Perry Will Surprise

[HoosierCat]

Oh, I see. So NOW it's safe to say that Rudi is part of the Bengals long-term plans, but not earlier when the Bengals were simply saying it that very thing or later when they were taking the required actions to ensure it.

Without some proof of Perry's capabilities in the NFL they obviously felt that letting Rudi go was too risky. Though it's notable that their pursuit of Rudi this offseason was, shall we say, less than aggressive. They appeared perfectly happy to see him play for the one-year franchise tender, and inked him only when he dropped his demands down to their level.

[HairOnFire]

Though it's notable that their pursuit of Rudi this offseason was, shall we say, less than aggressive. They appeared perfectly happy to see him play for the one-year franchise tender, and inked him only when he dropped his demands down to their level.

I thought things played out perfectly....if not perfectly predictable. The Bengals habit of letting the franchise tag negotiations play out until the last possible moment is surpassed in predictability only by the destruct countdown found on every StarTrek show I've ever seen.

"Final destruct will occur in 10 seconds, nine seconds, eight seconds, seven seconds, six seconds, five seconds, four seconds, three seconds, two seconds, one second...cut the wire/sign the contract....everyone retire the the lounge for satisfying cup of Earl Grey tea. Hot."

So much drama. So much noise. So little suspense.

[HairOnFire]

Without some proof of Perry's capabilities in the NFL they obviously felt that letting Rudi go was too risky. Though it's notable that their pursuit of Rudi this offseason was, shall we say, less than aggressive. They appeared perfectly happy to see him play for the one-year franchise tender, and inked him only when he dropped his demands down to their level.

Consider the Bengals past history dealing with franchise tagged players and then decide if the Bengals willingness to let Rudi play under a one-year deal meant they weren't willing to sign him to a long-term deal.

Biggish Daddy - The Bengals not only franchised him but announced that they'd do so again the following season if he wouldn't sign a long term deal. Time and time again they announce they're not going to let their players simply walk away after attempting to talk their way off the team. Nor will they give their player away for next-to-nothing in trade return. However, they agreed to let Biggish Daddy shop for a trade partner and after some back-and-forth they greedily accept the Redskins offer of a 1st and a 3rd for the overrated manchild. Nice. That said, who doubts the Bengals sincerity when they claimed they would have tagged the player again if he didn't sign a long-term deal? (Not me.)

Carl Prickens - Again, the Bengals threatened to repeatedly tag Pickens if he didn't agree to a long-term contract. Again, they let him shop himself in the hope of producing a trade. When no other team stepped up Pickens signed a one-year deal and then too quickly....a long-term contract. This eventually proves to be a horrible mistake, but that ignores the issue at hand. That being, the Bengals willingness to let a player play under a one-year deal meaning absolutely nothing in regards to their long-term desires.

Corey "Kid Cancer" Dillon - Once again the Bengals threaten to tag Dillon year after year after year if he doesn't sign a long-term contract. They let him shop his services and find few interested parties. They laugh when he threatens to sit out. They shrug when he signs a one-year tender. They repeat their threat to tag Dillon the following season. Predictably Dillon signs a long-term deal.

Rudi Johnson - Yet again the Bengals make known their willingness to tag the player again the following season if no long-term deal is reached. No concern is expressed over the treat of the player signing a one-year deal...because it's not much of a threat. However, in this example no attempt to trade the player is seriously considered, and no comparable free agents are courted. In fact, the Bengals ignore every chance to change starting running backs. Hmmmm. Threats to holdout are greeted with a now familiar shrug. The end result is predictable....a long-term deal bringing much joy and a small amount of sniping to Bengala.

Looking over their franchise tagging history it's not hard to come to the correct conclusion that the Bengals willingness to let Rudi play under a one-year contract meant absolutely NOTHING in regards to their long-term plans. Nor did the time it took to get a long-term deal done. It's how business is done.

Bottom Lines: Rudi Johnson wasn't signed to a long-term contract because Chris Perry couldn't play. Instead, Chris Perry was drafted to play on the rare occasions when Rudi can't.

[HoosierCat]

So much drama. So much noise. So little suspense.

Well, waddya expect, it's the offseason.

I thought things played out perfectly....if not perfectly predictable. The Bengals habit of letting the franchise tag negotiations play out until the last possible moment is surpassed in predictability only by the destruct countdown found on every StarTrek show I've ever seen.

Which is the subject of a great joke in Galaxy Quest, the best "Star Trek" movie ever made...

As for Rudi...I think he made a shrewd move. The bottom line is that the RB market was saturated this year, and that's unlikely to change much by next year. So even if he stuck to his play-for-the-franchise-tender guns, not only was there no guarantee he'd be any more free next year than this, but even if he was, it looks like the Clinton Portis-level paydays are gone, at least for a while. So why not settle down on a deck chair, order something frosty from Issac your bartender, and see if Cap'n Marvin can get the boat into port?

[HoosierCat]

Consider the Bengals past history dealing with franchise tagged players and then decide if the Bengals willingness to let Rudi play under a one-year deal meant they weren't willing to sign him to a long-term deal.

Willing? Yes, they were willing to sign him to a long-term deal...just as long as it was on their terms. I'm sure they would have been content to let him play under the one-year franchise deal...during which time Perry would doubtless be given every opportunity to unseat him.

Would they have tagged him again in 2006? IMHO, only if Perry flopped badly or had continuing injury issues. If he looked good, I've no doubt the Bengals would have let Rudi walk and installed Perry as the No. 1 RB in 2006.

Yes, the Bengals have shown little willingness to allow top players to leave without compensation, but as was the case with Takeo, Marvin has shown he isn't afraid to do so, either.

[HairOnFire]

As for Rudi...I think he made a shrewd move. The bottom line is that the RB market was saturated this year, and that's unlikely to change much by next year. So even if he stuck to his play-for-the-franchise-tender guns, not only was there no guarantee he'd be any more free next year than this, but even if he was, it looks like the Clinton Portis-level paydays are gone, at least for a while.

I think Rudi made several shrewd moves. His first was deciding to wait the Bengals out knowing that the worst case scenario quaranteed him a huge payday under the one-year tender. And waiting paid off big in yet another way because forced the Bengals to improve their offer...making his decision to lower his demands acceptable. Everyone is happy when you meat in the middle, ehhh?

Repeating what I said months ago, Rudi played it perfectly, the Bengals played it very well, and things took as long as they were always going to take. And last but certainly not least, Chris Perry was an afterthought. Or if you prefer, a shiny diversion.

Last, I think the recent draft should put to rest any talk about the NFL showing less regard for the feature RB position. Lower salaries are simply a matter of the supply being greater than the current demand, not an indication that teams value other positions more.

[HairOnFire]

Yes, the Bengals have shown little willingness to allow top players to leave without compensation, but as was the case with Takeo, Marvin has shown he isn't afraid to do so, either.

But Takeo wasn't franchise tagged like the other examples I commented on. It's why I left him off the list. So if you want to point to half-hearted interest in retaining a player you've got to look at the Bengals actions in regards to Spikes and wonder if they weren't prepared to let him move on from the very start. In contrast, the Bengals used everything at their disposal to retain Rudi. Based upon their actions their level of interest was as serious as it gets.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Yes, the Bengals have shown little willingness to allow top players to leave without compensation, but as was the case with Takeo, Marvin has shown he isn't afraid to do so, either.

If it's in the teams best interest, he'll pull that trigger every time!

[HoosierCat]

But Takeo wasn't franchise tagged like the other examples I commented on.

Well, neither was Dillon; the didn't have a franchise tag that year, thanks to Carl. Yet somehow the transtion tag -- also used on Spikes -- proved just as inescapable. The bottom line is that the Bengals were hardly prepared to let Takeo just walk; only after they'd lined up multiple FAs (including Hardy, which would allow them to slide Simmons over into Spikes' slot) did they pull off the designation. What makes you think that if Perry had shown some ability, they wouldn't have done the exact same thing with Rudi?

Last, I think the recent draft should put to rest any talk about the NFL showing less regard for the feature RB position.

You think so? Odd. Weren't you the one arguing earlier in this thread that a team would have to be a gone gump to rely on a totally unproven rookie vs. a franchise-record-holding back? Yet all those teams that drafted RBs way up at the top of round one did just that. Any of them could have used their second-round pick to select James or Alexander. Heck, if post-draft reports are to be believed they could have had Travis Henry for a warm Diet Coke and a stale bag of Cheetoes.

If the feature RB slot remains so crucial today...why do so many teams appear to think nothing of passing over an opportunity to get an elite back in favor of a rookie who's never played an NFL down? And if they can do it, why all your fuss over Rudi? Wouldn't we just have been doing the same thing as everyone else had we chosen to let him go and start Perry?

[HairOnFire]

Last, I think the recent draft should put to rest any talk about the NFL showing less regard for the feature RB position.

You think so? Odd. Weren't you the one arguing earlier in this thread that a team would have to be a gone gump to rely on a totally unproven rookie vs. a franchise-record-holding back? Yet all those teams that drafted RBs way up at the top of round one did just that.

My comments about the Bengals were just that. Other teams have different needs and other options available that may be attractive. But when it comes to teams trading for players like Edge or Alexander the facts are still the same. The interest in franchise quality running backs hasn't changed, but right now the supply is far greater than the demand. Thus, options o' plenty.

Wanna know why teams drafted their own backs instead of trading for Edge or Alexander? Well, start with the maxed out contracts and the need to burn a 2nd round pick and see which teams are still interested. Nobody, right? Add the less expensive Henry to the mix and you're still talking about trading valuable assets for players who have a single year remaining on their contracts. So whose interested? Once again, nobody is. And in the case of three teams drafting in the top 10 they're not interested because they feel they can get younger franchise quality starters for less money and lock them up to 6 or 7 years.

Back to the Bengals, without looking it up I'd guess that short-term or long-term they'd have less money tied up in Johnson and Perry as Edge would cost. That's not a smart play if you're advocating using less cap dollars at the RB position, right?

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Boobiemeister rules, full size signature pictures are also welcome.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Boobiemeister rules, full size signature pictures are also welcome.

Thanks for the props, but I'll just keep them as avatars only. A while back a few members made posts stating they were afraid of being accused of viewing "inappropriate" websites while at work due to some larger images contained in some signatures. (Understandable, even though none were IMO obscene, nor contained nudity.) Those people removed the pictures voluntarily, and have refrained from them since. A tip of the hat to BN1281 and not-another, among others for their graciousness there.

At the time I was said I was going to start a thread elsewhere for such interests, but I dropped the ball.

Now that you've reminded me, I have picked up my fumble, and thrown a beautiful spiral for a completion HERE!

[HoosierCat]

The interest in franchise quality running backs hasn't changed, but right now the supply is far greater than the demand.

Well, whether any of this year's trio of Brown, Benson and Williams is a franchise-caliber back remains to be seen...

Wanna know why teams drafted their own backs instead of trading for Edge or Alexander? Well, start with the maxed out contracts and the need to burn a 2nd round pick and see which teams are still interested. Nobody, right? Add the less expensive Henry to the mix and you're still talking about trading valuable assets for players who have a single year remaining on their contracts. So whose interested? Once again, nobody is. And in the case of three teams drafting in the top 10 they're not interested because they feel they can get younger franchise quality starters for less money and lock them up to 6 or 7 years.

...and whether they pan out or not, the money isn't likely to be much different than what Edge or Alexander would cost. The last RB taken in the top 5 was Tomlinson in 2001, who got a $38 million deal loaded with (as you'll recall) "cake" incentives. Figure this year's No. 5, Williams, gets at least a $40 million deal, and Brown and Benson, ahead of him at 2 and 4, commensurately more. meanwhile, the gold standard for vet "franchise" RBs is Portis' $50.5 million deal from last year. Given the small cost differential, I can't see that as a big factor in going with an unproven rook vs. a proven vet.

(However, if you look at it from the angle of their being less need for an elite RB, then it makes sense to go with the draft pick. They aren't much cheaper...but they are cheaper, and why spend top dollar when you don't need a stud?)

The second round pick represents no loss. Whether you use the pick to select a college player or trade it for a veteran player, it's still 1 pick, 1 player. Somehow, I doubt Bears fans would be kvetching if their first two picks got them Troy Williamson or Milke Willams and Shaun Alexander, vs. Benson and the wideout the took in round 2.

And as far as age is concerned, James is 26 and Alexander 27. They ought to have plenty of rubber left on the tires.

[jamesbrooks21]

or will he trip over his dick trying to prove he's the man?

i have that problem all the time but because of its length

[HairOnFire]

Well, whether any of this year's trio of Brown, Benson and Williams is a franchise-caliber back remains to be seen...

But what doesn't remain to be seen is whether the powers that be in the NFL still value RB's they perceive to be of franchise quaility as highly as they always did. Three out of the top five players selected were running backs. Thus, three out of the five highest salaries paid to new draft picks will be paid to running backs.

[HairOnFire]

However, if you look at it from the angle of their being less need for an elite RB, then it makes sense to go with the draft pick. They aren't much cheaper...but they are cheaper, and why spend top dollar when you don't need a stud?

Let me get this straight, you're asking me to assume that the whole issue of 3 out of the first 5 players being drafted are RB's is to be taken as yet another sign of how little value NFL teams place on the position? Instead, 3 out of the top 5 draft picks were running backs because NFL teams were trying to save a little money....at a position that isn't very important anymore.

That about it?

[HoosierCat]

However, if you look at it from the angle of their being less need for an elite RB, then it makes sense to go with the draft pick. They aren't much cheaper...but they are cheaper, and why spend top dollar when you don't need a stud?

Let me get this straight, you're asking me to assume that the whole issue of 3 out of the first 5 players being drafted are RB's is to be taken as yet another sign of how little value NFL teams place on the position?

No, I'm simply looking at why they might choose to take an unproven rookie over a proven, elite veteran when the price differential is so small.

[HairOnFire]

No, I'm simply looking at why they might choose to take an unproven rookie over a proven, elite veteran when the price differential is so small.

Who says the difference is totally related to money? I think the biggest reason teams are reluctant to take on Edge and Alexanders contracts is due to the cost, but that's probably not the whole story. Take Edge for example. The only way another team would be interested in trading for him is if they believed they could sign him long-term, right? We both know James would demand a huge signing bonus to sign long-term but his commitment to play several more seasons has to be called into question due to the statements he's made over the years. He once talked about retiring after three years and has said how unlikely it was that he'd ever play as long as 5 seasons, a milestone he passed several years ago. So how much longer does he want to play? And how quick will he hang 'em up if he gets injured again? Aren't the odds better that a rookie will play all of the years of a very expensive long-term contract?

Now factor in the idea that teams like the Bears and Dolphins are better served building around a young player, the cheaper total cost, and the rather nagging fact that the Colt's have stated flatly that they really don't want to trade James. Plus, the Seahawks have said the same thing about Alexander. It seems obvious that both teams are more than willing to let their players play under the tag for a season and the Seahawks have threatened Alexander with the tag next season. So the value of elite running backs seems pretty strong....if not as strong as it's ever been.

All things considered, for a team that doesn't have a strong running game the idea of drafting a rookie RB very high might look pretty good to a couple of teams. Three out of the top five, in fact. And has that ever happened before?

[HoosierCat]

No, I'm simply looking at why they might choose to take an unproven rookie over a proven, elite veteran when the price differential is so small.

Who says the difference is totally related to money?

No one. But it was one of the objections you raised, and one I thought didn't fly, that's all. As for the specific circumstances that might lead a team like the bears or Fins to go with a rookie over a vet, if you wish to appeal to that, fine. I've been talking about the specific circumstances that may have led the Bengals to draft Perry as Rudi's replacement, all of which are equally valid.

So the value of elite running backs seems pretty strong....if not as strong as it's ever been.

The Colts said they'd trade James for as little as a second rounder, and the Hags quickly ran to the media mike a day or two later to lower their own price. Either team seemed happy whether they stayed or went. As for all the RBs taken atop the draft this year...well, as I said, they're the first RBs to go in the top 5 since 2001. In fact, these three plus Tomlinson are the only 4 RBs to go in the top 10 picks in the last five drafts. That's lower than any position other than guard (0) and TE (1)

Just for kicks I went back and looked at the drafts from 10 and 20 years previously. Between 81-85, 8 RBs went in the top 10. For the 91-95 period, that fell to 5 RBs. And as I said, 4 RBs were selected in 01-05.

What's gained in the same time? Most dramatically, WRs and QBs. For 81-85, there were 5 QBs and 4 WRs drafted in the top 10. By 91-95, that was up to 7 QBs and 6 WRs, and for 01-05, the figures were 8 QBs and 10 WRs. I think there's a pretty clear pattern toward passing and away from running there. The increasing number of DBs drafted in the top 10 (6 in 81-85, 7 in 91-95, and 9 in 01-05) would also support that. Also, the position that Marvin singled out as the problem without run D, LB, has taken the biggest hit over time. From 81 to 85, 10 LBs went in the top 10. By 91-95, that number dropped to 5. From 01-05, not a single LB went in the top 10.

[HairOnFire]

Who says the difference is totally related to money?

No one. But it was one of the objections you raised, and one I thought didn't fly, that's all. As for the specific circumstances that might lead a team like the bears or Fins to go with a rookie over a vet, if you wish to appeal to that, fine. I've been talking about the specific circumstances that may have led the Bengals to draft Perry as Rudi's replacement, all of which are equally valid.

[HairOnFire]

As for all the RBs taken atop the draft this year...well, as I said, they're the first RBs to go in the top 5 since 2001. In fact, these three plus Tomlinson are the only 4 RBs to go in the top 10 picks in the last five drafts.

So how does your theory explain the spike in RB value just witnessed? Is it just another example of the mistakes NFL types make when they don't listen to message board gurus who could do better? Or is it simply a reflection of superior talent being rewarded by superior draft position whenever warranted?

[HairOnFire]

What's gained in the same time? Most dramatically, WRs and QBs. For 81-85, there were 5 QBs and 4 WRs drafted in the top 10. By 91-95, that was up to 7 QBs and 6 WRs, and for 01-05, the figures were 8 QBs and 10 WRs. I think there's a pretty clear pattern toward passing and away from running there. The increasing number of DBs drafted in the top 10 (6 in 81-85, 7 in 91-95, and 9 in 01-05) would also support that.

Goodness, you've proven that QB's are very often drafted high! Hold the presses.

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered. Moreso now than ever before. Three and four wideout sets are as common as fleas and that creates increased demand for wideouts and DB's....and less demand for FB's and TE's in most schemes. Your numbers reflect that. And yet we see example after example of teams doing everything in their power to hold onto proven RB talent, and we see teams willing to draft RB talent very high whenever the talent level dictates it should be. We see teams who are willing to use high draft picks on the RB position simply to gain depth or versatility. We see teams willing to trade away shutdown corners and pay millions for Portis. On and on it goes.

What we don't see is successful teams being built on the premise that the RB position can be manned on the cheap OR that the RB position can be ignored in favor of a roster filled with highly drafted wideouts. In fact, the two teams the Bengals are chasing in this division are known for the quality of their running games and their defenses. Baltimore has never drafted a wideout whose name was worth remembering, and the 15-1 Steelers roster of wideouts aren't exactly known for how high they were drafted on draft day. Plus, they happily dumped the highest drafted WR they had.

Looking out of the division, most fans couldn't name more than one player on the receiving corps of New England, Atlanta, or pre-TO Philadelphia. And to round out the winningest teams in the NFL last season, how about San Diego? Where are all of the wideouts drafted in the top 10? Not even Indy has 'em. They've got a cadre of 2nd level talent catching balls from a 1st overall pick at QB whenever he isn't handing the ball to a top 5 RB. In fact, most of the winningest teams in the NFL boast elite running games, sound defenses, and a roster of wideouts most fans couldn't name without help.

[HoosierCat]

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Well. Nice to see you've finally come around to my point. Thanks for playing!

[HairOnFire]

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Well. Nice to see you've finally come around to my point. Thanks for playing!

You're welcome.

BTW, your point was that the RB had been devalued. It hasn't been. Teams still pay huge salaries to young RBs (Portis), franchise tag veteran players who have proven their worth (Edge, Alexander, Rudi), pay huge riches to unproven vets like who have flashed some potential (Lamont Jordan), and still draft RB's with franchise quality skills in the top 5 of the draft (Brown, Benson, Williams). Does any of that sound like actions taken by a team to secure a position that has been devalued?

Nope.

Had you claimed that all NFL teams had devalued the FB position you'd get no argument. Had you claimed that many NFL teams had devalued the TE position in favor of 3 and 4 WR sets you'd get no argument. But you didn't do these things.

Instead, you've argued that teams have now so devalued the RB position that they can expect to fill their needs with cheaper options. You've argued that Rudi wasn't worth paying because Lamont Jordan could be signed for far less. That view is funny on multiple levels, ehh? Regardless, teams taking advantage of the great depth available at the RB position only results in more teams finding what they need. It doesn't mean that teams devalue what they already have OR assume that they can cash in a supply and demand coupon and still expect to get elite quality.

Sorry you can't bring yourself to embrace facts. Once again you seem to prefer the conspiracy theory...in this example one that is propped up by the selective use of meaningless numbers and debate about trades not made. And you do these things instead of evaluating the actual moves teams are making. Moves that prove the RB hasn't been devalued. That seems odd to me, but as always...very amusing.

Thanks for playing!

[HoosierCat]

BTW, your point was that the RB had been devalued. It hasn't been. Teams still pay huge salaries to young RBs (Portis), franchise tag veteran players who have proven their worth (Edge, Alexander, Rudi),

Yup, they do. Funny thing, tho, is they pay more for QBs. And WRs. Al offensive linemen. In fact, on offense, only the TE franchise tag is lower than the RBs'. Nope, sorry, the big money for elite players isn't going to the run game. But that's understandable, because, after all...

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Nice to see you finally got it.