The Case for Paying Aaron Jones

[Sunshinepacker]

Take into account that the cap is going to go up every year and so, when it's Jones's time to re-sign, his contract will probably be about 10% higher than Ekeler's to actually be comparable. He's worth it. He's one of the best RBs in the NFL and MLF's system relies very heavily on the RB. Plus, he's the #1 WR if Adams gets hurt.

 

[Fredrik87]

Well he doesn't have a clue. Packers project to have 52M in space next off-season without releasing anyone. Certainly they won't have the room to wheel and deal like they did last off-season, but they can easily afford 7M for Jones if they like the value.

Does this 52 million factor in resigning Bahktiari and Kenny Clark?
While I love Aaron Jones the priority has to be on bringing back Bahk & Clark, if after that we have over 15M in cap space left I could get on board with resigning Jones for 5-6 maybe even the 7 million you suggested.

 

[Fredrik87]

Again though, EVERY single player has a point where his value becomes worth the cost. I argued Blake Martinez was the same way...I mean even his most staunchest critics if he said I'll take $1M/Year to stay in Green Bay would know it is dumb not to get that ink to paper asap. Now granted that is an exaggeration but Dantes lays out very valid reasons, main to me is the diminishing value of RBs in the league being illustrated by what he outlines. IF Jones does a similar deal to (not naming it, make you read the post LOL) Gute and Co would have to be idiots NOT to heavily consider it....this coming from a guy that despises paying RBs big money! There is NOT a single RB in the league IMO worth that $9M or higher range...very few are worth $8M/year....

I would say Christian Mccaffrey is the only RB in the NFL right now I would say is worth 9 million to his team at least.

 

[GleefulGary]

I would say Christian Mccaffrey is the only RB in the NFL right now I would say is worth 9 million to his team at least.

And yet, what have they done with him?

 

[Dantés]

And yet, what have they done with him?

You could make that case for virtually any position though.

Chargers wasted Rivers' career- QB's don't matter?
Lions didn't win anything with Calvin-- WR's don't matter?
Browns were one of the worst teams in the league with Joe Thomas-- OT's don't matter?

etc. etc.

Certainly RB is low on the value scale, but McCaffrey is different. He's a 1000 yard receiver while also being one of the best runners in the league.

 

[GleefulGary]

You could make that case for virtually any position though.

Chargers wasted Rivers' career- QB's don't matter?
Lions didn't win anything with Calvin-- WR's don't matter?
Browns were one of the worst teams in the league with Joe Thomas-- OT's don't matter?

etc. etc.

Certainly RB is low on the value scale, but McCaffrey is different. He's a 1000 yard receiver while also being one of the best runners in the league.

RB's just don't seem to impact wins and losses as much as other positions.

Cleveland and Detroit were just terribly run teams at the time. Carolina actually had pretty decent talent, even with Newton out. As you know, the Chargers still did well with Rivers. Not as well as they could have, but they did well.

 

[Dantés]

RB's just don't seem to impact wins and losses as much as other positions.

Cleveland and Detroit were just terribly run teams at the time. Carolina actually had pretty decent talent, even with Newton out. As you know, the Chargers still did well with Rivers. Not as well as they could have, but they did well.

I think that a RB like McCaffrey is an exception because of the receiving value. If you take him away from the Carolina offense last year, I think you see a dramatic difference.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well he doesn't have a clue. Packers project to have 52M in space next off-season without releasing anyone. Certainly they won't have the room to wheel and deal like they did last off-season, but they can easily afford 7M for Jones if they like the value.

I would ask you to consider my post #264 in the "2020 Salary Cap Situation" thread. There I've laid out what the depth chart looks like for 2021 using the 30 players currently under for that year at a current cap cost of $163 mil.

What I did not mention is that there is not much in the way of potential big end-of-the-contract cap savings cuts in that list, a common source of cap space for teams with aging vets. Lowry at $3.3 mil is the leading candidate.

Thinking $52 mil is bounteous in that picture is highly questionable. As stated, there are two drafts in the interim to fill a lot of gaps but since it is not known which ones will emerge as player this season argues for waiting to see where the needs fall at this time next year.

That doesn't mean a Jones extension couldn't fit in that scenario. But if, for example, the Packers drafted high for an OT, with a consideration that he'd be a backstop against losing Bakhtiari in FA, and that guys turns out to be a Spriggs, then you might just want that Jones cap spend back in the pot.

In your fine list of "agruments against" extending Jones, the "Resources" paragraph contains only a glancing blow with regard to who might then become unaffordable in 2021.

 

[Fredrik87]

And yet, what have they done with him?

Oh absolutely nothing.
But that's on them not him he had over 100 receptions and 1000 yards receiving that's low end WR1/ high end WR2 type numbers.
Once your getting better production than your typical slot receiver in the passing game and over a 1000 yards on the ground and the number of TD's he had I'd say he's worth 9 Mill.

Also what did the Browns do with Joe Thomas or the Lions with Calvin Johnson just one great player isn't enough to overcome the rest of the team being bad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I voted "no" under the assumption the question means now. In season, possibly, when there is better clarity on a number of issues.

It would be fun, in the interest of disclosure, to have voters indicate whether they have Jones on a dynasty or keeper fantasy roster. I'll go first. I don't do fantasy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Take into account that the cap is going to go up every year and so, when it's Jones's time to re-sign, his contract will probably be about 10% higher than Ekeler's to actually be comparable. He's worth it. He's one of the best RBs in the NFL and MLF's system relies very heavily on the RB. Plus, he's the #1 WR if Adams gets hurt.

While the Packers ran the ball more often under MLF they still threw it on 59.7% of the offensive plays. Therefore you're exaggerating that they heavily rely on running backs.

With Jones significantly improving as a receiver last season I would be fine with offering him a deal like Ekeler got from the Chargers but the Packers shouldn't overpay for him by any means.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While the Packers ran the ball more often under MLF they still threw it on 59.7% of the offensive plays.

Coming at it from the other direction, the RBs had 355 carries.

When I add the total passes, sacks (passing plays) and carries, including Rodgers' which were almost exclusively scrambles (pass plays) and kneel downs, I get 1020 offensive plays.

RB carries represent 34.8% of plays. Looking at your number one might leap to the conclusion that RBs carried it 41.4% of the time.

In McCarthy's, last season it was 281 RB carries in 1,025 total plays, or about 27.4%.

I used the player individual stats. I've never quite understood why the gross offensive play count in a box score usually does not add up to the players' passes+carries+sacks. That's a question for another day, but I just want to be clear on what numbers I used.

RBs also get targeted with passes. You'd have to add those in to carry figures for total plays where the RB is the featured weapon.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Coming at it from the other direction, the RBs had 355 carries.

When I add the total passes, sacks (passing plays) and carries, including Rodgers' which almost exclusively scrambles (pass plays) and kneel downs, I get 1020 offensive plays.

In McCarthy's, last season it was 281 RB carries in 1,025 total plays, or about 27.4%.

I used the player individual stats. I've never quite understood why the gross offensive play count in a box score usually does not add up to the player's passes+carries+sacks. That's a question for another day, but I just want to be clear on what numbers I used.

RBs also get targeted with passes. You'd have to add those in to carry figures for total plays where the RB is the featured weapon.

It's true that I shouldn't have included the 56 combined runs by quarterbacks and wide receivers into the equation. With that being said we should consider the combined 115 targets for running backs though.

That results in RBs being involved in 46.1% of the offensive plays last season, a significant increase over the 37.6% in McCarthy's last season as the team's head coach.

RB carries represent 34.8% of plays. Looking at your number one might think leap to the conclusion that RBs carried it 41.4% of the time.

Nah, I would never suggest anything like that as the numbers would add up to 101.1%

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Whatever the Packers due with Jones, I hope they wait until the end of the 2020 season to do it and I hope that Jones is fine with that. Teams doing what the Cowboys did with Zeke Elliott is just crazy, not just the $15M/year, but giving him a new deal 2 years before his rookie deal is up. Players threaten to sit out? Fine, do what the Steelers did with Bell and let them.

 

[GleefulGary]

Whatever the Packers due with Jones, I hope they wait until the end of the 2020 season to do it and I hope that Jones is fine with that. Teams doing what the Cowboys did with Zeke Elliott is just crazy, not just the $15M/year, but giving him a new deal 2 years before his rookie deal is up. Players threaten to sit out? Fine, do what the Steelers did with Bell and let them.

Teams?

Has anybody done what Dallas did except Dallas?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

While the Packers ran the ball more often under MLF they still threw it on 59.7% of the offensive plays. Therefore you're exaggerating that they heavily rely on running backs.

With Jones significantly improving as a receiver last season I would be fine with offering him a deal like Ekeler got from the Chargers but the Packers shouldn't overpay for him by any means.

That's what I'm saying. Just that Ekeler's equivalent contract in a year is going to be 10% higher than the deal he signed this year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's what I'm saying. Just that Ekeler's equivalent contract in a year is going to be 10% higher than the deal he signed this year.

Just curious, where did you get the 10% from? I wasn't aware that RB salaries were rising that much.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just curious, where did you get the 10% from? I wasn't aware that RB salaries were rising that much.

I just guessed that if the cap goes up 10% then salaries can go up 10% and the "real" cap cost to the team stays the same. It's not exact (obviously), just kind of a rough estimate.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just guessed that if the cap goes up 10% then salaries can go up 10% and the "real" cap cost to the team stays the same. It's not exact (obviously), just kind of a rough estimate.

Got ya, seems like all the teams are using that increase to pay their QB's and OLB's, not their RB's

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's what I'm saying. Just that Ekeler's equivalent contract in a year is going to be 10% higher than the deal he signed this year.

You don't seem to consider that when talking about Clark's contract though.

 

[Dantés]

I just guessed that if the cap goes up 10% then salaries can go up 10% and the "real" cap cost to the team stays the same. It's not exact (obviously), just kind of a rough estimate.

Given that it was just intended to be a rough estimate, this isn't meant to be some grand correction, but for the sake of clarity, I'll just point out that it's more like 5%. The cap is typically moving up about 10M/season lately. However, since the cap itself is currently at 198M, 10M is almost exactly 5%.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You don't seem to consider that when talking about Clark's contract though.

Because I don't think Clark, nor any DT not named Aaron Donald, is worth the kind of contracts the top guys are currently getting.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Given that it was just intended to be a rough estimate, this isn't meant to be some grand correction, but for the sake of clarity, I'll just point out that it's more like 5%. The cap is typically moving up about 10M/season lately. However, since the cap itself is currently at 198M, 10M is almost exactly 5%.

Okay, then 5%, 10% just sounds nicer. Either way, cap growth is a lot like inflation for contracts, as the cap goes up, the value of contracts needs to be adjusted accordingly.

 

[Dantés]

Okay, then 5%, 10% just sounds nicer. Either way, cap growth is a lot like inflation for contracts, as the cap goes up, the value of contracts needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Yep-- it is exactly inflation.

 

[Dantés]

Because I don't think Clark, nor any DT not named Aaron Donald, is worth the kind of contracts the top guys are currently getting.

This is getting tedious, but it's misinformation so I'll keep pointing it out:

Clark is not getting Donald's contract. So to say that Clark isn't worth Donald's money is just stating the obvious. No one thinks he's going to.