Jump to content

RB's only have them selves to blame for cheap contracts - Greed and stupidity


Recommended Posts

As the dust settles on the ongoing RB contract discussions, you have to ask yourself why are RB’s contract values so cheap. Why are they not getting paid?

Well, it's self-inflicted wounds – the lack of self-awareness and common sense by tghesee guys are crazy. The devaluation of the running back position overall has reached an absurd level, exemplified by guys like of Austin Ekeler, who earns less than mediocre wide receivers on his own team. This lop sided pay is shortsightedness and greed of fellow running backs, setting themselves up for future disaster.

Some argue that teams prioritize paying quarterbacks, wide receivers, tight ends, and linemen due to the pass-heavy nature of the league. However, this argument falls short when considering the collective failure of running backs to negotiate better deals and incrementally raise the bar for their position. Is it solely Aaron Rodgers' individual prowess or merely a continuation of the path paved by his predecessors that secured his lucrative contract? (hint - he is just on the path)

Players in every other position have shown the willingness to negotiate higher pay raises, ultimately securing long-term deals. They have incrementally raised the bar for their respective positions. Unfortunately, running backs have consistently demonstrated a lack of foresight and an unquenchable thirst for immediate gain. Take for instance, Barkley, who was reportedly offered a generous two-year, $22 million deal, equivalent to the franchise tag price for two years. His greed and ego led him to refuse the offer, resulting in not only his loss but also the loss for every other running back hoping for higher wages. Josh Jacobs turned down an even better deal. Again everyone loses, no higher pay scale step, no long term for them and now hold outs.

Quarterbacks, defensive tackles, wide receivers, offensive tackles, and cornerbacks now enjoy significantly higher salary ceilings in their contracts. The running back, who is more important than those positions in some cases (i.e. Tenn, ATL Giants, etc.) are severely underpaid due to these stupid choices made by RB’s own peers. It's a s crazy. I’m sure the lack of support and questionable advice from the players union adn agents only makes it worse. Jacobs and Barkley are worth much more in terms of talent, but teams find no reason to offer substantial contracts when the position is undervalued to such an extent. You have to go up incrementally.

For instance, the Philadelphia Eagles let go of Miles Sanders and got like five running backs for the same $8 million they were willing to pay him. Rashad Penny, who is arguably the same or better than sanders for pennies on the dollar. Only possible because the top-tier running backs reject long-term contracts, causing the franchise tags to act as an ever-declining pay scale. The players who do sign multi-year deals are inevitably offered lower prices, dragging down the value for everyone involved.

Running backs have no one to blame but themselves. As a Jets fan, I love the abundant cheap options available to us, given that Breece Hall is injured. While Dalvin Cook would be a fantastic addition and best option for us, is he better than barkley right now? No he is not, so why would I pay him close to the tag money? The answer is I would not. It might make sense to sign him to a 8 mill contract but the reality is we wont. (I am dealing with it emotional as we speak becayuse I would love to have him) But more affordable options are everywhere. Kareem Hunt, for instance, could be a viable option on a one-year, $5 million deal. Although he may not reach Cook's level of performance, Douglas is much more likely to offer him a contract to get his services. Again, furthering the pay scale down.

The Devaluation of Running Backs is basically a tale of missed opportunities. McCaffrey took a deal that both Jacobs and Barkley would turn down ( CC is much better than them btw), effectively allowing them to get the offers they got this year. Instead of taking it so the next RB could benefit like them and raise everyone’s boat they turned it down.

Idiots. They ruin it for everyone.

  • Upvote 2
  • Ugh 2
  • More Ugh 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

The crux of the issue, for me at least, is that runningbacks are some of the smallest players on the field, yet take the most amount of punishment.

So it's perfectly logical for the runningback to want to get paid very well for that and it's perfectly logical for any franchise to think "this is the riskiest long-term investment in the sport, I'd rather just draft one".

I don't know the answer, but I don't see the problem being RB greed.

Whether or not you deem Saquon and Jacobs foolish for turning down their deals, I think it's fair to say both were their respective team's offensive MVP's this past year.

The Raiders plan was to run josh Jacobs into the ground last year and then discard him and go by the Rb by committee .   ( you don’t keep five rbs not even  counting the Fb , on your 53 man  roster to go with one back) They didn’t expect him to have the year he did, that forced them to offer him contract.     They always  wanted him to play  on the tag ( then give him a second contract).      When Rb has as many Carries as Jacobs had last year , the next year it really affects them.   The only difference is he just turned 25 , and his work load in college was limited .( split the Carries not a lot wear on his tires).   

 Who cares jacobs will miss all of training camp be ready for week one.  ( not walking away from 10.3 million ) Raiders get to look at Zamir white , sincere McCormick , Britain Brown ,  Ameer Abdullah ( receiving back) and Brandon Boldin - should been cut as he offers nothing but is Mcdaniels guy .   

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

As the dust settles on the ongoing RB contract discussions, you have to ask yourself why are RB’s contract values so cheap. Why are they not getting paid?

Well, it's self-inflicted wounds – the lack of self-awareness and common sense by tghesee guys are crazy. The devaluation of the running back position overall has reached an absurd level, exemplified by guys like of Austin Ekeler, who earns less than mediocre wide receivers on his own team. This lop sided pay is shortsightedness and greed of fellow running backs, setting themselves up for future disaster.

Some argue that teams prioritize paying quarterbacks, wide receivers, tight ends, and linemen due to the pass-heavy nature of the league. However, this argument falls short when considering the collective failure of running backs to negotiate better deals and incrementally raise the bar for their position. Is it solely Aaron Rodgers' individual prowess or merely a continuation of the path paved by his predecessors that secured his lucrative contract? (hint - he is just on the path)

Players in every other position have shown the willingness to negotiate higher pay raises, ultimately securing long-term deals. They have incrementally raised the bar for their respective positions. Unfortunately, running backs have consistently demonstrated a lack of foresight and an unquenchable thirst for immediate gain. Take for instance, Barkley, who was reportedly offered a generous two-year, $22 million deal, equivalent to the franchise tag price for two years. His greed and ego led him to refuse the offer, resulting in not only his loss but also the loss for every other running back hoping for higher wages. Josh Jacobs turned down an even better deal. Again everyone loses, no higher pay scale step, no long term for them and now hold outs.

Quarterbacks, defensive tackles, wide receivers, offensive tackles, and cornerbacks now enjoy significantly higher salary ceilings in their contracts. The running back, who is more important than those positions in some cases (i.e. Tenn, ATL Giants, etc.) are severely underpaid due to these stupid choices made by RB’s own peers. It's a s crazy. I’m sure the lack of support and questionable advice from the players union adn agents only makes it worse. Jacobs and Barkley are worth much more in terms of talent, but teams find no reason to offer substantial contracts when the position is undervalued to such an extent. You have to go up incrementally.

For instance, the Philadelphia Eagles let go of Miles Sanders and got like five running backs for the same $8 million they were willing to pay him. Rashad Penny, who is arguably the same or better than sanders for pennies on the dollar. Only possible because the top-tier running backs reject long-term contracts, causing the franchise tags to act as an ever-declining pay scale. The players who do sign multi-year deals are inevitably offered lower prices, dragging down the value for everyone involved.

Running backs have no one to blame but themselves. As a Jets fan, I love the abundant cheap options available to us, given that Breece Hall is injured. While Dalvin Cook would be a fantastic addition and best option for us, is he better than barkley right now? No he is not, so why would I pay him close to the tag money? The answer is I would not. It might make sense to sign him to a 8 mill contract but the reality is we wont. (I am dealing with it emotional as we speak becayuse I would love to have him) But more affordable options are everywhere. Kareem Hunt, for instance, could be a viable option on a one-year, $5 million deal. Although he may not reach Cook's level of performance, Douglas is much more likely to offer him a contract to get his services. Again, furthering the pay scale down.

The Devaluation of Running Backs is basically a tale of missed opportunities. McCaffrey took a deal that both Jacobs and Barkley would turn down ( CC is much better than them btw), effectively allowing them to get the offers they got this year. Instead of taking it so the next RB could benefit like them and raise everyone’s boat they turned it down.

Idiots. They ruin it for everyone.

Huh?  The reasons why running backs have worse than expected contracts are their position isn’t valued as highly as other positions and they have shorter careers. Obviously their position isn’t as highly valued as teams pass more.  And then just what does a running back exhibit while in college? My guess is they learn to carry the ball and run maybe aren’t expected to pass catch or even block. So they come out of school pretty one dimensional.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

The Raiders plan was to run josh Jacobs into the ground last year and then discard him and go by the Rb by committee .   ( you don’t keep five rbs not even  counting the Fb , on your 53 man  roster to go with one back) They didn’t expect him to have the year he did, that forced them to offer him contract.     They always  wanted him to play  on the tag ( then give him a second contract).      When Rb has as many Carries as Jacobs had last year , the next year it really affects them.   The only difference is he just turned 25 , and his work load in college was limited .( split the Carries not a lot wear on his tires).   

 Who cares jacobs will miss all of training camp be ready for week one.  ( not walking away from 10.3 million ) Raiders get to look at Zamir white , sincere McCormick , Britain Brown ,  Ameer Abdullah ( receiving back) and Brandon Boldin - should been cut as he offers nothing but is Mcdaniels guy .   

I like that strategy going into last year, but now they have a "good" problem. I wouldn't pay him if I were them. Let him play on the tag.

That said, guys who miss training camp often don't have the best years (injuries, down year in performance) and then couple that with his whopping 340 carries last year - I just wouldn't be bullish on Jacobs producing this year.

Give me some fantasy football advice - who is the #2 behind Jacobs I should be targeting? Zamir?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doggin94it said:

The solution is to exempt RBs from the rookie pay scale rules and early renegotiation rules. Unlike every other position, they can't wait for year 5 or 6 to get their first contract based on performance, because by then they don't have enough years left

Why is that needed? They are paid what they are worth in today's NFL.  

  • Upvote 1
  • More Ugh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For how much a high end rb touches the ball (roughly 20 times a game) I’d say they are underpaid. Outside of the qb no one else is touching the ball more. They have as big an impact on the game as anyone else. 
 

but like others have stated, RBs take more abuse than other positions and generally have shorter careers. And now most teams use the rb by committee approach. So teams are not as dependent on 1 rb. Thus lowering there value even more. 

right now it seems like every team has figured out how to not pay rbs…..  Draft a rookie rb. Run them to the ground. Franchise them once, and then let them walk. They only have 1-2 good years left after that and aren’t getting the big contracts they want.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RBs rarely have the opportunity to negotiate for long term contracts or significant salary increases because teams won't put either on the table to negotiate. CMC received a rare long term contract from SF but he's really closer to a slot receiver who takes some runs than a traditional RB. Most RBs don't get offered that long of a contract. Both Barkley and Jacobs were offered two year deals. RBs don't get offered big or long contracts so they ask for more guaranteed money to guard against injury risk. Teams can simply franchise tag an RB for a couple years, get the same performance and give up the same guarantee with no commitment to more money or time. Teams have the power in negotiations.

The committee approach gives teams even more negotiation power. They don't need to rely on one starting RB to carry the run game so they don't need to pay star money to anybody in the committee. It's simply too easy to replace one guy at the end of his rookie contract with another rookie with less mileage who can put up the same 4 YPC. If the offense doesn't require the RBs to put up big runs or a lot of YPG, then the team has no incentive to pay for them. As long as that dynamic exists, teams have very little incentive to even contemplate negotiating a second contract at all. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

The crux of the issue, for me at least, is that runningbacks are some of the smallest players on the field, yet take the most amount of punishment.

So it's perfectly logical for the runningback to want to get paid very well for that and it's perfectly logical for any franchise to think "this is the riskiest long-term investment in the sport, I'd rather just draft one".

I don't know the answer, but I don't see the problem being RB greed.

Whether or not you deem Saquon and Jacobs foolish for turning down their deals, I think it's fair to say both were their respective team's offensive MVP's this past year.

That's my point. They should be for sure getting paid top dollar. But they refuse to up the scale for everyone. As explained

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

As the dust settles on the ongoing RB contract discussions, you have to ask yourself why are RB’s contract values so cheap. Why are they not getting paid?

Well, it's self-inflicted wounds – the lack of self-awareness and common sense by tghesee guys are crazy. The devaluation of the running back position overall has reached an absurd level, exemplified by guys like of Austin Ekeler, who earns less than mediocre wide receivers on his own team. This lop sided pay is shortsightedness and greed of fellow running backs, setting themselves up for future disaster.

Some argue that teams prioritize paying quarterbacks, wide receivers, tight ends, and linemen due to the pass-heavy nature of the league. However, this argument falls short when considering the collective failure of running backs to negotiate better deals and incrementally raise the bar for their position. Is it solely Aaron Rodgers' individual prowess or merely a continuation of the path paved by his predecessors that secured his lucrative contract? (hint - he is just on the path)

Players in every other position have shown the willingness to negotiate higher pay raises, ultimately securing long-term deals. They have incrementally raised the bar for their respective positions. Unfortunately, running backs have consistently demonstrated a lack of foresight and an unquenchable thirst for immediate gain. Take for instance, Barkley, who was reportedly offered a generous two-year, $22 million deal, equivalent to the franchise tag price for two years. His greed and ego led him to refuse the offer, resulting in not only his loss but also the loss for every other running back hoping for higher wages. Josh Jacobs turned down an even better deal. Again everyone loses, no higher pay scale step, no long term for them and now hold outs.

Quarterbacks, defensive tackles, wide receivers, offensive tackles, and cornerbacks now enjoy significantly higher salary ceilings in their contracts. The running back, who is more important than those positions in some cases (i.e. Tenn, ATL Giants, etc.) are severely underpaid due to these stupid choices made by RB’s own peers. It's a s crazy. I’m sure the lack of support and questionable advice from the players union adn agents only makes it worse. Jacobs and Barkley are worth much more in terms of talent, but teams find no reason to offer substantial contracts when the position is undervalued to such an extent. You have to go up incrementally.

For instance, the Philadelphia Eagles let go of Miles Sanders and got like five running backs for the same $8 million they were willing to pay him. Rashad Penny, who is arguably the same or better than sanders for pennies on the dollar. Only possible because the top-tier running backs reject long-term contracts, causing the franchise tags to act as an ever-declining pay scale. The players who do sign multi-year deals are inevitably offered lower prices, dragging down the value for everyone involved.

Running backs have no one to blame but themselves. As a Jets fan, I love the abundant cheap options available to us, given that Breece Hall is injured. While Dalvin Cook would be a fantastic addition and best option for us, is he better than barkley right now? No he is not, so why would I pay him close to the tag money? The answer is I would not. It might make sense to sign him to a 8 mill contract but the reality is we wont. (I am dealing with it emotional as we speak becayuse I would love to have him) But more affordable options are everywhere. Kareem Hunt, for instance, could be a viable option on a one-year, $5 million deal. Although he may not reach Cook's level of performance, Douglas is much more likely to offer him a contract to get his services. Again, furthering the pay scale down.

The Devaluation of Running Backs is basically a tale of missed opportunities. McCaffrey took a deal that both Jacobs and Barkley would turn down ( CC is much better than them btw), effectively allowing them to get the offers they got this year. Instead of taking it so the next RB could benefit like them and raise everyone’s boat they turned it down.

Idiots. They ruin it for everyone.

Wut 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. They should be for sure getting paid top dollar. But they refuse to up the scale for everyone. As explained
Well .. I mean this insinuates that teams are offering increased deals to up the value of the position... Like QBs ... Is that happening ??

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rangerous said:

Huh?  The reasons why running backs have worse than expected contracts are their position isn’t valued as highly as other positions and they have shorter careers. Obviously their position isn’t as highly valued as teams pass more.  And then just what does a running back exhibit while in college? My guess is they learn to carry the ball and run maybe aren’t expected to pass catch or even block. So they come out of school pretty one dimensional.

With the recent explosion of running QBs, teams are increasingly getting their passing and running from one position also. I wonder if a lot of the best athletes are being steered more and more from RB to QB at lower levels of football in part due to the economic factors.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jgb said:
With the recent explosion of running QBs, teams are increasingly getting their passing and running from one position also. I wonder if a lot of the best athletes are being steered more and more from RB to QB at lower levels of football in part due to the economic factors.

The closest thing to the Unicorn is Lamar... It will.be interesting to see how.he pans out. I don't see Fields having the same impact. Allen will end up being more of a Roethlisberger in the long run.


Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Edited by Dunnie
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the least protected players on the field.   They take a lot of head contact and trauma to both body and brain.

Stop blaming the players who are the most at risk and are the most exploited players in the league.   

We are all replaceable cogs and when the rules change some will be replaced faster than others.  The market for the position has changed, so have the rules and so has the allocation based on those changes.  Why blame the players who don’t control the rules or the cap allocation?   It’s just the reality of rules, the monopoly status of the league and the negotiated cap that allows that monopoly.   No running back controls the pay of the position.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

As the dust settles on the ongoing RB contract discussions, you have to ask yourself why are RB’s contract values so cheap. Why are they not getting paid?

Well, it's self-inflicted wounds – the lack of self-awareness and common sense by tghesee guys are crazy. The devaluation of the running back position overall has reached an absurd level, exemplified by guys like of Austin Ekeler, who earns less than mediocre wide receivers on his own team. This lop sided pay is shortsightedness and greed of fellow running backs, setting themselves up for future disaster.

Some argue that teams prioritize paying quarterbacks, wide receivers, tight ends, and linemen due to the pass-heavy nature of the league. However, this argument falls short when considering the collective failure of running backs to negotiate better deals and incrementally raise the bar for their position. Is it solely Aaron Rodgers' individual prowess or merely a continuation of the path paved by his predecessors that secured his lucrative contract? (hint - he is just on the path)

Players in every other position have shown the willingness to negotiate higher pay raises, ultimately securing long-term deals. They have incrementally raised the bar for their respective positions. Unfortunately, running backs have consistently demonstrated a lack of foresight and an unquenchable thirst for immediate gain. Take for instance, Barkley, who was reportedly offered a generous two-year, $22 million deal, equivalent to the franchise tag price for two years. His greed and ego led him to refuse the offer, resulting in not only his loss but also the loss for every other running back hoping for higher wages. Josh Jacobs turned down an even better deal. Again everyone loses, no higher pay scale step, no long term for them and now hold outs.

Quarterbacks, defensive tackles, wide receivers, offensive tackles, and cornerbacks now enjoy significantly higher salary ceilings in their contracts. The running back, who is more important than those positions in some cases (i.e. Tenn, ATL Giants, etc.) are severely underpaid due to these stupid choices made by RB’s own peers. It's a s crazy. I’m sure the lack of support and questionable advice from the players union adn agents only makes it worse. Jacobs and Barkley are worth much more in terms of talent, but teams find no reason to offer substantial contracts when the position is undervalued to such an extent. You have to go up incrementally.

For instance, the Philadelphia Eagles let go of Miles Sanders and got like five running backs for the same $8 million they were willing to pay him. Rashad Penny, who is arguably the same or better than sanders for pennies on the dollar. Only possible because the top-tier running backs reject long-term contracts, causing the franchise tags to act as an ever-declining pay scale. The players who do sign multi-year deals are inevitably offered lower prices, dragging down the value for everyone involved.

Running backs have no one to blame but themselves. As a Jets fan, I love the abundant cheap options available to us, given that Breece Hall is injured. While Dalvin Cook would be a fantastic addition and best option for us, is he better than barkley right now? No he is not, so why would I pay him close to the tag money? The answer is I would not. It might make sense to sign him to a 8 mill contract but the reality is we wont. (I am dealing with it emotional as we speak becayuse I would love to have him) But more affordable options are everywhere. Kareem Hunt, for instance, could be a viable option on a one-year, $5 million deal. Although he may not reach Cook's level of performance, Douglas is much more likely to offer him a contract to get his services. Again, furthering the pay scale down.

The Devaluation of Running Backs is basically a tale of missed opportunities. McCaffrey took a deal that both Jacobs and Barkley would turn down ( CC is much better than them btw), effectively allowing them to get the offers they got this year. Instead of taking it so the next RB could benefit like them and raise everyone’s boat they turned it down.

Idiots. They ruin it for everyone.

That is not typically what’s happening.

The franchise tag is low - far lower than the top players are seeking - and teams have that as a fallback position that can be exercised for 1 or 2 years. It gives them cost control where you’re not at risk of badly outbidding the rest of the league, and a huge bonus of having no long term risk exposure, making the player locked into the team long term but not the other way around (teams can stop tagging a player any year at the team’s pleasure). The fairly new practice of adding void years to the ends of (other positions’) contracts makes that tag amount even easier to swallow in the current season (teams just don’t have a need to lower a franchise-tagged RB’s cap number with a long term deal because it’s so easy to backlog someone else).

Their only real leverage is to hold out. Lev Bell did that, and sat out a whole season of his prime to get more guaranteed money. It probably cost him in the end, but in truth there was a path where he’d have made less with the Steelers’ final top offer. The team that signed him next - unfortunately, the Jets - got so burned by the acquisition it’s not likely to happen again, so that holdout threat is no longer an arrow in a RB’s quiver (let alone for a team like Vegas or the NYG who aren’t entering the season as major SB contenders).

The rest of their leverage is lost by teams just gradually devaluing the position in a way that they frankly should have much earlier in the salary cap era, but it was an evolutionary process over a good 20 years. The careers are just too short, they have too few seasons at peak level after a rookie contract expires, and with the amount of punishment they take the injury risk is disproportionate relative to other positions. The RBs themselves can’t erase that typically poor risk:reward ratio to get 3+ years of guarantees after their first 4-5 seasons are over.

Now and then you’ll see a perfect storm line up for a player: Chris Johnson rushing for 2K in y3 and holding out before rookie contract y4; CMC being so disproportionately productive as a receiver he saved the team $ at that other position; Henry being so big and strong and (then) injury-free combined with his 2nd round rookie contract (no 5th year option) expiring at age 25 when he led the league in rushing yards and TDs, whereby a “long term” contract still only locked the team into him through ~ age 27. And even then, he couldn’t truly maximize that big deal because the ace the team was holding was they’d tagged him for even less (on paper they’d do better tagging him 2-3x in a row). Few have that leverage.

Other positions can weather this better because their careers with superstar production, post-rookie contract, is simply expected to be much longer. The Jets were very interested in locking up QW up to nearly age 30 (and picking up a QB at nearly age 40). No team really wants to be locked into a long-term expensive contract with a RB past age 27. With most hitting FA seasons at age 25, and their teams having the franchise tag to lock them in with cost controls on both year compensation and long term exposure risk, there’s not much a RB can do to make his team cough up more money per season with 2-3 years of guarantees.

tldr version:

For RBs, the franchise tag just isn’t crippling enough as a cap number ($11MM is under 5% of a team’s cap) to force teams to bend to their will, and it further comes in an era of widespread RBBC as the norm rather than place all the team’s season fortunes on one player at the most injury prone position with the shortest career.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rhg1084 said:

They need to make rookie contracts for running backs 3 years max. Teams having control of a rookie RB for up to 6 years gives them no chance at a 2nd contract 

That’s not really the whole issue even. It’s that they would need to be immune to franchise tags that give teams a 50% discount on that position, which comes with the further bonus of year to year contracts solely at the team’s pleasure. (Today’s equivalent 1998 Curtis Martin contract would be over $25MM/year.)

That won’t have a benefit to every RB, though. There’ll always be the unintended consequences. A RB like Barkley would never have been drafted so early (far less rookie contract $), and then if that ACL occurred midseason or late in y3 he’d have been rehabbing away from team doctors on his own dime - with less ability to finance it himself - with no contract from anyone. In effect, his career as a starter might have been over.

Another idea I had is to keep the franchise tag intact, but for RBs the team isn’t entitled to a pair of 1s if the player is signed away. Maybe they only get a 3rd rounder back (like an early high comp pick), to make it effectively like a glorified transition tag for franchise tag money: whereby they only get him for the FT amount if no one else was willing to offer him a better or longer-term deal either.

That’s the only thing that’ll get a team to ante up multiple seasons instead of just waiting out the rookie contract & then conveniently slap a RB with the tag (or a 5th yr option followed by a franchise tag or two). Plus as a bonus, such an elite RB knows whether or not he was actually screwed out of real free agency offers while he’s got multiple prime RB years left.

That will also make a few more RBs drafted at the bottom of round 1 instead of the top of round 2, for teams to get in on that 5th year option, but that’s still a big pay bump on top of the higher $ rookie contracts. I don’t think you get union+ownership agreement of BOTH low/no FT compensation pushed through AND limiting the rookie contract lengths just for RBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players accepted some language that makes holding out extremely costly and/or ineffective. The fact that there’s a date after which teams can no longer sign franchise tagged players to anything but the tag makes holding out useless. Without that arbitrary deadline, guys like Barkley could sit the first few weeks of the season while their team gets a taste of life without them - maybe leading to some reconsideration regarding their pay. They can hold out 10 games or so, show up and get credit for the year and try again the following year - and lose 2/3’s of their money this year in the process. 
 
The system is designed to work against them, and they voted for it. The RBs need to voice their concerns before the next round of CBA negotiations. Getting special rules just for their position is unlikely to happen, but making it less expensive and more effective to hold out would benefit every player. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jgb said:

With the recent explosion of running QBs, teams are increasingly getting their passing and running from one position also. I wonder if a lot of the best athletes are being steered more and more from RB to QB at lower levels of football in part due to the economic factors.

Good point. I think the coaches have always recognized how good it would be to have a qb who can run. Tarkenton was a noted scrambler. Bobby Douglas put up huge running numbers. QBs coming out of the old wishbone programs had to run. But there just aren’t many that a pass and run equally well and QBs that run just don’t seem to have long careers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Why is that needed? They are paid what they are worth in today's NFL.  

No.

Like all NFL players, top performers are paid well below market value on their rookie contracts and then market value after they have the chance to hit FA.

The union can live with the rookie pay scale because for pretty much every position other than RB, the market gives top performers huge opportunity once they hit FA. But I guarantee you that the next CBA negotiation will either involve the union looking to change the applicability of the rookie pay scale and slotted draft pick salary for RBs or you'll see the union break against itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

No.

Like all NFL players, they're paid well below market value on their rookie contracts and then market value after they have the chance to hit FA.

The union can live with the rookie pay scale because for pretty much every position other than RB, the market gives top performers huge opportunity once they hit FA. But I guarantee you that the next CBA negotiation will either involve the union looking to change the applicability of the rookie pay scale and slotted draft pick salary for RBs or you'll see the union break against itself.

The inherent problem RBs have in this matter is the collective players as a whole don’t lose out. Teams still spend the same amount, but they just spend it on others instead.

I think there are a couple ways they can address this, as I’m sympathetic to the RBs here, but it’s an uphill battle.

The more I think about it the cleanest way, with the least interruption to rookie contract terms and such, is just the team gets no (or a comparatively low) draft pick compensation for franchise-tagged RBs who are signed away, where the team still gets first refusal rights to match. RBs can still get tagged, but they only need to play under it if that’s truly the best offer they could get from anywhere.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The inherent problem RBs have in this matter is the collective players as a whole don’t lose out. Teams still spend the same amount, but they just spend it on others instead.

I think there are a couple ways they can address this, as I’m sympathetic to the RBs here, but it’s an uphill battle.

The more I think about it the cleanest way, with the least interruption to rookie contract terms and such, is just the team gets no (or a comparatively low) draft pick compensation for franchise-tagged RBs who are signed away, where the team still gets first refusal rights to match. RBs can still get tagged, but they only need to play under it if that’s truly the best offer they could get from anywhere.

That's true of a lot of things the union fought about, including successive franchise tags (it only impacted the tagged players and left more cap dollars for the rest). If I'm a RB (or a RB's friend) I'm going to be making a whole lot of noise about the union throwing me (or my guy) under the bus for everyone else if it's not pounding the table for a fix. That's why I say we're either going to see it addressed or the union will break - this has now gotten to crisis levels for RBs

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jgb said:

With the recent explosion of running QBs, teams are increasingly getting their passing and running from one position also. I wonder if a lot of the best athletes are being steered more and more from RB to QB at lower levels of football in part due to the economic factors.

Very much so and this has already been in the works for some time.  Cam Newton would have been a Linebacker in the "old NFL", while Lamar Jackson would be a WR.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

But I guarantee you that the next CBA negotiation will either involve the union looking to change the applicability of the rookie pay scale and slotted draft pick salary for RBs or you'll see the union break against itself.

 

7 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The more I think about it the cleanest way, with the least interruption to rookie contract terms and such, is just the team gets no (or a comparatively low) draft pick compensation for franchise-tagged RBs who are signed away, where the team still gets first refusal rights to match. RBs can still get tagged, but they only need to play under it if that’s truly the best offer they could get from anywhere.

I don’t see the union trying to make special rules for one position. It’s a union of all NFL players, and the contract they negotiate with the league is for all the players. 
 
The move for the union would be to go after every mechanism the owners have at their disposal to control players’ rights. Go after the fifth year option, the franchise tag, the penalties and fines for holding out, etc. These are moves that would not only benefit RBs, but all players, and that’s how union negotiations are supposed to work. They certainly won’t get everything, or probably even very much at first, but they need to start chipping away at owner favorable rules that restrict player movement. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, slats said:

 

I don’t see the union trying to make special rules for one position. It’s a union of all NFL players, and the contract they negotiate with the league is for all the players. 
 
The move for the union would be to go after every mechanism the owners have at their disposal to control players’ rights. Go after the fifth year option, the franchise tag, the penalties and fines for holding out, etc. These are moves that would not only benefit RBs, but all players, and that’s how union negotiations are supposed to work. They certainly won’t get everything, or probably even very much at first, but they need to start chipping away at owner favorable rules that restrict player movement. 

Didnt the QB’s in the 90’s have their own union? Could be mistaken but I believe there was a point where they had broken off from the NFLPA. Mostly centered around video game rights I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...