JaguarCrazy2832 Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Heard this idea earlier this week once the news broke about Gordon holding out for a new contract. I can see a reason to love it and a reason to hate it What do you guys think? Pros: RBs will have less wear and tear on their body so teams might be more likely to give them a better extension with 1 less year of being a modern-day gladiator. Cons: Shelf life of a player is already about 3 years so it might cost them a year of money that would be guaranteed for a rookie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Yes but I think it's hard for the league to do it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 6 minutes ago, SBLIII said: Yes but I think it's hard for the league to do it. How so? Why not just decrease their league generated rookie contract down 1 year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBLIII Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, JaguarCrazy2832 said: How so? Why not just decrease their league generated rookie contract down 1 year? because players and agents of players of other position groups will find arguments why their league generated rookie contract should be 2-3 years only as well 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted July 13, 2019 Author Share Posted July 13, 2019 13 minutes ago, SBLIII said: because players and agents of players of other position groups will find arguments why their league generated rookie contract should be 2-3 years only as well Maybe if this 18 games schedule debacle goes in they can get that as a bargaining chip haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLadd Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 No.1 players/the NFL won't want to shorten rookie contracts (Technically late round rookies do get 3 year contracts because RFA exists) No.2 this only applies to one position and if you change it for one you have to make it the standard and that's not happening. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 18 minutes ago, DingoLadd said: No.1 players/the NFL won't want to shorten rookie contracts (Technically late round rookies do get 3 year contracts because RFA exists) No.2 this only applies to one position and if you change it for one you have to make it the standard and that's not happening. #2 is the big one here imho. I think there are all sorts of legal issues that crop up if you try and make this apply to a single positional group 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 Add in that making RB free agents faster will also drop them in the draft. They already struggle to be top picks due to positional value now you’re going to lower a team’s return on investment as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 It’d be a big CBA negotiation. Position-equality aside, which would be a big issue in and of itself, teams won’t be want to relinquish another season or two of cost-controlled play. It also would mean less total dollars on rookie deals, which isn’t beneficial for all the guys. Hell, you could argue this would backfire on Gordon too. This was his first year with efficient production, despite missing some games. His TD% also went way up. I think running backs just have to be cognizant that they’re due to get shafted more than other positions, just the nature of the game. Get drafted as young as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 They should just get rid of the franchise tag. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty21 Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 On 7/13/2019 at 2:24 PM, JaguarCrazy2832 said: Shelf life of a player is already about 3 years so it might cost them a year of money that would be guaranteed for a rookie Then give the player a player option so they can end the contract if they’re good or keep it going the final year if they suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KewlBeanz Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Yes, yes they should. Dime a dozen. not as important as they used to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCPackersFan Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Have 2 or 3 year player contracts, with the final 2 or 3 years being a player option for a total of 5 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetsujin Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 What were the minimum contract lengths in the 90's? Would've made more sense then when teams were really pounding the rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 On 7/16/2019 at 9:30 AM, iknowcool said: They should just get rid of the franchise tag. I was going to say this. Or they should remove the positional basis for it. If someone is truly a "franchise" player that you must keep from the open market, it should at the average of the top 5 for ALL positions, so basically only QBs should get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.