RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[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.