Jump to content

NFL News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Leader said:

Not a bad idea.......

 

That would not change the value teams place on running backs. The reality is they are a dime a dozen in today's NFL. Paying running backs is fool's gold. They are often injured, and they lose it very quickly and usually without much notice. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

That would not change the value teams place on running backs. The reality is they are a dime a dozen in today's NFL. Paying running backs is fool's gold. They are often injured, and they lose it very quickly and usually without much notice. 

This would raise the RB franchise tag amount significantly, making teams much less likely to tag a RB (or a TE)

That would be the primary benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they start changing the pay scale of all RBs?

Base every contract on having a 1000 yard season.  If the guy is signed for 10 million dollars per season, and runs 700 yards, he gets 70% of that 10 million.  But if he runs for 1300 yards, he gets 130% of that 10 million.  Have the cap hits roll over to the next season.  So, in the above example, the RB's cap hit is 10 million effectively through the whole year, then any extra or left over money is applied to the following season's salary cap.

Add in bonuses, so these guys aren't working for free.  

Obviously I didn't include pass catching, blocking, or STs.  That can either be accounted for in their bonus, or perhaps base the contract on percentage of snaps played vs yardage.  I am just trying to get to a place that is fair for both a productive RB, who is underpaid, and the team that is probably overpaying a RB that used to be productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said:

This would raise the RB franchise tag amount significantly, making teams much less likely to tag a RB (or a TE)

That would be the primary benefit.

When you take the current franchise tag amount, a little over 10, and the subsequent contract they get next year, they likely still don't get as much guaranteed money. 

Teams are just not going to pony up for RB anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the players don't like the tag, they've had many opportunities to negotiate something better.  This is what the union agreed to in the CBA, and these are the rules the players approved. Hearing about how unhappy the players are every time they are tagged never resonated much with me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

When you take the current franchise tag amount, a little over 10, and the subsequent contract they get next year, they likely still don't get as much guaranteed money. 

Teams are just not going to pony up for RB anymore. 

Can't agree with this.  Barkley, Jacobs and Pollard would all have been far better off hitting the open market vs being tagged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

If the players don't like the tag, they've had many opportunities to negotiate something better.  This is what the union agreed to in the CBA, and these are the rules the players approved. Hearing about how unhappy the players are every time they are tagged never resonated much with me.

It never resonated at all with me.  Here is a guy that can barely read and is getting insulted by 8 million dollars per year.  **** in my living room for half of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...