RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[BullBuchanan]

12 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

That is life changing wages , it’s all about how one handles their finances. There is a thing called getting a job after football, and not pissing away a windfall. That’s on them, and how is it you came up with this silly notion that these guys should never have to get a job after their football years? 

You clearly don't get it and don't want to.

9 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Holy smokes bro.  Do you not understand the vets do not want ROOKIES to make more money.

 

The older players HATED that AP got a massive deal before he took a snap.

 

Allowing RB's to make more money on their rookie deals WILL HURT players like Barkley and Jacobs.

 

 

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.

[FireChans]

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I think it’s actually an interesting point. If history has shown that a RB, even when really good, rarely can get a second contract because his own rookie contract success probably means he’s been worked to ‘death’, then I’m sure the market will adjust. 

I'm not sure what you mean.

9 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

You have no evidence for this.  You have vet RB's coming out in droves arguing that VET RBs should be paid more.  No one is arguing Bijan Robinson should be paid more.  Except you.

 

“This is Criminal,” 49ers back Christian McCaffrey shared. “Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.” 

 

Is he talking about Bijan and Gibbs?  NOPE.

 

“It’s nothing that we’re doing wrong,” Sanders said on the Rich Eisen Show. “We’re doing everything that we have to do as far as on the field and stuff like that. For people and GMs or owners to think that running backs are not as valued as much is a lie because you’ve got to see how everything plays out. You’ve got to see what guys like Christian McCaffrey, the stuff he does, things that Saquon Barkley (does), the things that Josh Jacobs (does) consistently each year. …

 

Ah yes, Christan McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley and Josh Jacobs, all notable rookie players who want the rookie scale increased.  Lmao.

Edited July 18, 2023 by FireChans

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

You have no evidence for this.  You have vet RB's coming out in droves arguing that VET RBs should be paid more.  No one is arguing Bijan Robinson should be paid more.  Except you.

 

“This is Criminal,” 49ers back Christian McCaffrey shared. “Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.” 

 

Is he talking about Bijan and Gibbs?  NOPE.

 

“It’s nothing that we’re doing wrong,” Sanders said on the Rich Eisen Show. “We’re doing everything that we have to do as far as on the field and stuff like that. For people and GMs or owners to think that running backs are not as valued as much is a lie because you’ve got to see how everything plays out. You’ve got to see what guys like Christian McCaffrey, the stuff he does, things that Saquon Barkley (does), the things that Josh Jacobs (does) consistently each year. …

 

Ah yes, Christan McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley and Josh Jacobs, all notable rookie players who want the rookie scale increased.  Lmao.

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.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

You have no evidence for this.  You have vet RB's coming out in droves arguing that VET RBs should be paid more.  No one is arguing Bijan Robinson should be paid more.  Except you.

 

“This is Criminal,” 49ers back Christian McCaffrey shared. “Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.” 

 

Is he talking about Bijan and Gibbs?  NOPE.

 

“It’s nothing that we’re doing wrong,” Sanders said on the Rich Eisen Show. “We’re doing everything that we have to do as far as on the field and stuff like that. For people and GMs or owners to think that running backs are not as valued as much is a lie because you’ve got to see how everything plays out. You’ve got to see what guys like Christian McCaffrey, the stuff he does, things that Saquon Barkley (does), the things that Josh Jacobs (does) consistently each year. …

 

Ah yes, Christan McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley and Josh Jacobs, all notable rookie players who want the rookie scale increased.  Lmao.

The general concept behind the rookie contract scale was to make sure younger players proved their worth before getting a big pay day with a second deal. But…if the only way to ‘prove’ yourself is to leave virtually nothing in the physical tank by Year Five, then it’s somewhat fool’s gold for the RB position. Maybe the market has to shorten the rookie contract length for that specific roster position. 

[Sharky7337]

14 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

Not really a fair comparison. You make it sound like any star RB could have been a star QB if they chose. Totally different skill sets. 

Dang must be tough only making 10 million vs 20 million those poor poor football players

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

No bro. That's wrong. Pretty much all of the players are trying to get as much money as they can whenever they can all the time. That's what you clearly don't understand. Daniel Jones didn't take a bargain contract because he was drafted top 10 and made a lot of money. He took as much money as he could get. Sam Bradford got a GIGANTIC contract as a rookie, did he take $8M per season after that because he made his money?  No.

 

If Saquon made an extra 10-20M on his entry contract, he would still be pissed about getting tagged and want more money.

 

You are trying to paint this idyllic picture of a way to make everyone happy and that's just not reality. The reality of the cap and the reality of position value will always exist. It's the reality of the league. It's not perfectly fair and it doesn't pretend to be.  Sometimes, players take a crappier deal then explode (like Diggs). Sometimes players overperform, get a massive deal, and suck.  None of that is "fair" either. 

 

It is reality.

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The general concept behind the rookie contract scale was to make sure younger players proved their worth before getting a big pay day with a second deal. But…if the only way to ‘prove’ yourself is to leave virtually nothing in the physical tank by Year Five, then it’s somewhat fool’s gold for the RB position. Maybe the market has to shorten the rookie contract length for that specific roster position. 

You could do that if you wanted less RB's to get drafted in top 3-4 rounds than they already are.

 

Even decreasing an RB's rookie contract to 3 years would drastically decrease their value as draft picks. Not to mention every other position besides RB would say no ***** way.  Who the NFLPA also works for.

Edited July 18, 2023 by FireChans

[dave mcbride]

20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The general concept behind the rookie contract scale was to make sure younger players proved their worth before getting a big pay day with a second deal. But…if the only way to ‘prove’ yourself is to leave virtually nothing in the physical tank by Year Five, then it’s somewhat fool’s gold for the RB position. Maybe the market has to shorten the rookie contract length for that specific roster position. 

It's not that they have nothing left in the tank; it's that it's easier to find replacements who perform at roughly the same level. College football is crawling with competent RBs, and the position is a lot less complex than, say, WR, where you have to develop a sophisticated route tree. Because of that, vet receivers have value even if they've lost a tenth of a second on their 40 time. With the RB position, you either have "vision" or you don't. There's always another fresh guy out there who can come in and do what most starting RBs can do.

 

Also, the ones who can run routes well and function as good weapons in the passing game -- McCaffrey, Kamara, Le'veon Bell -- did in fact get paid. McCaffrey's contract turned out to be an albatross for Carolina because of the fact that he was oft-injured (during his first contract!) and didn't help them win. McCaffrey had one of the best RB season of any running back in the past dozen years in 2019 (2,392 yards, 19 TDs, 5.6 yards per touch/target). Yet they were a miserable team, going 5-11.

 

Bell's contract was bad; he had ridiculous personal issues and ended up being banged up. He was an excellent receiver, however. And bear in mind that the Steelers replaced Bell with James Connor, who had 1471 yards from scrimmage and 13 TDs in his first season. The offense overall was excellent (4th in yards, 6th in points) despite being 31st in both rushing yards and rushing attempts.  Kamara had a great first season under that contract (1688 yards; 21 TDs; 5.7 yards per touch/target) but declined a bit in 2021 and 2022.  The league rewards the passing game. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[Charles Romes]

Just noticed Elliott is a partner in the Buffalo based golf partner that JA is a partner of. This could lead to Elliott in Buffalo if he does not have a job mid season. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

No bro. That's wrong. Pretty much all of the players are trying to get as much money as they can whenever they can all the time. That's what you clearly don't understand. Daniel Jones didn't take a bargain contract because he was drafted top 10 and made a lot of money. He took as much money as he could get. Sam Bradford got a GIGANTIC contract as a rookie, did he take $8M per season after that because he made his money?  No.

 

If Saquon made an extra 10-20M on his entry contract, he would still be pissed about getting tagged and want more money.

 

You are trying to paint this idyllic picture of a way to make everyone happy and that's just not reality. The reality of the cap and the reality of position value will always exist. It's the reality of the league. It's not perfectly fair and it doesn't pretend to be.  Sometimes, players take a crappier deal then explode (like Diggs). Sometimes players overperform, get a massive deal, and suck.  None of that is "fair" either. 

 

It is reality.

You could do that if you wanted less RB's to get drafted in top 3-4 rounds than they already are.

 

Even decreasing an RB's rookie contract to 3 years would drastically decrease their value as draft picks. Not to mention every other position besides RB would say no ***** way.  Who the NFLPA also works for.

It’s a balancing act for sure. Yes, I’m certain that other variables would change in the equation. But I frankly couldn’t care less what Round any particular player is drafted in, and neither should the player. That status lasts all of about 20 minutes and then you have to prove yourself on the field. (It’s not all that different from professions who instead put weight on the university you graduated from. You still have to prove it.) 

[GoBills808]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

The general concept behind the rookie contract scale was to make sure younger players proved their worth before getting a big pay day with a second deal. But…if the only way to ‘prove’ yourself is to leave virtually nothing in the physical tank by Year Five, then it’s somewhat fool’s gold for the RB position. Maybe the market has to shorten the rookie contract length for that specific roster position. 

Exactly

 

RB gets hit every single play, it's a brutal position

[billsfan89]

4 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Okay, be concerned about people that have wages in the top three percent of all Americans and that they are somehow under payed…, Bwahahahahaha 

It’s a football forum and a football topic about one position group not getting a chance to obtain value from their efforts. Not really sure what else I should be discussing?

[thunderingsquid]

Saquon to the Bills.  

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Charles Romes said:

Just noticed Elliott is a partner in the Buffalo based golf partner that JA is a partner of. This could lead to Elliott in Buffalo if he does not have a job mid season. 

 

There will be much better players available on practice squads at midseason if they have that many injuries.    He's been washed since before Covid.     

[maddenboy]

9 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

If you're a team that relies heavily on your star RB, then pay them.  

 

It's that simple.  . . .

but its kinda not.   that simple.

 

if you're a team that "relies heavily" on your RB making 8 million, but then you pay him 15 million (when you dont even have to), you're gonna have to lose talent-levels elsewhere (that 7M has to come from . . . somewhere). 

 

Which might mean that you, as a team, wont be able to "rely heavily" on your 15 million RB.   Because the blocking is less good, or there's 9 in the box because your WRs suck, or your defense is less good so now you have to pass more, etc.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

17 hours ago, Simon said:

God has blessed you with a body and skillset that enables you to become a multimillionaire just for playing a game and then retiring in your thirties, free and wealthy for the rest of your life.

But that's still not enough and the world owes you more.

Go hump some shingles, you spoiled rotten little brats.

And get off his lawn while you're at it

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 hours ago, Sharky7337 said:

Dang must be tough only making 10 million vs 20 million those poor poor football players

If your coworker made twice as much as you wouldn’t you complain? Doesn’t matter if you’re rich or not.

 

Like every job though you’re paid what you’re worth to those paying you.

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Josh Jacobs is only 25.  Pollard is 26.  It’s a question currently being answered.

Neither one is currently a free agent.
 

so yes, the answer is they will be on a team.

 

even Dalvin Cook, who is 27 will end up signing with a team before the season starts most likely. 

[Bill from NYC]

5 hours ago, FireChans said:

The NFLPA argued for the rookie scale contract because they didn’t like vets getting out paid by rookies. 
 

The above is 100% true, however; things didn't work out the way that the NFLPA was hoping for. What happend was that the quarterbacks got almost all of the money that used to go to rookies. In many cases, older vets were and are being cut in order to pay quarterbacks. Their jobs are often taken by low paid rookies.

 

I agree that the RB position is less important than it ever was. Of course this is due to the rule changes. I understand this but I can also understand why the RBs are so angry. 

 

In the last 4 years, Ryan Tannehill has been paid approx. 96 million dollars. Derrick Henry made approx 40 million. I heard these numbers today on Sirius Radio. Daniel Jones recently signed a 4 year contract for 160 million. Reports of guaranteed money vary between 82 and 92 million. Now, who could possibly blame Henry or Barkley for being unhappy?

 

RBs are subject to extreme violence on almost every play. Their frustration under these circumstances is easy to understand but this is the way of the world. Macy's has closed many stores because folks are shopping on Amazon. Many of ones that remain open are getting decimated by shoplifters. It isn't fair, but such is life.

 

 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

I think some of the issue is offensive line talent seems to be waning with the college game becoming all spread offenses.  I don’t think someone like saquon gets you much more value than an average rb when your team can’t run block to save their lives lol 

 

in the passing game a skill position player/qb can have a much bigger impact solo imo 

[PromoTheRobot]

Running backs need to go in strike.

[Don Otreply]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s a football forum and a football topic about one position group not getting a chance to obtain value from their efforts. Not really sure what else I should be discussing?

It’s all about perspective

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

Neither one is currently a free agent.
 

so yes, the answer is they will be on a team.

 

even Dalvin Cook, who is 27 will end up signing with a team before the season starts most likely. 

Signed.  Yes.  

[maddenboy]

7 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

. . . 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.

its possible this would work against running backs.  It might just make it more likely that teams would burn and churn RBs.   Draft them, burn them for 2-3 years instead of 3-4, and draft their replacements in the 7th round every year.   Basically forcing the team to cut bait a year, or even 2 years, early rather than too late.   As a GM, nothing would be worse than buring cap on a washed-up RB

 

and still, from the NFLPA perspective (which is ALL players), any single additional dollar given to a RB has to come out of some veteran's pocket.

 

Because, even if teams, somehow, were forced to spend every single dollar, they would still allocate more to other positions.  (the bidding wars for other positions would just increase in dollars, but not in percentages of a team's cap).  The market has spoken.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by maddenboy

[JoPoy88]

14 minutes ago, maddenboy said:

its possible this would work against running backs.  It might just make it more likely that teams would burn and churn RBs.   Draft them, burn them for 2-3 years instead of 3-4, and draft their replacements in the 7th round every year.   Basically forcing the team to cut bait a year, or even 2 years, early rather than too late.   As a GM, nothing would be worse than buring cap on a washed-up RB

 

and still, from the NFLPA perspective (which is ALL players), any single additional dollar given to a RB has to come out of some veteran's pocket.

 

Because, even if teams, somehow, were forced to spend every single dollar, they would still allocate more to other positions.  (the bidding wars for other positions would just increase in dollars, but not in percentages of a team's cap).  The market has spoken.

 

This is definitely true. The vast majority of backs probably wouldn’t benefit from a situation where, hypothetically, you gave rookie backs something akin to player option years in years 3, 4, 5. It could benefit the top elite guys that burst on to the league and do great right away, since they could get to FA faster or get bigger, longer extensions from their current teams. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

6 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Running backs need to go in strike.

It won’t work out well for them. There’s just too many capable RBs.

[BullBuchanan]

4 hours ago, maddenboy said:

its possible this would work against running backs.  It might just make it more likely that teams would burn and churn RBs.   Draft them, burn them for 2-3 years instead of 3-4, and draft their replacements in the 7th round every year.   Basically forcing the team to cut bait a year, or even 2 years, early rather than too late.   As a GM, nothing would be worse than buring cap on a washed-up RB

 

and still, from the NFLPA perspective (which is ALL players), any single additional dollar given to a RB has to come out of some veteran's pocket.

 

Because, even if teams, somehow, were forced to spend every single dollar, they would still allocate more to other positions.  (the bidding wars for other positions would just increase in dollars, but not in percentages of a team's cap).  The market has spoken.

 

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

[NoSaint]

4 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

This is definitely true. The vast majority of backs probably wouldn’t benefit from a situation where, hypothetically, you gave rookie backs something akin to player option years in years 3, 4, 5. It could benefit the top elite guys that burst on to the league and do great right away, since they could get to FA faster or get bigger, longer extensions from their current teams. 

with fewer cost control years they’ll also all fall 2 rounds further, right? 
 

so the first rounders this year would be day 2 picks and if anything injury wise happened early in the career they could see less money overall in this plan 

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

with fewer cost control years they’ll also all fall 2 rounds further, right? 
 

so the first rounders this year would be day 2 picks and if anything injury wise happened early in the career they could see less money overall in this plan 

Yes that probably would happen. It’s not anywhere near an ideal solution. Basically these few elite backs are trying to buck the enormous press of the NFL economy as it stands today - it won’t work, and I was just throwing out ideas.

 

no change within the CBA related to rookie scale or terms would ever pass, by the way. It would not be equitable to change the rules for just one position group (even though given the realities of the game, it arguably would be “fairer” to RBs.)

[JoPoy88]

Micah is an excellent player and an extremely smart guy when it comes to the business of football. He says it succinctly in this thread. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

with fewer cost control years they’ll also all fall 2 rounds further, right? 
 

so the first rounders this year would be day 2 picks and if anything injury wise happened early in the career they could see less money overall in this plan 

Exactly.

 

The problem is there are a lot of RBs. Some star RBs didn’t even start on their college teams. Look at the Bills. I believe Cook and Harris didn’t even start in college but became starters in the NFL. Alabama and Georgia have had multiple allpro RBs on the same teams. 
 

There are just so many good RBs available.

 

Becoming UFA earlier will help a few RBs but it’s not changing anything. We’ve seen Zeke and Gurley sign deals at 23-24 years old. Those contracts weren’t good for the teams.

 

Edit: Harris did start. Josh Jacobs, Najee Harris, and Brian Robinson were his backups. Alabama always seems to have 2-3 NFL RBs every year. Point remains, there’s always RBs.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Buffalo_Stampede

[maddenboy]

52 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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

unfortunately, I think that you have buried the torpedo to the whole framework right there in plain sight.

 

Dalvin Cook, Zeke, Derrick Henry, Christian McC, and maybe 5 other votes in favor.

 

All opposed:  1664 votes.

 

So far, nobody has proposed a reason why the Owners would be in favor of this.   There probably isnt one.  So if the NFLPA doesnt want it and the NFL doesnt want it, what's left to the RBs?

 

20 hours ago, HOUSE said:

Buy a cheaper Lamborghini 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by maddenboy

[JoPoy88]

12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Exactly.

 

The problem is there are a lot of RBs. Some star RBs didn’t even start on their college teams. Look at the Bills. I believe Cook and Harris didn’t even start in college but became starters in the NFL. Alabama and Georgia have had multiple allpro RBs on the same teams. 
 

There are just so many good RBs available.

 

Becoming UFA earlier will help a few RBs but it’s not changing anything. We’ve seen Zeke and Gurley sign deals at 23-24 years old. Those contracts weren’t good for the teams.

I agree. While RB is definitely still an integral offensive position, it’s not a talent scarce position, not by a long shot.

 

Again, these few guys at the top of their position group are pissed and maybe they have some salient points, but they’re fighting against the realities of the NFL economy and the innumerable fellow RBs down in college more than ready to take their jobs. 

[Chicken Boo]

9 hours ago, maddenboy said:

but its kinda not.   that simple.

 

if you're a team that "relies heavily" on your RB making 8 million, but then you pay him 15 million (when you dont even have to), you're gonna have to lose talent-levels elsewhere (that 7M has to come from . . . somewhere). 

 

Which might mean that you, as a team, wont be able to "rely heavily" on your 15 million RB.   Because the blocking is less good, or there's 9 in the box because your WRs suck, or your defense is less good so now you have to pass more, etc.

 

For example, I'd rather pay Saquon $12-$15 million than Gabe Davis.  

17 hours ago, transient said:

Arguing that you can’t win a SB with a middling QB isn’t a justification for overpaying for a star RB. If anything, the last 15 years demonstrate that teams that are dependent on their running game over their QB would be better off tearing it all down until they find their QB than paying a stud RB a lot of money to overcome their QB deficiencies, assuming that winning the SB is their goal.

 

That's fine if you want to tear it all down to find the right QB, but it isn't a justification for NOT paying the skill position player most responsible for your team's success.

[Chicken Boo]

17 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Play 3 years and you are vested into NFL healthcare for life.

 

Taxes and agent fees will come out right about 40%. So still leaves me with $7M+.

 

A $5M principal nest egg should give anyone a salary of $200k (or more) a year for the rest of your life. For doing nothing. Better off then 99% of us civilians.

 

edit:

Federal Taxes will be about 36.5%. The blended State Tax rate will be about 5%. Agent fee cannot be more than 3%. So that is 44.5%.

For the sake of discussion, let's call it 45%.

 

$15M - 45% = $8,250,000

For the sake of discussion, let's call it $8M

 

At an ultra conservative 3% draw, that principal generates $240k/yr. Forever. Plus anything over 3% generated by my investments gets added onto the principal.

 

Maybe I can't live like a show-off diva baller. But my family and I can definitely live comfortably for a loooong time.

 

 

NFL pension after 5 years includes health insurance and can cost up to $35,000 a year annually in premiums.

 

Keep in mind that you have yet to buy a home, paid for your kids schooling or helped out mom and dad.  

 

No doubt, you can live comfortably being frugal, but it is extremely likely that you're going to be working still.  In this scenario, you'd be 28 with a lot of life left to live.  

[SoCal Deek]

I still say let the market sort all of this out as it generally does. The challenge is that the players Union gums up the work, albeit well intentioned, with outside factors inserted into the equation. If one side doesn’t fit all positions then it’s up to the Union to negotiate a carve out that RBs think is fair for their unique circumstances. Seems to me the gripe should be with the Union. 

[Behindenemylines]

I’m all for free markets and agree that there are just too many excellent RB which devalues the position overall.  A few elite ones will always get deals well above but those are about individual teams needs at that point in time. 
 

the reality is that all NFL players are already overpaid. As are the owners/coaches etc. it’s entertainment and basically that’s it, huge business entertainment but entertainment nonetheless.  
 

Players complaining about their “worth” always make me laugh when they want Millions more per year. 

[Drew21PA]

Well

 

austin will be out of the league 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I still say let the market sort all of this out as it generally does. The challenge is that the players Union gums up the work, albeit well intentioned, with outside factors inserted into the equation. If one side doesn’t fit all positions then it’s up to the Union to negotiate a carve out that RBs think is fair for their unique circumstances. Seems to me the gripe should be with the Union. 

What is a possible solution? I haven’t heard anything that makes sense yet.

 

To pay one position more means you take from another position. Simply adding more cap doesn’t mean RBs would get it. Also RBs don’t want to simply be paid more, they want to be paid like other higher paid positions. So if there was more money available they still wouldn’t be happy because they’ll still never be paid nearly as much as WRs.
 

Teams aren’t paying RBs because they can get cheaper younger options. How do you fix that? I don’t think the Union can do anything.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Buffalo_Stampede

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

What is a possible solution? I haven’t heard anything that makes sense yet.

 

To pay one position more means you take from another position. Simply adding more cap doesn’t mean RBs would get it. Also RBs don’t want to simply be paid more, they want to be paid like other higher paid positions. So if there was more money available they still wouldn’t be happy because they’ll still never be paid nearly as much as WRs.
 

Teams aren’t paying RBs because they can get cheaper younger options. How do you fix that? I don’t think the Union can do anything.

I’ve said it before….one solution is to release RBs from the handcuffs of their rookie contract. By the Union’s own design big money is made (in every position) only after that rookie deal is over. Would it have other repercussions, yes it will. But for every action there’s an opposite reaction. That’s why it’s ‘collective’ bargaining. RBs as a whole would have to be ready to bet on themselves. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve said it before….one solution is to release RBs from the handcuffs of their rookie contract. By the Union’s own design big money is made (in every position) only after that rookie deal is over. Would it have other repercussions, yes it will. But for every action there’s an opposite reaction. That’s why it’s ‘collective’ bargaining. RBs as a whole would have to be ready to bet on themselves. 

Every position would want that and you’d be right back where they started with QBs and WRs getting big deals earlier. Also veteran players would be left behind. 
 

They aren’t changing the rules for a few RBs.