RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Top 8 backs don't win Superbowls.  Only 4/8 made the playoffs.

 

7 of the top 8 QB's in passing made the playoffs and one of them won it.

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour 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.

Gregg, he hasn’t signed his tag and his contract is up once he does or hold out.  He’s free next year.

 

he’s also another year older.  Bad decision.  Rbs are not worth big $.  Their not.  That’s our fathers generation.  We need a platoon like we have now, but we don’t need a high contract on a RB.  Bad call brother not on you, but in general.  The league has made that call.

 

McCaffrey is a unicorn, but he’s one in a million as he’s a unique talent.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, FireChans said:

Top 8 backs don't win Superbowls.  Only 4/8 made the playoffs.

 

7 of the top 8 QB's in passing made the playoffs and one of them won it.

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

[FireChans]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Highest paid positions are ones that are based on either passing or stopping the pass.

 

it's why ILB's who can't cover have gone the way of the dinosaur. It's why nickel DB's are paid way more than they used to be.

 

If the punters all wanted to get together and said change the rules so we are more valuable, they are welcome to do so, but the reality is that they are not that valuable TODAY.

[Don Otreply]

6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Ah, yet another assumption, We own a nearly fifty year old sailboat that we refit ourselves, we travel at sailing speeds up and down the east coast to the Bahamas and back, it’s a chill lifestyle, and costs far less than you are assuming, but be stubborn and stick to your preconceived assumptions,  If you want to be concerned about a group’s financial situation, try school teachers, talk about over worked and under payed…, 

[FireChans]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

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

It's not a big deal to have a top flight RB. Because they aren't valuable.

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Highest paid positions are ones that are based on either passing or stopping the pass.

 

it's why ILB's who can't cover have gone the way of the dinosaur. It's why nickel DB's are paid way more than they used to be.

 

If the punters all wanted to get together and said change the rules so we are more valuable, they are welcome to do so, but the reality is that they are not that valuable TODAY.

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

Edited July 18, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Don Otreply]

14 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. 

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

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

Ah, yet another assumption, We own a nearly fifty year old sailboat that we refit ourselves, we travel at sailing speeds up and down the east coast to the Bahamas and back, it’s a chill lifestyle, and costs far less than you are assuming, but be stubborn and stick to your preconceived assumptions,  If you want to be concerned about a group’s financial situation, try school teachers, talk about over worked and under payed…, 

I'm concerned about the financial situation of NFL running backs, teachers, nurses, coal miners, doctors, engineers, plumbers, linesmen, physicists, roofers, mechanics, programmers, oil workers and retirees.

When it comes to advocating for workers, I advocate for all of them. I don't feel the need to discriminate.

2 minutes 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 

whether you are underpaid or not determined by whether or not someone makes less money than you. Why are you so determined to be wrong about this?

[Don Otreply]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'm concerned about the financial situation of NFL running backs, teachers, nurses, coal miners, doctors, engineers, plumbers, linesmen, physicists, roofers, mechanics, programmers, oil workers and retirees.

When it comes to advocating for workers, I advocate for all of them. I don't feel the need to discriminate.

Ya see, those very rich RBs don’t need your backing, but those teachers could use your vocal support, 

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

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

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

Any system designed to increase RB pay scale artificially is going to impact every other position negatively by decreasing their money. So that will never ever happen. The NFLPA works for all the players, not just RB’s. Christian McCaffrey ain’t arguing that centers need to get paid more.
 

just like punters, if you wanna get those $100M contracts, you better be involved in passing or stopping the pass. If you can’t, you’re probably not gonna make as much. 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Don Otreply said:

Ya see, those very rich RBs don’t need your backing, but those teachers could use your vocal support, 

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

[Don Otreply]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I'm concerned about the financial situation of NFL running backs, teachers, nurses, coal miners, doctors, engineers, plumbers, linesmen, physicists, roofers, mechanics, programmers, oil workers and retirees.

When it comes to advocating for workers, I advocate for all of them. I don't feel the need to discriminate.

whether you are underpaid or not determined by whether or not someone makes less money than you. Why are you so determined to be wrong about this?

It is you who is mistaken in your concern for currently rich peoples financial situation, they have duped you. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

32 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

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.

so you think these players really just won’t play? I’m not debating what kind of money they will get, but somebody will sign them. Guaranteed.

 

A top five running back that’s 24 or 25 years old.

 

[BillsShredder83]

I think this a lot.

 

RBs see less workload then ever before. Committee is basically the gold standard, on top of it, teams are running way less than before.

 

2000 and earlier there were bellcow backs eating carries and playing till they were 30 (higher?)

 

What the heck changed that RBs just magically die at 27 now?????

 

So weird to me.

 

My best guess:

Players on defense are faster then ever. An aging RB used to still have a step on them, plus their other traits.

 

Now they lose a step, and it doesn't matter what other talent they bring to the table, the whole defense is able to fly to the spot.

[RyanC883]

13 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. 

 

totally fair comparison.  totally different skill sets between a foot doctor and neurosurgeon also.  

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour 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.

Barkley has far more value to the Giants than the Bills.  I don’t see that happening 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Don Otreply said:

It is you who is mistaken in your concern for currently rich peoples financial situation, they have duped you. 

Wrong again. NFL running backs earn on average $1.8M per season and their average length of career is 2.57 years. That's $4.6M before taxes for a life of a career. it's not poor, but far from rich when it has to last 50+ years. if you live off the interest maybe you take home 140-160K a year. That's a firmly middle-class stipend.

NFL franchises on the other hand are worth an average of $4 Billion dollars. The Running back would have to play for 2,222 years to earn that much. THAT is what rich is.

[Gregg]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Barkley has far more value to the Giants than the Bills.  I don’t see that happening 

 

You are probably right. I could see Barkley wanting to move on from the Giants and sign with another team.

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Wrong again. NFL running backs earn on average $1.8M per season and their average length of career is 2.57 years. That's $4.6M before taxes for a life of a career. it's not poor, but far from rich when it has to last 50+ years. if you live off the interest maybe you take home 140-160K a year. That's a firmly middle-class stipend.

NFL franchises on the other hand are worth an average of $4 Billion dollars. The Running back would have to play for 2,222 years to earn that much. THAT is what rich is.

Do you just want to grandstand here?  You admit they are not a valuable position.  You're right that they don't make much compared to their peers. But they also don't have to play in the NFL.

 

If the owners' unilaterally decided tomorrow to increase the cap $10M, RB's would still get paid peanuts because they are WORTH peanuts.

[BullBuchanan]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Do you just want to grandstand here?  You admit they are not a valuable position.  You're right that they don't make much compared to their peers. But they also don't have to play in the NFL.

 

If the owners' unilaterally decided tomorrow to increase the cap $10M, RB's would still get paid peanuts because they are WORTH peanuts.

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

Edited July 18, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Doc Brown]

25 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

so you think these players really just won’t play? I’m not debating what kind of money they will get, but somebody will sign them. Guaranteed.

 

A top five running back that’s 24 or 25 years old.

 

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

[dave mcbride]

47 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

Any list of top 8 backs that doesn't include the undrafted Austin Ekeler is doing it wrong. He was 8th in yards from scrimmage and first in TDs (18). Regardless, we're talking past each other at this point. I think the following: a) although it still matters, of course, the running game is far less important than the passing game; b) running backs are easily replaced because there are so many competent ones, and virtually all teams think this way; c) individual player stats aren't the best way to measure production because most teams have RBs by committee; d) productive running games are primarily a product of good o-lines; and e) it is the height of foolishness to overspend on the RB position. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[JoPoy88]

8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

But the rookie wage scale isn’t prejudiced against running backs, it applies to every position. And it’s not really relevant to what Barkley, Ekeler and Jacobs are talking about.

[JAMIEBUF12]

Well Josh Jacobs has missed 6 starts.Saquon Barkley has missed 17 starts.He averages 12 games a season.
I don’t see the “oft injued runninbacks” offering to put in their contracts that they won’t take any pay when they are not available to play.At some point availabilty is just as important as stats are.GO BILLS!!

[JoPoy88]

29 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

so you think these players really just won’t play? I’m not debating what kind of money they will get, but somebody will sign them. Guaranteed.

 

A top five running back that’s 24 or 25 years old.

 

Pollard is playing; he signed his tag. The other 2 can’t be signed by just somebody, they’ve also been tagged.

[C.Biscuit97]

42 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It's not a big deal to have a top flight RB. Because they aren't valuable.

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

But the rookie wage scale isn’t prejudiced against running backs, it applies to every position. And it’s not really relevant to what Barkley, Ekeler and Jacobs are talking about.

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

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

You could even do it for QBs.

[JoPoy88]

6 minutes ago, JAMIEBUF12 said:

Well Josh Jacobs has missed 6 starts.Saquon Barkley has missed 17 starts.He averages 12 games a season.
I don’t see the “oft injued runninbacks” offering to put in their contracts that they won’t take any pay when they are not available to play.At some point availabilty is just as important as stats are.GO BILLS!!

missing 6 starts over 4 seasons seems pretty durable to me.

[dave mcbride]

38 minutes ago, FireChans said:

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

Any system designed to increase RB pay scale artificially is going to impact every other position negatively by decreasing their money. So that will never ever happen. The NFLPA works for all the players, not just RB’s. Christian McCaffrey ain’t arguing that centers need to get paid more.
 

just like punters, if you wanna get those $100M contracts, you better be involved in passing or stopping the pass. If you can’t, you’re probably not gonna make as much. 

This. ^^

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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

You could even do it for QBs.

that’s why I said the rookie term length should be shorter for RBs. The point you’re making about the actual rookie $ scale I’m not following - their playing position doesn’t hurt them there in terms of contract dollars.

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

I think it's impossible to argue that WR quality doesn't affect QB play. GB went from having a great passing offense to a mediocre one when they let Adams get away last season. He's elite, and they had no replacement. 

[BullBuchanan]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Any list of top 8 backs that doesn't include the undrafted Austin Ekeler is doing it wrong. He was 8th in yards from scrimmage and first in TDs (18). Regardless, we're talking past each other at this point. I think the following: a) although it still matters, of course, the running game is far less important than the passing game; b) running backs are easily replaced because there are so many competent ones, and virtually all teams think this way; c) individual player stats aren't the best way to measure production because most teams have RBs by committee; d) productive running games are primarily a product of good o-lines; and e) it is the height of foolishness to overspend on the RB position. 

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

[Don Otreply]

34 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Wrong again. NFL running backs earn on average $1.8M per season and their average length of career is 2.57 years. That's $4.6M before taxes for a life of a career. it's not poor, but far from rich when it has to last 50+ years. if you live off the interest maybe you take home 140-160K a year. That's a firmly middle-class stipend.

NFL franchises on the other hand are worth an average of $4 Billion dollars. The Running back would have to play for 2,222 years to earn that much. THAT is what rich is.

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? 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Don Otreply

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

7 of the 8 top receivers last season made the playoffs lol. 8 of the top 9.

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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

He was literally eighth overall and sixth among running backs. You can't exclude receiving yardage when judging running backs. Pass catching ability and route running is literally why McCaffrey and Kamara got paid, which seems to be the root of your concern. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/scrimmage.htm

 

Kamara has a 5 year/75 million contract (a bad contract, btw; he's in decline) and McCaffrey makes over $16 million per year. Those are Hopkins/OBJ numbers. It's because they can catch the damn ball and make plays in the receiving game. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[FireChans]

25 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

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.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

The CBA has the players getting 48% of league revenue. We could certainly argue that the players deserve more than 50%, but the players agreed to this amount.

 

How it gets divided up after that per position shouldn't matter.

 

You can't start changing rules about drafting and rookie contracts for just one position. The league is always changing and evolving and cycling through trends. Positional values change.

 

You are only making some millions, and want more millions? Change positions.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by DrDawkinstein

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s why I said the rookie term length should be shorter for RBs. The point you’re making about the actual rookie $ scale I’m not following - their playing position doesn’t hurt them there in terms of contract dollars.

I'll restate it then. Young RBs are the most NFL ready of any position. Their value is front-loaded more than any other position.

However, with the rookie wage scale they have two things working against them The first we agree on, and that's they are locked into a long term that robs them of their ability to get a contract based on their success.

The second, which we haven't yet agreed on, is related to the first. Young RBs who are in their first couple of years in the league provide more value than veteran players, but they are making the same amount of money on the rookie scale as players who provide less value early in their careers. The NFLPA needs to acknowledge that they are a consumable resource unlikely to be able to cash in on a second contract they way a WR or TE can and work to get them paid upfront.

two year ago Jonathan Taylor was the top RB in the league contributing over 2100 yards from scrimmage include 1800 rushing and he made a total of 2.5M. His reward was to have his compensation dropped to 2.1 the following year.

In 2020 Aaron Jones, David Montgomery, and James Robinson were the 3-5 leading rushers who made 2.1, 1.0, and 0.9M respectively on rookie deals. It's a much different sitaution for receivers where the only top 5 producer earning no money is Justin Jefferson, and you better believe he's going to get paid

[SoCal Deek]

5 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 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.