Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 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. 

Franchise tags inherently have different rules for different positions, though. A franchise tag for a RB isn’t the same as it is for a QB even if either could be labeled a “franchise” player.

They also make different rules for draft slot players. Only 1st rounders are eligible for 5th year options, and what’s more is that qualification is based on what the player did or how he played prior to the NFL.

It’s become a cycle: the more enticing a FT is for that one position, the fewer at that position get mega-deals with higher avg compensation, which circularly keeps the FT figure lower than it would have otherwise been, and around & around they go, keeping the pay linear or lower despite the salary cap skyrocketing (and will do so even more).

A one-position carve out is uncommon territory, but everyone knows remaining RB careers above age 25 don’t mirror other positions - unlike a QB or LT, RBs careers/primes are too short for the player to just wait it out until the FT becomes cost-prohibitive for the team. This one carve out (dropping the franchise tag compensation for RBs) seems the least disruptive tweak with the fewest unintended likely negative consequence snowball effects to others.

Will it happen? I’ll believe they’re going to do anything about it when I see it actually happen, and not before then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slats said:

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. 

The problem is they don’t typically have 5+ (let alone 10+) seasons left and with each passing season their value decreases already in their mid-20s.

I’m not saying anything here you don’t already know. Just the idea that the same rules for blatantly different situations has finally caught up with the position.

The ability to add void years (to others) has only made it worse for RBs, as it’s become that much easier to fit a high salary RB season by shuffling others over 5 years instead of 1-2 (without binding that other player to the team for more than just the 1-2 seasons). In the past they’d get a low first year cap hit and spread it over time. No need anymore, especially with the RB FT so low and other teams’ offers never coming in because they’ll never fork over two 1s for the privilege of offering a 25-26+ year old veteran RB a mega contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Will it happen? I’ll believe they’re going to do anything about it when I see it actually happen, and not before then. 

Agreed 100% there. Players need to demonstrate some testicular fortitude when going up against the owners, with a willingness to strike if need be. My opinion is that any positional carve out won’t work. That’s not what a union does. They negotiate for all players collectively. All proposals need to benefit all players. Weakening the rules that give owners rights over players, and harm players who hold out, would benefit RBs and everyone. If the arbitrary date when a franchise tagged player could be signed was eliminated, then guys like Barkley and Jacobs could hold out of games this year to leverage better deals but, because of that rule, they can’t. They can only sit out most or all season, lose lots of money, and hope for something better next year. And that’s just one minor fix. They could fight for all rookie contracts to be three years instead of four, the elimination of tags in general, etc. Such changes would be overdue, the owners have chipped away at players rights for the past couple deals (and I can understand why they like current NFLPA leadership, as alluded to in the Gruden saga). The union needs to do better for everyone. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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.

Problem is RBs age like garbage juice on hot humid July day. When we had the whole Curtis Martin discussions over the years, simple fact is production from backs falls off the table at 29/30. There are few exceptions, like John Riggins, who are still very effective well into his mid 30s. But Riggins specifically has some caveats; between work stoppages, holdouts, the stupidity of Jet management, he practically missed a mess of seasons and thus was spared typical wear&tear. Simply paying a back a long term big money deal is a bad investment, and no matter what you do no GM in his right mind is going to do it. Better to write one decent post draft contract and then either franchise them as long as they stay productive or pay a mess of average Joe RBs to carry the load. 

Whole other issue, again, as always is the salary cap meaning less and less as players now look at tax rates in the market they will play for. Deandre Hopkins is going to pay way less taxes in Tennessee than he would had he signed with the Pats. And of course the folly of Drew Rosenhaus type agents and clients signing huge but unguaranteed contracts that are meaningless. THe NFLPA is like Billy Madison holding up a big ass cardboard check. Shiny trinkets!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours 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

It’s the only solution that is worth talking about.  Three year rookie deals for RBs.  This won’t be solved by the Union, or any weird performance based league wide formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, slats said:

Agreed 100% there. Players need to demonstrate some testicular fortitude when going up against the owners, with a willingness to strike if need be. My opinion is that any positional carve out won’t work. That’s not what a union does. They negotiate for all players collectively. All proposals need to benefit all players. Weakening the rules that give owners rights over players, and harm players who hold out, would benefit RBs and everyone. If the arbitrary date when a franchise tagged player could be signed was eliminated, then guys like Barkley and Jacobs could hold out of games this year to leverage better deals but, because of that rule, they can’t. They can only sit out most or all season, lose lots of money, and hope for something better next year. And that’s just one minor fix. They could fight for all rookie contracts to be three years instead of four, the elimination of tags in general, etc. Such changes would be overdue, the owners have chipped away at players rights for the past couple deals (and I can understand why they like current NFLPA leadership, as alluded to in the Gruden saga). The union needs to do better for everyone. 

The players not getting the best deal they could broadly have gotten is aside from the fact imo. While I get that, as what seems to be a neat-fitting broad idea that would benefit all, that remedy still necessarily applies equal rules to disparately unequal situations.

The fact is a RB has a shorter average career and no applies-to-all CBA rule change will remedy that. 

They already do disparate rules for different positions/groups. Under franchise tag rules, a guard or a center gets lumped in with left tackles, which more or less immunizes them from the franchise tag. For as many as there are who think centers aren't getting paid as much as they should, it'd be even lower if centers had their own franchise tag designation that doesn't effectively force their teams (or other teams) to ante up on a long term deal (tagging a center at $23MM in 2024 would be cost-prohibitive, so they get their big deal or their shot at FA). Now take that notion a step further and presume that a center typically starts to show visible decline by age 27-28 like for RBs. And if they didn't individually decline until a couple years later, it still wouldn't matter because that was still the expectation at contract time & they won't get paid for hindsight better-than-expected. They just won't - and can't - have a second career into their 30s. No one will let pay them like that anymore anyway. Not with how out of hand the QB contracts have gotten. 

Parcells made that poison pill contract for Martin in 1998 for $6MM/year (2023 equivalent is ~$25MM/year). Two years earlier, the Jets made O'Donnell the highest paid QB of all time for $5MM/year. The game's economics have changed, and the two positions can no longer be painted with the same brush under the CBA. Or anyway, that's my take. 

A true broad idea that treats all positions the same would be one franchise tag amount for everyone, period (or at least one amount for offense and one for defense). That would protect the RBs from getting tagged for less than they're worth, but again it's not likely to happen. The natural effect is only QBs would ever get franchise-tagged, since no one's tagging any other position millions in excess of $30MM. 

The reason I suggested what I did is it requires the least amount of shakeup until the next CBA, which isn't until 2030. It'd be easier to get passed through than reducing all rookie contracts to 3 seasons (which can have negative effects of its own that I think most don't consider because the focus goes to healthy players good enough to be "honored" with a franchise tag, and/or 5th year option before that). That kind of major shakeup would only happen under a new CBA - several years away from now - if it would/could even happen at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The players not getting the best deal they could broadly have gotten is aside from the fact imo. While I get that, as what seems to be a neat-fitting broad idea that would benefit all, that remedy still necessarily applies equal rules to disparately unequal situations.

The fact is a RB has a shorter average career and no applies-to-all CBA rule change will remedy that. 

They already do disparate rules for different positions/groups. Under franchise tag rules, a guard or a center gets lumped in with left tackles, which more or less immunizes them from the franchise tag. For as many as there are who think centers aren't getting paid as much as they should, it'd be even lower if centers had their own franchise tag designation that doesn't effectively force their teams (or other teams) to ante up on a long term deal (tagging a center at $23MM in 2024 would be cost-prohibitive, so they get their big deal or their shot at FA). Now take that notion a step further and presume that a center typically starts to show visible decline by age 27-28 like for RBs. And if they didn't individually decline until a couple years later, it still wouldn't matter because that was still the expectation at contract time & they won't get paid for hindsight better-than-expected. They just won't - and can't - have a second career into their 30s. No one will let them do it anymore. Not with how out of hand the QB contracts have gotten. 

Parcells made that poison pill contract for Martin in 1998 for $6MM/year. Two years earlier, the Jets made O'Donnell the highest paid QB of all time for $5MM/year. The game's economics have changed, and the two positions can no longer be painted with the same brush under the CBA. Or anyway, that's my take. 

A true broad idea that treats all positions the same would be one franchise tag amount for everyone, period (or at least one amount for offense and one for defense). That would protect the RBs from getting tagged for less than they're worth, but again it's not likely to happen. The natural effect is only QBs would ever get franchise-tagged, since no one's tagging any other position millions in excess of $30MM. 

The reason I suggested what I did is it requires the least amount of shakeup until the next CBA, which isn't until 2030. It'd be easier to get passed through than reducing all rookie contracts to 3 seasons (which can have negative effects of its own that I think most don't consider because the focus goes to healthy players good enough to be "honored" with a franchise tag, and/or 5th year option before that). That kind of major shakeup would only happen under a new CBA - several years away from now - if it would/could even happen at all.

It also significantly drops the franchise tag figure for LT.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PavlovsDogs said:

It’s the only solution that is worth talking about.  Three year rookie deals for RBs.  This won’t be solved by the Union, or any weird performance based league wide formula.

I don't think that solves it, though, if the franchise tag is still in teams' arsenals.

The trick is to effectively immunize them from franchise tags by making them still in play as UFAs without the insurmountable hurdle of getting over a pair of 1st rounders on top of it. 

If you drop their contracts down to 3 seasons, you'll never see another 1st round RB ever again. So you'll protect a couple big contracts to a few individuals at the expense of all other RBs who may now get badly injured on what'll be a dirt cheap rookie contract that caps out at $8MM before income taxes, left to rehab on his own dime.

It's very good motivation but it'll have some very bad unintended consequences like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The problem is they don’t typically have 5+ (let alone 10+) seasons left and with each passing season their value decreases already in their mid-20s.

I’m not saying anything here you don’t already know. Just the idea that the same rules for blatantly different situations has finally caught up with the position.

The ability to add void years (to others) has only made it worse for RBs, as it’s become that much easier to fit a high salary RB season by shuffling others over 5 years instead of 1-2 (without binding that other player to the team for more than just the 1-2 seasons). In the past they’d get a low first year cap hit and spread it over time. No need anymore, especially with the RB FT so low and other teams’ offers never coming in because they’ll never fork over two 1s for the privilege of offering a 25-26+ year old veteran RB a mega contract.

One way perhaps that could help RBs (maybe) is if a team received some pro rated portion of the contract value in cap relief for the following year if the player is spends time on IR. Of course some teams might try to game that, but teams try to game everything anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

One way perhaps that could help RBs (maybe) is if a team received some pro rated portion of the contract value in cap relief for the following year if the player is spends time on IR. Of course some teams might try to game that, but teams try to game everything anyway.

Good idea in abstract, but I think you're also right that everyone will game that, and it won't take long. RBs who might be able to play will find themselves on IR midseason if their teams aren't contenders. I'm sure there are several other loopholes that'll be discovered to exploit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Problem is RBs age like garbage juice on hot humid July day. When we had the whole Curtis Martin discussions over the years, simple fact is production from backs falls off the table at 29/30. There are few exceptions, like John Riggins, who are still very effective well into his mid 30s. But Riggins specifically has some caveats; between work stoppages, holdouts, the stupidity of Jet management, he practically missed a mess of seasons and thus was spared typical wear&tear. Simply paying a back a long term big money deal is a bad investment, and no matter what you do no GM in his right mind is going to do it. Better to write one decent post draft contract and then either franchise them as long as they stay productive or pay a mess of average Joe RBs to carry the load. 

Whole other issue, again, as always is the salary cap meaning less and less as players now look at tax rates in the market they will play for. Deandre Hopkins is going to pay way less taxes in Tennessee than he would had he signed with the Pats. And of course the folly of Drew Rosenhaus type agents and clients signing huge but unguaranteed contracts that are meaningless. THe NFLPA is like Billy Madison holding up a big ass cardboard check. Shiny trinkets!

You continue to be JN’s most underrated poster 

10 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It also significantly drops the franchise tag figure for LT.  

No it doesn’t because the figure is the average for the top 5 for the group.

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the "RB greed" argument at all.

It's been a dime a dozen position for a while.  The trend has and continues to be running back by committee.  This is the result.

There are about 5 RBs in the league at any given time who are above the others.  All of the rest are pretty much interchangeable.  The majority of a team's production in the running game falls on the offensive line.  It's all about the blocking.

The position is mostly about young, fresh legs.  Draft them young, run them into the ground, then let them go get a second contract elsewhere (unless they are truly one of the special talents).  Rinse and repeat.  This is exactly why going after Dalvin Cook would have been foolhardy.  The right strategy is going to war with Breece, Carter, Knight, and Abanikanda.  All young, low miles, and still on their first contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Good idea in abstract, but I think you're also right that everyone will game that, and it won't take long. RBs who might be able to play will find themselves on IR midseason if their teams aren't contenders. I'm sure there are several other loopholes that'll be discovered to exploit it.

Yes it’s all abstract because I’m not sure there needs to be a solution at all. I’m empathetic to RBs, but also it’s the (semi) free market at work. Probably the easiest, and more “fair,” in that it’s not targeted specifically at RBs would be remove the franchise tag across the board. QBs and WRs and EDGE will continue to get locked up before their deals expire, RBs will get to test the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

Yes it’s all abstract because I’m not sure there needs to be a solution at all. I’m empathetic to RBs, but also it’s the (semi) free market at work. Probably the easiest, and more “fair,” in that it’s not targeted specifically at RBs would be remove the franchise tag across the board. QBs and WRs and EDGE will continue to get locked up before their deals expire, RBs will get to test the market.

The franchise tag is an absurd abuse of collective bargaining.   There's nothing collective about it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slats said:

Agreed 100% there. Players need to demonstrate some testicular fortitude when going up against the owners, with a willingness to strike if need be. My opinion is that any positional carve out won’t work. That’s not what a union does. They negotiate for all players collectively. All proposals need to benefit all players. Weakening the rules that give owners rights over players, and harm players who hold out, would benefit RBs and everyone. If the arbitrary date when a franchise tagged player could be signed was eliminated, then guys like Barkley and Jacobs could hold out of games this year to leverage better deals but, because of that rule, they can’t. They can only sit out most or all season, lose lots of money, and hope for something better next year. And that’s just one minor fix. They could fight for all rookie contracts to be three years instead of four, the elimination of tags in general, etc. Such changes would be overdue, the owners have chipped away at players rights for the past couple deals (and I can understand why they like current NFLPA leadership, as alluded to in the Gruden saga). The union needs to do better for everyone. 

Why as a fan would you want hold outs?  Hold outs are bad for everybody - the player, the team, teammates, and the fans.  Anything that is done to prevent and eliminate hold outs from the NFL should be done.  Every single player that is healthy should be in camp with the team in July-August.  Period.  So if this RB is really a problem ( I don't see it as anything more than shifting reality in the modern NFL), explore financial solutions that do not involve individual work stoppages and players sitting out games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Biggs said:

The franchise tag is an absurd abuse of collective bargaining.   There's nothing collective about it.

Especially when you consider that the tag (or the threat thereof) is far more often used as an Damocles sword to hold over the heads of players seeking new deals than as a shield against other teams “poaching” your guys.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Why as a fan would you want hold outs?  Hold outs are bad for everybody - the player, the team, teammates, and the fans.  Anything that is done to prevent and eliminate hold outs from the NFL should be done.  Every single player that is healthy should be in camp with the team in July-August.  Period.  So if this RB is really a problem ( I don't see it as anything more than shifting reality in the modern NFL), explore financial solutions that do not involve individual work stoppages and players sitting out games.

Because in America you can’t force someone to work for you, contract or no. A whole war was fought over this issue. It’s one of the only levers players have to pull — that and taking their displeasure to social media — and you want to neutralize it even more?

I fully support a player’s choice to hold out. Doesn’t mean they are making a wise decision, but their right to do so is guaranteed by a higher authority than the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That document is called the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the 13th Amendment.

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

29 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Why as a fan would you want hold outs?  Hold outs are bad for everybody - the player, the team, teammates, and the fans.  Anything that is done to prevent and eliminate hold outs from the NFL should be done.  Every single player that is healthy should be in camp with the team in July-August.  Period.  So if this RB is really a problem ( I don't see it as anything more than shifting reality in the modern NFL), explore financial solutions that do not involve individual work stoppages and players sitting out games.

The owners locked out the players to create this system.  There goal was not to improve the game or prevent holdouts.  It was to guarantee their profit margin and maximize the value of their franchises.   Why would you see a player holding out in a system created by the owners as the players being at fault?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dunnie said:

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
 

Yup, literally as explain in my post. I dont see the need to just rewrite it, but if Jacobs or Barkley signed those deals, or eventually signs deals similar or bigger it will raise all boats. The key is to raise th market price verse just devaluing it because you can get QB money right now. WR are making QB money of 10 years ago. RB;s could make that too if they were smarter and didn't let their ego and poor financial advise ruin them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have taken the 19.5M fully gtd the Giants supposedly offered.

Now that the deadline for long-term deals has passed, Barkley should sign his franchise tender ASAP.

He could injure himself working out on his own and the Giants could rescind the tag.

I guess his reasoning for not signing is the Giants technically can't fine him for missing camp since he isn't under contract.  But not worth the risk in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

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

Yep.  That stinking Leveon Bell sure didn't do what he could to get top dollar.  For ****'s sake man.  These guys (except Lamar Jackson) have agents.  Their agents get paid a percentage of what they earn. Forget the players, the agents are not going to recommend their player take less because of short-sightedness or greed. They are trying to maximize career earnings.

Your whole premise topples on the centerpiece of the players are greedy, so they don't maximize their earnings.  How does that work?  It is beyond ridiculous.  RBs have shorter careers and particularly shorter careers at peark.  If Barkley took that 2/$22M you said was "generous" he would probably be looking at a real lowball deal in two years.  Despite being his playoff team's total offense he was offered what?  A third of what Quinnen Williams got as a rotational DT?  It's a ******* joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Biggs said:

The owners locked out the players to create this system.  There goal was not to improve the game or prevent holdouts.  It was to guarantee their profit margin and maximize the value of their franchises.   Why would you see a player holding out in a system created by the owners as the players being at fault?

 

Definitely. These are the parameters the league has set. Holding out can give a player leverage. It’s part of the way it works. Next CBA the players can strike in hopes of eliminating the cap all together. Or perhaps a league with no cap gets created by the Saudis or someone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

I would have taken the 19.5M fully gtd the Giants supposedly offered.

Now that the deadline for long-term deals has passed, Barkley should sign his franchise tender ASAP.

He could injure himself working out on his own and the Giants could rescind the tag.

I guess his reasoning for not signing is the Giants technically can't fine him for missing camp since he isn't under contract.  But not worth the risk in my opinion.

Why workout?  For the Giants?  **** 'em.  I am on my couch eating bonbons until the last moment..  I think I can do that withotu getting injured.  Then I will take my $10M guaranteed and see what happens next year.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

I can't remember the last time I negative repped anything but the OP sure has me hovering over the button.  Teams devalued RBs.  The whole purpose of RBBC is that you want a rotation and guys that get used a bunch get used up fast.  That makes it prudent to give them shorter deals if you are going to overwork them and if you aren't why pay them so much?  The idea that RBs are not negotiating the best deals is ridiculous.  They have the same agents giving their best advice.  Since they have shorter careers and shorter offers, their contracts are being devalued. 

Oh no don't do it lol!!! your version of event is wrong. kind of just ignores the fact that top guys are in fact being offered big money relative to the market price and also ignore the fact that if the back took these deal more often it would raise all boats. You can neg rep but this idea that a team would not pay for a playmaker to win games because RBBC exist and careers are short is ridiculous. Do you work for the Players union? sound like same trash they put out. CC in SF which is the RBBC example just took top dollar as a stud. Jacobs and Barkley turned down their deals and will get paid less, continuing the cycle of diminishing returns.

The RB pay scale goes up incrementally if op guys take top dollar. Instead backs predictably refuse deals and end up playing for pennies on the dollar. All as explained above. 

Just use common sense. There is hope though do not worry. As long as RB playmakers exist especially for teams with sub par QB/WR play, they will get offered long term high dollar deals. Eventually they will take them like CC did and make all RB's contracts more. Jacobs and Barkley could still get a good deal, but these top guys have to do it, the miles sanders, penny type of back will not set the market. You need market setters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Yep.  That stinking Leveon Bell sure didn't do what he could to get top dollar.  For ****'s sake man.  These guys (except Lamar Jackson) have agents.  Their agents get paid a percentage of what they earn. Forget the players, the agents are not going to recommend their player take less because of short-sightedness or greed. They are trying to maximize career earnings.

Your whole premise topples on the centerpiece of the players are greedy, so they don't maximize their earnings.  How does that work?  It is beyond ridiculous.  RBs have shorter careers and particularly shorter careers at peark.  If Barkley took that 2/$22M you said was "generous" he would probably be looking at a real lowball deal in two years.  Despite being his playoff team's total offense he was offered what?  A third of what Quinnen Williams got as a rotational DT?  It's a ******* joke. 

The Barkley vs Williams debate is purely supply/demand. The market creates itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jgb said:

That’s really sad

Relative to the average Joe on the street, he's still doing pretty well for himself, long-term health risks (e.g. CTE) notwithstanding.

He has little in the way of guarantees written into his contract, but assuming he stays productive over 4 years and isn't cut, he'll still bag $3,739,108 over 4 years.

He gets to play with (in my opinion) the greatest QB of all time and compete for a SB for at least the next 3 years.

I wouldn't shed too many tears for him.

There are homeless families, single men and women, vets with mental health issues, etc. all over California living out of tents on city streets.

Besides, that tweet is specious.  There's a 0.0% chance Pacheco gets franchised.  He's a fast, hard-charging straight-line runner with minimal receiving ability.

He's the epitome of a JAG-type replaceable talent.  The Chiefs may in fact have already signed his replacement in UDFA Deneric Prince from Tulsa who has almost a carbon copy player profile to Pacheco.

(If he by some happenstance he actually is franchise-tagged, it would be like hitting the lottery for him.  I don't think he'd complain one bit. 😀)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Why workout?  For the Giants?  **** 'em.  I am on my couch eating bonbons until the last moment..  I think I can do that withotu getting injured.  Then I will take my $10M guaranteed and see what happens next year.

That is an option I had not considered. 😀

Sounds like Crusher's daily agenda? 🫠

Definitely a path he can choose but probably sub-optimal if his goal is to convince 1 of the other 31 teams in the league that he's worthy of a long-term commitment involving record-setting guaranteed "Federal Reserve Notes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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