Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

Agree that might be more fair, but it's been such a gripe of the NFLPA for so long I figured an across-the-board wiping out of the franchise tag would be DOA. Even more so now that all rookie contracts are limited to 4 years (plus a 5th yr team option for 1st rounders, if they're worth it). If they couldn't get that removed for all back when teams could lock up a high 1st round pick QB for 6+ years out of college, it's not happening now. 

However leaving the tag in place - but just removing the non-starter compensation that effectively removes all potential suitors - just for this one position, might have a chance. I wouldn't expect it anyway. I just thought it was the easiest, neatest, and least disruptive in terms of snowball effect. 

The best reason ownership may not go for that is it begins a slippery slope towards the end you referenced above, to which the owners are universally opposed -- or anyway, they're not universally in favor of dumping the FT, which is what it'd take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

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. 

What financial incentive do the owners have?  None.  The billionaires can out last the millionaires.  Now that there are two leagues playing Spring football, the owners even have a bigger pot to pick from.

The Saudis is an interesting thought.  Golf is an individual sport.  Easier to buy.  The only other things they have purchased are teams.  I do not believe they have funded a league yet.  Who knows..maybe they will follow their soccer pathway and bring Tom Brady to a team in a newly created Saudi Football League for 400 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

What financial incentive do the owners have?  None.  The billionaires can out last the millionaires.  Now that there are two leagues playing Spring football, the owners even have a bigger pot to pick from.

The Saudis is an interesting thought.  Golf is an individual sport.  Easier to buy.  The only other things they have purchased are teams.  I do not believe they have funded a league yet.  Who knows..maybe they will follow their soccer pathway and bring Tom Brady to a team in a newly created Saudi Football League for 400 million.

I mean at the and if the day life is never going to be perfectly fair. Nothing is a line and everything is always moving forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Biggs said:

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.

tell you didnt read or comprehend with out telling me you didnt read or comprehend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, it isn't the RBs' fault.... Teams have realized giving RBs big contracts is foolhardy as RBs don't last long, particularly as workhorses. If RBs choose not to take what is offered that's on them, but it isn't their fault larger contracts are becoming rarer for them. Look at the Cowboys as they gave EE a huge contract and he fell off immediately. It's just the nature of the position and not really anyone's fault aside from a coach who over uses a guy and runs him into the ground early.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

tell you didnt read or comprehend with out telling me you didnt read or comprehend. 

You realize their is a Union who's job it is to protect the players ability to negiotate.  Yet you blame the "Running Backs Union" something that doesn't exist for not propelling future running backs ability to earn.  

I'll make it plan.  Your post was absurd, long and boring.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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.

Interesting. What do you make of RBBC in SF paying CC>? The franchise tag as i understand is just a direct average or salaries to the position, so if the top guys take the 2 year 3 year deals now offered around or above the tag per year, do you agree it would raise all boats or have no effect? 

The only way to get what they seek is to build to it by moving the market price. I agree as i said some of these guys are worth much more than the market top contracts, Eckler, jacobs etc...but no one is every going to get there because of greed and being stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jgb said:

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.

Please.  I was an employment attorney and your post is absurdly misleading and an extreme exaggeration.  Nobody is forcing NFL players to play for nothing and this is not about slavery.  The US Constitution is not implicated by the Barkely situation.  The players have a CBA and cannot legally strike until 2030.  If Barkley or Jacobs or me or you refuse to work because we don't like our working conditions and we are not covered by a contract, we can be fired.  The US is an employment at will jurisdiction, which means that an employee can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as the termination of employment is not otherwise illegal.

Nothing is stopping Barkley from pulling a Le'Veon Bell and sitting out a year.  He is not under contract.  And while sitting out, he can perform any job he wants other than RB in the NFL.  

Hold outs are stupid.  They benefit nobody.  They hurt the player, the team, and the fans. No other sport has them.  

There are about 1700 players in the NFL.  We are talking about 5-10 RBs who are impacted by this situation - high performing backs seeking second contracts and who may be or perceive themselves to be underpaid by the franchise tag. 

Let's not turn this into something it's not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

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

We all understand this.  We all also understand (or should understand) that the average lifespan of an NFL player is 55 years old (maybe less for RBs, who take a beating) and quite a few of them get the pleasure of dealing with the effects of CTE not long after their playing days end.

Would you be willing to potentially give up 20+ years of your life and your brain for the $889,777 Isiah Pacheco is making in the current 2023 season?  I think not.

You mentioned that he might have $4M total coming his way but fail to note that since the average NFL shelf-life is 2.5 years that money is hardly guaranteed to him.

As you said its all relative.  He's not getting screwed compared to a homeless person.  But he's certainly getting screwed compared to some of the sh*tty players who get paid a lot more than him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

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".

Yeah.  I wonder just how suboptimal it would be.  If he did that, had a sh*tty start to the season and then tore it up the last few games and into the playoffs if they make it, he sure should still get paid.  I mean look at what OBJ got for a few meh years, a huge playoff game and excellent half a super bowl.  Plus he'd get to enjoy his summer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Please.  I was an employment attorney and your post is absurdly misleading and an extreme exaggeration.  Nobody is forcing NFL players to play for nothing and this is not about slavery.  The US Constitution is not implicated by the Barkely situation.  The players have a CBA and cannot legally strike until 2030.  If Barkley or Jacobs or me or you refuse to work because we don't like our working conditions and we are not covered by a contract, we can be fired.  The US is an employment at will jurisdiction, which means that an employee can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as the termination of employment is not otherwise illegal.

Nothing is stopping Barkley from pulling a Le'Veon Bell and sitting out a year.  He is not under contract.  And while sitting out, he can perform any job he wants other than RB in the NFL.  

Hold outs are stupid.  They benefit nobody.  They hurt the player, the team, and the fans. No other sport has them.  

There are about 1700 players in the NFL.  We are talking about 5-10 RBs who are impacted by this situation - high performing backs seeking second contracts and who may be or perceive themselves to be underpaid by the franchise tag. 

Let's not turn this into something it's not.  

Then you were a bad employment attorney. Objectively. In fact, I doubt you are an attorney. Laymen react strongly to comparing an NFL holdout to slavery but no employment attorney would. This is basic jurisprudence. Calling you out. I think you’re fibbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Interesting. What do you make of RBBC in SF paying CC>? The franchise tag as i understand is just a direct average or salaries to the position, so if the top guys take the 2 year 3 year deals now offered around or above the tag per year, do you agree it would raise all boats or have no effect? 

The only way to get what they seek is to build to it by moving the market price. I agree as i said some of these guys are worth much more than the market top contracts, Eckler, jacobs etc...but no one is every going to get there because of greed and being stupid.

Nope I don't agree it raises all boats. It causes a gradual sinking of all boats in some cases, and RB is one of them. I explained why in that stupidly-long post I made earlier. 

The gist: the franchise tag caps it, but it's already capped at such a low starting point that it's very difficult to break out more than that. A RB has to make his own team feel that (a) they can't get by with the next man up; (b) someone else will pony up the draft pick compensation to get him; (c) the player will really hold out, effectively pissing away 1/3 to 1/2 of his remaining prime seasons; (d) the player has been a model of health and durability while playing the position, and is therefore more likely to keep that up; (e) the player has at least 2 if not 3+ more wow-seasons left in him. 

All told it's a lot stacked up against RBs and those circumstances don't all exist together for other positions.

The #1 problem is the career length, which dissuades any team from even considering a match for a tagged player. The last time someone would have was Lev Bell - or it would've been if he wasn't ERFA tagged - and how he turned out after that probably scared away more than a few GMs.

Why ante up to lock one's team into a player with a high injury risk, plus a lot of carries or injuries already racked up, when you can be year-to-year for the same if not for less money without any of the risk? The player has to be one of the unicorns to get past that -- a unicorn dual threat like CMC (how Bell was once seen) or a unicorn unstoppable bulldozer like Henry. Excuse me -- a young unicorn no older than 24-25 at the time of a 2nd contract. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$889,777 as the starting RB for the SB champion Kansas City Chiefs.  By NFL standards that's getting screwed.  But of course you're gonna take ownership's side on this one.


He was A starting RB for KC, not THE starting RB. That’s the difference. Teams are now utilizing multiple players to perform the RB duties, and with a salary cap, the positional budget probably hasn’t increased much of at all. They are just spreading the money around more. I don’t think it is a “problem” but sucks for those guys that are truly the starting RB on a team right now, but I think we will soon see it shift so that a true starting RB no longer exists, and each team will just split minutes amongst 3 players.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BloodGreen said:

He was A starting RB for KC, not THE starting RB. That’s the difference. Teams are now utilizing multiple players to perform the RB duties, and with a salary cap, the positional budget probably hasn’t increased much of at all. They are just spreading the money around more. I don’t think it is a “problem” but sucks for those guys that are truly the starting RB on a team right now, but I think we will soon see it shift so that a true starting RB no longer exists, and each team will just split minutes amongst 3 players.

He received 170 carries last season.  98 more than any other RB on the roster, and more than the # 2 and 3 guys combined (170-143).  

Even if you factor in total touches he still had Jerick McKinnon beat handily, 183-128.  (Edwards-Helaire finished with 88 total touches).

And in the postseason this gap was even more pronounced.  He out-touched McKinnon 15-6 in the AFC Championship game and 15-7 in the Super Bowl (0 touches for CEH in either of those games).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

I don't think the Giants can rescind the tag anymore. Isn't that the same deadline as coming to an extension agreement?

IOW he can do what he wants, and then if he gets injured while a FA, choose to then sign it. Not sure on this, but I think so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

$889,777 as the starting RB for the SB champion Kansas City Chiefs.  By NFL standards that's getting screwed.  But of course you're gonna take ownership's side on this one.

It’s not a side. It’s the CBA. He was a 7th round pick.   He’s well within his right to try and work out a new contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Please.  I was an employment attorney and your post is absurdly misleading and an extreme exaggeration.  Nobody is forcing NFL players to play for nothing and this is not about slavery.  The US Constitution is not implicated by the Barkely situation.  The players have a CBA and cannot legally strike until 2030.  If Barkley or Jacobs or me or you refuse to work because we don't like our working conditions and we are not covered by a contract, we can be fired.  The US is an employment at will jurisdiction, which means that an employee can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as the termination of employment is not otherwise illegal.

Nothing is stopping Barkley from pulling a Le'Veon Bell and sitting out a year.  He is not under contract.  And while sitting out, he can perform any job he wants other than RB in the NFL.  

Hold outs are stupid.  They benefit nobody.  They hurt the player, the team, and the fans. No other sport has them.  

There are about 1700 players in the NFL.  We are talking about 5-10 RBs who are impacted by this situation - high performing backs seeking second contracts and who may be or perceive themselves to be underpaid by the franchise tag. 

Let's not turn this into something it's not.  

It's not about slavery.  It's about a monopoly and an extremely weak players union.  The monopoly is using predatory practices to ensure maximum monetary value of their franchise along with maximum profitability on an operating level.   

SInce the players Union is so weak that they couldn't sustain being locked out by the owners before highly paid players with limited shelf life broke the line, individual players have to fend for themselves to get value.  In a capped league individuals who win at or over market value are by default putting other players in at or under market value.  

Unlike other at will employees who can go to work in the same industry where monopolies are against the law, NFL players can't.  Non-competes are becoming unenforceable in the private non-monopoly sector of the economy.   The NFL enforces non competes by threatening to lock out the players who have a short shelf life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He received 170 carries last season.  98 more than any other RB on the roster, and more than the # 2 and 3 guys combined (170-143).  
Even if you factor in total touches he still had Jerick McKinnon beat handily, 183-128.  (Edwards-Helaire finished with 88 total touches).
And in the postseason this gap was even more pronounced.  He out-touched McKinnon 15-6 in the AFC Championship game and 15-7 in the Super Bowl (0 touches for CEH in either of those games).


Fair point. I wouldn’t consider 170 carries starting RB touches, but in relation to the other RB on his team he got the most. My point is that I think we are in the middle of a pendulum swing at the position that is still in the transition phase, and the RB today that is getting 250+ attempts per season are going to pay (not get paid) for it. In a few years we may think that 225 attempts is a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

It’s not a side. It’s the CBA. He was a 7th round pick.   He’s well within his right to try and work out a new contract.

Not for another 3 years.  And then the Chiefs can slap the tag on him for 2 years and refuse to negotiate if they want to.  That's what the tweet was suggesting.  The Chiefs can own his rights until he's 28-29 and there's little he can do about it.  And its absolutely true.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not for another 3 years.  And then the Chiefs can slap the tag on him for 2 years and refuse to negotiate if they want to.  That's what the tweet was suggesting.  The Chiefs can own his rights until he's 28-29 and there's little he can do about it.  And its absolutely true.

That's why I was harping on an idea that the tag either shouldn't apply to RBs, or if it does then someone else can sign him away without paying the Chiefs anything (or at the most like a 3rd round pick). Then he only plays under the tag if no one else was going to offer anything any better anyway. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not for another 3 years.  And then the Chiefs can slap the tag on him for 2 years and refuse to negotiate if they want to.  That's what the tweet was suggesting.  The Chiefs can own his rights until he's 28-29 and there's little he can do about it.  And it’s absolutely true.

I thought a player could hold out at any time to work out a new contract. If they can’t this can be an issue with collective bargaining. Perhaps the union itself is outdated.  Players are also known for not caring about this stuff when it’s time to vote. A lot of them don’t even vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BloodGreen said:

 


Fair point. I wouldn’t consider 170 carries starting RB touches, but in relation to the other RB on his team he got the most. My point is that I think we are in the middle of a pendulum swing at the position that is still in the transition phase, and the RB today that is getting 250+ attempts per season are going to pay (not get paid) for it. In a few years we may think that 225 attempts is a lot.

 

 

I agree that the bellcow backs are few and far between and those are going to basically be extinct soon.  But until then, the guy who gets the early down work is still the de facto RB1.  This year in KC, Pacheco is the early down guy, McKinnon is the 3rd down back, and CEH is a pretty good bet to end up getting cut.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

I thought a player could hold out at any time to work out a new contract. If they can’t this can be an issue with collective bargaining. Perhaps the union itself is outdated.  Players are also known for not caring about this stuff when it’s time to vote. A lot of them don’t even vote.

The CBA has made holding out nearly impossible.  And for rookie deal guys you can't even begin negotiating a new deal till year 3.  Meaning Pacheco would have to wait until 2024 at minimum on a new deal.  Given the shelf life of RBs there's no guarantee whatsoever he'll get to that point.

And of course its an issue with collective bargaining.  Especially when the NFL is all-powerful and the NFLPA is its hapless stooge. 

Its also an item they can't negotiate back into the CBA until 2030.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

The player can’t renegotiate a contract under their rookie deal? 

His only recourse is to hold out during his precious few prime years and try to pressure the team to tear up his contract. A recourse many Neanderthals here want to strip away: “Play da football and entertain me, slave.”

It will end badly for him. They’ll just draft another 7th rounder to replace him and move on.

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

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Not until year 3, no.  And KC has no incentive whatsoever to be wiling to open negotiations when he's this cheap.  

HE MAKES MORE MONEY THAN MEEEEEE THEREFORE HIS GRIEVANCES ARE NOT VALID!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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 would Barkley  take that .  He guarantee 10.3 this year under the tag . Next year under  the tag jumps to 12million. So if the guarantee 22 million plus .  Anything under 22 million is I think a bargain for the team, not the player.

why go to training camp and risk an injury if you’re jacobs or Barkley.     You just come back week before the season starts.    Only risk if a young player explodes in the preseason that they feel comfortable going with him.    Now you might get 10 million but you a sharing the load with another Rb.   Not going to get the yards you need to become attractive to other teams in possible trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I agree that the bellcow backs are few and far between and those are going to basically be extinct soon.  But until then, the guy who gets the early down work is still the de facto RB1.  This year in KC, Pacheco is the early down guy, McKinnon is the 3rd down back, and CEH is a pretty good bet to end up getting cut.


Yeah, it sucks that the remaining “bellcows” will get screwed, and the de facto RB 1 will never get paid like the old RB 1 used to. I don’t necessarily blame the teams, when the market price for mediocre QBs is at 30-40 million per, another position will have to take a hit in a cap league.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

Why would Barkley  take that .  He guarantee 10.3 this year under the tag . Next year under  the tag jumps to 12million. So if the guarantee 22 million plus .  Anything under 22 million is I think a bargain for the team, not the player.

You serious? Cause he might get hurt and get donkey dick next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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