Matt Forte to the Jets

[Mike FF Today 613]

Per Adam Schefter.

 

Running back Matt Forte has agreed to a contract with the New York Jets, a source told ESPN's Adam Schefter.

 

Forte will replace Chris Ivory, who has agreed to sign with the Jacksonville Jaguars.

[petekrum 20]

Outstanding! Doesn't screw up the RB situation on any their team.

[tanatastic 2,061]

I anticipate similar to what LT did in his stint there.

[weepaws 2,517]

Now this is very good news .

[stonewall 647]

Outstanding! Doesn't screw up the RB situation on any of their teams.

 

Yeldon would beg to differ.

[giraldi02 470]

Bilal Powell is going to get re-signed by the Jets

 

Edit (9:48 am PST):

Now Albert Breer is stating that Khiry Robinson will also be signed by the Jets.

The Jets backfield is now quagmire status IMHO

[Frozenbeernuts 1,653]

Bilal Powell is going to get re-signed by the Jets

 

Edit (9:48 am PST):

 

Now Albert Breer is stating that Khiry Robinson will also be signed by the Jets.

 

The Jets backfield is now quagmire status IMHO

Oh balls why doesnt robinson go where he has a shot at starting

[weepaws 2,517]

Where do you think Robinson would have a shot at being the starter ?

[Criper 24]

Where do you think Robinson would have a shot at being the starter ?

Maybe he would have had a shot in Denver? Hillman is a free agent, and it looks like CJ Anderson will get an offer from Miami, and if Denver can't afford to match, then the Broncos could be in the RB market as well as the QB market.

[giraldi02 470]

Where do you think Robinson would have a shot at being the starter ?

Dallas & Denver immediately come to mind

[weepaws 2,517]

Yea both Dallas and Denver would be good landing spots for him. Thanks

[n_omarley 11]

As a semi-dynasty owner who is stuck with Forte as his 1st-round pick for one more year, I love this move.

[DaBeerz 88]

How did Forte sign a deal that low? Did he really sign for 12 mil with only 8 guaranteed?

[WhiteWonder 2,237]

good deal for the Jets. Ivory was only 2 years younger, less dynamic, more often injured and would have cost more $$. It's an immediate upgrade in all aspects for the Jets. No one wants to pay through the nose for an older free agent RB but this was a very palatable amount for someone with Forte's skill set.

 

glad they kept powell as well. very underrated.

 

Robinson is a minor head scratch move but in the event Forte breaks down you have a guy who can pound the rock and a guy who can catch out of the backfield as a combo to replace Forte.

[WhiteWonder 2,237]

How did Forte sign a deal that low? Did he really sign for 12 mil with only 8 guaranteed?

 

with a few minor exceptions, RB's in todays NFL are completely disposable

[Ray_T 604]

 

with a few minor exceptions, RB's in todays NFL are completely disposable

This. and he's 30.

 

the age where RB's tend to hit the wall.

 

better gym routines have extended the career life of players in almost every position in football. Except RB's.

 

RB's still tend to hit the wall at 30 or shortly thereafter.

 

Forte has pass catching skills, so may be valuable for an extra year, two at most.

 

The bottom line is that few teams out there are willing to toss big bucks out there for a 30 year old player.... and they certainly arent gonna sign a long term deal either.

 

Forte I'm sure could have got more cash, but he was quoted as saying he wanted to be on a playoff team and I'm sure that played a role here.

[petekrum 20]

Oh balls why doesnt robinson go where he has a shot at starting

The Arena League?

[petekrum 20]

How did Forte sign a deal that low? Did he really sign for 12 mil with only 8 guaranteed?

 

There's not exactly a huge market for 30 year old RBs with his mileage.

[PJ_Abyss 0]

Seems like this backfield is crowded...

[petekrum 20]

Seems like this backfield is crowded...

It's really not. Forte will eat, those other guys are 0's trying to be 1's.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,653]

The Arena League?

Yeah we can use arena players on our fanyasy teams

[R8RMick 242]

There's not exactly a huge market for 30 year old RBs with his mileage.

Probably, but a misleading statement in regards to Forte. The man has gone about his business and kept himself in excellent shape. He bounced back smartly after three games from a knee sprain last year, and probably could've came back after two.

[murf74 461]

It's really not. Forte will eat, those other guys are 0's trying to be 1's.

I think it's crowded and the staff loves using them all

[Ray_T 604]

Probably, but a misleading statement in regards to Forte. The man has gone about his business and kept himself in excellent shape. He bounced back smartly after three games from a knee sprain last year, and probably could've came back after two.

 

I Think the statement is regards to age and workload.

 

I dont remember if it was this board or that of FBG but a few years ago, someone ran some stats regarding age and total # of touches, and statistically players with a larger workload are more likely to hit the wall early in their career.

 

Back then I owned LT (who was also in great shape) and I denied that it would apply to him. I figured a guy who keeps himself in top shape should be able to squeeze out another year or two of top production. inevitably, it didnt make a difference in the end.

 

I do think that Forte has a long history of being healthy as compared to LT who got dinged up a fair bit more than he did. so his chances of bucking the trend are a bit higher than average.

 

That being said, this thread was more to explain why he signed a contract for such a low dollar amount. I do think the risks outlined in this thread give you the reason.

 

You dont need to agree with the reasons. The only people who need to agree are the team signing him and the player (and/or his agent)

 

Clearly Forte is okay with the pay he is getting.(or at least as okay as hes gonna be)

 

This is why he signed the contract.

[R8RMick 242]

 

I Think the statement is regards to age and workload.

 

I dont remember if it was this board or that of FBG but a few years ago, someone ran some stats regarding age and total # of touches, and statistically players with a larger workload are more likely to hit the wall early in their career.

 

Back then I owned LT (who was also in great shape) and I denied that it would apply to him. I figured a guy who keeps himself in top shape should be able to squeeze out another year or two of top production. inevitably, it didnt make a difference in the end.

 

I do think that Forte has a long history of being healthy as compared to LT who got dinged up a fair bit more than he did. so his chances of bucking the trend are a bit higher than average.

 

That being said, this thread was more to explain why he signed a contract for such a low dollar amount. I do think the risks outlined in this thread give you the reason.

 

You dont need to agree with the reasons. The only people who need to agree are the team signing him and the player (and/or his agent)

 

Clearly Forte is okay with the pay he is getting.(or at least as okay as hes gonna be)

 

This is why he signed the contract.

Sorry wasn't meaning to argue though I know it sounded as such. Was just impressed with the way Forte carries himself and goes about his profession. Reminds me a lot of Marcus Allen.

 

Posted a stat in another thread, how only ten players in the entire NFL averaged at least 14 carries a game. It's not the quality of RBs, it's the style of play that is driving the worth of the position down. A shame, as 2014 in Dallas proved what a strong running game can mean to a football team.

[giraldi02 470]

Posted a stat in another thread, how only ten players in the entire NFL averaged at least 14 carries a game. It's not the quality of RBs, it's the style of play that is driving the worth of the position down. A shame, as 2014 in Dallas proved what a strong running game can mean to a football team.

 

 

Expanding upon your statement, there's even more reason to devalue running backs moving forward with the removal of all forms of chop blocks. In the past, including last season, there were permissible chop blocks:

 

A Chop Block is a legal block in the following situations on Running Plays:

-- Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned adjacent to each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player.

-- Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned more than one position away from each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player when the flow of the play is toward the block.

It seems that a lot of offensive linemen that are on social media have reacted with some backlash. The linked article embedded Geoff Schwartz along with a few others, but I've seen several others that are notably pissed about that change.

 

The primary reason: ambiguity. It creates another situation where the refs have a vague ruling in place. I expect quite a few penalties against offensive linemen next season, resulting in more than a few frustrating situations for fantasy owners.

[Ray_T 604]

I guess another reason (touched upon earlier, but not really explained fully) why RB's arent going in the first round as much anymore.

 

this is only my theory, but based on logic it seems reasonable.

 

 

in the old days most players played to the age of 29 or 30, and if they played to 32 or 33 they had a long career.

 

when Athletes realized they could extend their careers by hitting the gym, and now we see QB's playing to the age of 35+ and in some cases even beyond the age of 40.

 

WR's are generally good to the age of 35, but can last longer in some cases.

 

but RB's still finish at 30 or 31 for the most part.

 

a large part of this (I think) is due to the physical nature of the position and the additional wear and tear on the body.

 

 

 

When you draft a RB coming out of college, they are typically 22 years old and require a year to become productive and then have 6-8 years where they are useful to a team as a starter.

 

WR's come out of college at the same age, and require a year or two to become productive (typically slightly longer than a RB) and they can play to the age of 35.

 

QB's are the same as WR's but play to the age of (oh lets say 38)

 

I do not have stats or averages for length of career. these are assumptions based on my best guess and the assumptions are used to make the case for my example. I am assuming these numbers are at least reasonably correct but wouldnt be surprised if I'm off by a year or so on some of these estimates.

 

based on these assumptions:

 

the lifespan of a QB would typically be 14-16 years.

the lifespan of a WR would be 10-12 years

The lifespan of a RB would be 7 years (8 at most)

 

 

So it makes more sense to spend a first round pick on a QB or a WR (if you think they will be a stud) because the length of career counts for a lot.

 

This is my theory as to why RB's appear to be devalued in the NFL draft.

 

once upon a time all players had close to an equal career length. This does not seem to be the case anymore. and it makes more sense to spend a first round pick on a player who will have a longer career.

 

of course exceptions are warranted when the player is exceptionally gifted (ie. ADP, possibly Gurley)

 

anyhow, this is just a theory. I'm throwing it out there to see what some of you think of it.

[ralphster 274]

I'm sure potential length of career might have some weight in draft day war rooms but what about oline/cb/dline/lb? By and large teams are drafting to need and BPA.

[Ray_T 604]

I'm sure potential length of career might have some weight in draft day war rooms but what about oline/cb/dline/lb? By and large teams are drafting to need and BPA.

I have no doubt this has the larger impact on things. Teams almost always draft to need.

 

But I am wondering if teams are faced with the choice of a franchise RB vs a franchise QB if they are now starting to pick the QB due to the Length of career.

 

If you hit on a QB you have a competitive team for 15 years. If you hit on a RB, you get half that time.

[lesjroza 70]

I guess another reason (touched upon earlier, but not really explained fully) why RB's arent going in the first round as much anymore.

 

this is only my theory, but based on logic it seems reasonable.

 

 

in the old days most players played to the age of 29 or 30, and if they played to 32 or 33 they had a long career.

 

when Athletes realized they could extend their careers by hitting the gym, and now we see QB's playing to the age of 35+ and in some cases even beyond the age of 40.

 

WR's are generally good to the age of 35, but can last longer in some cases.

 

but RB's still finish at 30 or 31 for the most part.

 

a large part of this (I think) is due to the physical nature of the position and the additional wear and tear on the body.

 

 

 

When you draft a RB coming out of college, they are typically 22 years old and require a year to become productive and then have 6-8 years where they are useful to a team as a starter.

 

WR's come out of college at the same age, and require a year or two to become productive (typically slightly longer than a RB) and they can play to the age of 35.

 

QB's are the same as WR's but play to the age of (oh lets say 38)

 

I do not have stats or averages for length of career. these are assumptions based on my best guess and the assumptions are used to make the case for my example. I am assuming these numbers are at least reasonably correct but wouldnt be surprised if I'm off by a year or so on some of these estimates.

 

based on these assumptions:

 

the lifespan of a QB would typically be 14-16 years.

the lifespan of a WR would be 10-12 years

The lifespan of a RB would be 7 years (8 at most)

 

 

So it makes more sense to spend a first round pick on a QB or a WR (if you think they will be a stud) because the length of career counts for a lot.

 

This is my theory as to why RB's appear to be devalued in the NFL draft.

 

once upon a time all players had close to an equal career length. This does not seem to be the case anymore. and it makes more sense to spend a first round pick on a player who will have a longer career.

 

of course exceptions are warranted when the player is exceptionally gifted (ie. ADP, possibly Gurley)

 

anyhow, this is just a theory. I'm throwing it out there to see what some of you think of it.

 

 

OK, you asked, here is what I think. In the salary cap era of the NFL all those career span stats in terms of draft pick value are irrelevant.

 

In a true dynasty league, which isn't salary cap based, career length matters to us when we make a pick, but not in the NFL. The reason is because in dynasty we get the value of that player over the life of their career but in the NFL after 4 or 5 yrs the player will have a contract that is market based and consequently the value of that pick is gone.

 

Why? Because the team has allocate that portion of the salary cap for the player to a market based contract and the truth is they could easily replace the production in the FA market. Sure there are plenty of other reasons to re-sign the player, fan loyalty, continuity (though staffs cycle enough in most cases this is not as much a factor as it used to be) for instance, but fairly equal production is available nearly every year. Losing your WR to FA and don't think there is another that can replace? No problem, spend it on increasing pass rush production this year, and wait for the WR that fits while simultaneously taking a shot in the draft. Like it or not players are a commodity with the exception of the very rare true elite irreplaceable studs.....and QBs. The NFL now is about production > market value.

 

Taking that world view into account I think the above theory of why RB is devalued is flawed. The potential career length of all positions extends beyond the 1st contract............... at which point the value of the pick to the team is lost (except perhaps QB) due to having to pay market value.

 

IMO the devaluing of the RB position comes down to the rampant ability to get production cheaply otherwise, more so than any other position. If you can get a productive RB either in FA for a reasonable market price, or in some cases from late or even undrafted players........ you are foolish to draft one high. You would be allocating scarce resources to a position many other of your rivals are spending little which consequently allows them to outspend you in other areas. Rookie contracts are slotted, so the higher the choice, the higher the contract or percentage of the cap. If you spend a high choice on a RB you are not only expending the draft capital that could have been used elsewhere but you are also locking in a high salary for a replaceable position thus not getting the value above production ratio for your salary cap another team that uses a pick on a pass rusher, corner, etc may be getting.

 

Look at the annual dollar values on contracts for RBs available in FA over the last couple of years. Production is available at a small percentage of the cap.

 

Could there be exceptions? Of course! But this is the general landscape.......and by the way some if it is self - reinforcing (contract dollars are low......... because they have been low) so it has gotten to the point where the pendulum will and is swinging back a bit, but RBs will not be a valued commodity any time soon.

 

If you want to be one of the top teams in the NFL find a way to consistently obtain higher production than you have to pay market value. Its not clear to me all 32 GMs in the NFL get this concept, but the part about not paying RBs big or spending high choices on them seems to be more wide spread now than it was several years ago.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,653]

 

 

OK, you asked, here is what I think. In the salary cap era of the NFL all those career span stats in terms of draft pick value are irrelevant.

 

In a true dynasty league, which isn't salary cap based, career length matters to us when we make a pick, but not in the NFL. The reason is because in dynasty we get the value of that player over the life of their career but in the NFL after 4 or 5 yrs the player will have a contract that is market based and consequently the value of that pick is gone.

 

Why? Because the team has allocate that portion of the salary cap for the player to a market based contract and the truth is they could easily replace the production in the FA market. Sure there are plenty of other reasons to re-sign the player, fan loyalty, continuity (though staffs cycle enough in most cases this is not as much a factor as it used to be) for instance, but fairly equal production is available nearly every year. Losing your WR to FA and don't think there is another that can replace? No problem, spend it on increasing pass rush production this year, and wait for the WR that fits while simultaneously taking a shot in the draft. Like it or not players are a commodity with the exception of the very rare true elite irreplaceable studs.....and QBs. The NFL now is about production > market value.

 

Taking that world view into account I think the above theory of why RB is devalued is flawed. The potential career length of all positions extends beyond the 1st contract............... at which point the value of the pick to the team is lost (except perhaps QB) due to having to pay market value.

 

IMO the devaluing of the RB position comes down to the rampant ability to get production cheaply otherwise, more so than any other position. If you can get a productive RB either in FA for a reasonable market price, or in some cases from late or even undrafted players........ you are foolish to draft one high. You would be allocating scarce resources to a position many other of your rivals are spending little which consequently allows them to outspend you in other areas. Rookie contracts are slotted, so the higher the choice, the higher the contract or percentage of the cap. If you spend a high choice on a RB you are not only expending the draft capital that could have been used elsewhere but you are also locking in a high salary for a replaceable position thus not getting the value above production ratio for your salary cap another team that uses a pick on a pass rusher, corner, etc may be getting.

 

Look at the annual dollar values on contracts for RBs available in FA over the last couple of years. Production is available at a small percentage of the cap.

 

Could there be exceptions? Of course! But this is the general landscape.......and by the way some if it is self - reinforcing (contract dollars are low......... because they have been low) so it has gotten to the point where the pendulum will and is swinging back a bit, but RBs will not be a valued commodity any time soon.

 

If you want to be one of the top teams in the NFL find a way to consistently obtain higher production than you have to pay market value. Its not clear to me all 32 GMs in the NFL get this concept, but the part about not paying RBs big or spending high choices on them seems to be more wide spread now than it was several years ago.

The only way the pendulum swings back (assuming there is a NFL still) is if there are a bunch of super stud Peterson, Gurley, Bell type backs that flood the league. That wont happen though because its no longer the high paid cool position to play.

[weepaws 2,517]

There will be a NFL . I would take a interest in buying stock in the flag football industry.

[lesjroza 70]

The only way the pendulum swings back (assuming there is a NFL still) is if there are a bunch of super stud Peterson, Gurley, Bell type backs that flood the league. That wont happen though because its no longer the high paid cool position to play.

 

Yeah, when I was talking about it swigning back a bit I was referring specifically to contract dollars. It seemed to me the RB contracts stemmed the tide of falling dollars this year at a minimum and maybe even up ticked. Ivory 5 yrs $32, $10 mi guaranteed avg annual 6.4 is definitely a lot better than expected. Contracts are hard to evaluate with each having different clauses.........and he won't see all of that money, I understand............... but its a more than solid deal. None of the top RBs in this FA class were proven elite but those contracts were all very solid IMO. Like it or not the way negotiations work is agents and GMs will use the most recent deals as a starting point.

 

Anyway, that's all I meant by the pendulum maybe swinging back a bit