BullBuchanan

I would bet a lot of money against them winning the AFC championship game (barring an injury to Mahomes/Burrow), but I also think there's no way they miss the playoffs. With the playoffs increasing to 7 seeds plus a 17th game, they would have to lose Allen for most of the year for that to happen and even then. More seeds+more games gives a massive edge to better than average teams and even on a decline the bills are certainly in the top 20% of the NFL. A Better proposition might be more likely to win AFC championship game or lose the division. Int hat case I'd pick lose the division, even if I think it's likely they win the AFCE and get bounced by the Bengals or Chiefs in the playoffs again.

And that's where you're either intentionally or incorrectly omitting 2/3 of the story. ST'ers like Taiwan Jones, Andre Roberts etc can play well into their mid 30s. Punters play into their late 30s and 40s. Many of them get the opportunity for multiple contracts. The landscape for RBs is changing to a place where they do not. No one is debating that you get paid a rookie wage based one where you're drafted, so stop trying to make that the point. We all know it does. The difference is that some people provide more value later in their careers (QB, WR) and RBs provide their maximum contributions int he first couple of seasons. Price fixing a WR early hurts them less because they'll have the opportunity to get paid top dollar as they realize their potential,

I never said it should be. It's just the reality of the situation that they players are the product and responsible for all the value. Also, it should be obvious, but the current deal was negotiated before this refusal the re-sign RBs was agreed to by the entire NFL body. Maybe you should have stayed for the second half of the first class. What exists in the RB market today amounts to artificial price fixing. Teams aren't paying for RB contracts because they don't have to. They can just draft for free and hold them on cheap deals. If they didn't have that option, theyd have to pay or go without.

They aren't even close to overpaid. You could very reasonably argue they are underpaid. The NFL made 11.9 BILLION in revenue last year. That's 11,900 million dollars. The players are responsible for nearly 100% of that revenue and yet get less than 50% of revenue. No one watches the Bills to see Terry Pegula. No one has a Denise York jersey on their wall, not even her kids. Whether they make millions or $7/hr is inconsequential. What matters is the value of their output. Int he case of NFL players, that value happens to be $11.9 billion and rising.

Unlikely, because as evidence suggests it's very difficult to replace elite runners. You can't just go get another Derrick Henry when you want one. A franchise may go another 30 years without seeing talent like that again. It's one thing to own a player for 6 years, because you get most of their prime contributions on one deal. If you only had them for 1 or 2 however, they'd still have another 5-7 years of prime production you'd be leaving on the table and another team would likely swoop in to take advantage. Make no mistake, teams want players like Dalvin Cook and even Zeke, but they don't want to commit the term and dollars those players want due to age and wear. If they were a shade younger, they probably wouldn't mind a 3-4 year deal though. A proposal like this could instill market competition where today there is none because the market has been exploited using the 4-6 year lockup strategy enabled by the current CBA

Another guy totally missing the point. Context, my dude, context. They're trying to get paid now because they weren't paid before. Obviously they don't want only rookies to get paid and them to continue to be shafted, but if expectations were reset that RBs make money early and then that's their career, they wouldn't feel like the rug was pulled out form under them. If they walked into the league free agents or got free agency after 1-2 years the situation would also likely be different.

You clearly don't get it and don't want to. I dont think that's the case anymore. You have vet RBs coming out in droves talking about what's happening now. If the choice was them getting paid upfront or not at all, I know what theyd choose. AP was drafted 16 years ago when RBs played into their 30s and got lucrative 2nd deals.

I'll restate it then. Young RBs are the most NFL ready of any position. Their value is front-loaded more than any other position. However, with the rookie wage scale they have two things working against them The first we agree on, and that's they are locked into a long term that robs them of their ability to get a contract based on their success. The second, which we haven't yet agreed on, is related to the first. Young RBs who are in their first couple of years in the league provide more value than veteran players, but they are making the same amount of money on the rookie scale as players who provide less value early in their careers. The NFLPA needs to acknowledge that they are a consumable resource unlikely to be able to cash in on a second contract they way a WR or TE can and work to get them paid upfront. two year ago Jonathan Taylor was the top RB in the league contributing over 2100 yards from scrimmage include 1800 rushing and he made a total of 2.5M. His reward was to have his compensation dropped to 2.1 the following year. In 2020 Aaron Jones, David Montgomery, and James Robinson were the 3-5 leading rushers who made 2.1, 1.0, and 0.9M respectively on rookie deals. It's a much different sitaution for receivers where the only top 5 producer earning no money is Justin Jefferson, and you better believe he's going to get paid

Autin Ekeler wasn't top 8 in yards last year, so he's not on that list. Neither were other obvious top 8 backs that were top picks like Jonathan Taylor. I also mentioned Ekeler explicitly.

They're all bad, but Daniel Jones is the only one of those players that isn't even a decent player, so it has to be him.

It absolutely is and I already supplied evidence why it is. They have the shortest career length of any position and with the current trend an NFL team can keep them locked up on their rookie deal + one year of franchise for the entirety of their career. That isn't true for any other position. You could even do it for QBs.

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it. If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

Wrong again. NFL running backs earn on average $1.8M per season and their average length of career is 2.57 years. That's $4.6M before taxes for a life of a career. it's not poor, but far from rich when it has to last 50+ years. if you live off the interest maybe you take home 140-160K a year. That's a firmly middle-class stipend. NFL franchises on the other hand are worth an average of $4 Billion dollars. The Running back would have to play for 2,222 years to earn that much. THAT is what rich is.

Whether they need it or not, they have it. I'm not sure why you feel you don't have the energy for both of them.

I'm concerned about the financial situation of NFL running backs, teachers, nurses, coal miners, doctors, engineers, plumbers, linesmen, physicists, roofers, mechanics, programmers, oil workers and retirees. When it comes to advocating for workers, I advocate for all of them. I don't feel the need to discriminate. whether you are underpaid or not determined by whether or not someone makes less money than you. Why are you so determined to be wrong about this?

Again, I haven't ever argued anything differently than that. If you go back to my first post on the subject, I've been arguing that the NFLPA needs to bargain on RBs behalf to ensure they are in a position to get paid. To me that could come int eh form of higher minimum salary rookie deals, fully guaranteed contracts, and/or much earlier free agency. To fix the problem, you need to remove the exploit that is the NFL draft and rookie wage scale that negatively impacts RBs more than any other position.

And? No one is arguing that RBs are more important than QBs.

Well, I definitely understand that. It doesn't have to mean that teams are spending money appropriately though. The overvaluing of mediocre DL being an example.

These same GMs are giving Daniel Jones $40M a year. Forgive me if I don't defer 100% of judgement to their expertise. I don't disagree that many drafted RBs turn out to be "fine". As far as how many Late/undrafted ones are key contributors on their teams? Not many All of the top 8 backs from last year were 1st or 2nd round picks. There are a handful of guys in the next tier down from the 4th round and only Ekeler, mostert, wilson And Pacheco that were 6th rd or later in the top 25. The most reliable way to get elite production from an RB is still to draft one in the top 50 picks.

Sailing is a luxury activity pretty much any definition and Connecticut is one of the most expensive states int he country. No projection at all on my side - just straight facts.

His numbers aren't statistically significant. He put up those averages with carry totals of 22 and 56 respectively. He likely benefited from limited usage.

No, you're coming off super jealous, because there's no reason to put down someone that works for living unless you're jealous or you have a vested interest int hem earning less. The goal of working for a living isn't to "not hurt financially". It's to achieve the maximum income you can for the value you provide. It's a weird take for a guy bragging about his luxury activities and living in expensive places.

In college? Also, YPC isn't an actionable insight on its own. It's a KPI, but It doesn't tell you who is providing more value, because it lacks any sort of context around the "why". It's also not really useful to compare the season records of teams with elite RBs. One could make the argument that without those players, bad teams would have been far worse.

If we had a player on offense that wasn't emotionally exhausted, maybe it would've made the difference. I think it was a huge missed at bat for Beane. Who said it was a hardship? Your envy over what other people make is blinding you to the reality that you have more in common with them than you do differences.

The other thing people forget is that for a lot of these guys they are compressing the prime earning years of their entire life into 3-4 years in their early to mid twenties. If you're a plumber or programmer, you usually make more money the older you get, but for the majority of NFL players, they'll never make more money than they do while they're int he league. Given that the average career is less than 4 years long and most guys never make more than a million a season, that's not a lot of money for a lifetime. If you want to retire at 30 and live a totally normal every day, suburban lifestyle outside any top 50 city in the US, you better plan on having $4M-$6M stashed away. Yea, there's nothing stopping these guys from getting normal jobs after retirement, but when football has been your only focus since you were 8 years old, you probably aren't well equipped to go earn a couple hundred grand a year at a fortune 500 company.