Saquon Wants To Get Paid

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Only thing I can think of is shortening the length of the rookie deal for RBs.  2 years with a 3rd year option or something like that.  

But as you say that's a special carve out that would probably cause downstream issues I can't think of.  Like WRs declaring themselves as RBs coming out of school or something.

The RBs will not get drafted early, pushing the value of the contracts down.  There is no fix for this issue.

It never seemed to bother anybody when Offensive Linemen were at the bottom of the NFL salary food chain for 50 years.  Now management recognizes that the OL is what keeps the QBs upright and opens the holes for the running backs.  Running backs are paid what they are paid because that is what the market is. They have short careers, are easily injured, and are easily replaced.  

The traditional middle or inside linebacker position is also moving to the bottom of the salary pile with safeties on the defensive side of the ball.  

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

2 hours ago, jgb said:

Think about this…Bijan Robinson… with no NFL snaps to his name… is a top 10 highest paid RB due to draft slot (#9 by AAV, #4 in amount of guarantees). There’s a decent chance he will never be paid more per year than his rookie deal in terms of cap percentage, regardless of how he performs.

Imagine if Bryce Young was the 9th-highest paid QB with the 4th-highest guaranteed amount before ever stepping on an NFL field…

Tl:dr Not only is paying RBs big money dumb, drafting them early is, also.

This was reality before the rookie wage scale.  Rookie QBs like Sam Bradford were the highest paid players in the NFL before they even played a down.  The rookie scale was put in place to drive more money to the vets rather than unproven players.

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

This was reality before the rookie wage scale.  Rookie QBs like Sam Bradford were the highest paid players in the NFL before they even played a down.  The rookie scale was put in place to drive more money to the vets rather than unproven players.

Yes but even then a player could expect to make significantly more on their second contract if they were great. For RBs drafted high now… crapshoot.

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I like that.  A "Skill Players Tag".  The NFL loves fantasy football more than ever so you could even call it a "Flex" Tag, lol.

Why would the NFLPA agree to this. All that would do is artificially drive the salaries of WRs and TEs down and RBs up.  We are still splitting up the same size pie. If someone gets a bigger slice, someone else gets a smaller one.

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Why would the NFLPA agree to this. All that would do is artificially drive the salaries of WRs and TEs down and RBs up.  We are still splitting up the same size pie. If someone gets a bigger slice, someone else gets a smaller one.

Because they’d lobby for the Skill player tag to be at the current WR level or something.  I dunno.  No one ever claimed there’s any REAL solution to this, we’re just throwing ideas out there.  It’s a long offseason….

[jgb]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Because they’d lobby for the Skill player tag to be at the current WR level or something.  I dunno.  No one ever claimed there’s any REAL solution to this, we’re just throwing ideas out there.  It’s a long offseason….

Not suggesting there needs to be a solution, but if there was one it would have to start at QB IMHO. 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

There are a lot more people that are 5'9-6' tall and 200-225 pounds than the body types needed to play other positions.  What other positions are men that size playing ?  Safety? That is another low paid position.  You can't turn a 5'10" 210 athlete from a RB into a WR or TE or LB or DE.  

[Matt39]

6 minutes ago, jgb said:

Yes but even then a player could expect to make significantly more on their second contract if they were great. For RBs drafted high now… crapshoot.

Second contracts for running backs happen if they are good and stay healthy. Barkley has been injured frequently. Henry and Chubb remained relatively healthy. 

[GreenFish]

Maybe make RB exempt from the franchise tag. The rookie wage scale plus the franchise tag basically traps them during their prime years. Remove one.

[KINGDIRK]

Understanding it would have to be collectively bargained but If RB is so devalued and GMs won’t pay them, why not remove the franchise tag from RB position all together?

I understand owners love the cost control but again, if GMs aren’t gonna pay them, let them hit open market. 

RBs can’t complain at that point and neither can the GMs that don’t want to pay them, 

[slats]

1 minute ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

There are a lot more people that are 5'9-6' tall and 200-225 pounds than the body types needed to play other positions.  What other positions are men that size playing ?  Safety? That is another low paid position.  You can't turn a 5'10" 210 athlete from a RB into a WR or TE or LB or DE.  

Exactly. If you’re that size and have elite skills, you should be a well paid WR or CB. Or even QB. Some of these RBs do have elite skills but, unfortunately, the nature of the position burns them out before they hit 30 years old. Too many miles and too many hits. 

[KINGDIRK]

3 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

Maybe make RB exempt from the franchise tag. The rookie wage scale plus the franchise tag basically traps them during their prime years. Remove one.

Makes total sense. 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

9 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

Maybe make RB exempt from the franchise tag. The rookie wage scale plus the franchise tag basically traps them during their prime years. Remove one.

That's never going to happen.  Why would the NFL agree to that and why would all the other players at other positions agree to that?  The solution is for RBs to understand and accept the market. 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours ago, bla bla bla said:

I'd like to see a "weapon tag" similar to OL. Let them lump in WR, TE, and RB together. That would all but eliminate the franchise tag for RBs, forcing new deals or pay an extreme premium for RB

Unfortunately it doesn't always end up the way you think it might. e.g. centers never get tagged, and the 8th-highest C contract is just $6MM. There are 20+ TEs making more than the 8th-highest center (by contract average, anyway). 

If they're going to change that significantly, they may as well do the truly more appropriate thing, which is to eliminate the franchise tag altogether. Then again, if more RBs entered the FA market - along with others immune from the franchise tag - the RBs' averages per year might even go down, not up. 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

13 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

Maybe make RB exempt from the franchise tag. The rookie wage scale plus the franchise tag basically traps them during their prime years. Remove one.

Two franchise tags = the guaranteed money the top RBs are getting in second contracts.  It's not the end of the world to be tagged.  

[GreenFish]

Just now, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

That's never going to happen.  Why would the NFL agree to that and why would all the other players at other positions agree to that?  The solution is for RBs to understand and accept the market. 

You have to bargain. Players get this and the owners get something else. This give and take happens during every negotiation period.

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

Why would any fan want to eliminate the franchise tag?  Let's just make it harder and harder to build a winning team.  I don't understand the hand wringing here.  There have been certain positions in the NFL that have always been paid less than others and that changes over time.  RBs used to be a glamour position. No more.  BFD.  

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

13 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

You have to bargain. Players get this and the owners get something else. This give and take happens during every negotiation period.

But you're asking 95% of players to sacrifice something so 5% can get something the rest can't get.  The NFL players are not going on strike so RBs can be paid more money earlier in their careers or so RBs can be exempt from the franchise tag while everyone else isn't.  And good luck getting all the players to strike to get rid of the franchise tag completely.  

[slats]

11 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

Maybe make RB exempt from the franchise tag. The rookie wage scale plus the franchise tag basically traps them during their prime years. Remove one.

 

8 minutes ago, KINGDIRK said:

Understanding it would have to be collectively bargained but If RB is so devalued and GMs won’t pay them, why not remove the franchise tag from RB position all together?

I understand owners love the cost control but again, if GMs aren’t gonna pay them, let them hit open market. 

RBs can’t complain at that point and neither can the GMs that don’t want to pay them, 

It starts getting really dicey when you try to have specific rules for a single position. It also needs to be noted that the management likes the situation just fine right now. For the RBs, a system where rookies can’t be signed for longer than three years or franchise tagged would be a dream world, but they’d have to have a majority of all players on their side to push that thru past the owners, who would want nothing to do with it - if they’d even entertain it.  Seems like more than just an uphill battle to me. 

[Joe Willie White Shoes]

33 minutes ago, jgb said:

Yes but even then a player could expect to make significantly more on their second contract if they were great. For RBs drafted high now… crapshoot.

This is not totally true. The going rate for rookie deals was going up as fast as the going rate for veterans getting second deals. That's why Bradford and rookie QBs in that era (and all rookies) were among the highest paid players in the NFL.  

Stafford was the NFL's 2nd highest player in 2010 as a rookie.  Bradford was the NFL's second highest paid player the following year - as a rookie.

That ridiculous trend is what led, appropriately, to the current rookie wage scale.

[Scott Dierking]

1 minute ago, slats said:

 

It starts getting really dicey when you try to have specific rules for a single position. It also needs to be noted that the management likes the situation just fine right now. For the RBs, a system where rookies can’t be signed for longer than three years or franchise tagged would be a dream world, but they’d have to have a majority of all players on their side to push that thru past the owners, who would want nothing to do with it - if they’d even entertain it.  Seems like more than just an uphill battle to me. 

It is called a "Collective Bargaining Agreement" for a reason. What is good for one is good for all. 

And that collectively bargained agreement is in place until 2030. Agreed to by both sides. 

[jgb]

26 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Second contracts for running backs happen if they are good and stay healthy. Barkley has been injured frequently. Henry and Chubb remained relatively healthy. 

Didn’t say they didn’t happen. Said pretty good chance Robinson’s biggest contract is his first, regardless of how he performs.

[jgb]

whatever

[jgb]

10 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

This is not totally true. The going rate for rookie deals was going up as fast as the going rate for veterans getting second deals. That's why Bradford and rookie QBs in that era (and all rookies) were among the highest paid players in the NFL.  

Stafford was the NFL's 2nd highest player in 2010 as a rookie.  Bradford was the NFL's second highest paid player the following year - as a rookie.

That ridiculous trend is what led, appropriately, to the current rookie wage scale.

Bradford was 29th highest paid QB his rookie year. Robinson is top ten at his position his rookie year. Regardless you’re focusing on dicta and not the main point. I’m talking about RBs in today’s NFL.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Matt39 said:

It’s purely supply and demand. There’s nothing that the NFLPA can do. If you try a special carve out those things just end up backfiring anyways. 

This. I'm sympathetic to them only rarely cashing in, but too often the law of unintended consequences erases the gains made (and often makes it worse than it was). 

e.g. say the solution was to limit RB rookie contracts to just 3 years (just that position, for obvious comparative reasons for both career length overall & typical maximum age at a superstar level).

Well, then say goodbye to RBs getting drafted in round 1 (and literally never in the top 20 where their 4-year contracts are fully guaranteed at signing) which has already become less common as it is, outside of weaker top-heavy draft classes. For some RBs who sustain a serious/permanent injuries during rookie contracts, now any 1st round rookie deal that would've paid $20-30MM - all of it fully guaranteed - is instead a 2nd-3rd round rookie deal that would max out at $8-9MM, but with zero guaranteed (effectively just the rookie season), where the total lifetime payout might be $4MM, and that's before half of it goes to income taxes. 

The only remedies I can think of would be

1. to lower every rookie contract to 3 years max, with no tagging or free agency restriction of any kind. Fat chance getting every owner to sign onto that, so it is what it is. It's just one of those areas where life's not fair. The way to look at it is it could be worse: same situation but no big-money talent, like almost everybody else in society.

2. The best shot RBs have is just getting rid of the franchise tag outright (and maybe that's the only position that gets such a carve-out). Since it's just one position and not all of them, it's more likely to get owners to sign on for that one. Will be a lot harder to get them to sign on for eliminating the tag for all positions. I've doubts that'll happen without an extended player strike/holdout.

[Larz]

Nobody will care about this in literally 3 days 

[jgb]

26 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

That's never going to happen.  Why would the NFL agree to that and why would all the other players at other positions agree to that?  The solution is for RBs to understand and accept the market. 

Let them eat cake!

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Larz said:

Nobody will care about this in literally 3 days 

I will. It’s a fascinating controlled micro-economy.

[Bobby816]

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This. I'm sympathetic to them only rarely cashing in, but too often the law of unintended consequences erases the gains made (and often makes it worse than it was). 

e.g. say the solution was to limit RB rookie contracts to just 3 years (just that position, for obvious comparative reasons for both career length overall & typical maximum age at a superstar level).

Well, then say goodbye to RBs getting drafted in round 1 (and literally never in the top 20 where their 4-year contracts are fully guaranteed at signing) which has already become less common as it is, outside of weaker top-heavy draft classes. For some RBs who sustain a serious/permanent injuries during rookie contracts, now any 1st round rookie deal that would've paid $20-30MM - all of it fully guaranteed - is instead a 2nd-3rd round rookie deal that would max out at $8-9MM, but with zero guaranteed (effectively just the rookie season), where the total lifetime payout might be $4MM, and that's before half of it goes to income taxes. 

The only remedies I can think of would be

1. to lower every rookie contract to 3 years max, with no tagging or free agency restriction of any kind. Fat chance getting every owner to sign onto that, so it is what it is. It's just one of those areas where life's not fair. The way to look at it is it could be worse: same situation but no big-money talent, like almost everybody else in society.

2. The best shot RBs have is just getting rid of the franchise tag outright (and maybe that's the only position that gets such a carve-out). Since it's just one position and not all of them, it's more likely to get owners to sign on for that one. Will be a lot harder to get them to sign on for eliminating the tag for all positions. I've doubts that'll happen without an extended player strike/holdout.

Agree with all you're saying. But NFLPA would never alter that rookie contract to only 3 years. So likely nothing changes in this RB market anytime soon.

[Matt39]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This. I'm sympathetic to them only rarely cashing in, but too often the law of unintended consequences erases the gains made (and often makes it worse than it was). 

e.g. say the solution was to limit RB rookie contracts to just 3 years (just that position, for obvious comparative reasons for both career length overall & typical maximum age at a superstar level).

Well, then say goodbye to RBs getting drafted in round 1 (and literally never in the top 20 where their 4-year contracts are fully guaranteed at signing) which has already become less common as it is, outside of weaker top-heavy draft classes. For some RBs who sustain a serious/permanent injuries during rookie contracts, now any 1st round rookie deal that would've paid $20-30MM - all of it fully guaranteed - is instead a 2nd-3rd round rookie deal that would max out at $8-9MM, but with zero guaranteed (effectively just the rookie season), where the total lifetime payout might be $4MM, and that's before half of it goes to income taxes. 

The only remedies I can think of would be

1. to lower every rookie contract to 3 years max, with no tagging or free agency restriction of any kind. Fat chance getting every owner to sign onto that, so it is what it is. It's just one of those areas where life's not fair. The way to look at it is it could be worse: same situation but no big-money talent, like almost everybody else in society.

2. The best shot RBs have is just getting rid of the franchise tag outright (and maybe that's the only position that gets such a carve-out). Since it's just one position and not all of them, it's more likely to get owners to sign on for that one. Will be a lot harder to get them to sign on for eliminating the tag for all positions. I've doubts that'll happen without an extended player strike/holdout.

Honestly I don’t see how anything would remedy this other than eliminating the cap in it’s entirety.

[Jetsfan80]

51 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

There are a lot more people that are 5'9-6' tall and 200-225 pounds than the body types needed to play other positions.  What other positions are men that size playing ?  Safety? That is another low paid position.  You can't turn a 5'10" 210 athlete from a RB into a WR or TE or LB or DE.  

Kyler Murray is listed at 5-10, 207 lbs.

Bryce Young is listed (generously) at 5-10, 205.  

Think either of those guys would have been QBs if they had been born 10-15 years earlier than they were?  Talent rises to the top at any size (within reason) and the game shifts to accommodate.  

[Jetsfan80]

33 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

But you're asking 95% of players to sacrifice something so 5% can get something the rest can't get.  

Laws and rules are put in place (or at least it is their intent) to allow the majority to rule without harming the minority.  Thus, the 5 % matters here.

I'm sure the NFLPA can figure something out that they can agree to.  

[Jetsfan80]

16 minutes ago, Larz said:

Nobody will care about this in literally 3 days 

I'm sure Giants fans will start worrying about it the moment Barkley starts making business decisions that hurt the team's chances of winning.

Similarly, Jets fans will care when it comes time to think about extending Breece Hall.  He hits free agency in just 3 years.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Agree with all you're saying. But NFLPA would never alter that rookie contract to only 3 years. So likely nothing changes in this RB market anytime soon.

Not unless the it's the RBs themselves that want it. I think it's the owners that wouldn't want it more than the NFLPA. 

Then again, the RBs who want it really want it for themselves for the past; no current players would benefit. 

The sum total of players still makes the same $. The owners still pay out the $. The net loss would only be the backup players would get still-lower contracts (less of the pie remaining for them) if RBs were able to cash-in earlier. 

I totally agree it's all unlikely, but a carve-out might be more likely to get pushed through than some wholesale change like eliminating the tag outright (which the NFLPA of course wants, and the owners & team management of course don't). 

[Joe W. Namath]

20 minutes ago, Larz said:

Nobody will care about this in literally 3 days 

Exactly.  They will all show up and play for 10 million dollars.  An absolute joke they think they are getting screwed.