Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Bugg said:

Simply I disagree. As the country has homogenized, there really aren't any big markets any more. Players go to the teams that will practically pay the most, which also means considering state and local taxes. A steakhouse in NYC or LA or Nashville or Vegas or Tampa or Wisconsin is the same thing.  In fact, when players consider among and between state and local tax rates, that matters way more than market size when picking a team. Just happened with Hopkins picking Titans over Pats.'

If there wasn't a cap, TV revenue would still be shared. So if one idiot owner wants to overpay players, why should anyone care. 

There is pretty much zero evidence the cap makes anyone equally competitive. Well-run teams seem to be in the playoffs most seasons, badly ones still suck. 

Would much prefer to never read another single story about salaries or holdouts or caps. 

The cap is about wage control, not parity 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jgb said:

The cap is about wage control, not parity 

Unless your a marketing guy.  
 

Goodell has a heart of gold and wants parity and everyone to be happy and have a chance.   Because the NFL cares about people.   
 

And if you are a GM:

Consistent pricing 

Meat Grinder GIF

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barkley had 13 mill a year deal agreed to apparently and if what he is saying is true, which I do believe, he told the team he is good with it, want to be a giant and the deal still did not get done. So he personally  was trying to do what he should do, raise the pay roof, helping all other rbs get more after him. Not demand wr money but adding another top rb money to the equation. But u fortunately for his agent stupidly didn't get it done. Barkley I like to publicly apologize to you because I did not think you made the right choice, you specifically choose not to argue over every cent because you knew you had to just raise the bar so that future rbs could do even better, just like cc. He is worth probably twice that a year but he knew the game and what he needed to do. Ownership agreed to the price but the agent ****ed him. No other way around it. Now all Rbs are going to lose. Tagged two days after he agreed with ownership, that mean one thing

 The agent didn't act in his best interest, nickle and dimed the team. Team said screw it. Terrible. Wish he had better agent people around him, very sad situation cause he didn't seem to do anything wrong

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

I have no idea how "not arguing over every last cent" is "raising the bar for future RB."  This whole premise remains nonsensical, yet lives on like Wes Welker? Seriously?

You're just not a nuanced thinker. The key to get more is to accept less, obviously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jgb said:

Even your zingers don’t zing 

lol what zinger? jgb no offense but i literally just replied with your lame joke about chat bot. That you then siad was lame. You just called your self lame. 

get more upbeat, get focused for the season, don't be such a deuesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

I have no idea how "not arguing over every last cent" is "raising the bar for future RB."  This whole premise remains nonsensical, yet lives on like Wes Welker? Seriously?

? erally you have no idea even though it has been explained to you over and over? Barkley could have 13 mill a year.  that adds him to this list below. Making him the 3rd highest paid RB in the league. Raising the tag price and also raising the price of the next stud RB who a team wants to sign. (say jacob who might have got 14 or more)

That's how it works, incrementally getting larger as time goes on. As it does for every other positions. And as i correctly stated stupidity (in this case on his agent and reps not getting a deal done that was agreed to by ownership) costing him the 13 mil a year and all RBs after him benefiting from that raise.  

Please tell me you are not this dense, you are acting like @jgb , both of you I think are probably not stupid but you maybe have some sort of slight retardation mentally when it comes to this and cant wrap your head around it, but it is pretty easy to understand and that this point been explained to you multiple times is beyond me..

NFL's highest paid running backs in 2023 (average salary per year):

  • 1. 49ers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million

  • 2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million

  • 3. Vikings RB Dalvin Cook: $12.6 million

  • 4. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million

  • 5. Browns RB Nick Chubb: $12.2 million

  • 6. Bengals QB Joe Mixon: $12 million

  • 7. Packers RB Aaron Jones: $11.5 million

  • 8. Cowboys RB Tony Pollard: $10.1 million

  • 8. Raiders RB Josh Jacobs: $10.1 million

  • 8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley $10.1 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slats said:

Not with a straight face. 

arguable. Cook had less attempts about 30, but the TDs were similar and yardage was too. Barkely had better over sure, but he was also the only offense the giants had. You could say argue that cook if he were placed on the Giiants woudl have been as good or better considering his history. just saying. It is not as concrete as you make it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

? erally you have no idea even though it has been explained to you over and over? Barkley could have 13 mill a year.  that adds him to this list below. Making him the 3rd highest paid RB in the league. Raising the tag price and also raising the price of the next stud RB who a team wants to sign. (say jacob who might have got 14 or more)

That's how it works, incrementally getting larger as time goes on. As it does for every other positions. And as i correctly stated stupidity (in this case on his agent and reps not getting a deal done that was agreed to by ownership) costing him the 13 mil a year and all RBs after him benefiting from that raise.  

Please tell me you are not this dense, you are acting like @jgb , both of you I think are probably not stupid but you maybe have some sort of slight retardation mentally when it comes to this and cant wrap your head around it, but it is pretty easy to understand and that this point been explained to you multiple times is beyond me..

NFL's highest paid running backs in 2023 (average salary per year):

  • 1. 49ers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million

  • 2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million

  • 3. Vikings RB Dalvin Cook: $12.6 million

  • 4. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million

  • 5. Browns RB Nick Chubb: $12.2 million

  • 6. Bengals QB Joe Mixon: $12 million

  • 7. Packers RB Aaron Jones: $11.5 million

  • 8. Cowboys RB Tony Pollard: $10.1 million

  • 8. Raiders RB Josh Jacobs: $10.1 million

  • 8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley $10.1 million

  1. If I am a football player, incremental gains do exactly jack sh*t for my career earnings.  His career will be over before anyone sees any tangable benefit from this nonsense.
  2. He is already on that list.  Moving up a few spots is supposed to help what exactly? 
  3. APY is not generally the most important thing.  He can get $22+M guaranteed by playing on the tag twice or take the $19.5 the Giants offered.  
  4. Your idea that bending over and taking what the Man offers raises others is silly and makes no sense to anybody but you.

Your $26M over 2 years offer has been floated.  I am not sure how serious it was and neither are you.  Was it a serious offer made as a starting point?  Then it is fair.  Is it a BS late leak without being guaranteed?  Not particularly fair.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

? erally you have no idea even though it has been explained to you over and over? Barkley could have 13 mill a year.  that adds him to this list below. Making him the 3rd highest paid RB in the league. Raising the tag price and also raising the price of the next stud RB who a team wants to sign. (say jacob who might have got 14 or more)

That's how it works, incrementally getting larger as time goes on. As it does for every other positions. And as i correctly stated stupidity (in this case on his agent and reps not getting a deal done that was agreed to by ownership) costing him the 13 mil a year and all RBs after him benefiting from that raise.  

Please tell me you are not this dense, you are acting like @jgb , both of you I think are probably not stupid but you maybe have some sort of slight retardation mentally when it comes to this and cant wrap your head around it, but it is pretty easy to understand and that this point been explained to you multiple times is beyond me..

NFL's highest paid running backs in 2023 (average salary per year):

  • 1. 49ers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million

  • 2. Saints RB Alvin Kamara: $15 million

  • 3. Vikings RB Dalvin Cook: $12.6 million

  • 4. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $12.5 million

  • 5. Browns RB Nick Chubb: $12.2 million

  • 6. Bengals QB Joe Mixon: $12 million

  • 7. Packers RB Aaron Jones: $11.5 million

  • 8. Cowboys RB Tony Pollard: $10.1 million

  • 8. Raiders RB Josh Jacobs: $10.1 million

  • 8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley $10.1 million

There are two issues: AAV and guaranteed years. You only address one of them and unconvincingly at that since this is also an issue for RBs outside of the top 10.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

lol what zinger? jgb no offense but i literally just replied with your lame joke about chat bot. That you then siad was lame. You just called your self lame. 

get more upbeat, get focused for the season, don't be such a deuesh.

Wut?

  • More Ugh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:
  1. If I am a football player, incremental gains do exactly jack sh*t for my career earnings.  His career will be over before anyone sees any tangable benefit from this nonsense.

GREED - as discussed is bug reason why the pay scale has not improved for the RB's as a whole - thanks for making my point.

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:
  1. He is already on that list.  Moving up a few spots is supposed to help what exactly? 

Raised the average of everyone, most of those back deserve alot more but the price is waht the price it, have to raise it before it become where it should be

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:
  1. APY is not generally the most important thing.  He can get $22+M guaranteed by playing on the tag twice or take the $19.5 the Giants offered.  

sure generally, other things factor in, but after he takes that long tern deal, the next guy will get more than him. i.e.  what we say with q.w. this year or just anyone. More guaranteed money more per year etc. He will get the tag this year, so instead of raising it, not it will go down, say he has bad year, injury or jsut older - team is not willing to give that 2 year deal no more, and certainly not over the 10 or so mil mark. So he takes another tag or smaller pay check. Boom again continue the cycle. Not sure how many time you have to read it to understand it bud

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:
  1. Your idea that bending over and taking what the Man offers raises others is silly and makes no sense to anybody but you.

Bending over is getting the 3rd most money at the position? No wrong. Not doing it my way doesn't make sense to any other position group in the nfl including kickers who have seen thier contract increase more that RB in the last 10 year. You might want to consider that you could just be wrong on this one, especially considering that every position group in the NFL has done it this way. If the RB's are every going to get their piece of the pie bigger you have to not be greedy and stupid. 

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Your $26M over 2 years offer has been floated.  I am not sure how serious it was and neither are you.  Was it a serious offer made as a starting point?  Then it is fair.  Is it a BS late leak without being guaranteed?  Not particularly fair.

I mean it came from Barkley himself this morning about how frustrated he is because months ago him and ownership had agreed they loved each other and 13 was the number. Where Barkley said cool lets do it, and that he doesnt care about strong arming them for more money. Then fast forward to now, and he only has two choices: Tag or sit 

If you want to call it BS leak you can, but its not that hard to verify everything I said, I saw it on GMFB or some show like that this morning. You can literally add all the salaries together and divide by 10 to see how the number moves up when take replace a 10.1 with a 13, etc. Hell you can just look and compare how did WR money 10 years ago get to today, or QB, DT, CD, k/P.

If you are going to argue that I'm wrong at least attempt have a reason based on something aside from you dont understand it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jgb said:

There are two issues: AAV and guaranteed years. You only address one of them and unconvincingly at that since this is also an issue for RBs outside of the top 10.

unconvincingly - meaning you don't understand it after I explained. 

We are talking bout raising the boat for everyone jgb, so when you raise the top tier, you raise the tag, and effectively now raise the price for lower tiered guys are well. Please see every position in the NFL PayScale. 

Good god. Stuck on stupid. sorry not trying to be so mean you to, but you came at me like a dick bag and then said some really stupid stuff. Anywhere no hard feelings, just not sure what kind of hooked on phonics explanation I can give you here. I am trying, but I just don't know how you can't comprehend it. You literally missed the point so much that you think that non top 10 Rb's are a separate subject; That Average and guaranteed money are literally different, so they do diff things.. good god. 

THEY EFFECTIVELY DO THE SAME THING **** YOU TAKE MORE SO NEXT PLAYER CAN GETS MORE AND ALL FUTURE CONTRACT NOW HAVE HIGHER MINIMUMS!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

unconvincingly - meaning you don't understand it after I explained. 

No, that's not what the word means. It means your argument has failed to convince me.

6 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

We are talking bout raising the boat for everyone jgb, so when you raise the top tier, you raise the tag, and effectively now raise the price for lower tiered guys are well. Please see every position in the NFL PayScale. 

I still don't understand your call to action here. You're saying top RBs should take less to make more and that hold outs are bad for reversing the trend of declining salaries? Well, that goes against common sense, basic economics, human rights, and reality.

6 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Good god. Stuck on stupid. sorry not trying to be so mean you to, but you came at me like a dick bag and then said soem really stupid stuff. Anywhere no hard feelings, just not sure what kind of hooked on phonics explanation I can give you here.

You might be very bad at persuading others because of statements like this.

6 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

I am trying, but I just dont know how you can't comprehend it. You literally missed the point so much that you think that non 10 ten Rb's are a separate subject.

I said the exact opposite. Re-read the very post that you quoted.

6 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

and that Ave and guarantees money because they are literally different ways to be compensated do different things. good god. 

THEY EFFECTIVELY DO THE SAME THING **** YOU TAKE MORE SO NEXT PLAYER CAN GETS MORE AND ALL FUTURE CONTRACT NOW HAVE HIGHER MINIMUMS!!!

 

I repeat: wut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jgb said:

No, that's not what the word means. It means your argument has failed to convince me.

I still don't understand your call to action here. You're saying top RBs should take less to make more and that hold outs are bad for reversing the trend of declining salaries? Well, that goes against common sense, basic economics, human rights, and reality.

You might be very bad at persuading others because of statements like this.

I said the exact opposite. Re-read the very post that you quoted.

I repeat: wut?

Rb's at the top of the game, should take higher and long term deals that put them at the top of the position compensation wise - guarunteed, ave per year etc. Adding more value to the tag, so that everyone after them can keep pushing that number up and up. 

That's it.

I never said take less money. The whole point is to get more money. 

Barkley stupidity cost himself, and he will now sit or get pad the tag verse raising the bar and PayScale for everyone.

This feel like attempt 50. if you dont have anything new to ask or add please see previous posts .

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Rb's at the top of the game, should take higher and long term deals that put them at the top of the position compensation wise - guarunteed, ave per year etc. Adding more value to the tag, so that everyone after them can keep pushing that number up and up. 

That's it.

I never said take less money. The whole point is to get more money. 

Barkley stupidity cost him, and he not will sit or get pad the tag verse raising the bar and PayScale for everyone.

This feel like attempt 50. if you dont have anything new to ask or add please see previous posts .

Yeah, you have no idea how economics work. You just keep calling people "stupid" and "greedy" with long, rageful paragraphs.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

unconvincingly - meaning you don't understand it after I explained. 

We are talking bout raising the boat for everyone jgb, so when you raise the top tier, you raise the tag, and effectively now raise the price for lower tiered guys are well. Please see every position in the NFL PayScale. 

Good god. Stuck on stupid. sorry not trying to be so mean you to, but you came at me like a dick bag and then said some really stupid stuff. Anywhere no hard feelings, just not sure what kind of hooked on phonics explanation I can give you here. I am trying, but I just don't know how you can't comprehend it. You literally missed the point so much that you think that non top 10 Rb's are a separate subject; That Average and guaranteed money are literally different, so they do diff things.. good god. 

THEY EFFECTIVELY DO THE SAME THING **** YOU TAKE MORE SO NEXT PLAYER CAN GETS MORE AND ALL FUTURE CONTRACT NOW HAVE HIGHER MINIMUMS!!!

 

You are still saying the same thing.  That he is being 'greedy" for trying to maximize his earnings, but that he should take the "fair" deal the team offered him.  No questions asked.  I have read all the articles because it is the Giants and I mostly don't give a sh*t.  From what I read, they offered him $19.5M guaranteed.  Then kicked it up to $22M.  It is generally what he'd get for 2 years on the tag.  I don't blame him for not taking it and I don't see why he should be sacrificing to help Pacheco and Bijan Robinson out. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

You are still saying the same thing.  That he is being 'greedy" for trying to maximize his earnings, but that he should take the "fair" deal the team offered him.  No questions asked.  I have read all the articles because it is the Giants and I mostly don't give a sh*t.  From what I read, they offered him $19.5M guaranteed.  Then kicked it up to $22M.  It is generally what he'd get for 2 years on the tag.  I don't blame him for not taking it and I don't see why he should be sacrificing to help Pacheco and Bijan Robinson out. 

When someone attempts to make an economic argument with "greed" as the headliner, I have to admit I'm like:

The Rock Eye Roll GIF by WWE

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Rb's at the top of the game, should take higher and long term deals that put them at the top of the position compensation wise - guarunteed, ave per year etc. Adding more value to the tag, so that everyone after them can keep pushing that number up and up. 

That's it.

I never said take less money. The whole point is to get more money. 

Barkley stupidity cost himself, and he will now sit or get pad the tag verse raising the bar and PayScale for everyone.

This feel like attempt 50. if you dont have anything new to ask or add please see previous posts .

The whole point is to get more money, but you are complaining.  Calling him greedy, stupid and shortsighted.  For trying to get more money.  Do you see how that might be perceived as ridiculous? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BornJetsFan1983 said:

Rb's at the top of the game, should take higher and long term deals that put them at the top of the position compensation wise - guarunteed, ave per year etc. Adding more value to the tag, so that everyone after them can keep pushing that number up and up. 

That's it.

I never said take less money. The whole point is to get more money. 

Barkley stupidity cost himself, and he will now sit or get pad the tag verse raising the bar and PayScale for everyone.

This feel like attempt 50. if you dont have anything new to ask or add please see previous posts .

Miles Sanders arguably the 4th best back last year just signed an FA deal for 6.35 Million per with a total guarantee of 13 million over 4 years.  

He wasn't greedy.  He was slaughtered.  

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Miles+Sanders&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:20510be1,vid:Hs_25nYhxuo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jgb said:

The cap is about wage control, not parity 

Sorry to interrupt your pissing contest, but why can't it be both?

Whether intended or unintended, a salary cap does promote parity.  To varying degrees, whether a hard cap, soft cap or tax thresholds, the US sports leagues have varying degrees of parity.  The 'haves' and 'Have nots' are not as haveish/have notish as the world's soccer leagues.  Mahomes is not a QB in KC.  Rodgers would have gone to NY a decade earlier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

Sorry to interrupt your pissing contest, but why can't it be both?

Whether intended or unintended, a salary cap does promote parity.  To varying degrees, whether a hard cap, soft cap or tax thresholds, the US sports leagues have varying degrees of parity.  The 'haves' and 'Have nots' are not as haveish/have notish as the world's soccer leagues.  Mahomes is not a QB in KC.  Rodgers would have gone to NY a decade earlier.  

And a wristwatch can also serve as a paperweight but no one would say "watches are about weighing down paper."

Any affect on parity is largely unintended -- and specious. The quality of QB play has a much higher positive correlation to # of wins per season than team spending. Granted, today spending is in a relatively narrow range. With no cap I guess it's possible one team would spend $30 million and another $2 billion. Then the effect would be more pronounced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PFSIKH said:

Sorry to interrupt your pissing contest, but why can't it be both?

Whether intended or unintended, a salary cap does promote parity.  To varying degrees, whether a hard cap, soft cap or tax thresholds, the US sports leagues have varying degrees of parity.  The 'haves' and 'Have nots' are not as haveish/have notish as the world's soccer leagues.  Mahomes is not a QB in KC.  Rodgers would have gone to NY a decade earlier.  

You may find this interesting -- Harvard University measured the parity of various sports leagues  by calculating a gini coefficient based on teams' pre-season championship betting odds. Gini coefficients are generally used to quantify income equality in a country -- a value of 0 would mean everyone has exactly the same amount of money and a value of 100 would mean one person has literally all of that country's money.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, of the 4 major American sports leagues, the NBA is the most imbalanced.

More interestingly, the MLB with its "soft cap" is equal to the NFL in parity, with the NHL having the most parity / lowest gini coefficient.

picture1

picture2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jgb said:

And a wristwatch can also serve as a paperweight but no one would say "watches are about weighing down paper."

Any affect on parity is largely unintended -- and specious. The quality of QB play has a much higher positive correlation to # of wins per season than team spending. Granted, today spending is in a relatively narrow range. With no cap I guess it's possible one team would spend $30 million and another $2 billion. Then the effect would be more pronounced.

It's kinda both in its intent, though. Yes it's about cost control in an obvious sense, but it's about cost control because most teams wouldn't be able to compete with the richest ones. The league doesn't want to have an Oakland A's franchise that can only stay afloat with a payroll maintained at a small fraction of that of the Yanks. It's bad enough they've had the Jets for so many years of our team's existence. But that's due to top-down incompetence, not a financial inability to improve. 

So it's about cost control insofar as it prevents one team from being able to outspend another en route to not just a SB but a SB dynasty.

No doubt the ancillary effect is that nobody - not even the most valuable franchises, who also welcome it - don't have to deal with runaway player salaries: what the Jets pay to the Rodgers-priced talent necessarily comes off elsewhere. Yes it's true it's not a really hard cap (less so with the recent rate of increase) and there are lots of ways to manipulate it. However those are typically short-term manipulations & one team can't badly outspend the cap limit every year; eventually they'll have a makeup year or two where they have to hit the reset button & suck, or plan to mire in mediocrity for twice as long, before they can get back to full team-building spends at >1 position, unless they moneyball hit on an uncommon percentage of draft picks and cheap FAs. Or anyway it was like that since the cap started, when the annual cap $ increases were more modest.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's kinda both in its intent, though. Yes it's about cost control in an obvious sense, but it's about cost control because most teams wouldn't be able to compete with the richest ones. The league doesn't want to have an Oakland A's franchise that can only stay afloat with a payroll maintained at a small fraction of that of the Yanks. It's bad enough they've had the Jets for so many years of our team's existence. But that's due to top-down incompetence, not a financial inability to improve. 

So it's about cost control insofar as it prevents one team from being able to outspend another en route to not just a SB but a SB dynasty.

No doubt the ancillary effect is that nobody - not even the most valuable franchises, who also welcome it - don't have to deal with runaway player salaries: what the Jets pay to the Rodgers-priced talent necessarily comes off elsewhere. Yes it's true it's not a really hard cap (less so with the recent rate of increase) and there are lots of ways to manipulate it. However those are typically short-term manipulations & one team can't badly outspend the cap limit every year; eventually they'll have a makeup year or two where they have to hit the reset button & suck, or plan to mire in mediocrity for twice as long, before they can get back to full team-building spends at >1 position, unless they moneyball hit on an uncommon percentage of draft picks and cheap FAs. Or anyway it was like that since the cap started, when the annual cap $ increases were more modest.

See Harvard Study above. It's not working for parity. At least not any better than the MLB with its luxury tax model.

So why doesn't the NFL want to change it? Because it works great for cost control. The NFL pays the smallest % of revenues to its players than the other three major leagues. The NFLPA is not doing as good of a job as its counterparts. Or, the league is doing better than the other leagues at the negotiating table. Or, most likely some combination of both.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Larz said:

There’s nothing new about the RB pay. Nothing. Just 1 guy who needs a binky

 

Punters actually have a better gripe


This was your takeaway from this chart?  One that has Long Snappers seeing greater % cap growth than RBs?

Yikes.  

And just because it’s “nothing new” doesn’t mean RBs don’t have a legitimate gripe.  “This is how we’ve always done things” is never really a great argument.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:


This was your takeaway from this chart?  One that has Long Snappers seeing greater % cap growth than RBs?

Yikes.  

It’s relative to what it was prior of course. Edge rushers is a good example of that. 
 

I’m also curious why you keep making a value argument when the issue is injury risk for second contracts? 
 

I don’t remember Barkley complaining about the contract he got that was slotted for his draft position 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Larz said:

It’s relative to what it was prior of course. Edge rushers is a good example of that. 

I’m also curious why you keep making a value argument when the issue is injury risk ?

We all get that there is significant injury risk not seen at other positions on the field.  Some of that would easily be mitigated if 1) Teams didn’t drive RBs into the ground on their rookie deals all the time, 2) those rookie deals were shorter, and 3) if the franchise tag no longer existed or could have its rules adapted.  

Cant do a whole lot about how teams use their RBs but you CAN potentially make some changes in the other 2 areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We all get that there is significant injury risk not seen at other positions on the field.  Some of that would easily be mitigated if 1) Teams didn’t drive RBs into the ground on their rookie deals all the time, 2) those rookie deals were shorter, and 3) if the franchise tag no longer existed or could have its rules adapted.  

Cant do a whole lot about how teams use their RBs but you CAN potentially make some changes in the other 2 areas. 

I really despise the franchise tag. Just don’t like any sort of cram down contract.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We all get that there is significant injury risk not seen at other positions on the field.  Some of that would easily be mitigated if 1) Teams didn’t drive RBs into the ground on their rookie deals all the time, 2) those rookie deals were shorter, and 3) if the franchise tag no longer existed or could have its rules adapted.  

Cant do a whole lot about how teams use their RBs but you CAN potentially make some changes in the other 2 areas. 

Or 

 

You can concede the point 

again 

This is an issue for 3 out of 100 RBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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