Melvin Gordon Wants a New Contract or Out of the Chargers

[thabear04]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebigl...act-trade/amp/

Melvin Gordon, entering his fifth season in the NFL and thus still on his rookie deal, is dissatisfied with his contract with the Los Angeles Chargers and is taking those frustrations public:

Los Angeles running back Melvin Gordon has informed the Chargers that unless he receives a new contract, he will not report to training camp and he will demand a trade, his agent Fletcher Smith told ESPN.

Elite backs in the NFL persistently face this issue. The five-year deals for first round picks lock them in at below market wages, and then when they hit their mid to late twenties the teams say they are nearing the end of their useful lives. Last year, Gordon missed four games with an injured knee, but when he was playing he averaged over five yards per carry. Gordon is slated to make $5.6 million this season.

Off the top of my head, if they could make the compensation work the Packers would be a great fit for Gordon. He is from and played college football at Wisconsin, and is the threat to catch passes out of the backfield that Aaron Rodgers has been sorely lacking.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Saquon Barkley>Eric Fisher

Well yeah that's a no duh, but still doesn't change the fact that taking Barkley over Darnold was reeruno.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by staylor26

That might’ve been the extremely rare draft that taking a RB #1 would be defensible.

And you could still argue we’d be better off with Fisher who’s a good LT. We would’ve had to overpay to keep a RB had we drafted one and he’d probably already be breaking down, while Fisher is entering his prime and protecting our franchise QB’s blindside.

Stop making this into a science question. Barkley is way better than Fisher could ever hope to be. Period.

The notion that you 'have' or 'can never' draft a certain position is what leads to draft busts. There are so many variables to that question there is really no absolute answer like some of you all want to make it out to be. It is also why most of you on here would suck at being a GM.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Saquon Barkley>Eric Fisher

Saquon Barkley is also better than Tony Mandarich.

Just because busts at the top of the draft happen doesn't mean it's smart to take a RB that high.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Stop making this into a science question. Barkley is way better than Fisher could ever hope to be. Period.

The notion that you 'have' or 'can never' draft a certain position is what leads to draft busts. There are so many variables to that question there is really no absolute answer like some of you all want to make it out to be. It is also why most of you on here would suck at being a GM.

And one man's Saquon Barkley is another man's Trent Richardson or Ronnie Brown or Curtis Enis or Ki Jana Carter.

Busts can and do happen at EVERY position. Drafting a RB with a high pick is not a failsafe to avoiding a draft bust. GMs who think that way are bound to get ****ed just as hard.

[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.

[O.city]

I would take fisher at 1 over Barkley

Barkley is a better player but he’s still a rb

[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.

[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.

[O.city]

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.

Or just take a good rb in the 3rd round and take different player early?

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

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.

Nelson was a beast for them, but **** that Offense would have been ridiculous with Barkley.

Originally Posted by O.city

Or just take a good rb in the 3rd round and take different player early?

Stop underselling how good a back like Barkley is.

[RealSNR]

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.

You know who was a real generational talent at his position in that draft, though? Quentin Nelson.

If the Colts were picking at 2nd overall in that draft, I'm not so sure they still wouldn't be better served taking Nelson that high over the RB.

And to be honest, if the Giants were really that stubborn about "setting the table" before you throw your young QB out there, I think a pick like Nelson would have been more valuable to that QB than taking the RB. You would have had fans screaming and lashing out about taking an offensive lineman over any of the QBs in what was considered a deep QB draft, but that's exactly what they did anyway when you took the RB, and that's exactly what they did when you took Daniel Jones. It's obvious Gettleman doesn't give a **** what fans or anybody else thinks, so you may as well go with the actual best player if you weren't going to take Darnold or another QB

[Mecca]

The only time I think a team really ****ed themselves not going RB was when Arizona thought it was a good idea to take Levi Brown instead of Adrian Peterson, they likely win a bowl with Peterson.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Nelson was a beast for them, but **** that Offense would have been ridiculous with Barkley.


Stop underselling how good a back like Barkley is.

Barkley is definitely awesome

But I just don’t think the difference in a generational running back and simply a good running back is worth overspending

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

You know who was a real generational talent at his position in that draft, though? Quentin Nelson.

If the Colts were picking at 2nd overall in that draft, I'm not so sure they still wouldn't be better served taking Nelson that high over the RB.

And to be honest, if the Giants were really that stubborn about "setting the table" before you throw your young QB out there, I think a pick like Nelson would have been more valuable to that QB than taking the RB. You would have had fans screaming and lashing out about taking an offensive lineman over any of the QBs in what was considered a deep QB draft, but that's exactly what they did anyway when you took the RB, and that's exactly what they did when you took Daniel Jones. It's obvious Gettleman doesn't give a **** what fans or anybody else thinks, so you may as well go with the actual best player if you weren't going to take Darnold or another QB

Well I mean yeah, it's obvious that Gettleman is clearly reeruned.

While Nelson is really good and will have a long career, I'll take the elite talent that will change my entire Offense.

Originally Posted by O.city

Barkley is definitely awesome

But I just don’t think the difference in a generational running back and simply a good running back is worth overspending

But it's not overspending. Thanks for playing.