Steelers have toxic problem
Only holdout Bell can remedy the situation
It should have never come to this. The Steelers and running back Le’Veon Bell did the whole contract face-off last year. After holding out hope for a better deal the entire offseason, Bell finally conceded, reported for work Labor Day weekend and played out the season on the franchise tag.
Sure, he got off to a slower start, but he found his groove. He produced a second consecutive Pro Bowl season (third of his career), establishing himself as one of the most valuable players in the league. But the Steelers and Bell again never agreed on his worth.
That four-year, $57.5 million contract the Rams gave Todd Gurley in late July? That should have been the kind of deal Pittsburgh gave Bell.
But the Steelers don’t view Bell (two years older than Gurley) as indispensable. The short shelf life of running backs, and the position’s quality depth in recent drafts, has Pittsburgh brass leery of such a commitment, even after the all-pro produced 3,830 all-purpose yards and 20 touchdowns in the last two seasons.
So the Steelers want Bell to do it all over again. One more year, and we’ll talk later.
But Bell has no desire to put himself through another 400-touch season on a one-year franchise tender and with no long-term security.
It’s $14.5 million, you say. Bell can’t
suit up for that?
Yes, that’s a lot of money to you, me and many football players. But guaranteed financial security for future years matters more to marquee players such as Bell. It’s especially important for running backs, whom teams chew up and spit out far more quickly than players at other positions.
It’s also about respect, something Bell would say he hasn’t received. That’s why he has yet to report to Steelers headquarters and is a long shot to play in the season opener against division rival Cleveland.
The two sides have a bigger problem now, though. The frustrations over the failed negotiations have extended beyond the negotiating table, with the animosity reaching the locker room. You can’t help but wonder if the damage is irreparable, especially after Bell’s offensive linemen put him on blast for his absence at this stage.
“I honestly thought he’d be here today,” center Maurkice Pouncey told reporters Wednesday. “He proved a lot of us wrong.”
Said guard Ramon Foster, “What do you do? Here’s a guy who doesn’t give a damn, I guess. So we’ll treat it as such. I just hate it came to this.”
Foster went so far as to say, “He’s making seven times what I make, twice as much as (left tackle) Al (Villanueva) is making, and we’re the guys who do it for him.”
The lines have been drawn: Us against him. That’s alarming, even to other players.
It’s an unwritten rule: Don’t publicly criticize teammates when business is involved. Root for them to get paid. One day, you could find yourself in the same position.
But the rules of locker room etiquette have been cast aside.
Things began to sour late last season when the Steelers missed out on homefield advantage in the playoffs by a narrow margin. Some players couldn’t help but wonder how differently things would have played out had Bell reported sooner rather than using the first month of the season to play his way back into shape. A 23-17 overtime loss to Chicago, where Bell managed just 61 rushing yards on 15 carries, stung in particular. And people familiar with the situation also believe that the offensive linemen’s frustrations toward Bell extend even further. He has a habit of not always adhering to the plays because he doesn’t spend extensive time studying the blocking concepts, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.
Bell’s appreciation for his linemen also has been questioned on more than one occasion, though he bought the unit expensive Hublot watches as Christmas presents last year.
It’s clear all parties involved have mishandled this situation. But only Bell can fix this mess, presently, if he so desires.
The Steelers cannot do anything for now. They cannot negotiate a longterm contract because they missed the July 16 deadline.
So Bell is essentially staying away to avoid risk of long-term injury since he doesn’t have that security. But that decision, and a lack of communication be- tween Bell and his teammates, has sent the wrong message. Players around the league have publicly said “pay the man,” but some of his teammates now see him as selfish.
Bell’s agent, Adisa Bakari, did not reply to multiple requests from USA TODAY to speak with his client or to comment for him. But it’s possible the running back already has decided he no longer desires to be a part of this locker room. Maybe he distrusts his teammates as much as he does team executives. Maybe that’s one more reason he’s fine extending this stalemate into the season.
Forfeiting roughly $855,000 a week is a serious move. But it’s very possible that Bell could wait until after Week 10 to report for duty. Doing so would ensure he minimizes risk of injury and still enables him to become an unrestricted free agent in 2019.
He would still make approximately $5.1 million by playing in those final six games. But Bell must ask himself if such a lengthy holdout is worth it on multiple fronts. Sure, he could survive without the money he would miss out on. But what’s the intangible cost of damaging the trust and commitment that he once shared with teammates?
If he does still value these relationships, Bell must reach out to those frustrated linemen and any other offended parties. Regardless of when he returns, he could apologize, express his appreciation for them and explain his decision.
Bell is not the first player to employ these tactics, and he will not be the last. But communication often goes a long way toward earning the understanding and respect.
Bell will need both of those if he decides to return, whether that’s in a matter of days or weeks.