RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[gonzo1105]

I think both sides are correct in their feelings. I always felt like and I know there are examples both ways but guys who catch a lot of passes are more valuable than runners nowadays and I always felt those guys lasted longer in the league. 

 

I would honestly out of Pollard, Barkley, and Jacobs probably pay Pollard before anyone else because he has production both as a runner and pass catcher. Ekeler has the same story but I can understand the Chargers being hesitant to pay him because his body and frame is so small and that kind of pounding has to take a toll on it after awhile. 

[Mr. WEO]

If the team in question didn't so utterly depend on it's RB, this would be easier.  But with the cap increasing every year, it's hard to justify the Giants not popping 2-3 mil more on Barkley.  Where would it come from?  Jones would have taken 2-3 mil less per year...because he sucks---and needs Barkley in the backfield.

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour 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.

 

Dawk, thanks for the sanity.  What you demonstrated in your exMples I’ve made for a long time.  The only part you missed is when you make $225k, I’ve not been taxed yet.

 

These guys are actually living off that 4% draw of 200k, which is a ver nice living.

 

the real point is these guys are fighting a losing battle.  They won’t change the market, just like Bell didn’t, Graham didn’t for TE’s who are pass catchers.  It’s the way of the world.  You’re paid by your value.  
 

im no more valuable than the fantastic teacher or police officer who is the best at their job.  We move towards our talents, and our lives are by choice.

 

The NFL market for RB’s is now platoon based, knowing they drop at 27 or so, so they won’t get paid a WR wage.

 

They can blow smoke about their own union, their own wage scale, but why would all the other positions in the union vote for one position group.  They won’t Nd they know it.

 

it doesn’t matter what’s fair.  Life’s not fair.  
 

I was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day on MTC.  He mentioned Chris Johnson told his two boys (one a WR and the other in middle school a RB like dad).  He told his younger son once he gets to HS, he’s converting him to WR and not up for debate.

 

My point is even the current RB’s who’ve just recently retired know not to let their boys who have incredible talent follow the RB path.  My boys were great at football, but were exceptional at lax.  If my sons were graded with NFL talent and they weren’t, I’d push hard for them to love to any other position.  WR, TE, LINE, whatever met their physical capabilities.

 

Lastly, there guys on a rookie and even one modest second contract can live a nice life if they don’t piss it away.  That falls on them and sorry of other positions get paid more.  The owners league and PA Owe them nothing.  Just like the PA doesn’t owe the TE’s WR money as their advocate.

[Gregg]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

If the team in question didn't so utterly depend on it's RB, this would be easier.  But with the cap increasing every year, it's hard to justify the Giants not popping 2-3 mil more on Barkley.  Where would it come from?  Jones would have taken 2-3 mil less per year...because he sucks---and needs Barkley in the backfield.

 

 

 

If Barkley and the Giants end up parting ways I wonder if the Bills and Giants would look into a possible trade before the 2024 season. Beane and Schoen are familiar with each other from their Buffalo days. It would have to makes sense salary wise for the Bills to pursue this. Barkley is an elite level player, and the Bills could use more of those on offense. Again, this would be something that would happen after the season if it does at all.

[BullBuchanan]

8 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s not just about aging RB’s, it’s about the quantity of RB’s. RB is the easiest position to find a replacement. I actually don’t know what the solution would be.

 

For regular people it works the same way. You get paid based on how many people can do your job equally as well. Cashiers at Walmart get paid a low wage because there are millions of people that can do the job.

 

I don’t know if anything can help RB’s because the NFL is all about passing now. If they had shorter deals I think some RBs would get paid but the majority of them still would be replaced with cheaper options.

 

I think teams will just avoid drafting RBs all together if they become too expensive. You don’t win Championships when your RB is the the focus of the offense. RBs will end up like FB’s soon enough. 
 

 

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

[BullBuchanan]

9 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

When every one of them is a top three percent or better wage earner annually in America, why is anyone feeling sorry for them, when the vast majority of Americans make far less annually, and ya know what, they would give their eye teeth for just one years worth of a RBs wages…, folks perspective is really out of wack on these guys incomes, they all make large money compared to the ninety fifth percentile and lower of all wage earners in America and world wide, F ing cry babies is what they are, don’t piss your money away and get a god da-n job when your time in football is over, it ain’t rocket science. 

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

[JoPoy88]

14 minutes ago, Gregg said:

 

If Barkley and the Giants end up parting ways I wonder if the Bills and Giants would look into a possible trade before the 2024 season. Beane and Schoen are familiar with each other from their Buffalo days. It would have to makes sense salary wise for the Bills to pursue this. Barkley is an elite level player, and the Bills could use more of those on offense. Again, this would be something that would happen after the season if it does at all.

are you assuming the Giants will sign him to a deal after this season and immediately trade him? Not sure why’d they do that. Barkley doesn’t have a contract and now can’t sign one until next year. 

[billsfan89]

9 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

When every one of them is a top three percent or better wage earner annually in America, why is anyone feeling sorry for them, when the vast majority of Americans make far less annually, and ya know what, they would give their eye teeth for just one years worth of a RBs wages…, folks perspective is really out of wack on these guys incomes, they all make large money compared to the ninety fifth percentile and lower of all wage earners in America and world wide, F ing cry babies is what they are, don’t piss your money away and get a god da-n job when your time in football is over, it ain’t rocket science. 

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

[Gregg]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

are you assuming the Giants will sign him to a deal after this season and immediately trade him? Not sure why’d they do that. Barkley doesn’t have a contract and now can’t sign one until next year. 

 

Good point. I do think he will play this season, but he will only sign on for this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley wants to move on from the Giants. The NYC area media is reporting that he wasn't happy with how the contract negotiation was handled and he isn't happy he didn't get a new deal.

[SoCal Deek]

Why is this a story? Edmunds left because he found someone willing to pay him more. Hopkins has a thread longer than a country mile. All NFL players want to make more money. If they can find a team that will pay them more…good for them. If not, you play for less money. That last sentence more or less applies to EVERY player regardless of position. 

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, Gregg said:

 

Good point. I do think he will play this season, but he will only sign on for this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley wants to move on from the Giants. The NYC area media is reporting that he wasn't happy with how the contract negotiation was handled and he isn't happy he didn't get a new deal.

Yes - he can only sign on for this year (by signing his tag, which he has not done.) The window for signing a longer term deal is now closed.

[C.Biscuit97]

57 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I think most fans would say centers are more important than RBs. Maybe not.

 

 

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

21 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

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.

[Don Otreply]

14 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

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.

Just now, Don Otreply said:

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

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.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

10 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

The star RBs are never going to get teams to budge on handing out bigger money to veteran backs who are 26-27 years old. The positional value and average career length just isn’t there

 

What would be feasible and fairer to these guys is altering the rookie contract structure for RBs and set their max term lower than other positions. 2 or 3 year rookie terms would allow RBs to get to FA sooner with more of their future value intact. The truly great ones would get more and better offers. All the rest would get what they get or fall by the wayside. 

 

I think the best you could do would be to let rookie contracts be the length the player wants to sign.  The slotting thing doesn't allow a player to get more money than their slot, and there are guard rails about raises and extensions.  They should be able to ask for a raise at any time.  Why can Pacheco rush for 800 yards and another 200 in the playoffs, but be forced to play this year at 880K and can't even ask for an extension until after NEXT season?  Would GM's be willing to tack on a year or two at a reduced rate to get them a bonus?  

[Ya Digg?]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Why is this a story? Edmunds left because he found someone willing to pay him more. Hopkins has a thread longer than a country mile. All NFL players want to make more money. If they can find a team that will pay them more…good for them. If not, you play for less money. That last sentence more or less applies to EVERY player regardless of position. 

Except your argument doesn’t apply here. They weren’t allowed to negotiate with other teams to find out what they could get paid 

[dave mcbride]

39 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  I'm old enough to remember Mike Gillislee looking like a superstar for the Bills (calling out @BADOLBILZ!).

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[Don Otreply]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Projecting there Billbull, I have no envy, I’m retired and winter in the Bahamas and summer on the Connecticut shore, I’m just stating real income numbers, they aren’t hurting financially no matter how much you crow about it.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

27 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

 

I think the fact that there are 0 super bowls among these elite running backs shows that they really aren't necessary to team success.  The teams are better with them in there, there is more home run potential among this group, but how much?  Would it be better suited to spend on offensive linemen, who can have a greater impact on both passing and running game?  

[Low Positive]

10 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

I have always thought that Centers are at a disadvantage. In the case of Morse, he calls the protection and has to handle the snap (usually a shotgun snap) before he gets to engage as a blocker. The guy he's blocking just gets to pin his ears back. 

[Don Otreply]

20 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  

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.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

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.

No, I'm referring to the undrafted Dontrell Hilliard, who has a large enough sample size over the past two seasons (78 carries for 495 yards for TN) to suggest that maybe individual star RBs' value is overrated. I believe that if they had let Henry go instead of AJ Brown, their offense would have been better last season. He's more valuable than Henry. But you don't have to believe me -- virtually every team in the league would agree with that view. 

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Projecting there Billbull, I have no envy, I’m retired and winter in the Bahamas and summer on the Connecticut shore, I’m just stating real income numbers, they aren’t hurting financially no matter how much you crow about it.

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.

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

Send them over to the new stadium site. We desperately need a REALLY BIG ditch. 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

No, I'm referring to the undrafted Dontrell Hilliard, who has a large enough sample size over the past two seasons (78 carries for 495 yards for TN) to suggest that maybe individual star RBs' value is overrated. I believe that if they had let Henry go instead of AJ Brown, their offense would have been better last season. He's more valuable than Henry. But you don't have to believe me -- virtually every team in the league would agree with that view. 

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.

[Don Otreply]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

I don’t have luxury activities, it was a life choice from years ago, I’m not remotely rich, just thinking outside the box to achieve my preferred life style, and you are still projecting and assuming there Bill, 😁👍

Edited July 18, 2023 by Don Otreply

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

but then you’ll also have teams with quarterbacks on rookie deals that will say OK we will take your 24 year old star running back and pay them to a new three-year deal.

No they won’t.  They’d put more money into their o-line as that’s way more predictive of running game success.  See Pittsburgh’s o-line with Najee Harris.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

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.

You can believe what you want to believe. Every GM in the league except for the dumb ones (Dave Gettleman) think the VORP of RBs is lower than that of practically of every other position given the glut of people who can play the position competently. College football is jammed with guys good enough to play RB in the NFL; it's why so many undrafted/late round pick RBs turn out to be fine. Wide receiver, cornerback, and defensive end? Not so much.   

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

I don’t have luxury activities, it was a life choice from years ago, I’m not remotely rich, just thinking outside the box to achieve my preferred life style, and you are still projecting and assuming there Bill, 😁👍

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.

[BADOLBILZ]

14 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  I'm old enough to remember Mike Gillislee looking like a superstar for the Bills (calling out @BADOLBILZ!).

 

 

Yep Gillislee lead the NFL in yards per carry and was also somehow the best short yardage RB in the NFL in the same season.   

[GoBills808]

25 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

The idea that some people should settle for earning less because they make more than you is such a narrow way of looking at it

[FireChans]

44 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

The cap is a zero sum game.  There's only so much money to go around.

 

How can NFL fans sit here and know that QB's are the most important position and thus are paid the most % of the cap, while kickers/punters/backups are some of the least important and least paid, but not understand that every position (including RB) has to fall somewhere on that spectrum?

[billsfan89]

10 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

The worlds gotta have ditch diggers too, these particular ditch diggers are really wealthy 

 

It's a market that these RB's just are outright refusing to participate in because the rules that are already not in their favor (4-5 year rookie scale deals and the availability of two franchise tags) are even worse for their position group. They only have a small window of a few years to make money and these teams are just really hurting their ability to do so because they get 4-5 years on a rookie deal and then can franchise a player for 2 more seasons before they are then pushing 30 and are worth a lot less. If this position group wants to adjust the rules slightly because they are not allowed to maximize their value I say let them.

 

One less year on a rookie deal and only allowing them to receive a transition tag once they hit free agency makes sense. If a RB is drafted at age 21/22 and performs really well in their first three seasons they hit the market at age 24/25 where teams can feel like they can invest 3-4 year deals into them and get high-level production for most if not all of the deal. Only having a transition tag (basically a right to match) allows the RB's to actually go out and get their value based on what another team or their team is willing to pay them. It avoids a team locking them out of 1-2 of their prime years.

 

Right now if a RB at best gets drafted at age 21 and is on a 2nd round or later deal they can hit free agency at age 25 but then they can get tagged for two seasons. This means that even if they play out the tag for two seasons (which is very risky) they hit the market at age 27 with 6 seasons of wear and tear on their bodies and teams will be averse to offering a long-term deal because you are "pushing 30". And that's the "best case" scenario as players drafted at 22 or first-round picks facing a 5th-year option only hit free agency older. Just allow them to hit the market sooner and without the franchise tag. It still subjects them to the value they have on the market but it gives them a better window to get their contracts. 

 

I always hear how athletes and entertainers are "overpaid" but then people forget the other side of the equation that if the athletes and entertainers don't get the money it just goes to the owners/industry/shareholders. The way so many talk about athletes' salaries you would think that if athletes got paid a bit less the money would go to teachers. 

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

This is true.........and part of the reason is that today's RB's(with the exception of Derrick Henry) can't hold a candle to the last crop of great RB's that arrived when guys like Adrian Pederson and Marshawn Lynch entered the league.    The wall got closer......falling from 30 all the way to 26......when the great talents started playing other positions.

 

So these guys are complaining about not being paid like a great RB of yesteryear...........but they aren't as good, either.   It's the only position where the quality of athletes has gotten worse.   They aren't the Thurman Thomas.......they are Kenny Davis.   They aren't Jerome Bettis they are Barry Foster.   

 

If the league wants to be equitable they should pay them more on their rookie deals.   They may not have the longevity of yesterdays starting RB's but they are doing a lot of work relative to what they get paid.   But if not,  then it's not a big deal.   There will always be some RB's because there are still plenty of muscle hamsters that can't hit a curveball and can't play other positions.

 

 

What's not talked about is that the NFL and NFLPA BOTH wanted the rookie pay scale in CBA negotiations 2011. The owners didn't want to negotiate with the Bradford's and Russell's of the world and pay them giant contracts before they stepped on the field, while the vets didn't want first rounders getting paid way more than them. 

 

The owners got the better of that negotiation as it turns out.

 

Now, almost all of the newly drafted players are cheap options compared to the vets, which means you'd rather have a rookie 2nd or 3rd rounder compared to a $4M 26 year old solid player in both the long and short-term. And while a first round RB may be a lesser use of resources, it's still far better than paying a 27 y/o RB big money.

 

Now the RB market is dead and has no chance of returning. It would have been better for the RB pay for the top flight college RB's like AP or Zeke or Gurley to get their money up front.

 

You also make a GREAT point about RB's. These dudes cannot play other positions. Tiny guys like Singletary and Ekeler aren't choosing to be RB's instead of DB's or WR's, they are choosing RB's over not being in the NFL. And they are still making pretty good money.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

You can believe what you want to believe. Every GM in the league except for the dumb ones (Dave Gettleman) think the VORP of RBs is lower than that of practically of every other position given the glut of people who can play the position competently. College football is jammed with guys good enough to play RB in the NFL; it's why so many undrafted/late round pick RBs turn out to be fine. Wide receiver, cornerback, and defensive end? Not so much.   

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.

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It's a market that these RB's just are outright refusing to participate in because the rules that are already not in their favor (4-5 year rookie scale deals and the availability of two franchise tags) are even worse for their position group. They only have a small window of a few years to make money and these teams are just really hurting their ability to do so because they get 4-5 years on a rookie deal and then can franchise a player for 2 more seasons before they are then pushing 30 and are worth a lot less. If this position group wants to adjust the rules slightly because they are not allowed to maximize their value I say let them.

 

One less year on a rookie deal and only allowing them to receive a transition tag once they hit free agency makes sense. If a RB is drafted at age 21/22 and performs really well in their first three seasons they hit the market at age 24/25 where teams can feel like they can invest 3-4 year deals into them and get high-level production for most if not all of the deal. Only having a transition tag (basically a right to match) allows the RB's to actually go out and get their value based on what another team or their team is willing to pay them. It avoids a team locking them out of 1-2 of their prime years.

 

Right now if a RB at best gets drafted at age 21 and is on a 2nd round or later deal they can hit free agency at age 25 but then they can get tagged for two seasons. This means that even if they play out the tag for two seasons (which is very risky) they hit the market at age 27 with 6 seasons of wear and tear on their bodies and teams will be averse to offering a long-term deal because you are "pushing 30". And that's the "best case" scenario as players drafted at 22 or first-round picks facing a 5th-year option only hit free agency older. Just allow them to hit the market sooner and without the franchise tag. It still subjects them to the value they have on the market but it gives them a better window to get their contracts. 

 

I always hear how athletes and entertainers are "overpaid" but then people forget the other side of the equation that if the athletes and entertainers don't get the money it just goes to the owners/industry/shareholders. The way so many talk about athletes' salaries you would think that if athletes got paid a bit less the money would go to teachers. 

Have you heard of the salary cap lmao.

[billieve420]

League is setup where you don't need a star RB. With the way the cap is setup I fully agree in the RB by committee approach. You draft RB and replace while avoiding paying out big money deal.

Edited July 18, 2023 by billieve420

[BullBuchanan]

12 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The cap is a zero sum game.  There's only so much money to go around.

 

How can NFL fans sit here and know that QB's are the most important position and thus are paid the most % of the cap, while kickers/punters/backups are some of the least important and least paid, but not understand that every position (including RB) has to fall somewhere on that spectrum?

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.