VikingLord wrote:The only question is, what was AD's real worth when they extended him? With many positions, letting star players hit FA is a bad idea because the market for them is clear, but what exactly is the market for star RBs? I've seen plenty of examples of very talented RB's holding out and the team they are holding out from doesn't seem too eager to break. Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, MJD... Lot's of very talented guys who don't seem to have a ton of leverage when it comes to their own teams.
My point is: who cares? If he's "overpaid" by two or three million a year or $10 million in guarantees but it doesn't prohibit you from signing key players to extensions it matters little to me. Whenever AD steps on the field (healthy) he's typically the best player out there. You want to talk worth? I think it all boils down to this: Adrian Peterson on your team significantly improves your chances of winning games. If you don't agree with that statement, I'd be curious to hear why. Especially after Sunday's effort. I'd argue his influence is felt moreso than Forte, Steven Jackson, Chris Johnson or Jamaal Charles. Getting paid more than them makes sense when considering his skillset and game-changing influence. I think you're placing too much emphasis on the "RB is a declining position" thing. You try and extend your best skill position point-scorers in the prime of their careers. At least, I do. Particularly when the advantage to doing so greatly outweighs the potential, theoretical negative impact.
"Overpaid" by $5 million a year, $20 million in guarantees or whatever makes little sense to me when ownership has the resources and it's not detrimental to the signing of other key cogs. We can revisit this a few years down the line when some of the young players will be seeking extensions, but I don't see Harvin not getting his because of Peterson. Ownership isn't giving a ridiculous amount of money to a punter, guard or return specialist. They're giving it to the player outside of quarterback (which doesn't warrant the $$....yet) that has the biggest impact on games. That makes all kinds of sense to me. If Ponder was the best at his position and so was AD and they were the same age and we had to make a case for one over the other with the same talent level replacements behind them, you go Ponder. I get that. But I'm also fine with them not playing hardball with a guy that's been the face of the franchise, best player on the team since he was drafted, consumate professional, contributes to the community and a positive role model. Ownership could have played hardball, let him enter free agency, tried to squeeze out the best deal for a few million less while risk losing him altogether. That's not the type of message they want to send. They want to send the message that if you work hard, stay out of trouble (obviously the bar non-fight issue wasn't a factor then) then you're rewarded.
I also think they've shown in the past they don't make a huge investment if they don't think it's worth it (i.e. letting Rice walk for a ridiculous contract and the same with Edwards). They deemed AD worth the $$ paid. As long as it's not detrimental, I'm fine with it.
And I can't think of the last star RB who inked a huge FA deal. So it seems that for the teams that choose to retain the "star" RB, that's where the big money deals are coming from, not necessarily from competition within the FA market or even trades that would suggest a value.
Perhaps that's because their team doesn't want them to reach free agency? I don't remember the last star RB that
reached free agency, which I think is just as telling. Teams' use of the franchise tag protects them a bit and skews this discussion a little in my mind. For what it's worth, here are the top paid RBs.
1. Adrian Peterson, Minnesota Vikings (Seven years, $100 million, $36 million guaranteed)
1,406 carries, 6,752 rushing yards, 64 rushing touchdowns, in five seasons.
137 receptions, 1,309 receiving yards, 3 receiving touchdowns
2. Chris Johnson, Tennessee Titans (Four years, $53.5 million, $30 million guaranteed)
1,187 carries, 5,646 rushing yards, 38 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
194 receptions, 1,426 receiving yards, 4 receiving touchdowns
3. Darren McFadden, Oakland Raiders (Six years, $60 million, $26 million guaranteed)
553 carries, 2,627 rushing yards, 16 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
116 receptions, 1,191 receiving yards, 4 receiving touchdowns
4. Ray Rice, Baltimore Ravens (Five years, $40 million, $24 million guaranteed)
959 carries, 4,377 rushing yards, 24 rushing touchdowns, in four seasons.
250 receptions, 2,235 receiving yards, 5 receiving touchdowns
5. Steven Jackson, St. Louis Rams (Five years, $49.3 million, $21 million guaranteed)
2,138 carries, 9,093 rushing yards, 52 rushing touchdowns, in eight seasons.
369 receptions, 3,003 receiving yards, 8 receiving touchdowns
So the Vikes inked AD to a pretty big deal, but where is the evidence he would have gotten anything near that from a team other than the Vikings?
There isn't any. But he deserved a higher salary than Chris Johnson. How MUCH more is certainly debatable (which is what we're doing!). But he does need to show he's worthy of the investment. I thought Sunday he did just that.
I don't know - but from where I sit I see the RB position as incredibly de-valued at this point. There are many successful teams that don't even have a clear starter at the position.
That's not to say they don't value the position. Maybe they've drafted poorly or had greater needs. Or were drafting too low to get a true difference-making back. Who knows? Teams still take good running backs in the first few rounds of the draft. Backs like AD are rare. I'm betting each team that doesn't have a clear starter
wish like hell they did. They just have to find other ways to win because they
don't have one. We're in the position where our best player IS a running back. So we lean on him. He gives us the best chance to win, so he gets the ball. What am I missing?
Does that mean that AD wouldn't have gotten a huge offer from another team if he hit FA? Maybe he would have, but at least then the Vikings would have known what the market is and still could have beat the offer.
I still think this matters little in the grand scheme of things. Particularly in the short-term. Long-term is more murky but there's the possibility it's not going to be an issue even then. I'm all for fiscal responsibility, and I've seen little with the Vikings to suggest they're irresponsible in that regard. Extending Rice for what he received in FA would've been a red flag there. I suppose I'd classify this as a yellow flag. Medium risk with very high reward. YMMV