Would you make the move and give him a big contract if it didn’t cost us our two first rounders?
Jonathan Taylor demands trade
- Thread starter Dan H
- Start date
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
No.
No
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
No, not necessarily because of the money, but because he hurts the draft plan.
The 2023 Cardinals are gonna be ' Run What Ya Brung'.
The 2023 Cardinals are gonna be ' Run What Ya Brung'.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
And paying big money to a RB is fools gold usually.
Not really worth paying big money to a RB with this roster
I'm not in favor of paying them big money at all
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
No. The injuries have begun for him.
Cbus cardsfan
Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 21,463
- Reaction score
- 7,632
No way he'd cost a 1st round pick. He was used a ton at Wisconsin so there's alot of wear and tear on him. I'd pass.
BulldogCard
Veteran
It's unrest, then you make him play here. His attitude would be toxic if he didn't win. Risky..Still intriguing nonetheless
BirdGangThing
Cultist
But can he play linebacker
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,633
- Reaction score
- 38,891
yeah great player but RB injuries tend to be a trend
QuebecCard
ASFN Addict
I see running backs in today's NFL a bit like relievers in baseball.
Load up and turn them over; some come through, others don't.
REPEAT!
Load up and turn them over; some come through, others don't.
REPEAT!
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
RB’s in a passing league have become dinosaurs. Sadly, RB’s are making nothing, and QB’s are making everything. Who’s to say if the NFL eventually changes some rules to benefit the plight of the RB? Standing pat, RB’s will revolt & that would ultimately damage the game. I think the NFL has a brewing dilemma as it pertains to the future of the RB position. The NFL is an ever evolving league. Something has to give because this league will always remember how great the contributions were from all the HOF RB’s of the past.
QuebecCard
ASFN Addict
The NFL pays lip service to the past, lives in the present and envisages the future, and 3, 4 yards and a pile of dust isn't what they see.
Phrazbit
ASFN Icon
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Posts
- 20,308
- Reaction score
- 11,382
When the owner comes out and publicly says they will not talk an extension because they have no intention to offer one, they also refuse to trade the guy… as a player I’d be pretty discouraged. I certainly would have zero interest in risking my health for that team.
Colts are a clown show.
That said, the cards are in no position to invest in a vet RB, even though we probably have the worst running back room in the league.
Colts are a clown show.
That said, the cards are in no position to invest in a vet RB, even though we probably have the worst running back room in the league.
PACardsFan
ASFN Icon
Yep. Can’t argue that. And as popular as the NFL is, you are correct in what you say. The position is in a conundrum in that from youth football right up to college, it’s a hugely valued one. Then it becomes a dinosaur at the NFL level.
I don't agree with this take at all. RBs are not dinosaurs. They are still very valuable to offenses.
The problem for RBs is twofold:
1. They take a massive amount of hits which reduces their NFL shelf life. Therefore it is rare for a RB to be effective past the age of 28. There is only so much tread on the tire when it comes to RBs.
2. RBs are easily replaceable. Unlike QB where there are only a handful of good ones in the NFL and it usually takes a few years for young QBs to mature into a quality starter, RBs can often be easily replaced by a cheaper rookie. That rookie may not be as good as the Vet but teams are willing to take that chance and save the valuable cap space for harder to find positions.
gimpy
ASFN Lifer
I don’t know about rb’s bring easily replaceable as people on the Cards forum continually denounce our rb’s. Why haven’t we gotten a couple of good ones, then?
It's basic supply and demand. No other position as such a regular supply of NFL capable players.
It's also the easiest position to rotate. So much easier to have 2-3 scheme backs with different skill sets to cover different situations and rotate them.
Arz101
ASFN Lifer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Posts
- 4,906
- Reaction score
- 5,600
Yes, Cards should trade their first round pick.
/s
/s
Because we had a bad front office...
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
It's also that the maturity curve for RBs is MUCH earlier. When a TE, WR, OL reaches their second contract, you can make a good assumption that not only are most of their best years ahead of them, but also that they will continue to improve in at least the first couple years of the contract (when you as the team have the least flexibility to remove them).
RBs generally max out in the first four years of their contract. A first-round RB who has their fifth-year option exercised and gets franchise tagged likely has maxed out their potential and only has a few peak years left on their deal. It makes no sense to pay top dollar on a long-term deal at that point.
The best alternative I've seen or heard is the idea to group all skill position players (TE, WR, RB) under one franchise tag like they do with OL.
We have had good RBs. David Johnson was a good RB. Kenyan Drake was a good RB. James Conner is a good RB. Heck, Andre Ellington was a pretty good RB. This is the argument for not spending money on giving RBs big contracts.
Of course, Keim gave big contract extensions to David Johnson and James Conner because he's an idiot.
