ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, MWil23 said: IMO I think the franchise tag needs reworked to be all inclusive regardless of position. No more exploiting TE who are glorified receivers or running backs. If you designate them as a “franchise player” then you are signaling they are a cornerstone and deserve to be compensated accordingly. The franchise tag needs to be removed. The notion that a player can be indispensably, critically important to a team who then can't find any money to pay them with a quarter billion yearly budget is a farce on par or somehow even worse than the candles meme. Edited June 12, 2023 by ramssuperbowl99 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onejayhawk Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Is this what having a 7th-round pick outgain the entire Eagles RB room causes? That was the Super Bowl after all. Or you could go with the Super Bowl four years ago where everything revolved around Raheem Mostert and Damien Williams who were UDFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 LDT was an all time great and averages 5.5m a year over his career. His big deal… 60m/8 yes with an aav of 7.5m. Ekeler makes more than that for this season but the RB position just isn’t worth it. When you see how guys like Emmit and Bettis move after football… it’s criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 10 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: The franchise tag needs to be removed. The notion that a player can be indispensably, critically important to a team who then can't find any money to pay them with a quarter billion yearly budget is a farce on par or somehow even worse than the candles meme. The franchise tag being removed would be a real step forward in resetting the power structure between ownership and players. I doubt fans would support the idea though once the media started portraying every team playing musical QB’s. Owners own the media so they’d win the PR battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 19 minutes ago, Leoric said: The franchise tag being removed would be a real step forward in resetting the power structure between ownership and players. I doubt fans would support the idea though once the media started portraying every team playing musical QB’s. Owners own the media so they’d win the PR battle. How crazy would it be to charge a draft pick every time you use the franchise tag. If you are able to resign the player then you get the pick back. Unable to strike a deal and you lose the pick. Make it a 3rd or equivalent. Might make it tougher to tag a guy that you don't plan on resigning (which would mean he isn't a franchise player anyway and probably shouldn't be tagged in the spirit of the rule). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leoric Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 3 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said: How crazy would it be to charge a draft pick every time you use the franchise tag. If you are able to resign the player then you get the pick back. Unable to strike a deal and you lose the pick. Make it a 3rd or equivalent. Might make it tougher to tag a guy that you don't plan on resigning (which would mean he isn't a franchise player anyway and probably shouldn't be tagged in the spirit of the rule). This is a really cool idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted June 13, 2023 Author Share Posted June 13, 2023 Saquon won't hit a big deal. It won't work if he holds out for next year. Dude has over estimated his value. His recieving really hasn't been that impactful. 5.9 ypr is pretty mediocre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 The solution to me is to make more of the salary cap allocation performance based. If a 7th rd guard starts 17 games, that should be a few extra million coming his way. If an UDFA RB runs for 1300 yards, same thing. The reason why that will never happen though is the NFLPA will never take guaranteed money away from its top stars to pay the underpaid over performing guys. People can rail against the owners/GMs all they want for exploiting a collectively bargained system, but some onus needs to be put on the NFLPA as well to look after people other than the top stars. The other problem with performance based pay is that it incentivizes players to play through injury to hit those performance bonuses and would lead to guys playing hurt when they really shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WheatieMan Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 The agents have to negotiate a massive bonus up front. It makes no rhyme or reason for these guys to sign otherwise. Just don't sign the rookie deal until the structure is adjusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DUKE Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, WheatieMan said: The agents have to negotiate a massive bonus up front. It makes no rhyme or reason for these guys to sign otherwise. Just don't sign the rookie deal until the structure is adjusted. The problem with this is, teams aren't all that worried if they don't sign, next man up. Like was said earlier, if there are 90 capable guys out there, holding out isn't going to do you much good. There might be 10-15 free agents on the street right now that might do a serviceable job that are happy to play for the league minimum vs getting an office job for $40k a year and that's IF they have their degree. One year at league minimum is like 10-15 years of that office job. When it's proven out time and time again that paying for RBs doesn't translate into the success teams want, they are ok letting those guys go and risking it on those guys who definitely won't be holding out while getting league minimum. Then they have the cap room to re-sign their top pass rusher, their #1 WR, their franchise QB, their cornerstone LT, their top CB, etc... Edited June 13, 2023 by THE DUKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 You are correct that the RB market is awful. But for those guys you mentioned by name, look at the situation from the other perspective: you know you are going to get, and probably have to play under, a lowball contract. Why accept it now and have to slog through the summer? Those contract offers will still be there, and there may even be more, when the season starts. You're an experienced player; you don't need all that offseason nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 Getting rid of draft and franchise tag would take an act of congress. The NFL is never, ever going to do it or agree to it. Those are non-negotiable. They will use replacement players forever, whatever it takes to break any strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyBacall Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 It wouldn't surprise me to see the college talent pool at RB drop off a cliff, conversely while receiver prospects continue to boom in numbers. There's no longer an incentive to play RB at a high-level unless it's literally the only option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 7 minutes ago, minutemancl said: You are correct that the RB market is awful. But for those guys you mentioned by name, look at the situation from the other perspective: you know you are going to get, and probably have to play under, a lowball contract. Why accept it now and have to slog through the summer? Those contract offers will still be there, and there may even be more, when the season starts. You're an experienced player; you don't need all that offseason nonsense. Completely disagree. The market is awful, so giving a different player the offseason reps for familiarity with the scheme, assignments, and new players is likely to end up with the team sticking with the new guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted June 13, 2023 Share Posted June 13, 2023 Just now, SmittyBacall said: It wouldn't surprise me to see the college talent pool at RB drop off a cliff, conversely while receiver prospects continue to boom in numbers. There's no longer an incentive to play RB at a high-level unless it's literally the only option. This has already happened. Over the past decade WRs and CBs have gotten taller/bigger on average, while LBs have gotten slightly smaller and blended more with hybrid safety roles. Totally consistent with the influx of elite athletes with the size/skill to play RB, but who don't. 1 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.