kungfoodude

In today's money that would be about $70 mil. But also consider the exponential rate of NFL TV revenue, which has gone up 623% from 1990 to 2020. So, in reality the cap just matches the insane money they make. Goodell set a goal to have league revenue at $27 billion by 2027.

In fairness, prior to last season you would have a hard time finding many that didn't consider Wilson a top QB. That's a hindsight mistake. It was a mistake in foresight to have paid Murray and Dak that money.

It's gonna be nuts. That reminds me, need to pregame with antacid and Immodium.

I will be having a 30-40 person strong tailgate out there. Going HAM.

That always depends on the results. Plus that $40 mil mark isn't really gonna look like much in a couple of seasons. Still, I don't want to be the team making an investment like that.

fuging...don't bring Caps fans in here. fug that.

Aside from the dirty hit, this is exactly the tune up we needed prior to Saturday.

That will scare more FO's and scouts off than the height.

I think the public/draftniks look at that more than most teams. It really depends on what kind of system you are trying to run. There is a long history of very successful sub-6 foot QB's. Including a couple of HOFers. As many have pointed out, one of the leaders in batted balls was Josh Allen. Batted balls is less about height and more about awareness. But, I sincerely hope the slide to 9 is related to frame and not playing ability. I would be all over that.

It's one of many arguments against drafting and/or paying a RB like CMC. It's actually a shame that the franchise made these idiotic errors because it's a shadow over CMC's legacy here which is very unfair to him. All he did is show up, work hard and give the franchise everything he had. Unfortunately we piled the entire franchise onto his back once Cam's shoulder was shot.

I think you mean Jimmy Buck Squirrel.

He didn't redefine the position, TBH. Faulk and LT existed before him, even today there are backs or hybrid players with great catching ability/production. He might be the best overall package, to be sure but he wasn't some new thing. The trade we made for him was fantastic. WAY more than I ever figured we would get for him given the value. But, again, the results were that we didn't win. That is ultimately what matters. You want painful? Mahomes, Watson, TJ Watt, Ryan Ramczyk, etc....those guys were drafted later in the 1st and would like have had a much bigger impact on wins and losses. Because all those guys play much more valuable positions. Not to mention in that draft Dalvin Cook was a 2nd round pick and Alvin Kamara a 3rd. So you could have gotten another elite RB AND an impact player at an high value position. That will be the problem with taking a 1st round RB for the foreseeable future. You think the Giants would still take Barkley at 3? When they could have drafted Allen or Jackson at QB and probably still have gotten Nick Chubb(a better RB than Barkley)? Probably not.

Yeah, I didn't want to do that at the time and very sadly I was 100% correct in the reasons why we shouldn't have done it. It would have been nice to be very wrong and watch him have a Frank Gore-like career here but the data just showed how rarely that happens. It is what it is. So, no to spending a 1st round pick on Robinson. I love him as a player but I have zero desire to fall into that trap again.

And how did that work once he didn't have a QB in SF? Did he drag them to victory? No he didn't. Because that isn't how winning in the NFL works.

It's not really about his best or not his best. Even at his best, it didn't have a dramatic impact on wins and losses. I posted the article here a few seasons ago(around the time we were talking about extending him) and it was a detailed statistical analysis that specifically resulted in win shares for RB's being one of the lowest positions on any NFL offense. And that has always been the big problem with paying money like that to a RB. This isn't the 70's or 80's or even 90's. It isn't "featured" backs anymore that have 400+ carries a year until they are ground to dust because that is what wins. That's not modern NFL football. RB's are complimentary players and the decline in overall top paid players at the position very much reflects the league recognizing that this has been the trend. That's the problem a lot of the irrational CMC fanboys have with this argument. It literally has NOTHING to do with CMC the player. It's about the position and how it has evolved into something that doesn't need a $8+ mil/year player. Much less one double that cost.

CMC's return was legitimately terrible. That's very little his fault but the return was insanely bad. We are 24-34 when he starts games in his career here(for reference we are 15-24 when he doesn't start/play, including after he was traded in 2022). His stats were great, but the missed games were nuts and I think it's also kind of clear that he isn't quite as explosive as he once was. Will always be in the discussion for best RB in franchise history but he is also a case study in why you don't spend money on the position anymore. Unfortunately for us, it was about case file 25 or so. It isn't like there aren't ample examples of why not to pay big money for RB's over the past 20 years.

We can sign a FA RB or draft a later round guy....or both.

Yeah but I can't think of any trade scenario where we aren't giving up next years first or multiple picks(2nd and 3rd/4th or whatever). I would rather have a cheaper running back in the 2nd-5th round that I can get away with because we might have a pretty good OL. We gotta get away from this strategy of having an elite RB. It really doesn't matter anymore. Doesn't mean it isn't nice to have but it just doesn't win games in the modern NFL. If we can get an elite talent at a not 1st round price, all in.

Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a reasonable price that would be accepted in that scenario. Robinson is arguably the best player in the draft regardless of position but there is absolutely no way I would take another RB in the top 15 unless it was literally the only thing lacking on my football team. It's just such an insanely devalued position. Just look at the playoff teams.

But this is literally NFL players, free agents specifically, we are talking about. That's what this whole sidebar was about.

I have been around enough people of all ages across the entire country to know that income tax rate is pretty low on almost everyone's list of reasons to move to a state. It matters to some but to make it out like free agents are going to avoid us as a franchise is laughably stupid. Especially considering how low NC's state income tax is anyway.

You are assuming this matters to the bulk of people. If that were the case, the population of each state would be dramatically different.

I would say I wouldn't see him retiring until late 30's. That is typical for someone of his level. Depending on health and decline, obviously.

Agreed. If it is a scenario that the Bears are shopping him, then you don't spend what he was worth a couple of years ago on him. He's now worth less. I believe this will be a moot point and they will stand pat on Fields.