07-16-2020, 03:26 PM
(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.
