Melvin Gordon Wants a New Contract or Out of the Chargers

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by O.city

The issue here too is that Gordon just has zero leverage. Who's giving up a reasonable pick AND a new contract for him?

If he doesn't show up the first week of camp he has to repeat the last year of his contract just like Chris Jones. So his leverage is even lower.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

If he doesn't show up the first week of camp he has to repeat the last year of his contract just like Chris Jones. So his leverage is even lower.

I'm not sure though, he's on his fifth year option. Does that change anything?

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'm not sure though, he's on his fifth year option. Does that change anything?

I don't know. If it is all rookie contracts it should not.

[Mulliganman]

Good. Hope he becomes the highest paid back in the league and sucks up their cap for years.

[Hoover]

If I was a good team I'd have no issue in spending a low 1st on a running back.

I'd treat them as a disposable talent. Never give one a second contract unless its on the cheap.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Hoover

If I was a good team I'd have no issue in spending a low 1st on a running back.

I'd treat them as a disposable talent. Never give one a second contract unless its on the cheap.

I could make an exception here I suppose.

But even with that, I'd probably just hold off and grab one in the 2nd or 3rd.

If i'm a good team and have good coaching, i'll go cheap at RB and manage

[New World Order]

I'm actually more scared of Ekeler than Gordon

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by New World Order

I'm actually more scared of Ekeler than Gordon

You should be. He was the more productive back per carry. As a rookie UDFA.

[smithandrew051]

The only time I would take a RB in the first round is if I’m picking late and an elite level talent falls to me.

I don’t want to draft an elite talent early and fall into the trap of giving them the big second contract. If I’m already a contender, then I’m not as worried about it.

I would never take a RB under any circumstance in the top half of the first round. There’s always another position with better longevity available early.

[DiaperBoy27]

I've actually come around on taking a RB in the 1st, mostly because of the 5th year option.

Not in the top 10, and only if you have a QB and are ready to contend - but take the RB, franchise him for his 6th year, then let them walk.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by DiaperBoy27

I've actually come around on taking a RB in the 1st, mostly because of the 5th year option.

Not in the top 10, and only if you have a QB and are ready to contend - but take the RB, franchise him for his 6th year, then let them walk.

RBs these days know how expendable they are and that they're the position group most likely to get ****ed over in terms of collecting a payday for the amount of abuse their body takes. They're starting to rebel. Bell did that, and now Gordon is at it. It's getting to the point where you won't be able to do that with RBs if you hit on a really good one.

Now, if I were a GM, if Gordon came up to me with the demands he gave the Chargers, I'd say, "That's nice, sweetie" and trade the guy's ass. The market is shit, so I still might not get a decent return for the trade, but I got my good player for a couple years, got some draft picks in return to spend on more young players, and best of all, I'm more than likely still going to come out on top, because the RB's replacement will probably be just fine.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

RBs these days know how expendable they are and that they're the position group most likely to get ****ed over in terms of collecting a payday for the amount of abuse their body takes. They're starting to rebel. Bell did that, and now Gordon is at it. It's getting to the point where you won't be able to do that with RBs if you hit on a really good one.

Now, if I were a GM, if Gordon came up to me with the demands he gave the Chargers, I'd say, "That's nice, sweetie" and trade the guy's ass. The market is shit, so I still might not get a decent return for the trade, but I got my good player for a couple years, got some draft picks in return to spend on more young players, and best of all, I'm more than likely still going to come out on top, because the RB's replacement will probably be just fine.

Only problem is that you need another GM to be willing to do exactly what you won’t do and give up picks to boot. Easier said than done.

[BryanBusby]

If you're looking at an elite talent high up and you've got a QB, I mean yeah do it. It made sense to take EE to take the load off Tony Romo and keep that Offense clicking. He just happened to be totally broke the **** down and lucky for them they accidentally fell into Dak Prescott, who is ok.

This conversation would be different if it were a team like the Colts that selected Barkley.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

If you're looking at an elite talent high up and you've got a QB, I mean yeah do it. It made sense to take EE to take the load off Tony Romo and keep that Offense clicking. He just happened to be totally broke the **** down and lucky for them they accidentally fell into Dak Prescott, who is ok.

This conversation would be different if it were a team like the Colts that selected Barkley.

Exactly. Like I said there are a lot of variables when drafting a player. That is why saying 'never take an RB in the 1st round,' is a dumb statement. I can think of situations where taking an RB in the 1st makes sense.