Would be we better off without DeAngelo?

[CRA]

First of all the 90 million figure is way overblown since Williams wont see all of his money nor will Stewart in reality. What we are paying them in cap space is roughly 11 million this year. Secondly what is lost in this discussion is not only the fact the fact that Stewart has not been shown to be durable or able to carry the load to this point but expectations are that we will rub more not less and Newton will be less oof a runner not more.

What also is missing is whether we are better as a team if one of our division rivals pick him up for cheap pumps him for info on our offense and runs him against us. We love DeAngelo when he plays for us but what if the Saints pick him up to run all over us. With Brees passing attack putting us in the nickel all day Williams could have a field day at our expense. Not only cant we use him if Stewart gets hurt but now he is a weapon against us. All for a player whose cap space is already accounted for giving up 10;million tonspend nwhen Anderson's cut is figured in.

What actual information does anyone have that Newton will be less of a runner. We went through this last offseason....and nothing supported it.

Maybe the Saints pick him up...and he runs for them just like he did in the 14 non Saints games last year

[panthers55]

What actual information does anyone have that Newton will be less of a runner. We went through this last offseason....and nothing supported it.

Last offseason Gettleman wasn't here and he specifically said he didn't want Newton hurt and he was going to be more of a pocket passer. With only a finite number of plays do you think that means we give the backs less work running or Newton? I think it is clear that Newton will run some but his days leading the ofense as a runner are over.

[CRA]

Last offseason Gettleman wasn't here and he specifically said he didn't want Newton hurt and he was going to be more of a pocket passer. With only a finite number of plays do you think that means we give the backs less work running or Newton? I think it is clear that Newton will run some but his days leading the ofense as a runner are over.

Gettlemen is a GM....not a coach. Rivera is going to keep using Cam the right way. Don't forget, Rivera AND Cam need to win. Cam being Cam is essential to that.

Newton lead the team in rushing NOT bc he ran too much but bc the RBs didn't do more. He ran the same BOTH years he has been here....and will again this year.

Newton will sleep walk to roughly 600-700 yards and hover around 10 TDs. Which is what he has done the last 2 years.

A RB didn't lead the team last year bc we have too many runners and they frankly didn't run well last year.....not that Newton took too much from them

[panthers55]

The 90 million is fine to use because it is in a context of all the other contracts that are referred to in the same exact manor.

If we used the full weight of the running backs contracts but did not with anyone else it would be a problem.

No that is sensationalism not reality. Like when Haynsworth reportedly got 100 million but the reality was closer to.40 or Vick who will see less.than half of his contract. What is reality is what they get this year which is 11 million or in context around the same as Johnson.makes himself or Khalil for example. Not outrageous by any means if they are used.properly instead of what happened in the past.

[panthers55]

Gettlemen is a GM....not a coach. Rivera is going to keep using Cam the right way. Don't forget, Rivera AND Cam need to win. Cam being Cam is essential to that.

Newton lead the team in rushing NOT bc he ran too much but bc the RBs didn't do more. He ran the same BOTH years he has been here....and will again this year.

Gentleman is the boss and Rivera will do what he says particular on a short leash. Your pronlem is that you dont agree with the change so you act as if Ri era makes the decisions and that isn't true. Both Rivera and Gettleman said that.they are on the same page. So when Gettleman comes out publically and says that Newton will stay in the pocket and wenwont use the read option as we did la's t year you can infer that Rivera agrees and will fall in line.

[CRA]

No that is sensationalism not reality. Like when Haynsworth reportedly got 100 million but the reality was closer to.40 or Vick who will see less.than half of his contract. What is reality is what they get this year which is 11 million or in context around the same as Johnson.makes himself or Khalil for example. Not outrageous by any means if they are used.properly instead of what happened in the past.

Our backup RB is accounting for 8.2 million in cap space this year ...not matter the spin, that makes building a complete team difficult.

And more simply, that is just dumb

[CRA]

Gentleman is the boss and Rivera will do what he says particular on a short leash. Your pronlem is that you dont agree with the change so you act as if Ri era makes the decisions and that isn't true. Both Rivera and Gettleman said that.they are on the same page. So when Gettleman comes out publically and says that Newton will stay in the pocket and wenwont use the read option as we did la's t year you can infer that Rivera agrees and will fall in line.

He is the GM. He may be a boss....he still isn't a coach. He is a bad boss in the NFL if he thinks his job is to tell coaches how to coach.

People took a small soundbite and ran with it....claiming the read option is dead, Gettlemen is now a coach as well, and Cam's game will compare to Eli. Yeah, I have an issue with those that believe that nonsense.

Again, 4 games vs 28. We will continue play very similar to what we did over those 28. Waste of time for everyone to dwell on 4 games. Talk about the 28....bc getting away from that would be flat out DUMB. THAT has gotten Cam off to a historical start and is not a problem. But keep whining about it if you must

[jtm]

DW is our most explosive back. Until we are at a point where cutting him will save us money rather than costing us dead money, I'd use him as much as possible.

[CRA]

DW is our most explosive back. Until we are at a point where cutting him will save us money rather than costing us dead money, I'd use him as much as possible.

He wasn't explosive last year when not playing the Saints...

You could argue his carries, while not all his fault, stalled our offense often.

[Zod]

It's sensationalism to state the terms of the contracts?

[rayzor]

We are a better team with him with no other factors taken into account

We have been and will be worse team with him on it because of his productivity over the last 2 years, durability, and salary

Him being on the team with this contract has handicapped our team from improving and the sooner we rip off the bandaid the better off our cap will be in the future when we try to resign our own players.

 

absolutely true.

 

if money wasn't an issue, the team would be better off without him. money is absolutely the biggest issue, tho. he will be the 7th highest paid RB this year and the 4th highest paid RB the next two years...but it's not where he ranks among those top RBs, it's the fact that he'll be earning $4.75mil this year, $5.75mil the next, and $6.75mil the year after that.

 

two questions have to be asked...

 

1) in this market, what talent could have been brought in/retained for that amount of money? we could have brought in upgrades at RT and in the secondary for the money we'll be spending on williams....or, that money could have been spent on gamble (if he was important to the D) or could be used to help re-sign hardy. do we gain more by keeping williams than upgrading at RT, in the secondary, or keeping around a beast like hardy?

 

2) how much would we lose in production if he weren't here and do we have people who could make up that production? how much has he produced the past couple years? it's not a question of how much hes still capable of producing but how much he's asked to produce. how much rushing do we do and can it be handled by a committee of stewart, tolbert, newton, barner, and armond smith? why not?

 

he's an asset, but he's not an irreplaceable asset and when you think about what could be added or kept if we didn't have the commitment to him the next couple years in addition to still carrying that bonus money that is still hitting the cap...it's just not worth it.

 

if that contract can be scrapped and him given one that is true current market value for an RB of any age and more in line with the amount of production we actually get from him, then i think it would be worth it. as it is, tho...we'd be better off without him. that contract is the gorilla in the room.

 

fwiw, the same conversation can be had about beason as well, although he's going to be asked to do a whole lot more on defense than williams on offense.

 

loyalty to players is fine, until that loyalty comes at the expense of the team as a whole which is what is happening with williams and beason.

[CRA]

absolutely true.

if money wasn't an issue, the team would be better off without him. money is absolutely the biggest issue, tho. he will be the 7th highest paid RB this year and the 4th highest paid RB the next two years...but it's not where he ranks among those top RBs, it's the fact that he'll be earning $4.75mil this year, $5.75mil the next, and $6.75mil the year after that.

two questions have to be asked...

1) in this market, what talent could have been brought in/retained for that amount of money? we could have brought in upgrades at RT and in the secondary for the money we'll be spending on williams....or, that money could have been spent on gamble (if he was important to the D) or could be used to help re-sign hardy. do we gain more by keeping williams than upgrading at RT, in the secondary, or keeping around a beast like hardy?

2) how much would we lose in production if he weren't here and do we have people who could make up that production? how much has he produced the past couple years? it's not a question of how much hes still capable of producing but how much he's asked to produce. how much rushing do we do and can it be handled by a committee of stewart, tolbert, newton, barner, and armond smith? why not?

he's an asset, but he's not an irreplaceable asset and when you think about what could be added or kept if we didn't have the commitment to him the next couple years in addition to still carrying that bonus money that is still hitting the cap...it's just not worth it.

if that contract can be scrapped and him given one that is true current market value for an RB of any age and more in line with the amount of production we actually get from him, then i think it would be worth it. as it is, tho...we'd be better off without him. that contract is the gorilla in the room.

fwiw, the same conversation can be had about beason as well, although he's going to be asked to do a whole lot more on defense than williams on offense.

loyalty to players is fine, until that loyalty comes at the expense of the team as a whole which is what is happening with williams and beason.

1. More veteran talent will become available prior to the start of the season.

That talent IMO could well be worth not having a good backup RB. Especially on D or the OL.

[Panthro]

It's going to suck but the sooner we get his contract off the books the better.

[MadHatter]

The RB position is defintely better having both DWill and Stewart from merely a talent perspective

 

Factor in the other areas that could be improved with the money being spent on the RB position and overall team would definitely be better investing the money elsewhere....WR, OL, DB