Old Guy Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 33 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: Fins signed Eli Apple to replace him. Not as good, but still pretty good for an early camp addition. Given their situation a good signing, but quite a difference between the two, talent wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 30, 2023 Author Share Posted July 30, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 (edited) I feel bad for this generation of talented RBs, who weren't able to secure the bag in college through NIL (where they are actually stars) and are instead hoping to cash in at the pro level where teams will never pay you for past performance, but only for what they expect they can get out of you in the future (the metric by which the RB lags behind other positions.) Since Taylor's not getting traded, not because the Colts don't to, but because there is no team that will give a meaningful draft pick and a big contract to a RB. Edited July 30, 2023 by PossibleCabbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 9 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said: I feel bad for this generation of talented RBs, who weren't able to secure the bag in college through NIL (where they are actually stars) and are instead hoping to cash in at the pro level where teams will never pay you for past performance, but only for what they expect they can get out of you in the future (the metric by which the RB lags behind other positions.) Since Taylor's not getting traded, not because the Colts don't to, but because there is no team that will give a meaningful draft pick and a big contract to a RB. I get your point and it's valid. On the other hand, if they can have a decent career and earn 30 million over the duration that can be pretty set for life. Barkley, for instance made 31.2 million over the length of his rookie deal. Then made another 7 million for the 5th year option. Now he's going to bag another 11 million. The reality is the shelf life of RB's is smaller than all other positions. The other reality is you can find decent running backs pretty much everywhere. There are a few that separate themselves, but not that many. The final nail in the RB's coffin is the fact you need to have 2-3 of them. All of them get plenty of snaps each year. Generally, no more than one of them are on the field at a time. When you add it all up their pay is in line with their singular importance to the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 RB's not being paid "fair value" is the definition of a first world problem. I even wonder how much support these guys have among the rank and file players fighting for roster spots. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turf toe Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 11 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: RB's not being paid "fair value" is the definition of a first world problem. I even wonder how much support these guys have among the rank and file players fighting for roster spots. well considering that a feature RB makes half that of a feature receiver and can provide equal production imo they are under valued . the pay that pro athletes make is ridiculous though, always thought there should be some way to funnel more benefits to the fans from both players and owners, maybe a increase for lower tier players. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 It's not a question of opinion, the salary speaks for itself. From a financial standpoint, a player's value is exactly what a team is willing to pay them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 Specifically the issue with running backs is that even when they're really good, due to the rookie wage scale and the franchise tag the never really get a chance to test the market before they start to decline. Like Bijan Robinson is 21, if he is incredible and as good as the Falcons hoped they will pay his fifth year option at which point he will be 26. Then they will franchise tag him (possibly twice) so that he'll be 27-28 by the time he sees free agency for the first time. With recent history at the position, no NFL team wants to give big money to a 28-year old RB since we don't pay guys for "how good they were in the past." It's not that NFL teams are behaving irrationally, or that they're being mean to running backs, it's that RBs (more than any other position) get hosed by the one-two punch of the slotted draft contracts and the franchise tag. It's not impossible for either of these things to change (though it will be a while). Maybe rookie deals could be for 3 years instead of 4. Maybe the franchise tag gets bigger bins so that the number is the same for WRs/RBs/TEs so it's not super cheap to franchise RBs (this year the tag # for a WR was $9.5m more than for an RB.) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 2 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said: It's not that NFL teams are behaving irrationally, or that they're being mean to running backs, it's that RBs (more than any other position) get hosed by the one-two punch of the slotted draft contracts and the franchise tag. It's not impossible for either of these things to change (though it will be a while). Maybe rookie deals could be for 3 years instead of 4. Maybe the franchise tag gets bigger bins so that the number is the same for WRs/RBs/TEs so it's not super cheap to franchise RBs (this year the tag # for a WR was $9.5m more than for an RB. I think it becomes a point of discussion in the next CBA. Reducing rookie deals length also shifts money away from other veterans. Prior to the 2011 CBA, a big point of contention was 1at round rookies making too much without having played a down. I'm just not sure the owners would be open to a change in the length if rookie contracts without gaining something in return. 18 games?? Small % on the revenue going to owners?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said: It's not a question of opinion, the salary speaks for itself. From a financial standpoint, a player's value is exactly what a team is willing to pay them. There are plenty of jobs that are underpaid relative to the work that they do. These guys are obviously in a different stratosphere than say a child miner being exploited in the Congo but I think most players would agree RBs sacrifice their body as much or more as anyone else on the field. Relative to the money the league generates, I’m all for the players getting a large stake of it. Relative to what RBs produce for their teams, I don’t think they are being fairly compensated. I’m all for workers using any leverage they have to better their situation. You will quickly see fewer talented players wanting to play RB and that might just be how the market plays out. One big difference is that the NCAA game still emphasizes the ground game in a way that the pros do not. An abundance of talented guys who can carry the rock funneled into a league that uses them far less creates a buyers market. I think there needs to be some agreement to support these guys who are putting it on the line as much as and realistically more than their peers. In the meantime, if you’re a RB, keep working on catching passes, those are the guys that attract the most value. *I think where PC is going with adjusting the franchise tag is the most direct way to balance the situation without creating entire new market structures. If you could franchise a guy but the number was high enough to make sure he’s well compensated and the team would have to really decide if it was worth it would ease some of the pressure. Of course, if there was a “skill position “ tag it would probably bring the average WR tag down and they would not go for that. No easy answers. Edited July 30, 2023 by Refugee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 I think "condense the franchise tag bins to represent positionless football" is a thing you could sell the owners on. Like the bins couldbe: Quarterback, Offensive Skill Player, Offensive line, Pass Rusher, Secondary, DT/ILB, Specialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said: I think "condense the franchise tag bins to represent positionless football" is a thing you could sell the owners on. Like the bins couldbe: Quarterback, Offensive Skill Player, Offensive line, Pass Rusher, Secondary, DT/ILB, Specialist. I was just agreeing with you above when you wrote this. The biggest hurdle is WRs, OTs and CBs would likely take a lower tag than they are getting now to balance out the lower paid positions and would not be happy about it. Edited July 30, 2023 by Refugee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Refugee said: I was just agreeing with you above when you wrote this. The biggest hurdle is WRs, OTs and CBs would likely take a lower tag than they are getting now to balance out the lower paid positions and would not be happy about it. Isn't the franchise tag calculated by "the average of the top 5 salaries at the position"? So if the top 5 "offensive skill positions" are all WRs, then the RBs are getting a pay bump when they're franchised based on that. If you're not willing to pay your RB "top 5 WR money" then maybe don't franchise him- you could still work out a contract or let him test free agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 2 hours ago, turf toe said: well considering that a feature RB makes half that of a feature receiver and can provide equal production imo they are under valued . the pay that pro athletes make is ridiculous though, always thought there should be some way to funnel more benefits to the fans from both players and owners, maybe a increase for lower tier players. Feature RB's are at their best in their 1st contract, almost without fails. Most of the time their production falls off at some point during their second contract. Very few make it to the end of second contract because of the decline. Most will miss a lot of time during the first and second contracts. WR's are coming into their prime in the second and even into their 3rd contract. Giving RBs a big second contract is almost always fool's gold. I"m also not a big fan of paying top 10 WR's at the top of the food chain either. I'm against paying RB's with second contracts as a steadfast rule. Aaron Jones has been terrific so far, his second deal, I still wouldn't have done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted July 30, 2023 Share Posted July 30, 2023 5 minutes ago, Refugee said: I was just agreeing with you above when you wrote this. The biggest hurdle is WRs, OTs and CBs would likely take a lower tag than they are getting now to balance out the lower paid positions and would not be happy about it. I'd love to see the generic tag for all position players be 12 million a year, to include the quarterback. I'm steadfastly against socialism but in this case will make an exception. Your point about getting all to go along with it will not happen. 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.