Sellers believes he's due for raise

I think it would be a good signal to reward performance for the team instead of rewarding those who do well with other teams. Throw him a bone and load it where the cap hit was more significant next year.

We should be known for taking care of our own who do well instead of being where you go to get paid.

Unfortunately for Sellers, contracts are based on the future -- not the past. From a business perspective, it really just doesn't make sense. Sorry Mike.

This isn't entirely true. Contracts are based on a player's potential production and performance in the future and also in relation to the team's future (with/without that player). But estimating a player's future production is mostly based on what he did in the past and also how long he can consistently produce at the same level. There's really no question that he is one of the better players on the team and he's one of the top 5 at his position in the league. And I think you can take someone with a similiar career at fullback like Lorenzo Neal and intelligently predict his length of producing in the future at this same level.

Neal is 38 and Sellers is 34. Neal is still producing at a good level and may have just begun declining last year at age 37 (but who knows, it could have been the black hole he was playing in called the Raiders). Neal's most recent pro bowl was in 2007 and was All-Pro that same year. Sellers came into the league 5 years after Neal (and Sellers was also in the CFL in 2002 and 2003), so the thought that he is still can produce at his current level for another 4 to 5 years is credible to me. Give him a 3 year extension that would make him a redskin for the next 5 years; this way this doesn't turn into another Antonio Pierce fiasco where he turns down a contract a little less than someone else because he feels slighted. It only benefits everyone by doing it this way.

This isn't entirely true. Contracts are based on a player's potential production and performance in the future and also in relation to the team's future (with/without that player). But estimating a player's future production is mostly based on what he did in the past and also how long he can consistently produce at the same level. There's really no question that he is one of the better players on the team and he's one of the top 5 at his position in the league. And I think you can take someone with a similiar career at fullback like Lorenzo Neal and intelligently predict his length of producing in the future at this same level.

Nice post warriorzpath. The only problem I have with Sellers right now is he may be becoming a distraction and I think he needs to leave it to his agent now. I agree with him and I hope he gets what he's due, but he's starting to speak publically about it a little too much and now may not be the right time.

Seller's brought up a great point the other day, when he said he gets paid less than most of the FB's in the league, most of them who haven't even made a pro bowl. He's one of the top 2 best fullbacks in the league, hands down.If he played like crap, would it be OK for the team to take back any signing bonus they gave him? He signed his contract, he needs to play and produce this year and worry about his contract in the off-season when he has 1 yr. left on his deal.

I'm a pretty old-school guy (so maybe this is just a pet peeve), but when the whole team is doing warm up stretches/leg strides (including Cooley, Portis, Campbell, Samuels) and he's just standing there/jogging through, it's not a good example for a veteran and team leader and it doesn't look good in an "open" practice when he's the closest player to the fans.

Finally a system is set in place for the offense, build on that and pay Sellers, keep the core components together.

You now have an offensive system now in place, keep the key components happy. Pay Sellers!

could we get another fullback to perform at Sellers level? maybe, maybe not. i wouldn't pay him. he is under contract, right?