Originally Posted by Corrosion
I really think Tate is a top 10 starting back , a franchise type who can tote it 25 times a game .... and he'll get paid near what Foster got (possibly more , not that he's better).... It only takes one team to offer him that and there is no way the Texans can match it , thats just too much to tie up in one position.
If Tate was willing to take $2-$3m per then it may be possible to find a way to keep him .... I just think he's going to be worth significantly more than that to at least one team.
Thirty two teams in the NFL .... name me 10 backs better than Tate. Even if you can do so , that still leaves 22 teams with inferior players at the position. Someone's gonna pony up big bucks.
Very good post TPN .... I agree.
I dunno. This is becoming more and more a pass-happy league. The only positions commanding "big bucks" are...
OB - someone you can build your offense around
LT - someone who will reliably protect your franchise QB
OLB/DE - someone who can destroy the other guys franchise QB
CB - someone who can clamp down the other guys deep threat
I guess the question is, assuming you're correct about Tate being the 11th best RB in the NFL, what kind of offense do those 22 other teams run. Would they value Tate enough to pay him "big bucks" as opposed to using that cap space for a LT or shutdown CB or a pass rusher?? Why pay a vet "big bucks" when you can draft a guy to fill that spot. Only a "run first" team like us would do that. And how many teams, in today's NFL are run first like us? You guys can probably name them better than I can but I can only think of Washington, Denver, Oakland, Seattle, and the Jets. Everyone else is either set at RB (Minn., Tenn, Jacksonville, etc.) or runs some flavor of the spread.
It could be that the days of RBs getting significantly large contracts are fading fast. I think Tate's best bet may be to stay right here where he's highly valued.