-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin 
The average life of a running back is 2-3 years. THAT is what I meant. He is on "borrowed time" and that is what the Bears are likely looking at.
Then that stat is skewed by all of those RB's who make a roster but hardly ever carry a ball instead of playing ST's or at best become a 3-4 carry a game sub when the feature back needs a breather. I think if you limited it to productive starting backs the life span is much longer.
Other stats show that an NFL RB typically reaches his peak around his 4th year and then has several great years if he stays healthy. If the stats you're quoting from are true most would never reach their peak. Go back 40 years or so and look at the Bears most productive backs and the length of their careers and you'll see that they lasted for much longer then 2-3 years. Now look at those who didn't fair so well and see how long their careers lasted.
Benji, RB is one of the easiest postions on a team to replace. Teams don't stick with unproductive backs for long, they get cut which is the primary reason for the stat you quote. It's not mostly because of injury as opposed to underperformance. That's my take on it for whatever it's worth.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
-
the part your ignoring: According the the NFL Players Association, the average career of an NFL player is 3.3 years. The players left the NFL for a variety of reasons. These include injury, retirement and being cut by their team.
The stat's are screwed by this bolded group. If you are not cut, not injured and do not retire, then you are not part of that average. Forte career is going to be looked at as MUCH longer b/c he is not going to get cut, and has no injury history and has no intention of retiring. Same thing for Tillman(he's been around for more then 3 years, and was resigned w/out question or fear that he might not be good after his 3rd year. Same w/Urlacher after his 3rd year, and all those other players. Your purposely using a scewed stat. Starting RB's do not have a shelf life of 2.94 years. Adrian Peterson/Frank Gore/Amad Bradshaw/Brandon Jacobs/Fred Jackson/Chris Johnson/Marshan Lynch/Cedric Benson/Thomas Jones/Marion Barber, LT, Cadilac Williams, Steven Jackson, Ernest Graham, etc etc etc all have been around and performing well after 3 years. Your using and abusing that stat in ways it was not intended.
Again, the QB life expectency is 4-5 years. Should NE/Indy/NO's/NYG's/GB/DET/Pitt/SD/Chi etc not have resigned, or even thought about not resigning those qb's after their the 4th or 5th year, let alone that qb's 3rd contract b/c most qb's don't last more then 5yrs? Is that what your saying, you really believe that? Should every team worry about their pro bowl shut down corners b/c their life expectency is also less then 3 years? Think Minny even thought about not resigning AP b/c of these worthless stats?
-
Show me where I said that I DIDNT THINK HE SHOULD BE RE-SIGNED
I said JA and Co are likely looking at that and don't want to give him too long of a deal or too much.
I said a few $6M per year was about right and it should be $20M in gauantees.
-
If they are looking at THAT stat, then they would also be looking at the stat that says qb's only last on average 4 years, and would not have been in a hurry to sign Cutler, they definatlely would not have resigned Urlacher, or brought in Barber/Taylor or Signed Peppers to a huge deal.
Again that stat is a poor example. I guarantee you any GM would not look at that stat, but one of starter/primary backup life span...and not count UFA's/Practice squaders, guys buried on the bench that never see the field.
-
By the way
The time has come
Forte is an elite back
Running like a man possessed
Matt Forte is the MayhemBack
-
Well he's outplaying All Day. Although his TD's are getting theived by MBIII.
-
I would pay Matt Forte and pay him generously.
-
Forte is doing way better than CJ and AF put together and the FO is still snubbing him like he is Benson. Our front office doing it's best work........NOTHING.
Without weaponz it's just another airline!
I am here to chew bubble gum and kick butt and I am all out of bubble gum!
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
I wonder how much money is left in the Bears' change purse?
-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin Show me where I said that I DIDNT THINK HE SHOULD BE RE-SIGNED
I said JA and Co are likely looking at that and don't want to give him too long of a deal or too much.
I said a few $6M per year was about right and it should be $20M in gauantees.
If I remember correctly the new CBA puts limits on the duration of contracts and the amortization of signing bonuses and that may be a factor. I think the max number of years allowed for that amortization is now 5 years so that has an effect on what teams will guarantee by that way of structuring the deal.
The trend has been toward smaller signing bonuses coupled with larger annual roster bonuses which are only guaranteed if you're still on the roster on March 1st or whatever date the contract calls for the bonus to be paid. Some may advertise that as guaranteed money but in reality it's not. How many players do you see cut or asked to restructure each year because their teams don't want to pay that bonus?
I've been saying all along that I believe it's the guaranteed $$$ that they're battling over more than the total value of the deal. Most of the Bears long term high dollar contracts pay significant roster bonuses as opposed to signing bounuses and I can't say that I disagree. Helps to avoid Chester Taylor type mistakes.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
