+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: JUNGLE NOISE (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-2.html)
+--- Thread: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? (/thread-24303.html)
Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - CJD - 07-16-2020
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?
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Wes Mantooth - 07-16-2020
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.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Truck_1_0_1_ - 07-16-2020
4 years, 40-45, 20 mil guaranteed.
That's what I'd do for Mixon.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Yojimbo - 07-16-2020
I like Mixon, but I'm in the "don't pay running backs" group. The big salaries go to QB's, LT's, pass rushers, corners and WR's. Those are positions you can't just plug and play with a new draft pick. If Mixon walks at the end of the year, there's going to be 5-10 starter level RB's in next years draft.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Geno_Can_Dunk - 07-16-2020
Mixon will get a lesser deal than Henry for sure, because he has produced less. Of course, numbers aren't everything, because nobody put up great numbers in our offense last year, whereas Tennessee was a playoff team. If you know football, and know the NFL, Mixon is as good of a back (if not better) than Henry. That's certainly what his representation will argue.
So I think he'll get somewhere around 11-12 million per, and yes I'd do that. I'd also like it to be 3 years, because in year 4 we'll need money for a Burrow extension, but length shouldn't be a deal breaker.
I get the "don't pay RBs" argument, but many fans takes that to extremes. Positional value should take a back seat to keeping good players when you have them. He's a core player, a building block, don't overthink it too much. Guard or safety aren't crucial either, but if you have good ones you give them their market value and continue to build. And Henry's deal suggests that Mixon's should be 11-12 million-ish.
The "just draft a RB next year" argument doesn't compute to me either... by that logic let's just never re-sign anybody and just draft replacements and stay on the hamster wheel forever. I'd rather use those picks on an upgrade at RT and cut Hart, and upgrade at RG, long term replacements for Geno and Dunlap, we'll probably need a CB, etc.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Truck_1_0_1_ - 07-16-2020
I'm with Geno above.
For me, it's simple:
- a Franchise back like Mixon, Henry, Bell, Elliot, etc., you pay, just don't go nuts.
- a good RB like Chris Carson, Conner, anyone the Ravens trot out, Sony Michel, you "don't sign."
All RBs are not built alike.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - bengalfan74 - 07-16-2020
(07-16-2020, 12:25 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I'm with Geno above.
For me, it's simple:
- a Franchise back like Mixon, Henry, Bell, Elliot, etc., you pay, just don't go nuts.
- a good RB like Chris Carson, Conner, anyone the Ravens trot out, Sony Michel, you "don't sign."
All RBs are not built alike.
Agree
I don't think we should go nuts to re-sign Mixon. But if we can get him in 10/11 mil range do it. I think this notion that you can just sign a replacement for any RB gets overblown.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Wes Mantooth - 07-16-2020
(07-16-2020, 12:13 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: I get the "don't pay RBs" argument, but many fans takes that to extremes. Positional value should take a back seat to keeping good players when you have them.
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.
If you look at some of the very best backs in the game you'll find a disproportinate number of them were taken well outside the 1st round:
Dalvin Cook - 3rd
Alvin Kamara - 3rd
Chris Carson - 7th
Nick Chubb -2nd
Aaron Jones - 5th
Joe Mixon - 2nd
James Connor - 3rd
The fact is, talent at that position, maybe more than any other, can be found later in the draft. They also tend to be able to produce more quickly than other positions. Most of the guys listed above were already well above average by year 2. So there's a quick turnaround time to consider too.
You can look back through the years of great running backs who left their orginal teams only to be replaced by unknowns without a significant loss in production. Priest Holmes comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
There's nothing wrong with paying a running back but you really want to be mindful of the cap considerations. A great running back behind a bad OL is no longer a great back. An average running back behind a great OL is usually a very good running back. If you are going to pay out elite money to back you better be damn well sure he's worth it.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Wes Mantooth - 07-16-2020
(07-16-2020, 12:25 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I'm with Geno above.
For me, it's simple:
- a Franchise back like Mixon, Henry, Bell, Elliot, etc., you pay, just don't go nuts.
- a good RB like Chris Carson, Conner, anyone the Ravens trot out, Sony Michel, you "don't sign."
All RBs are not built alike.
The Leveon Bell signing is among the worst signings in recent memory. He's the perfect example of why you don't pay running backs that kind of money.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - psychdoctor - 07-16-2020
Given what Mixon has done with an OL that was rated 28th or worse the last couple years, he has done well. Especially considering a rookie HC. I think 8-10 mil per year is about right.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - WhodeyRay - 07-16-2020
(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.Agree Wes. You can not break the bank on a RB. They are already paying the back up starter money. Unless your offense is based around the running game it just doesnt make sense. Give a fair offer and if someone wants to pay big money for his services then best of luck.
If you look at some of the very best backs in the game you'll find a disproportinate number of them were taken well outside the 1st round:
Dalvin Cook - 3rd
Alvin Kamara - 3rd
Chris Carson - 7th
Nick Chubb -2nd
Aaron Jones - 5th
Joe Mixon - 2nd
James Connor - 3rd
The fact is, talent at that position, maybe more than any other, can be found later in the draft. They also tend to be able to produce more quickly than other positions. Most of the guys listed above were already well above average by year 2. So there's a quick turnaround time to consider too.
You can look back through the years of great running backs who left their orginal teams only to be replaced by unknowns without a significant loss in production. Priest Holmes comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
There's nothing wrong with paying a running back but you really want to be mindful of the cap considerations. A great running back behind a bad OL is no longer a great back. An average running back behind a great OL is usually a very good running back. If you are going to pay out elite money to back you better be damn well sure he's worth it.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 07-16-2020
(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.
Feel the same, love Mixon but his numbers he has put up put him around the 9 mil per year category.
Mixon hasn't been able to finish like Henry has either when he pops a big run. Needs to get it into the End Zone.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - fredtoast - 07-16-2020
Mixon is set to make $1.2 million this year. He would be crazy to risk injury and not jump at anything paying him $8-$9 million a year. Last year was the first time he ever played 16 games. Plus he would get $12 million or so up front as a signing bonus or guaranteed money.
Bengals would be crazy to not try and get this done.
A four year deal (3 year extension) just pays Mixon through age 27. RBs do wear out fast, but the good ones last at least until 27.
Mixon is not elite, but he is one of only of only 3 NFL RBs to have over 1100 yards each of the last two years. and he did it behind a sketchy offensive line.
With the way he played the second half of last season his value may never be higher. Every single factor indicates that we should be able to easily sign Mixon to a long term deal. I say 4 years $35 million. That would make him the SIXTH highest paid RB in the league. He can't expect more than that.
It would be a great deal for both sides.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Whatever - 07-16-2020
(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.
If you look at some of the very best backs in the game you'll find a disproportinate number of them were taken well outside the 1st round:
Dalvin Cook - 3rd
Alvin Kamara - 3rd
Chris Carson - 7th
Nick Chubb -2nd
Aaron Jones - 5th
Joe Mixon - 2nd
James Connor - 3rd
The fact is, talent at that position, maybe more than any other, can be found later in the draft. They also tend to be able to produce more quickly than other positions. Most of the guys listed above were already well above average by year 2. So there's a quick turnaround time to consider too.
You can look back through the years of great running backs who left their orginal teams only to be replaced by unknowns without a significant loss in production. Priest Holmes comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
There's nothing wrong with paying a running back but you really want to be mindful of the cap considerations. A great running back behind a bad OL is no longer a great back. An average running back behind a great OL is usually a very good running back. If you are going to pay out elite money to back you better be damn well sure he's worth it.
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.
Seriously, when I see people throwing out 4 year/$45 mi extensions, I have to wonder what makes them think Joe will be a $9 mil/year player in 4-5 years.
In today's climate, unless you have a generational type talent at RB, you're best play at RB is to let them play out their rookie deal, FT them if they've still got some tread left on the tires, then let them walk.
.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - fredtoast - 07-16-2020
(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.
If you look at some of the very best backs in the game you'll find a disproportinate number of them were taken well outside the 1st round:
Dalvin Cook - 3rd
Alvin Kamara - 3rd
Chris Carson - 7th
Nick Chubb -2nd
Aaron Jones - 5th
Joe Mixon - 2nd
James Connor - 3rd
The fact is, talent at that position, maybe more than any other, can be found later in the draft. They also tend to be able to produce more quickly than other positions. Most of the guys listed above were already well above average by year 2. So there's a quick turnaround time to consider too.
You can look back through the years of great running backs who left their orginal teams only to be replaced by unknowns without a significant loss in production. Priest Holmes comes to mind as a perfect example of this.
There's nothing wrong with paying a running back but you really want to be mindful of the cap considerations. A great running back behind a bad OL is no longer a great back. An average running back behind a great OL is usually a very good running back. If you are going to pay out elite money to back you better be damn well sure he's worth it.
It is always deceptive to list a few names as proof that you can easily find talent after the first round. It is like listing 10 lottery winners and claiming lottery tickets are a good retirement investment.
The fact is that over the last decade (2010-2019) there were 217 RBs drafted after the first round and only 14 of them rushed for more yards in their career than Mixon has after just three seasons (2931). And those 14 include guys like Giovani Bernard and Bilal Powell who never rushed for as much as 800 yards in a season.
If we just let Mixon walk and draft a replacement we better be willing to either use a first round pick or take the chance of taking a big step back t RB.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Truck_1_0_1_ - 07-16-2020
(07-16-2020, 12:43 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The Leveon Bell signing is among the worst signings in recent memory. He's the perfect example of why you don't pay running backs that kind of money.
I only put him there because he's a franchise back; someone you can ride and who can perform his duties competently, while doing them for more than 3 years.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - BrownAssClown - 07-16-2020
I think the front office will make Mixon a fair offer when the time comes, but will Joe and his agent(s) think it's a fair deal.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - 3wt - 07-16-2020
(07-16-2020, 02:30 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: I think the front office will make Mixon a fair offer when the time comes, but will Joe and his agent(s) think it's a fair deal.
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.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 07-16-2020
(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.
Why? Like Fred said he is only making 1.2 million this year. Why not take anything from 8 mil up which would be fair considering
his numbers and Henry's numbers who are far superior, especially in the TD department. If Mixon doesn't sign he gets nothing
under the new CBA. Makes no sense for Mixon to not sign IMO.
RE: Is the Henry deal enough for Mixon? - Synric - 07-16-2020
The Titans did an excellent job with Derrick Henry's Contract. Its actually a 2 year 25.5 mil fully guaranteed contract with cheap opt out chances after 2021 (6 mil dead cap over 2022, 2023).