell Release Mean For Jones?

Honestly, I think it means nothing WRT Jones. Bell is the classic case of a guy getting paid and then coasting. That isn't going to happen with Jones, whether it happens in Green Bay or somewhere else. Thanks to McCarthy, Jones has pretty low mileage on his legs compared to other stud RB's 4 years into their careers.

The price has already been set with Kamara and Cook. There's your price to negotiate from. It's just as easy to make a case for signing him as it is to make a case for moving on and trying to retain Williams for less and pairing him with Dillon and just continue to replenish the position ever couple of years in the draft.

Really tough decision I'm glad I don't have to make.

IMHO it remains to be seen if Dillon will be the player to replace Jones.  I for one love what Jones has done and would love to see the Packers keep him. But,its tough paying RBs since their careers are so short especially a guy like Jones who isn't that big.

I for one would think unless he is willing to go with a team friendly deal they may have to let him walk because they have players like #69 to take care of.

Tough decision....

KEEP HIM! Pay the man!

There, I made it for you.

Onward....

Bahk, King, Linsley. Who all are we losing to keep Jones?

It means the Jets will be in the market for a RB

@PackerHawk posted:

Bahk, King, Linsley. Who all are we losing to keep Jones?

This is the quintessential issue. Saying “Pay him!” ignores the overwhelming data that paying RBs is bad for business, and that paying him means someone else is not going to be able to be retained.

But you cannot pay everyone. Jones has been a joy to wAtch develop, but he can be replaced.

So if you’re Jones and there are teams out there willing to give 5/$75M like Kamara got, you certainly don’t begrudge him for getting paid. He’s a RB with a shelf life and that’s what the data says.

I know Bakhtiari has said “Most teams find a way” but dropping top $$$ and topping out payroll simply doesn’t work. The Packers have historically avoided this with the other big contracts I’m guessing Jones will be on the outside looking in...

An interesting article on this. A little dated, but very thorough analysis.

My two cents is that A. Jones would probably be worth the money for a year or two and then decline. Some team like the Jets or the Redskins will probably offer him big money (5/75) and he'll leave, he may look good for the first year or so, and then the contract will be an albatross.

http://www.footballperspective...back-aging-patterns/

@MichiganPacker2 posted:

Some team like the Jets or the Redskins will probably offer him big money (5/75) and he'll leave, he may look good for the first year or so, and then the contract will be an albatross.

That’s more or less what has happened every big contract given to every running back the last 10+ years...

I believe that most on this offense, minus a couple (69/17) are made 100% better because of one Aaron Fricken Rodgers.  That's worth some discounts in my book.  If he takes a discount, keep, otherwise, a good guy who I will root for - too bad it will be somewhere else. #1 keep is 69 - absolutely. then linsley, then king, then jones.  funny thing is that the only mention of contract talks if from jones himself, 69 has said on the radio no discount - I don't blame him, he's a baller and has been his whole time.

@Music City posted:

The precedent is set, and Bell is just the latest casualty in the devaluation of the RB position in the NFL.

David Johnson and Todd Gurley- both sign massive extensions in 2018, playing for different teams by 2020. Chris Johnson signs a monster extension in 2011, gets cut by 2014 and is playing for the Jets. On and on.

I love Jonesie. Great story, military family, great development... but in the immediate aftermath of Dak Prescott’s gruesome injury, and the well publicized contract situation which rumored that he turned down a 5 year, $175M deal, how does Jones play for any leverage? The Packers can play hardball, and I don’t know why Jones would refuse a reasonable offer.

One of the things that has made the Packers unique is that they frequently have allowed contracts to play out in favor of cutting them for cap space. It was a quiet thing that TT did that is a different approach, and the current regime seems to have mostly continued that. They’ve kept a number of players well past their ability to play at a higher level. Is that enough to persuade Jones to not worry so much about the guaranteed money? Does the drafting of AJ Dillon seal Jones’ future in Green Bay?

Means nothing at all.  I would look at the signings of Elliot, McCaffrey and Kamara.  Top tier running backs still get paid.

@MichiganPacker2 posted:

An interesting article on this. A little dated, but very thorough analysis.

My two cents is that A. Jones would probably be worth the money for a year or two and then decline. Some team like the Jets or the Redskins will probably offer him big money (5/75) and he'll leave, he may look good for the first year or so, and then the contract will be an albatross.

http://www.footballperspective...back-aging-patterns/

The aging RB is always a factor, but that isn't Jones.

I read this recently so I'll reference the current events with L. Bell. When he was with PIT he avg'd ~130 ypg from scrimmage. Since leaving PIT, I believe his high game was ~130 scrimmage yards.

To me, that is not just about Bell, but the scheme plays a big factor as well as the QB he was playing with.

I think we would see a similar impact on someone like Jones of he leaves GB and goes to a team like NYJ or WAS where they are in a rebuild mode without an experienced/elite QB who not only demands attention, but also sees what the defense is showing.

Great leaders (QBs) put their team in a position to succeed.

Dorsey Levens, 1998 5 years/25 million. 27 years old coming off a season with over 1800 yards from scrimmage. He gets hurt almost immediately and is never the same back.

https://apnews.com/article/88b...0a878b52084f26c65852

Ahman Green only got 5 years/18 million from the Packers. He got more money from the Texans at age 30 when the Texans idiotically signed him for 4 years/23 million. Green's 4-year peak (2001-2004 which was as good as many HOFers) ended in 2004 when he was 27 years old.

Green was bigger, stronger, and faster than Jones. He was the best back the Packers have had since the Lombardi era and he was done at 27.

I love watching Aaron Jones, but he'll turn 27 at end of next season.

The Moneyball-type analytics are very clear that it's not a good investment to invest huge money in a RB no matter how good they are. It's just physics. RBs get hit hard by 320 DL and 240 linebackers 20 times a game. They also end up at the bottom of piles of bodies that probably weigh 1,500 pounds near the LOS on gang tackles 10 times a game. And they often have to pick up blitzing LBs who have a running start at them 8-10 times a game. Eventually, that wears out their legs and makes them more prone to injury (or 4.3 speed becomes 4.6). Almost all RBs drop off a cliff at 27 or 28.

WRs are a much better investment because they usually age better. They are usually good into their early 30s. Even the good ones might get tackled 8-10 times a game mostly by 200 pound DBs. They also almost never end under a bunch of guys on a gang tackle, and now are at much less risk of getting hurt by headhunting safeties over the middle after the rules change.

A LT like Bahk can play into his late 30s. He doesn't rely on fast-twitch speed and the biggest risk is getting their leg rolled up on by a guy falling from a tackle or another block.

Now that you really can't hit a QB at all they can be effective into their 40s. You can't hit them low. You can't hit them in the head. You can't pile drive them. You can't land with your weight on them.

@MichiganPacker2 posted:

Almost all RBs drop off a cliff at 27 or 28.

Adrian Peterson & Frank Gore would disagree. I'll bet we can squeeze 2-3 more years out of Aaron Jones.

Obviously Bakhtiari is #1 re-signing. Jones has a lot less mileage on him (Thanks MM -- still paying dividends). It really all depends on how much Jones is looking for.

@Boris posted:

Adrian Peterson & Frank Gore would disagree. I'll bet we can squeeze 2-3 more years out of Aaron Jones.

Emmitt too.

Jones is good, but Althea drop off from Jones to Williams isn’t worth the price.  We’re not talking about Barry Sanders here.  He benefits from playing with Rodgers and an excellent line.  

Bottom line, it’s about ROI, return on investment, and we will get better returns by investing in Bahk, Jenkins, and Corey L.

@BrainDed posted:

Jones is good, but Althea drop off

Who's Althea?

What's it all about Althea?

Green finding a crease in perfect stride as Max proclaims "he's gone!" always made me misty eyed.

@H5 posted:

To me, that is not just about Bell, but the scheme plays a big factor as well as the QB he was playing with.

Agree. To go from a good Pittsburgh team with a top HC in Mike Tomlin, and a winning QB in Rothlisburger, to a re-building Adam Gase is stacking the odds against yourself. Bell went for the 

As for devaluation of the RB position. It's mostly about RB's having a short shelf life in the NFL. Careful who you give a second contract to cause they may well washout soon.

The great majority of NFL GM's place a high value on having a stud RB. Alvin Kamara, Zeke Elliott, Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Dalvin Cook, Nick Chubb, etc ..... make it much easier to move the chains.

As always, it's about prioritizing "who" gets paid. The shiny object or the stud LT ? Good news is the Packers have been really good at making that decision.

@bvan posted:

Emmitt too.

Emmit was obviously a great back and he looked good until he got to be 31 and then was an average RB for the last few years of his career.

However, any consideration of Emmitt has to be taken in context. When he was 29 years old he ran for 1300 yards. His line that year included Larry Allen, Erik Williams, and Nate Newton. Allen is already in the Hall of Fame and the other two will at least be in the conversation. Emmitt wasn't a slouch, but a lot of guys would have looked good running behind those guys.

@Boris posted:

Adrian Peterson & Frank Gore would disagree. I'll bet we can squeeze 2-3 more years out of Aaron Jones.

Obviously Bakhtiari is #1 re-signing. Jones has a lot less mileage on him (Thanks MM -- still paying dividends). It really all depends on how much Jones is looking for.

Adrian Peterson has had one great year after he turned 28. Of course, some of that is due to his philosophies on watching his kids. Other than that, he's been a solid back, but not a superstar like he was earlier in his career. He's also made less than 3 million dollars a year for the last 4 years. He's a good value at that salary.

Frank Gore has been an exception, but did you know he's never made more than 6 million a year and his total pay for 16 years is 63 million? He's been an outstanding value and he's probably extended his career because he's been willing to play for 3 million a year for a long time. He's a low risk signing.

Giving Aaron Jones 5 years and 75 million is questionable given what you can get for a lot less. If you can get him for 3 years and something like 36 million I think you do it, but I don't think that's likely.

It's all about contract structure and protecting the team from GB's point of view. Yes RBs have a short shelf life, so you don't want to be on the hook for paying a RB for down years if he hits a wall in year 3 of the contract. NYJ were dumb for 1) paying that much to a workhorse RB in year 6 who wasn't grown in their own organization so they don't really know him and 2) not figuring how to make it work instead of paying him what has amounted to $33M for 17 games. They paid him starting QB money for a 1 season rental basically. It should have been a clue that PIT was basically fine to rent him year-to-year vs. giving him a long term deal. I think they knew he wasn't a long term solution either from a physical side or a mental side. Classic Jets move by the way.

AJ is a different situation. We're catching him on the upswing after basically <2,000 snaps over 4 season and he's from this organization so we know if 1) he has undisclosed long term injuries and 2) whether he's a turd who was working for the payday or a longer term baller. GB has a little better idea what they're getting into than if we were signing someone away from another team. The hard part comes in contract structure. I would imagine GB wants the bulk of the guaranteed $$$ to be signing bonus so they can minimize any long term cap issues by spreading out the guaranteed amount over the whole contract. AJ, like any RB most likely, wants more guaranteed $$ over the life of the contract so he's not screwed in the end.

You know it's all about the money. If it were really about the winning, a guy like Jones or Bak would take a little less to stay. And the argument of "get it all while you can" could also become "how much do you need?" Yes, these guys get the snot beat out of them and risk their brains, but they play knowing that they put themselves at risk. I just find it interesting that a guy will sign for $1.5 million more with a team that sucks when he could sign with a team that wins consistently instead. I mean, at that point, what's the difference? What do you really want?

I would sign Bak before Jones; top LTs are harder to find and harder to develop and more important to keeping your QB healthy than are RBs. I think this year the way they have integrated Williams into the passing game shows they are testing him out for that role because he would be cheaper to sign.

This is where having to overpay for the D free agents and Billy Turner will hurt.  Bakh is the priority and as a result is likely the only one that can be afforded.  They'll have to create cap space to do it, perhaps by releasing J. Jackson, Kirksey and Wagner next year.  I love A. Jones - he deserves a payday but the Packers can't provide it.

Turner and Kirksey are definitely gone. Wagner not sure of that... Turner is pathetically underperforming right now, perhaps due to injury.

@YATittle posted:

Turner and Kirksey are definitely gone. Wagner not sure of that... Turner is pathetically underperforming right now, perhaps due to injury.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/gr...ay-packers/cap/2021/

Kirksey has an 8 million dollar cap hit if he's on the roster that drops to 2 million if they move on. Wagner costs 6 million if he's on the roster and 1.75 million to move on. I think both of those guys are probably gone and that saves about 10 million right there.

Turner is actually the tougher call. He costs a lot on the cap next year whether he is on (8.5 million) or off (4.5 million) the roster.

There are only 4 other guys that save you a lot of cap space if you cut them next year and none of those guys are going anywhere (Z. Smith, P. Smith, Amos, and D. Adams).

Small sample size, but Wagner has been better than Turner in my opinion.  

@Boris posted:

Who's Althea?

DIdn't know he was a Dead Head.

https://youtu.be/AJvBK5GUt8w