Two-year extension for Jaylen Warren

Gainwell has been the better player this year.
Warren has been average at best.
Anyone saying different is just trying to save face from some prediction that they made before the season started.

 

For the price of the option on Harris the Steelers decided Warren was the better value. They are getting near the same results for less money. That's what a GM should be focused on.

 

No

 

The result is a running game that is worse than what they had last year despite being supported by better quarterback play.

My argument was always that they thought Harris was the better back when he was a Steeler, as evidenced by starting him every game and giving him more snaps and touches than Warren, but concerns regarding this cost, the way he runs his mouth, and wear and tear on his body led them to move on and take Warren. That decision cost them their third-round pick this year, which is made even worse by the minimal contribution they have gotten from Johnson. They are fortunate that Gainwell has vastly outplayed his contract and past performance this year. Give them some credit for identifying him as a solid third-down back, but the production on early downs has been a huge jump for him.

 

Care to elaborate or will you limit your being wrong to one word?

 

FWIW, this also uses hindsight to know that in this alternate universe where we give him the option, Harris wouldn't have blown out his Achilles (or other serious injury) in year 4 (his last year with us).

His health in year 4 was also unknown to the team when they made the decision. And I'd imagine that the probability a RB who gets as many touches as Najee's had going 4 years without a major injury are small. Najee avoided this because durability was his best attribute. And it's even smaller when you carry that through to the end of year 5 (the gamble the team would be making with the guaranteed 5th year option). Despite his elite durability, Najee didn't avoid that one.

I guess there was some possibility that we could have signed him to a contract after year 4 (this is what I hoped happened). But that wasn't going to happen unless we paid him more than what he ended up making on the open market (also unknown at that time) or we tagged him (he's clearly not good enough to earn the franchise tag).

I think the only way that he would have come back to us in this case is the Edmunds special. Where no one else wanted to pay him more than the vet minimum. But we could do a little more than that because there's now a mechanism in the CBA where you can share up to $1MM (not sure if this is cap adjusted and went up) among some number (4?) of guys who have been on your team for 4 years as long as they are making the minimum with a small enough signing bonus. Even then, I think some guys would go somewhere else because they'd feel disrespected going back to the old team. From 1st round hope to vet min deal.

 

Having dealt with anywhere from nuclear physicists to dogs I have learned to limit the words I use to the comprehension level of the subject I am dealing with

One word seemed appropriate

 

This was always my issue with Najee.

People talk about his yards. But it's only because he got a lot of carries (and still never had a 38 yard play from scrimmage).

Last season, Najee had 263 carries (ypc 4, succ% 43%).

This season, Warren has 171 carries so far (ypc 4, succ% 53%).

I certainly agree that Warren has been less than what I'd hoped to get from him this year. But I'd much rather take the 10% increase in success rate vs. the increased carries.

But I 100% agree with the idea that the offense needs to run more plays. I think a huge part of this is that the D is bad at getting off the field (but they do get a lot of turnovers).

 

And they didn't have to fully guarantee the salary 2 years out.

That's a huge thing for this team. They hate guaranteeing money past the season in which the contract is signed.

And I'm sure they hate it even more for RBs. And among RBs, I'm sure they hate it even more for guys who had as many carries and touches as Najee did after year 3.

 

Look at the post you were responding to there again.

I didn't write that he was a third-down back. I wrote that he got the snaps on third down and the backup work on first and second down. That is accurate. Of course Warren got more of his carries on first and second down. They weren't going to run the ball all that often on third down unless it was short yardage, in which case it was usually going to be Harris on the field.

Your claim that they went to a committee doesn't hold up, either. Harris carried the ball 263 times in 2024, more than double Warren's 120. Warren missing two games doesn't account for that difference. By the way, despite getting most of the third-down snaps. Warren still had only two more receptions than Harris in 2024.

When they were both healthy in 2023, Harris still had over 100 more carries than Warren. That is not an equal time share at running back.

I repeatedly support my assertions with facts that you refuse to acknowledge, often responding by trying to move the goalposts. For example, Harris was more durable the last four years than Warren has been this year. This is inarguable. Harris never missed a start. Warren missed one. Those are indisputable facts. When I bring them up, you either avoid it or try to shift the discussion. You try to change the comparison to Warren against other backs in the NFL now or you talk about what happened to Harris later rather than simply admit that the facts tell us that Harris was more durable than Warren during his time as a Steeler.

If you want to dispute my interpretations of the facts, that's fair, but please don't falsely claim that I'm not posting facts. That simply is not true.

 

Success rate is a subjective statistic that is influenced far too much by circumstances beyond the players control. The bottom line is that Warren's average per carry is 4.0, just like Harris last year. He would need an amazing run of three games to get to 1,000 yards, which is very unlikely given the division of labor at running back and his declining production over the last four games.

Regarding plays of 38 yards or more from scrimmage, Warren has three of those in his career. Only one of them was a run. The only one that came in a victory was the 38-yarder against the Ravens, which was more the result of a horrifically-blown coverage by the Ravens than anything special that Warren did. I have no problem stipulating that Warren is a more dangerous receiver than Harris, but the decision to try to move him into a lead back role took him out of the third-down role where he was so dynamic.

As a runner, is that one home run in four seasons really that relevant? Is a 38-yard pass reception that much more valuable than a 37-yard run, the longest of Harris's career? Is it misleading to set the bar at 38 yards when Harris has that 37-yard run and a couple of 36-yarders in his career?

 

Warren’s longest run this year is 37 yards.. lol.

Sure, he has a career long of 74 yards but that is only 1 run in 4 years.

Is he faster than Najee? Sure!! But he isn’t stronger and he struggles to break tackles.

The success rate thing is comical. You really would take success rate over more carries with Aaron Rodgers at QB? You just said you want more plays. Which is it?

and if its more plays with the same success rate I doubt that happens. More than likely it dips but IMO that is fine by me because more plays means more opportunities.

 

Steelers need Kaleb Johnson not to be a bust at RB. I could see Steelers drafting another RB if they keep most of their picks in '26.

 

Jaylen Warren is who we thought he was. A nice #2 running back.

Some guys are just nice to have, so they can come off the bench and be productive.

James Conner comes to mind on a nice #2 RB, that the Steelers should have kept as their #2 RB.

 

Some folks here thought he was Jahmyr Gibbs. He just needed the carries. Oops.

 

Felt, you are having issues with logic here. You keep trying to ask these "gotcha" questions. This is how it must feel like to get interviewed by Cathy Newman.

First: Saying that Najee wasn't good at something isn't the same thing as saying Warren is good at that same thing.

As I told you many times on the Planet (and again in this very thread!), I don't think Warren is a RB1.

Second: The discussion about snap count is about the DISTRIBUTION of snaps in the backfield. That's not the same thing as thinking we shouldn't have more snaps on offense.

I don't think Warren should get a Najee amount of carries for doing slightly better than Najee did last year.

Not sure why you think saying that Warren should get a smaller distribution of the work load means that I don't think our offense should be running more plays...

Given the results this season, I think that Gainwell should have more snaps than Warren does going forward this season. Because he's been the better player. Something I freely admit to being wrong about (because I wrongly thought Gainwell was going to be a slightly better version of Patterson). Some of us can admit when we're wrong. Others still think we made a mistake by not offering Bell all the money and guarantees he wanted.

 

Why do you think success rate is subjective? Because it's the opposite of that.

 

Yep.

But I think it's a really bad sign that he can't get on the field.

Hope it's not another failed offensive pick. We've had a run of them lately.

 

I wouldn't call Najee a failed 1st round pick.

But he was certainly a disappointment relative to where he was drafted.

He's the RB version of a somewhat upgraded Terrell Edmunds. Consistent. Doesn't really make big plays. Only got the playing time tier for the option. Didn't get it exercised. Could only get a low money deal (although Najee's deal was better than Edmunds'...even though a lot of it is incentives he was never going to hit even if healthy).

 

He was a much better player than Edmunds.