(07-16-2020, 02:01 PM)Whatever Wrote: The other big reason RB's don't typically get huge 2nd contracts is that they usually hit the wall a couple of years into their second contract.
 

It would take a lot of complicate research to answer this question, but I tend to disagree.

My research is not as exact as it needs to be, but I think it is close enough to give us a good idea.  And it looks like most good RBs play well through their second contract.

I would roughly estimate that the first contract cover years 21-24.  If they get another 4 year deal then that would be for years 25-28.

Over the last decade (2010-2019) there have been 127 one thousand yard rushing seasons.  51 of them have been by RBs age 21-24.  60 of them have been by RBs age 25-28.  

28 seems to be the big "drop off year".  There have been as many 1000 yd seasons by RBs age 28 (15) as RBs age 25 or 26.  But there were only 8 by RBs age 29, and only 8 more by RBs aged 30 or older (and Frank Gore has 3 of them).

A 4 year deal (3 year extension) for Mixon has him under contract through age 27.  I feel it is pretty safe to assume a good RB will last that long.

Anything between $8-10 over 4 that is weighted to the front side I am okay with. If it goes over that you make him play out the year and then let him walk into a flooded HB market next off season and test the waters.

(07-16-2020, 02:40 PM)3wt Wrote: The answer to this is that I do not believe Mixon will sign.

I think the floor for his expectations is - or was $10 million a year.   I don't think he'll settle for less than this in the wake of the Henry deal.

Last year was the only time in his career he was healthy enough to play 16 games.

He will only make $1.2 million this year.

He would be crazy to pass on an immediate $10 million in his pocket and risk playing this year for just $1.2 million.  Th only way he would possibly play out his contract is if we were just offering him 5 or 6 million a year.

(07-16-2020, 03:04 PM)Au165 Wrote:  let him walk into a flooded HB market next off season and test the waters.

This is a good point.

I don't know who all will be a free agent next year, but the commentators were all saying that was a big reason Henry wanted to get a deal this year.

(07-16-2020, 03:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is a good point.

I don't know who all will be a free agent next year, but the commentators were all saying that was a big reason Henry wanted to get a deal this year.

Dalvin Cook, Leonard Fournette, Aaron Jones, Alvin Kamara, Phillip Lindsay, Marlon Mack, Kenyon Drake, Todd Gurley...and one of the better HB draft classes we have seen in a while.

(07-16-2020, 03:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Dalvin Cook, Leonard Fournette, Aaron Jones, Alvin Kamara, Phillip Lindsay, Marlon Mack, Kenyon Drake, Todd Gurley...and one of the better HB draft classes we have seen in a while.

Rep.

I said there was no reason this would not get done before i even took this into consideration.

I don't know how the pandemic effects contract negotiations, but even in "normal" years Bengals usually worked out extensions for vets at the very beginning of training camp.

(07-16-2020, 12:40 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: To each their own, but in my mind this is easily explainable.  It's not that you "don't pay" them, it's that you don't overpay them.  Running backs are probably the easiest position to replace.  They also have the shortest life-span career wise, making long-term investments all the more risky.  When you combine those two things it drives their price way down.

[cut out most of your post just to shorten things up]

Some of this debate gets lost as "don't pay RBs" gets conflated with "don't overpay RB". When I hear the don't pay RB argument all I hear is "let Joe walk next year and draft his replacement in the 5th round". That's what I'm arguing against. To give the debate any semantic interoperability, it has to be in terms of at what threshold one considers it to be overpaying. After all we're really talking about what the value is, because by definition you shouldn't "overpay" anybody (in the sense of paying beyond their value). 

It does seem to me that if Derrick Henry is worth 12.5 million per (and i'm not saying he is, i'm saying that's the market), then Mixon should be worth 11-12, because they're close. If we get him for 10 or less i'll be ecstatic... but there are folks in this thread saying 10 is too much. 

(07-16-2020, 03:26 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: [cut out most of your post just to shorten things up]

Some of this debate gets lost as "don't pay RBs" gets conflated with "don't overpay RB". When I hear the don't pay RB argument all I hear is "let Joe walk next year and draft his replacement in the 5th round". That's what I'm arguing against. To give the debate any semantic interoperability, it has to be in terms of at what threshold one considers it to be overpaying. After all we're really talking about what the value is, because by definition you shouldn't "overpay" anybody (in the sense of paying beyond their value). 

It does seem to me that if Derrick Henry is worth 12.5 million per (and i'm not saying he is, i'm saying that's the market), then Mixon should be worth 11-12, because they're close. If we get him for 10 or less i'll be ecstatic... but there are folks in this thread saying 10 is too much. 

I think Henry and Mixon are close talent wise but the TD's are not even close, this is why I think 11 or 12 might be too much
for the amount of production Mixon has provided. The one thing that makes me think he would be worth it is Burrow coming
in and the O-line improving in blocking. Mixon could really blow up the league if used correctly as I don't think he has been 
used correctly in the passing game so far in his career.

(07-16-2020, 03:36 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I think Henry and Mixon are close talent wise but the TD's are not even close, this is why I think 11 or 12 might be too much
for the amount of production Mixon has provided. The one thing that makes me think he would be worth it is Burrow coming
in and the O-line improving in blocking. Mixon could really blow up the league if used correctly as I don't think he has been 
used correctly in the passing game so far in his career.

Forget TD's, Derek Henry rushed for nearly 1300 yards of his 1540 yards last year after contact. Henry has averaged almost 5 yards a touch the last two years and frankly doesn't take a lot of negative rushes even when hit in the backfield. Mixon offers more in the passing game for sure, but Mixon has not shown the talent as a runner that Henry has. To me, Mixon is closer to Melvin Gordon than he is Derek Henry.

(07-16-2020, 03:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: Forget TD's, Derek Henry rushed for nearly 1300 yards of his 1540 yards last year after contact. Henry has averaged almost 5 yards a touch the last two years and frankly doesn't take a lot of negative rushes even when hit in the backfield. Mixon offers more in the passing game for sure, but Mixon has not shown the talent as a runner that Henry has. To me, Mixon is closer to Melvin Gordon than he is Derek Henry.

Agree, even though I do like Mixon better than Gordon. Henry is a freak and deserved what he got.

Henry is also deceitfully fast, he can run away from DB's.

Henry finishes and this is one of the things Mixon has not done consistently is finish big runs with TD's.

(07-16-2020, 03:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It would take a lot of complicate research to answer this question, but I tend to disagree.

My research is not as exact as it needs to be, but I think it is close enough to give us a good idea.  And it looks like most good RBs play well through their second contract.

I would roughly estimate that the first contract cover years 21-24.  If they get another 4 year deal then that would be for years 25-28.

Over the last decade (2010-2019) there have been 127 one thousand yard rushing seasons.  51 of them have been by RBs age 21-24.  60 of them have been by RBs age 25-28.  

28 seems to be the big "drop off year".  There have been as many 1000 yd seasons by RBs age 28 (15) as RBs age 25 or 26.  But there were only 8 by RBs age 29, and only 8 more by RBs aged 30 or older (and Frank Gore has 3 of them).

A 4 year deal (3 year extension) for Mixon has him under contract through age 27.  I feel it is pretty safe to assume a good RB will last that long.

The issue is there's been big trends in the last 5 years against paying 2nd contracts for RB's.

In '15, 7 backs ran for 1000+ yards and 4 of them were actually over the age of 25.  However, from '16-19, out of 45 1000+ yard seasons by RB's, only 11 were by RB's over the age of 25, and 5 of those came in '16. 

Currently,the "wall"for RB's is age 26.  You sign a guy to a big extension,, but he probably only has 1-2 productive years as a starter left.  That's why even a 4 year extension at $8 mil/year is a sucker's bet.

(07-16-2020, 04:45 PM)Whatever Wrote: Currently,the "wall"for RB's is age 26. 

Four years is a pretty small sample size.  I don't think the league has changed that much that quickly.

Yes I would do that in a heartbeat. The best is yet to come for him!

(07-16-2020, 11:27 AM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: 4 years, 40-45, 20 mil guaranteed.

That's what I'd do for Mixon.

And, if they do that for him THIS year, as a contract extension giving him some bonus money now, it might grease the wheels to an amicable deal that benefits both parties.  The money gets spread over 5 years, instead of 4, which greatly benefits the team.  Joe would get some serious money now, giving him a little financial security, thus making him a happier guy.

I would rather draft a replacement. They should at least receive a comp pick.

(07-16-2020, 05:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Four years is a pretty small sample size.  I don't think the league has changed that much that quickly.

The league has changed a lot in that time frame.  If you're going back 10 years, it's common to see 6-7 guys get 300+ carries.  Nowadays, it's rare to see more than one get 300+ carries.  In fact, last year was the first time since '14 that it's happened.

10 years ago, teams were actually in their base defense more than 50% of the time.  Now, teams are in nickel 70+% of the time.  The game has gone from run to pass to pass to run.  A lot more spread and air raid concepts from college have moved into the pro game.  

He definitely shouldn’t get as much as Henry, but I think those saying around 8 are lowballing him a bit. Offer him 10x4 and call it a day.

I really don’t want to have to completely rebuild our offense for Burrow if both AJ and Mixon walk next year.

(07-16-2020, 11:09 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Derrick Henry signed a 4 year 50 million dollar deal with 25.5 million guaranteed with the Titans yesterday.

Would you give this deal to Mixon if he were to accept?

Locking up Mixon's year 24, 25, 26 and 27 age seasons (assuming it's an extension and doesn't override his current 2020 contract) for 12.5 million per year isn't a fantastic deal, but it's decent value. But going over 10 million per year for a running back is still very steep considering the positional value.

I personally would be more worried about the years than the dollars. I'd prefer a 3 year extension and then a re-evaluation period in which we could choose to either keep him or let him leave.

Since we didn't extend Green, I think getting a deal with Mixon done should be the final remaining priority of the off season, so if this is what it takes I am open to it.

What are your guys' thoughts?

I'd pay him close to that. He is an elite back with all things considered. I think the deal isn't nearly as constricting as some QB/DE deals.

(07-16-2020, 11:15 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: No way I give Mixon that much.  Henry is coming off a 1,540 yard, 16 TD season where he averaged 5.1 a pop.  He's also coming off a season where he was the focal point of a team that went to the AFC Championship.

I'm sorry, but the production just isn't there for Mixon to sniff the very top level of pay at the position.  I do believe he's been hindered a bit by playing on bad teams, whereas someone like Elliot benifits greatly from his surroundings.  Still, until Mixon produces elite numbers he can't be paid elite money.

Mixon, IMHO, is worth aound 9 mil per.  8 mil per would be his bottom, 10 mil his ceiling.  Any less and it's a steal, any more and you overpaid.

You have a point but how strong would your beliefs be if he said no? Would you cave and pay more or use our youth? I think you drive a hard bargain but may be correct. How much do we even know about this new offense? Maybe Burrow destroys NFL rookie stats and Gio becomes a star on 3rd down check-downs... essentially eliminating the need for Mixon versus a younger/average back.  I was wrong with TE usage last year, and have no idea what Zack Taylor is planning this year.

If our WR group is as strong on paper as it seems... and Joe Burrow delivers, do we need to cave and pay an elite RB price?

The Henry deal is too much for Mixon. Anything over 9 per is too expensive. Skill positions can't carry a roster. 

(07-17-2020, 09:14 AM)Bilbo Saggins Wrote: The Henry deal is too much for Mixon. Anything over 9 per is too expensive. Skill positions can't carry a roster. 

Idk, I just saw a pretty crazy stat in an Athletic article about AJ Green:


Bengals with AJ (66-44-1)

Bengals without AJ (7-25-1)


Sure seems like he’s carried us to me...