read the whole thead, n00b. late first rounders don't make astronomical cash. top five (and to a slightly higher extent, the top ten) guys make fat cash. late first rounders (which he's one) are still a bargain.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...rt=NFL&id=4743

7/26/2008: Signed a five-year, $12 million contract. The deal contains $7 million guaranteed, including $1.125 million in first-year bonuses and a $3.86 million roster bonus in the second year. 2010: $550,000, 2011: $800,000, 2012: $2.21 million, 2013: Free Agent

So he has played 2 seasons and is guaranteed $7MM? So he blows his knee out in camp he made $7MM for 2 seasons.

I say let him play one more year then redo the contract. I know he was a stud last year but 1 2,000 yard season is not worth the bank. He has been paid over $5MM so far, he isn't playing for $550,000.

That's not how it works.

Signing bonuses were "cap gurus" way of getting around busting the cap with large yearly salaries.

To state that in today's NFL, Johnson is making more than $550k this upcoming season is naive.

He deserves to get paid for his 2009 performance.

You're acting like his 2000 yard season was a fluke. He is legitimately a top 3 RB year in and year out. And that is worth the bank.

I think the LJ contract is skewing many perceptions of CJ's relative worth, and the two situations are not that comparable.

I agree. LJs style of running upright and attacking defenders caused him to take a lot of punishment, CJs style of running away from defenders and his elusiveness isnt gonna cause him long term wear and tear issues.

He could do what he did last year in the next two or three years IMO if the rest of the team does its job.

I'm no Mr. Mecca, but it seems as though running backs have a useful life curve that looks a whole lot like the profile of a banana tit. I mean, when they begin to lose their effectiveness, they slide downhill quickly. There are exceptions, of course ... guys who have a bad 4th or 5th year and then come back and play well for two or three more years ... but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

As for LJ. When his banana tit fell, it fell fast and for a lot of reasons. Frankly, I think his best years were, in large measure, due to the line he played behind rather than his individual ability to "make" plays. I will always consider him to be an overrated player.

FAX

Added point.

For those of you claiming a team has every right to cut a player mid-contract, but a player should have no right to hold out in mid-contract, consider this....

How many jobs exist in America where an employer can fire you for getting injured on the job?

That's why I continue to stand by the statement... if you want to avoid holdouts, guarantee the contract and agree that you'll pay the player for the rest of his contract even if he gets injured. As long as that's not the case, I don't blame a player at all for wanting to get his in a dangerous game where players get career-ending injuries on a regular basis.

Year in and year out for the 2 seasons he has played?

I agree he is a stud but there are several factors to consider.

He has 3 more years under his current deal and absolutely no leverage. I don't think it is unfair to ask him to play 1 more year under his current deal.
What the hell is the point of a contract if a 5 year deal becomes void in 2 freaking years. He got $7MM guaranteed. That is not chump change.
I do think they could give him a bonus for last year as long as they were under the cap. Similar to what Stl did for Warner after they won the SB. They gave him a bonus equal to what $ they had left under the cap after the season.
How much money do the complete failure 1st round picks give back for not earning it? It works both ways. Teams and players both take risks signing 1st round players.

Also with teams not knowing what is going to happen with the CBA after 2010 they aren't going to hand out a big contract this year to a player under contract already.

Again... why does it work for the team, but not the player?

You think it's fair that Chris Johnson today could get injured "on the job" and Tennessee can basically just fire him? If a team doesn't have to abide by the contract, why should the player? In all other sports, if you cut or trade a player, you're responsible for the rest of his contract. That's why you NEVER see holdouts in other sports.

JaMarcus Russel and Ryan Leaf worked out for the team? They earned their money?

You're deflecting. Two parties enter into that contract. The team and the player. The team can rip that contract in half if they want and walk away with no penalty, while a player is powerless to do anything. That's the reason signing bonuses were put in place--to give players at least a little protection from getting cut outright. But rookies don't have that luxury if you're drafted outside of the top 15 or 20. Every day, players are severely underpaid and some players like Russell are severely overpaid. Frankly, I think for rookies, there needs to be a stronger standard where teams can have walkaway clauses and players have shorter-term contracts with the ability to negotiate up based on performance.

And by the way, your example of Jamarcus and Ryan Leaf are classic examples of why Chris Johnson should get paid. Jamarcus had a hefty signing bonus that made a lot of his money guaranteed. Because of Johnson's draft status, he didn't have a lot. Do you really think it's fair that for the first 6 years of your career, the only players who deserve to have contract protections are the ones lucky enough to grade out as top 20 draft picks?


It's the nature of the game. But given the violent nature of the game, if I'm a player putting my body on the line, I want some guarantees. And Chris Johnson deserves that. Jamarcus had them. Johnson does not.

Wrong.

If he sits out, that's leverage.

Bud Adams image would take a dump and the team wouldn't likely win 4 games without Johnson.

I think 2 years into a 5 year deal is not reasonable to tear it up. Had Johnson underperformed and was cut the team would be out $7MM and a wasted 1st round pick. That's not chump change. There is risk on both sides.

Is he underpaid? Yea he is a bargain so far. That's how it works and he has NO leverage except to hold out this year when there may not be football in 2011 so that's not much of an option.

Like I said, give him a one time bonus for 2009 or 2010 ala Kurt Warner. I am not saying he doesn't deserve to be rewarded but I don't see the Titans making him one of the highest paid RB in the league after 2 seasons when he isn't close to fulfilling his contract time. His draft status does not warrant that. That's the system.

I can't think of a similar situation to compare it too either even though I am sure has been one.