Two-year extension for Jaylen Warren

Sure if Jaylen gets the yips
Tomlins patience be Warren thin.

 

Didn't Najee sign a 1 year deal with the Bolts?

 

The ongoing discussion of the two backs was dragged into this thread. I did not do the dragging, but I'm certainly not going to stop supporting my side of it here. The Steelers went with the lesser back because he is cheaper, younger, and has less mileage on him. I'm sure Harris being vocal about wanting running backs to get paid was a factor, too.

If the question is only who do they think is the better back, the answer was made clear on the field when they played Harris more and gave him the ball more.

 

Tomlin has very little tolerance for turn overs.

 

Doesn’t seem debatable

But I’m guessing it will be

 

Apparently not

 

Just because you liked your ex wife to marry her doesn’t mean she is your favorite now

Warren is the favorite now

See isn’t that simple

And the money comment is pure foolishness

 

I am not contradicting myself at all. I am not saying they chose the lesser back only to save about $1 million. I stated four reasons why they chose to hang on to Warren while letting Harris go. I don't know why you chose to leave three of them out. Warren is younger. He has less mileage on his body. He has not been vocal about teams needing to pay running backs like Harris. You chose to ignore those reasons, so your post does not accurately reflect my argument.

Your claim regarding money is also dubious. Harris would have only been under team control for one year with a $7 million commitment. Warren will make slightly more this season, but the team has him locked up for three seasons while only being committed to paying him $12 million. They got Warren longer for less average guaranteed money per season.

So no, it is not clear at all that they think Warren is better. They think he is younger, with less mileage, and not vocal in a way they don't like. If you look at guaranteed money per season and years of control, you could argue that Warren is still cheaper, too.

This all ignores the very good chance that Warren will not play the same role as Harris, at least not in the long term. He could continue to play the same role has for the team if Kaleb Johnson can be what they hope he is. Warren still needs to show he can stay healthy and protect the ball while getting more touches.

 

Actually they (I believe) accounted for fumbles lost, not actually the fumbles.
Again I will not talk bad, he is our running back, and Najee isn't. Nuff said.

 

could not happen to a better guy

happy to see this

 

I dont think "they like Warren more" makes any sense. They could of started Warren at any point but they didnt, they could have put warren in the lead back role and just signed Gainwell but instead they drafted Johnson. I mean in 4 years Najee had 1277 touches to Warrens 473 in 3 years, in my opinion, who they wanted to get the ball is pretty evident by who they gave the ball too.

 

Where is your admission that you were wrong in saying I contradicted myself? You claimed I was doing so because my argument was based on Warren being cheaper. I pointed out the three other arguments I had presented. Whether you agree with them or not, that proves I wasn't contradicting myself in the previous post.

Regarding the arguments themselves, aren't you one of the posters who has mentioned that Harris might have done something off the field that contributed to the team not keeping him? I'm simply speculating that might be him being focal about wanting running backs to be paid better.

The age difference is minimal, but given the short careers of running backs, is even one year irrelevant?

Even if you dismiss both of those, how can you not factor in the mileage? Wear and tear is a significant factor for any position, especially running backs. Harris has certainly taken more of that than Warren.

Given that there are reasonable factors beyond just who is better at play, the most important evidence of who they thought was the better back is who played more and who got more touches this past season. That was Harris. I don't mean overall, because that is skewed by the injuries that ruined the early part of Warren's season. it was consistent all season. They played the better back. That was Harris. They chose to keep the younger one with less wear and tear on his body.

Of course, I never argued that it should just be one or the other. I wanted them to keep both, which they could have easily done relatively cheaply. Instead, they stupidly passed on Harris's option, then were forced to spend a third-round pick on the position. If Gainwell gets significant touches Sunday, that will be a good indicator that they might have made a mistake. He shows flashes, but he couldn't even run well behind the best line in football last year when he spelled Barkley.

 

we will see quickly.

Harris will disappear, is my guess.

they are VERY different backs - in ways that have been discussed ad nauseam here. I am looking forward to a home run hitter being on the field 50% of the time

 

Please don't move the goalposts like that.

Here is what you wrote about me contradicting myself.

You’re contradicting yourself a bit here. You argued that they would have played Warren over Harris if they felt he was better which completely disregards the draft capital and the benching of a first rd pick for a UDFA, I believe you said they would be idiots for letting that influence them.

Yet here you are saying they chose the player they felt is worse just to save about a million dollars. That wouldnt be idiotic? Especially when they had more cap space than they have in years?

That comment ignores three other reasons I cited for keeping Warren over Harris. You isolated the the financial argument because when you do so, it looks like I'm contradicting myself. When the other three arguments are included, it becomes clear there was no contradiction. I never said they kept Warren over Harris to save just over $1 million. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote.

You also position this as if I wanted to keep just one of them. I wanted them to use the fifth-year option on Harris and re-sign Warren, then let Harris walk after the 2025 season. I wanted both guys. They would be better off right now with both guys, and as you pointed out, they had the cap room to do it. Instead, they weakened the position and forced themselves into using a third-round pick on the position this year.

The silly argument here is yours, claiming that they continued to play Harris over Warren due to draft capital spent and what it would look like to bench a former first-round pick for a UDFA. Harris was drafted by the previous GM four years ago. The current GM had just traded away the guy taken in the first round a year later, Pickett, but you actually think they kept starting Harris because he was taken so high a year before they took Pickett? That is utter nonsense.

Harris started, got more snaps, and more touches because they thought he gave them the best chance to win. He got the ball more because he was better. They foolishly chose not to keep both. Despite your inaccurate claim, there are many reasons why they might have kept just Warren other than thinking he is better, including four that I have mentioned.

At least the 20/20 hindsight argument about Harris getting hurt has gone away now that it looks like he is going to play in the opener for the Chargers.

 

You switched your argument, so yes, you moved the goalposts. You are trying to frame the argument so it is easier to support your claim. Why would I accept that? No thanks.

They did keep the guy they saw as the inferior running back. We know this because they started Harris in every game, they gave him more snaps, and they gave him more touches. Your argument that they did this because he had been a first-round draft pick four years earlier under the previous GM is ludicrous, especially when you consider that they had already graded away the guy they took in the first round the following season for peanuts.

I also explained why they held on to the inferior running back. He is younger. He is cheaper. He did not run his mouth about running backs needing to be paid more. Most importantly, Warren has far less wear and tear on him.

It isn't as if I think there is some huge gap between the two. Remember, I have argued all along that they should have kept both for this season, then moved on from Harris before all that wear and tear catches up with him. I have argued that they are a weaker team right now because they turned down that fifth-year option. They are. Gainwell isn't an every-down back. He didn't even run well spelling Barkley with the Eagles last season. Johnson apparently hasn't progressed well enough in his blocking. Harris and Warren together would have been better than what they have now.

 

If they liked Warren better, they would have used him more than they used Harris when they had both. It is your ego that won't allow you to accept that they think Harris is better, but felt they had to pick just one of them and chose Warren due to other factors such as him having taken less wear and tear on his body.

It really is one of the silliest arguments that I've seen on this board, that the Steelers gave never started Warren, gave him fewer snaps, and gave him fewer touches even though they thought he was the better back. Make that one make sense.

(I know you tried with the twisted logic about him being a former first-round draft pick, but the validity of that idea went out the window when they gave up on Pickett.)

 

this is one BIZARRE piece of logic, if it EVEN IS logic:

"we let our BETTER PLAYER go / walk, because we wanted to play the less better player"


it was discussed that Warren most likely is a BETTER FIT in this offense. He and Gainwell and the rotation they are planning.

guess what:

We Will See!!!!!!


I'd bet NOW we won't ever hear another PEEP out of Najee Harris, that is what I think. and in general, I liked the kid. He just never delivered the goods of a #1 draft pick RB.