5 questions: Ben Tate edition

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Texecutioner

And Cak I have never heard anywhere about us being offered a 1st for Tate. Where did you hear that?

It was shortly after the draft.

Originally Posted by Allstar

I could have sworn we all came to a consensus that the Cleveland rumor was just wild speculation from a unreliable source.

I don't think the source was ever identified so I have no idea of the credibility and don't know how it could be judged.

[Rey]

I don't know if that Cleveland rumor was true or not, but if it was I might have pulled the trigger.

[beerlover]

Rumor or just wishful thinking doesn't matter in my mind they were after Weeden the whole time, maybe just trying to throw another team off Weeden scent so he would still be there late in 1st?

[paycheck71]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

Supposedly they were offered a 1st for him during the last draft.

I keep hearing this on this board, but this is the only place I've heard it on. I also seem to remember that at the time I thought it was just what someone on the board thought would be an acceptable offer to accept for Tate, not an acutal offer (from Cleveland, if I remember correctly).

[paycheck71]

Originally Posted by Allstar

I could have sworn we all came to a consensus that the Cleveland rumor was just wild speculation from a unreliable source.

This is exactly how I remember it.

[Thorn]

OK, I vote we keep Tate and do our best to resign him. Why give up a good thing?

[ObsiWan]

Originally Posted by utahmark

Maybe i'm wrong but I don't value running backs as much as most. I look at the old Oilers with the great offensive lines they had. They had some great running backs as well but when they went down guys like Allen Pinkett and Gary Brown stepped in and we did'nt miss a beat. Then I look at Denver and I see them and all the different backs that did well in their system. Now we got an undrafted free agent and a second rounder going crazy in our same scheme and make me wonder how good these guys really are. I think they are good nfl backs but I don't think they are irreplaceable.

This year we have a couple of new lineman and I pretty sure we will see Foster and Tate both struggle untill the o-line has some time together.

You have selective memory. When we didn't have a horse like Mike Rozier to pound the ball we were in trouble in 3rd and short and goal line situations.

...but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and RBs are easily replaceable in this system (I don't believe that myself; I think it takes a special kind of back with remarkable vision to excell in this system), who would give us anything more than a 4th for a 2nd string, "system RB"? So why wouldn't Tate stay here with a playoff caliber team rather than try to get paid in what's become a pass happy league that values RBs less and less as the seasons progress??

I think Tate stays here.

[Rey]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

You have selective memory. When we didn't have a horse like Mike Rozier to pound the ball we were in trouble in 3rd and short and goal line situations.

...but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and RBs are easily replaceable in this system (I don't believe that myself; I think it takes a special kind of back with remarkable vision to excell in this system), who would give us anything more than a 4th for a 2nd string, "system RB"? So why wouldn't Tate stay here with a playoff caliber team rather than try to get paid in what's become a pass happy league that values RBs less and less as the seasons progress??

I think Tate stays here.

Those are good points.

I think Tate is awesome myself, but I'm just finding it hard to picture him fetching a first round pick. But as others have said, all it takes is one willing team.

[The Pencil Neck]

The year we drafted Tate, my mantra was that IF we're the running team that we're supposed to be, then we need to place a higher value on that position than other teams. We need to draft RBs early and often. The position has a short shelf life and we need to have a stable of guys that can step up and get it done.

We've got that now.

I want to keep Tate here as long as we can but if we get an offer of a 1st, I can't see how we turn that down. Especially if he's probably leaving after the 2013 season, anyway. I don't want to get into a position like Carolina where they've had to sink a ton of cash into the RB position.

[Rey]

I'm not a cap expert at all. In fact, I'll readily admit I'm clueless in that area.

But didnt Arian sign a somewhat reasonable contract that would allow us to distribute funds elsewhere?

Seems to me that with rookie contracts going down and hopefully picking late in the first we'd save some money on that end and be able to retain some of our own guys.

Tate still has a couple years left, so maybe with Antonio restructuring and other moves we may have enough money to sign Tate to a reasonable deal?

Maybe I'm totally off base here though.

[The Pencil Neck]

Originally Posted by Rey

I'm not a cap expert at all. In fact, I'll readily admit I'm clueless in that area.

<snip>

Maybe I'm totally off base here though.

Personally, I don't follow the cap stuff very closely. That's a part of the game that I don't find interesting.

But...

I don't see how things are going to continue to work using the old approaches to the cap. I think the rules about the cap -- how it grows, how it applies, the penalties, the rookie salaries, etc. -- have been put in place to handcuff the owners/GMs so that going out and giving big, monster contracts to guys is going to be a thing of the past.

I think it's going to be easier to keep your own guys because the cap rules apply to everyone and it's going to dry-up the amount of available money. I think GMs are going to have to make harder decisions about who to keep and who to let go.

It's like it's become more of a zero-sum type of game where there's only a set number of pieces of the pie instead of the ever expanding type of game where there were new pieces of pie added every year.

For example, in the "old" days, a player would sign a big deal to be the highest paid at his position and then a month later, a lesser known guy would get paid for more. And then after a year or two, that "great deal" the top guy got was now more or less mid-level and he's underpaid and holding out.

With the new rules in place, I think the top level guys are going to tend more to be the highest paid at their position for a longer amount of time because teams aren't going to be able to afford to up-the-ante as it were.

BUT.

Like I said, I don't pay much attention to those things. I could be totally and completely wrong. It's happened before.

[Corrosion]

Originally Posted by Rey

I'm not a cap expert at all. In fact, I'll readily admit I'm clueless in that area.

But didnt Arian sign a somewhat reasonable contract that would allow us to distribute funds elsewhere?

Seems to me that with rookie contracts going down and hopefully picking late in the first we'd save some money on that end and be able to retain some of our own guys.

Tate still has a couple years left, so maybe with Antonio restructuring and other moves we may have enough money to sign Tate to a reasonable deal?

Maybe I'm totally off base here though.

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.

[ObsiWan]

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.

[Thorn]

I'm sure Tate will get offered more money to leave than to stay, because he is a very good back. Whether or not he accepts what the Texans offer him because he wants to stay (or if the outside offer isn't that much bigger), is two years away and a lot can happen between now and then. It's to soon to speculate, but my gut feeling is there will be teams willing to pony up and give him the bucks to leave. But maybe Tate will deciede to stay with the two time Super Bowl winning Texans instead.

We've still got this season and next to enjoy him.

[rmartin65]

Originally Posted by Thorn

We've still got this season and next to enjoy him.

This season, absolutely. However, I think we may deal him at the draft. He would then have only one year left, and we would have to decide if one extra year of Tate (being a backup, mind you) is worth a high pick. A lot may depend on how Grimes looks this season on the PS.

[utahmark]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

You have selective memory. When we didn't have a horse like Mike Rozier to pound the ball we were in trouble in 3rd and short and goal line situations.

...but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right and RBs are easily replaceable in this system (I don't believe that myself; I think it takes a special kind of back with remarkable vision to excell in this system), who would give us anything more than a 4th for a 2nd string, "system RB"? So why wouldn't Tate stay here with a playoff caliber team rather than try to get paid in what's become a pass happy league that values RBs less and less as the seasons progress??

I think Tate stays here.

It's a business, people play to make money.

Gary Brown ran for 1000 yards in 8 games. We threw the ball a lot in goal line and short yardage situations. Thats what I remember anyway.

No mention of Denver. They are the team we are most like. How do you explain thier running backs success year after year no matter who was in?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by Rey

Those are good points.

I think Tate is awesome myself, but I'm just finding it hard to picture him fetching a first round pick. But as others have said, all it takes is one willing team.

I don't know if we can get a 1st for him. But I wouldn't give him up for anything less. What's the point?

[thunderkyss]

Originally Posted by ObsiWan

I dunno. This is becoming more and more a pass-happy league.

Y'know, a couple of years ago we had this same discussion. At that time, we decided that we can not exect our offense to score 30 points a game.

IMO, if you don't want to get caught up in that... if you don't have an elite QB, then true workhorse running backs are in demand more now than ever. It just doesn't seem that way, because there really aren't that many elite RBs in the league.

And as far as "this is becoming more of a passing league..." they were saying the same thing back in the days of the "Greatest show on turf" Those Colts, back in the day. The Chargers back then.

Well..... didn't have the number of 4000 & 5000 yard passers we had last year, but you know what I mean.

[Rey]

Yes please.

[HJam72]

We won't be able to keep him, but some other young player will step up and play great for not a lot of money, until we have to worry about paying them too--somebody like Lestar Jean or K-Mart.

I think we should try to trade him before he goes on the open market. I really don't think us paying him anything close to what he can get out there is going to work for us under the salary cap, unless something bad happens to Foster, which, thankfully, is unlikely.

PS-if MJD were to leave the Jags, I can see Tate starting for them. He would fit right in.