The Case for Paying Aaron Jones

[Heyjoe4]

If King has a fantastic year, I would still feel like signing him to a lucrative extension is entering a minefield. He's managed 30 games in three seasons and his play has been uneven throughout. So if 2020 is a stupid healthy, consistent season, then is will be the outlier. And when you pay for the outlier, you regret it most of the time.

Agreed. At the same time, I’m not too worried about him having a “career” year. But yeah, guys have done that, signed pricey extensions, and then underperformed.

 

[Dantés]

Agreed. At the same time, I’m not too worried about him having a “career” year. But yeah, guys have done that, signed pricey extensions, and then underperformed.

If he has a fantastic year, then I'll be happy for the Packers to benefit from it and then pick up a 3rd round comp. pick a year after he signs somewhere else.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If he has a fantastic year, then I'll be happy for the Packers to benefit from it and then pick up a 3rd round comp. pick a year after he signs somewhere else.

I would be A-OK with that scenario. And it’s just because I think King is not a long-term answer at CB, even if all the cards fall right for him next year, a big if.

 

[Simms87]

Many fans just underestimate the value of a good interior DL, always been like that, always will be.

It‘s no coincidence they are pretty much the best paid position outside QB. Clark at age 24 still has his peak ahead of him, so not resigning him would be a disaster for the defense, even if it would be 18m+/year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

My point was that while you consider the cap increasing when talking about Jones' contract you ignore the fact for some random reason in Clark's case.

The tough one to figure out is Bak. He’s 30 or will be soon, has chronic back problems, and is also one of the best LTs in the NFL.

Bakhtiari had back issues last season but it's too early to consider them chronic at this point. The Packers should closely monitor the situation before offering him an extension though.

Yeah as they are going to either cut one player to keep two as Aaron Jones seems to be Aaron Rodgers go to guy there now that Jordy Nelson retired.

Nelson being Rodgers' go-to-guy didn't stop the Packers moving on from him as well.

The bigger issue is how do they keep Clark, Bak, AND Aaron Jones? They probably have to let one of those guys walk. That’s what they pay Gluten to figure out. And we need to see if there will even be an NFL season this year, so table that discussion.

In that case it should be an easy choice to let Jones walk away in free agency next offseason.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

My point was that while you consider the cap increasing when talking about Jones' contract you ignore the fact for some random reason in Clark's case.

Then you misunderstood what I was saying. For Jones, I think he's as good as Ekler, so paying him a, let's call it "inflation adjusted", contract is fine.

I don't think Clark's value on this team is worth an adjusted $18m+ per year.

 

[gopkrs]

Would love to have Jones around for a long time. Love the way he plays. Fun to watch. But I realize it has to come down to being able to field the best team possible. That is going to be true of all the positions. Management decisions of not overpaying but also keeping who you need. Both an art and a science.

 

[swhitset]

Then you misunderstood what I was saying. For Jones, I think he's as good as Ekler, so paying him a, let's call it "inflation adjusted", contract is fine.

I don't think Clark's value on this team is worth an adjusted $18m+ per year.

I think you are greatly underestimating Clark’s contribution to the defense.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I think you are greatly underestimating Clark’s contribution to the defense.

No, I am judging the needs the team has elsewhere. Having two or three position groups become average is better than having one position be great.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Many fans just underestimate the value of a good interior DL, always been like that, always will be.

It‘s no coincidence they are pretty much the best paid position outside QB. Clark at age 24 still has his peak ahead of him, so not resigning him would be a disaster for the defense, even if it would be 18m+/year.

Agreed, it’s not a glamorous position like QB or Edge rusher. The best ones, and Clark is one of the best, earn their sacks and QB hits, and just the disruption they create at the LOS.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

Sign me up all day for 4 yrs 28 million for him. I doubt we get that though.

 

[gbgary]

Agreed, it’s not a glamorous position like QB or Edge rusher. The best ones, and Clark is one of the best, earn their sacks and QB hits, and just the disruption they create at the LOS.

yup. it's taking on two guys, standing them up, and killing a play.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

yup. it's taking on two guys, standing them up, and killing a play.

But does he account for weaker corners and receivers? It's not a vaccuum. You have to account for what he's costing the team elsewhere, that's my only point. Being elite at DT and below average at corner/ILB/WR isn't better than below average at DT but average at CB/ILB/WR. I also think a LT is more important than a DT and re-singing Clark probably means losing Bakhtiari.

But I'll stop now, I initially brought this up as a thought and I've made my points. Clark will certainly be re-signed because it's easier and less risky for the GM.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Then you misunderstood what I was saying. For Jones, I think he's as good as Ekler, so paying him a, let's call it "inflation adjusted", contract is fine.

I don't think Clark's value on this team is worth an adjusted $18m+ per year.

I think the market would show that Clark would command about $16 mil on a 4-year deal. We won’t know until next year, but that’s unlikely to change much. So just get the deal done.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Sign me up all day for 4 yrs 28 million for him. I doubt we get that though.

LL who are you referring to? Both Clark and Jones have been discussed here. Thanks.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

LL who are you referring to? Both Clark and Jones have been discussed here. Thanks.

Jones, the title of the article. Unfortunately I think Clark is going to want a big amount with DeForest Buckner making bank with Indianapolis. Maybe not as much as him, but probably somewhere in the ballpark. Obviously Aaron Jones isn't going to get the Zeke 6 for 90 deal but I'm leaning more towards him getting 4 for 40.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Jones, the title of the article. Unfortunately I think Clark is going to want a big amount with DeForest Buckner making bank with Indianapolis. Maybe not as much as him, but probably somewhere in the ballpark. Obviously Aaron Jones isn't going to get the Zeke 6 for 90 deal but I'm leaning more towards him getting 4 for 40.

Got it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No, I am judging the needs the team has elsewhere. Having two or three position groups become average is better than having one position be great.

The Packers moving on from Clark would result in the team having a terrible defensive line though.

But does he account for weaker corners and receivers? It's not a vaccuum. You have to account for what he's costing the team elsewhere, that's my only point. Being elite at DT and below average at corner/ILB/WR isn't better than below average at DT but average at CB/ILB/WR. I also think a LT is more important than a DT and re-singing Clark probably means losing Bakhtiari.

I agree that the Packers need to improve at other positions but they could create additional cap space by releasing Linsley and Taylor to make it work while not having to deal with a significant drop-off in performance which would likely happen by moving on from Clark.

The team has enough cap space to extend Clark and re-sign Bakhtiari but might have to let Jones walk away in free agency next offseason. That would be the smart choice as it's way easier to adequately replace a running back though.

Obviously Aaron Jones isn't going to get the Zeke 6 for 90 deal but I'm leaning more towards him getting 4 for 40.

There's no way the Packers should spend that much money to retain Jones.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The Packers moving on from Clark would result in the team having a terrible defensive line though.



I agree that the Packers need to improve at other positions but they could create additional cap space by releasing Linsley and Taylor to make it work while not having to deal with a significant drop-off in performance which would likely happen by moving on from Clark.

The team has enough cap space to extend Clark and re-sign Bakhtiari but might have to let Jones walk away in free agency next offseason. That would be the smart choice as it's way easier to adequately replace a running back though.



There's no way the Packers should spend that much money to retain Jones.

I think you’re right - the Packers would keep Clark and Bak and let Jones walk. I don’t see how they afford all three. If Jones repeats his performance from last year, he’d likely get $10 mil/year. That’s just too much for a RB. I expect Gluten will take a RB, maybe two, in the draft. As for Clark and the crazy suggestion he’s a mediocre player or GB should look to trade him, that’s just nuts.

 

[LambeauLombardi]

There's no way the Packers should spend that much money to retain Jones.

You're probably right. Until running backs demand more money for their first contract, it makes too much sense just to draft your guy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You're probably right. Until running backs demand more money for their first contract, it makes too much sense just to draft your guy.

Well, the new CBA doesn't include a significant spike in rookie salaries, therefore that won't happen for at least another 10 years.

 

[gbgary]

Agreed. At the same time, I’m not too worried about him having a “career” year. But yeah, guys have done that, signed pricey extensions, and then underperformed.

yup. king have a "fantastic" year? to coin wimm, "i highly doubt it." it wouldn't take much for him to have a career year (for him) though considering what his career has been thus far. hell...starting all 16 games would be a career year.

 

[gopkrs]

I recently saw Jones's interview on NFL tv. He was obviously so nervous. He was humble and I believed him when he said he would love for his career to be in GB. I see him as a full effort guy. He tries so ******* blitz pick-ups no matter how big the guy coming at him is. He is a low key personality but with high energy enthusiasm on the field. And he is just plain fun to watch. I hope we find a way to pay him. The best way I imagine is to pay him before his contract is up. I don't think it is always just about crunching numbers. Some players are special. For me, he could be one of the special ones.

 

[OldSchool101]

"Don't pay running backs" is the conventional wisdom of the moment in the NFL. And with good reason. The majority of big money extensions paid to the position have been disastrous lately.

The Rams recently incurred a ton of dead money in order to move on from Todd Gurley. The Falcons are giving up 6M in cap space this year for Devonta Freeman not to play for them. Lev Bell's deal looked awful in year one. The Cardinals regretted paying David Johnson until they found someone stupid enough to take on his contract.

So with Aaron Jones entering the last year of his deal, the Packers are confronted with a choice-- pay a RB a lucrative second contract, or let him walk?

Here is the case for keeping him.

Usage: Aaron Jones is entering year four in the league with 534 touches to his name, or 178/season. Another season comparable to 2019 will mean he will have 819 touches to his name by the time he lands that second contract, or 205/season.

This is not a lot of wear and tear. For comparison, Todd Gurley accrued 914 touches by the end of year 3, or 305/season and 1,229 touches by the end of year 4 (307/season). Even Devonta Freeman, who didn't play much as a rookie, was at 714 touches by the end of year 3-- 180 more than Jones.

At Jones' current rate (based on 2019 workload, not the average of his first three year-- 280 touches/season), Jones wouldn't top Gurley's year four number (1,229 touches) until the second year of his extension.

So point #1 for keeping him is that he just hasn't had the heavy workload so far that would make him "damaged goods" on a second deal.

Skill-set: As a runner, Jones' style is virtually a perfect fit for what this offense wants to accomplish. However, runners who fit a primarily zone rushing attack aren't that rare. The real argument that emerges to me in regards to skill-set is his receiving ability.

Jones demonstrated on a number of occasions that he is a pretty rare talent as a receiving back. Most RB's in the NFL can catch short passes in the flats, via screens, or as an outlet in the short middle. Jones ran routes down the field and made catches that traveled 30+ yards in the air.

For an offense that wants to run and pass effectively out of formations and play action that looks identical, this is an extremely useful skill set, and one that isn't easily replaceable.

Market: The running back market is depressed and will continue to be depressed. Teams are going to shy away from paying backs as they see what's going on with current extensions. This should push the price tag down in terms of annual cost and length of commitment.

Austin Ekeler just got paid 4/24.5 with 13.75 Gtd at signing. That's 6.125/season. The team can cut him after two seasons with a small dead cap hit (3M) and after three seasons with half of that (1.5M).

Some might think that Ekeler isn't a good comparison, but consider their production last year:

Jones: 285 touches for 1558 total yards, 5.5 yds/touch
Ekeler: 224 touches for 1550 total yards, 6.9 yds/touch

So let us assume that maybe Jones slots in just above Ekeler because he's more a focal piece of the ground game. That would potentially look like this:

4/28 with 16 Gtd at signing, 7M/season. With a similar structure in which it's easy to get out of the contract after year 2, I think that would be a great move for the Packers.

The high water mark of the deal, cap wise, would be 3.5% of the total cap (with the number getting smaller as the cap ceiling gets bigger). It would lock Green Bay in to his age 26 and 27 seasons, and essentially give them a team option for his age 28 and 29 seasons.

If Jones would accept that deal or something like it, I think GB should jump on it.

I’ve been bouncing around various sites reading articles. I honestly forgot I was in the Packer forum for a second because that read so professional.
True story.
Nicely done Dante.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I recently saw Jones's interview on NFL tv. He was obviously so nervous. He was humble and I believed him when he said he would love for his career to be in GB. I see him as a full effort guy. He tries so ******* blitz pick-ups no matter how big the guy coming at him is. He is a low key personality but with high energy enthusiasm on the field. And he is just plain fun to watch. I hope we find a way to pay him. The best way I imagine is to pay him before his contract is up. I don't think it is always just about crunching numbers. Some players are special. For me, he could be one of the special ones.

I agree with what you said except that it is always about crunching numbers. The cap is a zero sum game. Every "pay the man" is at the expense of another man you don't, be it a guy already on the roster or an outside FA.