Giants and Barkley do not reach an agreement on a new contract

[transient]

4 hours ago, purple haze said:

His profession and your profession are not the same.  Stop comparing yourself.  He is getting a raw deal in his profession.  If you have his skill level go try out if you can get one.

You say that as though you know my profession… I can tell you they’re the same in that salaries are set by market pressure in what I do as well. IMO, if what’s out there about what he wants and what he was offered is true, he’s getting some bad advice from his agent. The market for RBs is not uptrending, and while a 4M difference is obviously a lot of money, he’s not likely to get a better offer next season and he’s likely to lose out on more than that in the long run. 

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Cutting is part of contract and players know it.  Players holding out after getting signing bonus which is divided per contract year is not.

 

 

Both are OK under this system. One's not better than the other.

 

Players know they can be cut. And teams know players can hold out.

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, unbillievable said:

 

Runningbacks are becoming ever more worthless.

 

Why is Hines getting $6mil/yr?

 

 

He's not, really.

 

That was a contract extension, not a contract. When he signed it (Sept. '21), it meant that he was then signed for a total of four years for a total of $19.6M.

 

The extension was advertised as for three years for $18.6M, but as with most extensions, the money was actually to be paid over four years, not three. He got the signing bonus in '21 while the new years were '22 to '24.

 

That also looks to have been too much, in hindsight.

 

 

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Hence my comment of overvaluing…. He’s spent higher picks on RBs then he has WRs.

 

 

Only if you ignore the fact that he actually got Diggs by using a first rounder and a bit more in trade.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, transient said:

You say that as though you know my profession… I can tell you they’re the same in that salaries are set by market pressure in what I do as well. IMO, if what’s out there about what he wants and what he was offered is true, he’s getting some bad advice from his agent. The market for RBs is not uptrending, and while a 4M difference is obviously a lot of money, he’s not likely to get a better offer next season and he’s likely to lose out on more than that in the long run. 

 

 

Salaries are set by market pressure in pretty much every profession; it's how capitalism works.

 

IMO we don't have any idea how this will work out for Saquon. If he actually does hold out through the season then I'd agree with you that it would be a bad idea for him. Most likely he'll join 'em in camp after a few days or a week or two and he'll perform as well as ever while pressuring the Giants.

 

 

15 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

That was over 3 years ago… he’s let the position decline with late round picks and flyer JAG FAs. 

 

 

Oh, I'm so sorry.

 

I missed the part where you said, "Since three years ago he has ..."

 

Except you didn't say that, or imply it. You're just desperately trying to move the goalposts now that I point out the obvious, that the fact that he put a first and more into Diggs is inconvenient for your poor argument.

 

As for the position declining, doesn't look like it to me. They look better than last year. We'll see. But particularly with Kincaid likely playing a bunch of receiver, and also being a 1st rounder, your assertion is at best extremely questionable.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Thurman#1

[transient]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Salaries are set by market pressure in pretty much every profession; it's how capitalism works.

 

IMO we don't have any idea how this will work out for Saquon. If he actually does hold out through the season then I'd agree with you that it would be a bad idea for him. Most likely he'll join 'em in camp after a few days or a week or two and he'll perform as well as ever while pressuring the Giants.

Re the salaries part, I don’t disagree, which was kinda my point, kinda not. The response to my initial post was kinda presumptuous on the part of that poster, which was why I worded it that way. Relatively speaking, if the reported #’s are true, I hardly think he was offered a “raw deal”, I think he was offered fair market value in a declining market for RBs. 
 

To your second point, IMO unfortunately for Saquon, even if he plays and lights it up in 2023 I don’t think he gets a better offer next season. He’ll have 1 more year of wear and tear at a devalued position where depreciation happens at an earlier age than other positions. It is what it is and 1 year is not likely to see it change for the better. 

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

16 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/leveon-bell-apologizes-to-steelers-fans-for-leaving-pittsburgh

 

 

Hey Saquon, I'll just leave this here.

 

I always cheer for the players to get as much money out of the league as possible. Just not sure this is the right path for Barkley to get it.

The excessively paid players end up taking money from other players potential earnings.  Teams are committed to spend the cap with the unspent portion going over to the next season.  When they overspend on a player, that over spent amount is no longer available to pay another guy.  Some players end up being underpaid or released as a result.  Teams model their economics to build the best overall roster possible with the cap money they have.  Teams have also learned that a really good offense does not need to have a highly paid star running back. Saquon and Jacobs are not going to change the narrative no matter what they do or don't do.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, purple haze said:

His profession and your profession are not the same.  Stop comparing yourself.  He is getting a raw deal in his profession.  If you have his skill level go try out if you can get one.

 

his profession says he's not getting a raw deal.

[Alphadawg7]

5 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Hence my comment of overvaluing…. He’s spent higher picks on RBs then he has WRs.

Also not true.  He used a 1st and 4th to get Diggs, then used a first and 4th this year to get a hybrid TE that essentially is going to be a big slot wide receiver.  
 

It’s not in any way you want to spin it true to say he has spent more on RBs than WRs.  

Edited July 18, 2023 by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

I’m not moving any goal posts… they have clearly devalued the position the last three years while you hang your hat on the Diggs trade from 2020… since then they haven’t spent a high round pick on one WR while the rest of the top contenders continue to try and stack the position… meanwhile 2023 was only the 2nd draft where they haven’t spent a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a RB since 2018.😅

Also not true.  KC the Super Bowl champs are using JAGs at WR…Ravens ignored WR most of Lamar’s career and their big splash was to sign an end of his career OBJ.  Bengals had Jamar Chase fall in their lap after Burrow missed a season.  Miami went and paid Hill because they had a rookie contract at QB and needed to make a major move to try and be relevant.  
 

You act like every AFC contender has been drafting first round WRs every year until they had multiple pro bowlers.  
Meanwhile, Bills have twice invested a first and 4th to go get a receiving weapon for Josh over the last 3 years.  That’s MORE than any other contender has.  

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Alphadawg7

[BuffaloBillyG]

Both teams and RBs are running in a vicious circle.

 

RBs heading into second contracts want long term financial security with a high guarantee because they know their career is consistently shorter and one bad injury could take it all away completely. They also know that they can be replaced for cheaper anytime.

 

Teams don't want long deals with high guarantees because they know there's a good chance that RB will hit the wall and stop being productive before the end of the deal leaving behind a load of dead cap. They also know they can find better value year in and year out.

 

I think if a RB is smart taking 1 year deals after his rookie contract would give them a better chance to hit bigger paydays than holding on for a long term deal. More likely to find a team looking for a RB upgrade to shell out higher for a 1 year investment and no further cap implications than a team sinking big bucks into a RB for 3-5 years.

[Nextmanup]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

I’m not moving any goal posts… they have clearly devalued the position the last three years while you hang your hat on the Diggs trade from 2020… since then they haven’t spent a high round pick on one WR while the rest of the top contenders continue to try and stack the position… meanwhile 2023 was only the 2nd draft where they haven’t spent a 2nd or 3rd round pick on a RB since 2018.😅

Quite true.  Especially the bit about everyone around us moving forward and stacking the key positions.

 

Historically, the Bills have almost had an obsession with running backs and a ground game, while at the same time, ignoring the QB position and being a statistical mediocrity.   Odd.

 

 

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

If I was Barkley, I would throw up every play I got a hand up from Jones thinking about what 15 td passes gets you paid.

3 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

Quite true.  Especially the bit about everyone around us moving forward and stacking the key positions.

 

Historically, the Bills have almost had an obsession with running backs and a ground game, while at the same time, ignoring the QB position and being a statistical mediocrity.   Odd.

 

 

 

 

It’s not so much we ignored it. We just couldn’t get it right. It is also funny that we always had good rbs in our worst years. Now we have a stud qb who should make rbs jobs easier and we have to have like 5 guys because we can’t find a good stand alone rb

[C.Biscuit97]

15 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

All of these players online complaining about not paying RB's...SHADDUP! If they had value, they would get paid, simple as that. They never live up to the big contracts and they have a short shelf life. You can easily get one in the later rounds and pay them next to nothing. It makes no sense to give them huge deals. It's as dumb as the pay women athletes the same as men arguments. Why? Because you say so? That's not how the world works. If you prove your value, you get paid. If you don't, then you don't!

Let’s put in terms you might understand. At your job, you are in back making sure the fries and food goes out properly and tastes great. Now you have a goofy dork who works the cashier register who has been terrible for years. He had his best year, but he was still pretty terrible but he wasn’t getting orders wrong 7 times a day like he used to. Everyone knows how much better you are at your fry job than him. Yet, that goofy dork gets paid 4 more times that you.

 

would you be happy?

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Let’s put in terms you might understand. At your job, you are in back making sure the fries and food goes out properly and tastes great. Now you have a goofy dork who works the cashier register who has been terrible for years. He had his best year, but he was still pretty terrible but he wasn’t getting orders wrong 7 times a day like he used to. Everyone knows how much better you are at your fry job than him. Yet, that goofy dork gets paid 4 more times that you.

 

would you be happy?

The goofy mediocrity has to be public facing and actually deal with customers. Regardless of quality, the restaurant thinks that this person is more viable than you in terms of placement in a forward-facing position. Would the fry cook be happy? I guess not, but maybe he should learn how to be a cashier.

 

Point is, there is no more replaceable position in the NFL than RB. Guys come in off the street all the time and look fine. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

12 hours ago, BananaB said:

All the RBs complaining about money, they can blame all the rule changes for player safety. The league has changed the rules drastically to keep QBs and WRs from getting popped. Tough yards to not exist anymore, the game is soft. 

I actually think the opposite could be true. Rbs could do real damage because of the rule changes. Imagine Henry here and we have a 4 receiver set. He would be racking up yards against defensive backs.  That’s why he deserves to be the highest paid on that team because he is that offense. 

[Not at the table Karlos]

Off topic but a LAMP. Sitting behind Derrick Henry on flight from DFW to LA

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I actually think the opposite could be true. Rbs could do real damage because of the rule changes. Imagine Henry here and we have a 4 receiver set. He would be racking up yards against defensive backs.  That’s why he deserves to be the highest paid on that team because he is that offense. 

He'd gain the fewest yards per touch of any player on the team that's not a RB. He would also have a highly limited route tree, which if you prioritize players like that really hurts your passing game. AJ Brown was far more valuable than him, and I think that's pretty clear.

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

Just now, dave mcbride said:

The goofy mediocrity has to be public facing and actually deal with customers. Regardless of quality, the restaurant thinks that this person is more viable than you in terms of placement in a forward-facing position. Would the fry cook be happy? I guess not, but maybe he should learn how to be a cashier.

If you were Barkley, would be happy Jones was making 4 times as much? Or Henry and Tannehill?

 

you don’t see why players might get upset when Jones has averaged 15 td passes and 8.5 ints and is making 4 times as much as the best rb? 

Just now, dave mcbride said:

He'd gain the fewest yards per touch of any player on the team that's not a RB. He would also have a highly limited route tree, which if you prioritize players like that really hurt your passing game. AJ Brown was far more valuable than him, and I think that's pretty clear.

What? You think when they were both in the titans, Brown was more valuable than Henry? That’s certainly a take Skip Bayless would be proud of Dave. 

[dave mcbride]

8 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

If you were Barkley, would be happy Jones was making 4 times as much? Or Henry and Tannehill?

 

you don’t see why players might get upset when Jones has averaged 15 td passes and 8.5 ints and is making 4 times as much as the best rb? 

I honestly don't care what they think -- like, at all. The simple fact of the matter is that RBs are complementary pieces in today's offenses and don't add much to a sophisticated passing game. There is one player that does -- McCaffrey, who runs a pretty complex route tree for a RB -- and he's paid accordingly. Good running backs don't make offenses good; good qbs, o-lines, and receivers do. Would I rather have a better one than a worse one? Sure, but just look at KC now. The scrub is at least as good as the first round pick right now. 

8 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

If you were Barkley, would be happy Jones was making 4 times as much? Or Henry and Tannehill?

 

you don’t see why players might get upset when Jones has averaged 15 td passes and 8.5 ints and is making 4 times as much as the best rb? 

When Tannehill went down, TN cratered (combined with the stupid trade of Brown, which got the GM fired). When Henry goes down for any reason, the guy behind him -- Dontrell Hilliard -- does fine. He averaged far more yards per carry than Henry in both 2021 and 2022, and D'onta Foreman had the same ypc as Henry in 2021. 

 

Hilliard had 495 yards on 78 carries in 2021 and 2022 -- 6.34 ypc.

 

The key concept here is value over replacement player.

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I honestly don't care what they think -- like, at all. The simple fact of the matter is that RBs are complementary pieces in today's offenses and don't add much to a sophisticated passing game. There is one player that does -- McCaffrey, who runs a pretty complex route tree for a RB -- and he's paid accordingly. Good running backs don't make offenses good; good qbs, o-lines, and receivers do. Would I rather have a better one than a worse one? Sure, but just look at KC now. The scrub is at least as good as the first round pick right now. 

https://www.footballdb.com/statistics/nfl/player-stats/all-purpose-yards/2022/regular-season
 

14 of the top 20 being rbs seems pretty high for complimentary pieces.

[dave mcbride]

3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

https://www.footballdb.com/statistics/nfl/player-stats/all-purpose-yards/2022/regular-season
 

14 of the top 20 being rbs seems pretty high for complimentary pieces.

Yards per play and value over replacement player are what I care about. Just like in the NBA, where someone has to score the points, someone has to accumulate yards. I'll take the guy who gets 8-10 yards per attempt over the guy who gets 4.5. It's an efficiency thing.

 

LBs generally lead teams in tackles yet they are the lowest paid defenders, and for good reason: they're the most easily replaced and aren't as valuable in the passing game as D-lineman and secondary players, and passing dominates the NFL. Raw numbers are meaningless. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Yards per play and value over replacement player are what I care about. Just like in the NBA, where someone has to score the points, someone has to accumulate yards. I'll take the guy who gets 8-10 yards per attempt over the guy who gets 4.5. It's an efficiency thing.

 

LBs generally lead teams in tackles yet they are the lowest paid defenders, and for good reason: they're the most easily replaced and aren't as valuable in the passing game as D-lineman and secondary players, and passing dominates the NFL. Raw numbers are meaningless. 

Good point and I won’t disagree that passing is much more effective just like 3 pointers are better than long 2s.

 

the point all the nerds who never played a sport past little league miss is there is a mental part of being physical. Ask any o linemen if they would rather pass block or run block. Jokic is such a skilled big man but he would also go inside and physically dominant and beat up guys. The more guys get hit, they stop being as aggressive. Pass rushers love team that just throw the ball. It’s makes their jobs easier. KC kicked into a different gear when Panceho emerged. 
 

you can pass a million times again but football, especially in the playoffs and cold, can sometimes be a game where physically manhandling someone can go a long way as well. The Bengals, their running game especially, manhandled us. The Eagles physically manhandled teams last year. 

[DrDawkinstein]

34 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

If you were Barkley, would be happy Jones was making 4 times as much? Or Henry and Tannehill?

 

you don’t see why players might get upset when Jones has averaged 15 td passes and 8.5 ints and is making 4 times as much as the best rb? 

What? You think when they were both in the titans, Brown was more valuable than Henry? That’s certainly a take Skip Bayless would be proud of Dave. 

 

Then they shouldve been QBs.

 

 

[Doc]

48 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Off topic but a LAMP. Sitting behind Derrick Henry on flight from DFW to LA

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Not at the table Karlos]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

Lol I really want to but he seems like he doesn't want to be bothered. Guy is huge 

[KDIGGZ]

1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Let’s put in terms you might understand. At your job, you are in back making sure the fries and food goes out properly and tastes great. Now you have a goofy dork who works the cashier register who has been terrible for years. He had his best year, but he was still pretty terrible but he wasn’t getting orders wrong 7 times a day like he used to. Everyone knows how much better you are at your fry job than him. Yet, that goofy dork gets paid 4 more times that you.

 

would you be happy?

If the fry guy is making fries so good that's the reason people are coming there to eat then they will promote that guy. But the fry guy is an unskilled worker that can be replaced in 2 seconds with another unskilled worker and maybe for less money. You must not understand how the world works and I feel sorry for you. Please try again

[C.Biscuit97]

36 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

If the fry guy is making fries so good that's the reason people are coming there to eat then they will promote that guy. But the fry guy is an unskilled worker that can be replaced in 2 seconds with another unskilled worker and maybe for less money. You must not understand how the world works and I feel sorry for you. Please try again

I was trying to compare it to a real world job scenario that you could understand. But this is where the salary cap in the nfl hurts players. They are slotted by position but not actual value to the team. If everything is equal, who would giants fans say is more a valuable player - Jones or Barkley? If there was no salary cap or slotting, the Giants won’t have to play Jones as much and could pay Barkley more. But no team wants to be the one that resets the market of a position. 

[KDIGGZ]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I was trying to compare it to a real world job scenario that you could understand. But this is where the salary cap in the nfl hurts players. They are slotted by position but not actual value to the team. If everything is equal, who would giants fans say is more a valuable player - Jones or Barkley? If there was no salary cap or slotting, the Giants won’t have to play Jones as much and could pay Barkley more. But no team wants to be the one that resets the market of a position. 

Salary cap and slotting have nothing to do with it. A RB's value is low because there's an unlimited supply of them and there is a limited lifespan. Similar to production type businesses, RB's would be considered consumables. They are only good for so long and then they need to be replaced. If you spent all of your resources on a consumable you would be out of business pretty fast. Teams buy RB's in bulk. Every team has like 4-5 of them ready to go at all times. The usefulness of a RB drops off after that 1st contract. And the use case for a RB is increasingly more and more limited as the league has evolved to a more pass oriented attack. It's not a high value position.

 

*IF* a RB can prove their value (CMC instantly made the 49ers better and adds value as a pass catcher) then they will get paid accordingly. Barkley proved his value but also gets a knock due to his injury history. He only played 2 full seasons in 4 years. If his services were in such high demand you would see teams beating down the Giants door to try and trade for him but they are not. They know they can get 8/10 Barkley performance for 1/10 the price from a rookie. It's just good business.

[Doc Brown]

6 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Hence my comment of overvaluing…. He’s spent higher picks on RBs then he has WRs.

It’s easier to find an elite potential running back in the mid rounds than a WR.  It’s passing on guys like Metcalf or Pickens for a OG or CB that ticks me off about Beane.

[Gregg]

So, it begins on the Barkley trade destinations. Bills, Chiefs and Bears were mentioned as the best fit. Here is the write up on the Bills.

 

 

Buffalo Bills

Josh Allen has made the Bills perennial Super Bowl contenders ever since his arrival. However, he has never led the Bills over the hump in the postseason, as they have yet to make it past the AFC Championship game under Allen. With that being said, Allen has never had a star running back at his side throughout his tenure. The Bills make so much sense as a possible trade destination for Saquon Barkley, as it would give Allen by far the most talented backfield mate of his career. A whole new dynamic would be added to an already feared Bills offense, and it could propel them into the Super Bowl that they have been waiting for.

The Bills have high expectations for second-year running back James Cook this season, and for good reason. However, adding Saquon Barkley into the backfield would do no harm in the development of Cook, as he would be the perfect handcuff to keep Barkley fresh. The two could even come close to splitting carries with how many mouths there are to feed on the Bills offense already; in general, Barkley is the home-run swing that the Bills need to make, and they should be looking out for if and when the Giants running back signs the franchise tag.

[PetermansRedemption]

7 minutes ago, Gregg said:

So, it begins on the Barkley trade destinations. Bills, Chiefs and Bears were mentioned as the best fit. Here is the write up on the Bills.

 

 

Buffalo Bills

Josh Allen has made the Bills perennial Super Bowl contenders ever since his arrival. However, he has never led the Bills over the hump in the postseason, as they have yet to make it past the AFC Championship game under Allen. With that being said, Allen has never had a star running back at his side throughout his tenure. The Bills make so much sense as a possible trade destination for Saquon Barkley, as it would give Allen by far the most talented backfield mate of his career. A whole new dynamic would be added to an already feared Bills offense, and it could propel them into the Super Bowl that they have been waiting for.

The Bills have high expectations for second-year running back James Cook this season, and for good reason. However, adding Saquon Barkley into the backfield would do no harm in the development of Cook, as he would be the perfect handcuff to keep Barkley fresh. The two could even come close to splitting carries with how many mouths there are to feed on the Bills offense already; in general, Barkley is the home-run swing that the Bills need to make, and they should be looking out for if and when the Giants running back signs the franchise tag.

And they think splitting the workload between Cook and Barkley will justify paying Barkley the salary he will command? 

Edited July 18, 2023 by PetermansRedemption

[Gregg]

Just now, PetermansRedemption said:

And they think splitting the Carries between Cook and Barkley will justify paying Barkley the salary he will command? 

 

If the Bills did get Barkley, I think he would be the #1 RB. On the plus side it would take the pressure off of Allen as he wouldn't have to run as much anymore. 

[Doc]

If he's traded, can he sign a new deal?  If not, then no chance to the Bills or Chefs.

[TBBills Fan]

So Barkley is the fry cook?

 

 

[transient]

9 minutes ago, TBBills Fan said:

So Barkley is the fry cook?

 

 

So now he’s stealing lil’ Dalvin’s role and his last name?

[TBBills Fan]

1 minute ago, transient said:

So now he’s stealing lil’ Dalvin’s role and his last name?

 

 

I dont know but Barkley should at least get a manager title

[Chaos]

The number of posts in this thread that are so far off from the truth is high, even for a TBD thread. 
Some general concepts:

1. The owners are not against running backs
2. Veteran players that originally appoved of the rookie contract structure in the CBA are pro-themselves, and not pro-rookies who don't get a vote
3. The franchise tag concept approved by the players in the CBA by design results in different values for different positions
4. Running backs have shorter NFL careers than say, quarterbacks
5. The players signed off on a deal that screws running backs with
   1. A uniform rookie contract length that extends almost to the end of the expected career of RBs
   2. A franchise fee structure that reflects the fact that RBs who are free agents after the rookie contract are less valuable because of the remaining expected career life. 

The PLAYERS can solve this problem in the next CBA by negotating for shorter rookie contract lives for RBs to reflect thier shorter expected career life.  Imagein Derrick Henry being a free agent after his second season.  Imagine what teams who had elite QBS on a five year rookie contract might have paid for Derrick Henry.  This structure would hugely benefit the star NFL RBs, compared to the current structure. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Chaos

[JimBob2232]

8 minutes ago, Chaos said:

The number of posts in this thread that are so far off from the truth is high, even for a TBD thread. 
Some general concepts:

1. The owners are not against running backs
2. Veteran players that originally appoved of the rookie contract structure in the CBA are pro-themselves, and not pro-rookies who don't get a vote
3. The franchise tag concept approved by the players in the CBA by design results in different values for different positions
4. Running backs have shorter NFL careers than say, quarterbacks
5. The players signed off on a deal that screws running backs with
   1. A uniform rookie contract length that extends almost to the end of the expected career of RBs
   2. A franchise fee structure that reflects the fact that RBs who are free agents after the rookie contract are less valuable because of the remaining expected career life. 

The PLAYERS can solve this problem in the next CBA by negotating for shorter rookie contract lives for RBs to reflect thier shorter expected career life.  Imagein Derrick Henry being a free agent after his second season.  Imagine what teams who had elite QBS on a five year rookie contract might have paid for Derrick Henry.  This structure would hugely benefit the start NFL RBs, compared to the current structure. 

 

All true.  However the real problem IMO is that you can plug and play almost any RB and not have a drastic change.  Why pay Barkley 16M/year when you can get 80% of the production for $4M/year?  Thats the issue.  Daniel Jones is not good, yet got $40M/year because the fear was that you can't replace him.  It's not bias against the player or position - its supply and demand. 

 

I do think the Franchise tag concept makes this harder.  Players dont get to know what their real market is - and are forced to sign and play for a "less than they think they are worth" - and in some cases - thats egregious.  But I dont know Barkley is getting 16M/year anywhere else either.  But he is at the whim of the Giants offering him "fair market value" without knowing what that is.  Maybe re-work the franchise tag to allow the team to match other deals would help.  I dont know.

 

And in disclaimer - im a HUGE Barkley fan.  Love the guy.  Behind Allen, probably my 2nd favorite player in the NFL.  But it's a crappy position to play in todays NFL.  

[Chaos]

8 minutes ago, JimBob2232 said:

- its supply and demand.

Star RBs entering their third season would have tremendously greater demand than star RB's entering their sixth season. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Chaos

[thunderingsquid]

Get er done, OBD!