Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    58,664

    RB Todd Gurley to the Falcons

    Per Twitter. 1 year deal.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,213
    That was quick.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    11,282
    They'd talked before he was released, no doubt...in fact it may be the reason Freeman was released.

    Vikings fans want Dalvin Cook to pay attention....problem is, Gurley likely signs with the Falcons low, after all he had $45mil guaranteed in his Rams contract.

    But it's funny how the media now talks about this 'bad Gurley contract'...when it's only now viewed as bad because the Rams were cap-strapped badly and used Gurley badly since signing him to it. If they'd used him normally and hadn't strapped themselves so bad, the most we'd be hearing would be about him being a candidate to restructure.

    Funnier yet is the likelihood the Rams now sign Freeman while still paying Gurley....both the Rams and Falcons paying both players at the same time potentially
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    58,664
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    They'd talked before he was released, no doubt...in fact it may be the reason Freeman was released.

    Vikings fans want Dalvin Cook to pay attention....problem is, Gurley likely signs with the Falcons low, after all he had $45mil guaranteed in his Rams contract.

    But it's funny how the media now talks about this 'bad Gurley contract'...when it's only now viewed as bad because the Rams were cap-strapped badly and used Gurley badly since signing him to it. If they'd used him normally and hadn't strapped themselves so bad, the most we'd be hearing would be about him being a candidate to restructure.

    Funnier yet is the likelihood the Rams now sign Freeman while still paying Gurley....both the Rams and Falcons paying both players at the same time potentially
    I think the “bad Gurley contract” talk has more to do with RB is a high wear and tear position and also an easy to replace position. So the talk is in the sense that he likely is damaged goods.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,760
    Gurley to Atlanta is great because he gets to play with Julio and Matt Ryan

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    10,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Tg11 View Post
    Gurley to Atlanta is great because he gets to play with Julio and Matt Ryan
    Well said.
    The Baker has come. Believe the hype.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    17,478
    The days of Gurley being dominate are over, but I think he's still valuable.

    He seems to have lost a little bit of change of direction, but overall was solid behind a terrible offensive line when they boosted his workload to end the season. Has the crazy red zone production that isn't going away and can still ride him for 250-275 touches a season.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,936
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    They'd talked before he was released, no doubt...in fact it may be the reason Freeman was released.

    Vikings fans want Dalvin Cook to pay attention....problem is, Gurley likely signs with the Falcons low, after all he had $45mil guaranteed in his Rams contract.

    But it's funny how the media now talks about this 'bad Gurley contract'...when it's only now viewed as bad because the Rams were cap-strapped badly and used Gurley badly since signing him to it. If they'd used him normally and hadn't strapped themselves so bad, the most we'd be hearing would be about him being a candidate to restructure.

    Funnier yet is the likelihood the Rams now sign Freeman while still paying Gurley....both the Rams and Falcons paying both players at the same time potentially
    Not to be that guy, but I hated it instantly. They did it when they had him under contract for 2 years while he was coming off a career year at the most volatile/shortest shelf life position in the game. And they didn't even really get much of a discount if any. It's just bad negotiating. I get why you extend QBs early. You don't want to be like Dallas and in a situation where dak holds all the cards. But RBs rarely hold the cards, so to sign him when he's under 2 years of contract and still reset the market is just dumb business.

    It's the same thing I said about them with cooks. They extended him before he ever played a snap and still gave him pretty high level money. Now they are looking to unload him possibly too. And I have no ill feelings towards the rams. Thought they had a good team but just were sort of unwise with their contracts. And it's been more worst case scenario for both cooks and gurley, which make both deals look espeically bad, but even at if things just went okay, those deals probably still look not great.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    86,824
    Gurley will be a top 5 back this year.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    11,282
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    Not to be that guy, but I hated it instantly. They did it when they had him under contract for 2 years while he was coming off a career year at the most volatile/shortest shelf life position in the game. And they didn't even really get much of a discount if any. It's just bad negotiating. I get why you extend QBs early. You don't want to be like Dallas and in a situation where dak holds all the cards. But RBs rarely hold the cards, so to sign him when he's under 2 years of contract and still reset the market is just dumb business.

    It's the same thing I said about them with cooks. They extended him before he ever played a snap and still gave him pretty high level money. Now they are looking to unload him possibly too. And I have no ill feelings towards the rams. Thought they had a good team but just were sort of unwise with their contracts. And it's been more worst case scenario for both cooks and gurley, which make both deals look espeically bad, but even at if things just went okay, those deals probably still look not great.
    they've now paid him over $20mil more (I believe) than they would have if they'd just let him play out his 5th yr option and let him walk...and they aren't done paying him
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    16,949
    The Rams very obviously made moves to get the most out of Goff's rookie contract. It almost worked, too. But the Super Bowl team was built on short-term moves at long-term costs. It came to an end one year earlier than I thought, however. Gurley's injury played a part in that, but also their division was/is strong.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    17,215
    Falcons still haven't announced the Gurley deal yet

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...d-gurley-deal/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Gurley will be a top 5 back this year.
    This.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    20,201
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    The Rams very obviously made moves to get the most out of Goff's rookie contract. It almost worked, too. But the Super Bowl team was built on short-term moves at long-term costs. It came to an end one year earlier than I thought, however. Gurley's injury played a part in that, but also their division was/is strong.
    And also this

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    58,664
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    Gurley will be a top 5 back this year.
    Gurley is damaged goods and I'd be shocked if he plays more than 14 games this year. Reports are he's at bone on bone.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •