RB salaries comparison in 2017 Free Agency

[Ring 6]

Sorry, this isn't cherry picking. These are all the 2017 Free Agency contracts awarded to RBs more $1m per year or more. I didn't create the list. What you are basically saying is that the entire roster of available RBs in 2017 FA were undesirable.

Yes.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure how Petersen, Charles etc are big names if they are paid the same as Burkhead and Gillesle

What is your point?
The list includes almost exclusively poor or washed up players other than the 2 guys the patriots grabbed, and Murray who got 5 mill.

 

[moosekill]

Some consider it a big deal to triple the money allocated to the Rb position.

Well yes but triple $0 is $0. The numbers that were allocated last year were for Blount, who basically no one else wanted, White, on a rookie deal, Dion Lewis injured, signed to a contract when no one else wanted him and Foster/Gaffney rookie contracts. We hit in big with Lewis and Blount and White was a rookie. We sort of lucked into a really low team running back salary because of how well Blount and Lewis did. In the end it became a team weakness that certain teams seemed able to exploit, so it was addressed, and it was addressed with cash money the Patriots had. I remember in 2011 when the Patriots drafted Vereen in the second and Ridley in the 3rd. 2010 running back was an issue, 2011 BB addressed it. Just like this year.

 

[Biffins]

Ok, you can call it not cherry picking because you grabbed all the FAs. But by DEFINITION OF FA you are cherry picking. For Good players in their prime, a good team generally doesn't let them get to free agency. The FAs are either broken down or guys coming off initial rookie contracts. Compare the Pats 2FAs cost to all the #1RBs and that would be more relevant.

err..... no. I just wanted to compare 2017 contracts. There's no point comparing 2017 FA contracts with e.g. 2014 or 2011. Salary caps are different. The reason to compare all 2017 FA is that this is the most relevant comparison base for the contracts we awarded to Burkhead and Gillesle (and White, who wasn't a FA).

 

[mgteich]

Well yes but triple $0 is $0. The numbers that were allocated last year were for Blount, who basically no one else wanted, White, on a rookie deal, Dion Lewis injured, signed to a contract when no one else wanted him and Foster/Gaffney rookie contracts. We hit in big with Lewis and Blount and White was a rookie. We sort of lucked into a really low team running back salary because of how well Blount and Lewis did. In the end it became a team weakness that certain teams seemed able to exploit, so it was addressed, and it was addressed with cash money the Patriots had. I remember in 2011 when the Patriots drafted Vereen in the second and Ridley in the 3rd. 2010 running back was an issue, 2011 BB addressed it. Just like this year.

???

Belichick chose to go into 2016 regular season, spending very little for RB's. Clearly, he had a a different approach in 2017.

 

[moosekill]

???

Belichick chose to go into 2016 regular season, spending very little for RB's. Clearly, he had a a different approach in 2017.

BB doesn't spend money foolishly. He went into 2016 with what he thought was a good group of running backs. However, Blount wore down and once again wasn't effective for the playoffs and is a free agent, and Lewis never effectively came back, and when he did come back he got injured again during the Superbowl. James White came on strong in the superbowl and maybe a piece of the solution, but the Patriots want multiple good backs.

BB decided to move on from Blount and at least have a second option, who by the way is a great special teams player, for Lewis in case he never comes back, or continues to be carry restricted.

I am not sure if this qualifies as a change in philosophy quite as much as a change in personnel. But either way, the current market for running backs being what it is, the Patriots can get two backs who by some metrics are among the top young backs in the league for a 5th round draft pick and still only spend $13m for all five of them. If a position is inexpensive in regards to the total cap, why not get the best out there. It isn't like we had to spend $13m for one of them, its $13m for all of them.

 

[Biffins]

BB doesn't spend money foolishly. He went into 2016 with what he thought was a good group of running backs. However, Blount wore down and once again wasn't effective for the playoffs and is a free agent, and Lewis never effectively came back, and when he did come back he got injured again during the Superbowl. James White came on strong in the superbowl and maybe a piece of the solution, but the Patriots want multiple good backs.

BB decided to move on from Blount and at least have a second option, who by the way is a great special teams player, for Lewis in case he never comes back, or continues to be carry restricted.

I am not sure if this qualifies as a change in philosophy quite as much as a change in personnel. But either way, the current market for running backs being what it is, the Patriots can get two backs who by some metrics are among the top young backs in the league for a 5th round draft pick and still only spend $13m for all five of them. If a position is inexpensive in regards to the total cap, why not get the best out there. It isn't like we had to spend $13m for one of them, its $13m for all of them.

That's a nice theory but Pats made an offer to Blount this offseason. So Blount would have been back if he had accepted.

 

[bresna]

Danny Woodhead - 3yr $8.8m

As much as I loved Danny Woodhead when he was with the Patriots, I can't imagine what the Ravens were thinking by giving an injury-prone, 32 year old pass-catching RB a 3 year, $8.8 Million contract with $3.25 Million of it guaranteed.

 

[Simpelton]

Would you pay more for a pristine conditioned used car coming off a low mileage lease with a clean CarFax...or.... for a high mileage older car with a CarFax showing a welded frame and a long history of engine and body work.
For BB....Certified PreOwned is the theme this year at RB, WR, DE, TE, DB

Kinda depends. An old last-century truck that takes a beating and just keeps working may be more up my alley if I need a lot of heavy lifting done, than a pristine 2 year old economy sedan, if you take my meaning. Peak performance potential matters. That's why we put up with Gronk missing large chunks of the season.

 

[Simpelton]

That's a nice theory but Pats made an offer to Blount this offseason. So Blount would have been back if he had accepted.

Blount is still a useful football player, especially if he can be placed in a stepped-down role. He can't be the feature back, but there are definitely plays I'd rather have his power potential on the field especially 3rd and goal. We don't have anyone who can move the stack like Blount can right now. Gillislee is good but not quite as good in that one area as Blount

 

[maineman209]

Pats are paying:
Burkead - 1yr $3.2m
Gillislee - 2yr $6.4m

Other teams are paying:
Adrian Peterson - 2yr $7m
Jamaal Charles - 1yr $1m
Danny Woodhead - 3yr $8.8m
Latavius Murray - 3yr $15m
Jacquiz Rodgers - 2yr $3.3m
Eddie Lacy - 1yr $4.2m
Robert Turbin - 2yr $2.7m
Lance Dunbar - 1yr $1.5m
Darren McFadden - 1yr $1m
Tim Hightower - 1yr $1.1m
C. J. Spiller - 1yr $1m
Cedric Peerman - 1yr $1.1m

So besides Latavius Murray's $5m avg, Pats are paying their RBs as much or more than other more established names in the league. I understand the Pats are paying for future performance, but is it fair to say the contracts seem a bit rich in comparison to a number of guys signed this FA for $1 or $2m. What am I missing here? Do we suddenly value the position more than others?

I don't think that it's particularly informative to limit the comparison to 2017 UFA contracts.

If you look at total RB spending for all teams for 2017, you'll see that many other teams will be spending as much or more for two RBs than the Pats are for all four of their guys. For example, the Jets will spend $9.6M on just Forte (31) and Powell (28), and the Eagles will pay $9.0M just for Sproles (33) and Matthews (29).

The Pats will spend $10.5 M total.

Also, several of those more costly RB groups include one player who's 30 or more years old, whereas the average age of the Pats' RB corps is under 26.

And total RB spending by other teams doesn't even include the rookie cap hits for guys like Fournette ($4.9M) or McCaffery ($3.13M) that have yet to be signed.

So, "a bit rich"? I don't really think so.

 

[chasa]

???

Belichick chose to go into 2016 regular season, spending very little for RB's. Clearly, he had a a different approach in 2017.

I'd disagree.

He paid Market value for players he wanted in 2016.

He paid Market value for players he wanted in 2017.

He could have kept blount, but he found a player he liked more that cost more.

I don't think we will see an increased load for the running back squad, because if that was the case we would not have just used a first rounder on brandin cooks.

BB spent what he felt was appropriate for players he wanted on the roster, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[maineman209]

• Patriots’ spending on the running back position has increased from $4.32 million (LeGarrette Blount, James White, Dion Lewis, and Brandon Bolden) to $13.24 million in 2017 (Mike Gillislee, Rex Burkhead, White, and Lewis).

Not sure where that $13.25M figure comes from. Even rounding up, the combined 2017 cap hits for those four total $10.5M. Adding in Bolden and Foster, I can get to $11.7M.

That's still less than Le'Veon Bell's franchise tag number of $12.1M.

Sure, it's more than the Pats have spent on the RB position in recent years, but that only brings them up from the bottom of the league to about the middle.

 

[maineman209]

err..... no. I just wanted to compare 2017 contracts. There's no point comparing 2017 FA contracts with e.g. 2014 or 2011. Salary caps are different. The reason to compare all 2017 FA is that this is the most relevant comparison base for the contracts we awarded to Burkhead and Gillesle (and White, who wasn't a FA).

If you're comparing 2017 contracts/cap hits, then compare ALL of them, not just those that were signed this off-season. Otherwise, it is cherry-picking.

 

[maineman209]

Blount is still a useful football player, especially if he can be placed in a stepped-down role. He can't be the feature back, but there are definitely plays I'd rather have his power potential on the field especially 3rd and goal. We don't have anyone who can move the stack like Blount can right now. Gillislee is good but not quite as good in that one area as Blount

Blunt had 334 carries last season. His career average prior to 2016 was 175, with a high of 201 during his rookie season.

The only RB who had more carries in 2016 was 21-year-old Zeke Elliot. No other RB cracked 290 (and only one of the 8 or so other teams with high-use "feature backs" made the playoffs - the Steelers).

 

[maineman209]

That's a nice theory but Pats made an offer to Blount this offseason. So Blount would have been back if he had accepted.

Yes and no.

Blount probably had an offer on the table in February, but it's possible that BB would have signed Burkhead on March 14th regardless. I think it was when the RFA offer to Gillislee was made on April 18th that BB had decided to "move on".

 

[Uptown]

Not sure where that $13.25M figure comes from. Even rounding up, the combined 2017 cap hits for those four total $10.5M. Adding in Bolden and Foster, I can get to $11.7M.

That's still less than Le'Veon Bell's franchise tag number of $12.1M.

Sure, it's more than the Pats have spent on the RB position in recent years, but that only brings them up from the bottom of the league to about the middle.

Nobody's complaining or making an issue about the amount. It's just a useful figure to illustrate that BB is always one step ahead of the game & must have foresaw the way the game is changing (Defenses use of nickel & dime >65-75% of the time). As usual.

 

[maineman209]

Nobody's complaining or making an issue about the amount. It's just a useful figure to illustrate that BB is always one step ahead of the game & must have foresaw the way the game is changing (Defenses use of nickel & dime >65-75% of the time). As usual.

Could be that BB is adapting to general changes in defenses or - perhaps more to the point - what the 13 defenses he'll face this seasons seem likely to do.

Could also be partly that not one, but two young guys he's had his eye on were both available and worth paying a bit more than he's typically paid in recent years (relative to the cap).

Anyway, I know that you weren't making an issue about the amount, though others obviously have been. I was merely questioning the numbers used in the media to exaggerate the year-to-year $$ difference, making it appear to be more of a sea change than maybe it really is.

 

[Simpelton]

Blunt had 334 carries last season. His career average prior to 2016 was 175, with a high of 201 during his rookie season.

The only RB who had more carries in 2016 was 21-year-old Zeke Elliot. No other RB cracked 290 (and only one of the 8 or so other teams with high-use "feature backs" made the playoffs - the Steelers).

No wonder the myth persists that he broke down at the end of the year. By which people actually mean "specifically in the Superbowl and only in the Superbowl."

The fact of the matter is that Blount in the Superbowl was hamstrung by the same thing that gave Brady a great deal of pause in the same Superbowl. The Atlanta defensive line was very, VERY good, and the offensive line was having a hard time competing. Blount got overpowered on the fumble, and BB stopped playing him not because he wasn't competent but because a power attack wasn't going to break that defensive line. If the worst criticism of Blount is that he can't overpower one of the best defensive lines in the league... well I've heard worse things said about Patriots running backs. If he could do his thing against elite defensive lines, we wouldn't have got him for pennies on the dollar last year, I know that.

If we'd run Blount out there in the second half when the defensive line was gassed, he would have started to produce, just like Brady did. But at that point of course, James White was playing so well that only an idiot would mess with the formula.

Blount last year was almost the perfect Patriot running back. He wasn't going to carry the offense which is fine because we wouldn't need him to, and he could have games where he could blow an offense wide open. We're going to have games with Burkhead and Gillislee that go the same way. They're going to be used to exploit soft defensive lines and James White is probably going to play a stepped up role when the defensive line has been stopping the run and it's a better idea to put the game solely on Brady's arm.