How does the RB ‘pay scale’ problem get solved? (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

RBs give their most on field value when they are forbidden from being compensated relative to their contributions.

People, IMO, mistakenly see RBs as less valuable because veteran RB salaries appear to be on the decline. If RBs were able to negotiate contracts before years 1, 2, 3 or 4 of their careers their monetary value would likely track closer to norms at other positions. If RBs were truly less valuable they would not get drafted at #6 & #12 overall. Gibbs and Bijan are essentially forbidden from financially realizing their real world contributions until the point when there has to be legitimate concerns as to whether they will be able to continue delivering at the same level.

That's a flaw in the current system that the owners are, rightly, exploiting.

Isn't that true for every position though? Wouldn't any player who outperforms their monetary value be in line for a raise? The rookie wage scale isn't determined by position.

Can I ask Trent Richardson to take a pay cut if he doesn't live up to being the 3rd overall pick? Can I get back his $20M+ guaranteed when he can only average 3.3 ypc? It goes both ways.

They're definitely exploiting it, but it isn't only the RBs who are being "exploited." Gibbs or Bijan could just as easily flop as they could be "exploited" into an $11M franchise tag in their 6th year.

Yes but the career arc for virtually every other position is longer than for a RB, particularly at the "skill" positions. QBs and WRs often have careers with peak performance that runs through years 5, 6, 7, 8 or longer. By the time a true difference making RB gets to year 5 they have taken well over 1,000 hits which is why we see their peak typically so much earlier.

That's an imbalance relative to their contributions. If Bijan puts up 2,000 yards and 15 TDs as a rookie or 2nd year guy that adds massive value to the Falcons but he'll be locked into a ~$4 mil/year deal. That's a cheat code for ownership.

I know you believe he could simply be a ditch digger or whatever, (and I think you know how specious that position really is) but a ditch digger can market his services to any ditch digging company on the planet and take the best deal possible. If he's one of the 10 best ditch diggers in the world he'll get paid as such.

Regarding Trent Richardson; ownership gets players to take pay cuts all the darn time. It happens literally dozens of times per off season.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The evolution of the slot-WR has diminished a lot of what a good dual threat at RB can offer.

Tony Nathan was a Miami Dolphin from '79-'87 and while he was not a perfect RB, always was part of a committee with so many others and yet he stood out as being a dual threat and could hurt you from so many different parts of the field besides just lining up in the backfield. Many times the Miami Dolphins would line up with 2 RB, one on each side of Marino in the shotgun formation and they were always open in the flat with Duper and Clayton occupying the DBs.

I'm not sure Tony Nathan would even find a spot in the NFL now.

"Epic in Miami" Hook n Ladder (1981)

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, ...

www.youtube.com

 

[Tanner9919]

stop paying other positions so dearly. the pay inequality between RBs and other positions is a gap the size of the Grand Canyon. the NFL owners make bundles of cash, even the lowly washington commanders. put everyone on the same scale.maybe pay QBs more but justin jefferson is not worth 1 penny more/yr than someone like Joe Thomas. deshaun watson got what, 240mil while Nick Chubb, future HOFer and soon to be the NFLs #1 back is making how much in comparison?
my son plays 11x football, we just saw one of the well known RBs in the league practicing a week ago - at QB. point being, the kid RBs are being moved to WR and QB by parents because they feel that's where the money is in the future, and that is where the college scholarships are - non-rb positions. This means in the next decade or so, RB will be a scarce commodity, you won't be able to find a true RB .

maybe they're doing away with the position on purpose.
part of me says its cyclical , few years of RB dominance, then WR, then TE, then back to RBs.
seems like the TE era has left the building there's one guy left.

 

[Chaka]

This means in the next decade or so, RB will be a scarce commodity, you won't be able to find a true RB

What are you talking about?

How can you not be excited about a matchup featuring Zonovan Knight going mano-a-mano against DeeJay Dallas????

That's must sleep SEE TV right there.

 

[renesauz]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Disagree with this. It is every bit American. Problem is you INSIST on seeing the NFL as 32 different companies colluding...and it isn't. It's every bit as fair to consider it as one big company with 32 branch offices.

Obviously neither description is completely accurate, and any reasonable discussion about the issue must necessarily acknowledge that. Pro sports leagues are absolutely unique among business models.

That said, there is clearly an issue with RB pay. The failure is in the CBA

Legally, according to the Federal government the NFL is 32 individual companies that are part of a trade association. By the standard of "Did anyone see Jerry Jones tell Mike Brown not give his players cherry lime rickey flavored Gatorade?" collusion can, and will never be proven. But collusion absolutely occurs under this business format.

@rockaction was correct that a union negotiating against a corporation or trade association is deeply American at it's core. That type of negotiation is how we got the 40 hour work week, paid lunch breaks, holidays, ended child labor etc. But the Warner Act was enacted, like 100 years ago and has been systematically neutered over the ensuing decades, very notably by upholding right-to-work laws. I am not certain but I believe, somehow, the NFL & NFLPA seems to be exempted from those right-to-work laws. It would be nice if someone who knows more than I do (i.e. anyone) could expand on the details of how union membership dues are mandatory in the NFLPA and the league seems to support it. Unions have lost a ton of their negotiating power over the last 100 years.

But, even if the NFL and NFLPA agree to the standard, the very idea of the NFL draft is deeply un-American. What is American about being forced to work for a specific employer at a rate that cannot be renegotiated for up to six years?

Again, you are going too far IMO in your insistence that they are 32 distinctly different companies...they are not.

Nor would most of us want them to be, because to go down the rabbit hole you seem to be espousing would ruin much of what makes the NFL so great to begin with, and the RBs would surely make LESS, not more.

Most of us see this as a player makes an agreement to play for the NFL...they join a union in order to be drafted by any team ...much as many have to join a union to work for any other company! Unlike in any other company, they are guaranteed the opportunity to pick their own home office at some point in the not that terribly distant future. Rb's get the short end on this because of a shorter career arc.

It's unreasonable IMHO to insist on them being 32 separate companies. They aren't, not in any meaningful way.

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Disagree with this. It is every bit American. Problem is you INSIST on seeing the NFL as 32 different companies colluding...and it isn't. It's every bit as fair to consider it as one big company with 32 branch offices.

Obviously neither description is completely accurate, and any reasonable discussion about the issue must necessarily acknowledge that. Pro sports leagues are absolutely unique among business models.

That said, there is clearly an issue with RB pay. The failure is in the CBA

Legally, according to the Federal government the NFL is 32 individual companies that are part of a trade association. By the standard of "Did anyone see Jerry Jones tell Mike Brown not give his players cherry lime rickey flavored Gatorade?" collusion can, and will never be proven. But collusion absolutely occurs under this business format.

@rockaction was correct that a union negotiating against a corporation or trade association is deeply American at it's core. That type of negotiation is how we got the 40 hour work week, paid lunch breaks, holidays, ended child labor etc. But the Warner Act was enacted, like 100 years ago and has been systematically neutered over the ensuing decades, very notably by upholding right-to-work laws. I am not certain but I believe, somehow, the NFL & NFLPA seems to be exempted from those right-to-work laws. It would be nice if someone who knows more than I do (i.e. anyone) could expand on the details of how union membership dues are mandatory in the NFLPA and the league seems to support it. Unions have lost a ton of their negotiating power over the last 100 years.

But, even if the NFL and NFLPA agree to the standard, the very idea of the NFL draft is deeply un-American. What is American about being forced to work for a specific employer at a rate that cannot be renegotiated for up to six years?

Again, you are going too far IMO in your insistence that they are 32 distinctly different companies...they are not.

I'm not saying they are, they say they are, the law says they are. That is the most meaningful way possible.

I'm not conjuring that.

I get that they don't look like a duck, I get they don't quack like a duck but they're a duck.

 

[BassNBrew]

What exactly is the problem we're saying needs to be solved?

RBs give their most on field value when they are forbidden from being compensated relative to their contributions.

People, IMO, mistakenly see RBs as less valuable because veteran RB salaries appear to be on the decline. If RBs were able to negotiate contracts before years 1, 2, 3 or 4 of their careers their monetary value would likely track closer to norms at other positions. If RBs were truly less valuable they would not get drafted at #6 & #12 overall. Gibbs and Bijan are essentially forbidden from financially realizing their real world contributions until the point when there has to be legitimate concerns as to whether they will be able to continue delivering at the same level.

That's a flaw in the current system that the owners are, rightly, exploiting.

Isn't that true for every position though? Wouldn't any player who outperforms their monetary value be in line for a raise? The rookie wage scale isn't determined by position.

Can I ask Trent Richardson to take a pay cut if he doesn't live up to being the 3rd overall pick? Can I get back his $20M+ guaranteed when he can only average 3.3 ypc? It goes both ways.

They're definitely exploiting it, but it isn't only the RBs who are being "exploited." Gibbs or Bijan could just as easily flop as they could be "exploited" into an $11M franchise tag in their 6th year.

Yes but the career arc for virtually every other position is longer than for a RB, particularly at the "skill" positions. QBs and WRs often have careers with peak performance that runs through years 5, 6, 7, 8 or longer. By the time a true difference making RB gets to year 5 they have taken well over 1,000 hits which is why we see their peak typically so much earlier.

That's an imbalance relative to their contributions. If Bijan puts up 2,000 yards and 15 TDs as a rookie or 2nd year guy that adds massive value to the Falcons but he'll be locked into a ~$4 mil/year deal. That's a cheat code for ownership.

I know you believe he could simply be a ditch digger or whatever, (and I think you know how specious that position really is) but a ditch digger can market his services to any ditch digging company on the planet and take the best deal possible. If he's one of the 10 best ditch diggers in the world he'll get paid as such.

Regarding Trent Richardson; ownership gets players to take pay cuts all the darn time. It happens literally dozens of times per off season.

This argument holds no water.

1) The best F22 pilot can't market their services to any company on the planet.
2) Bijan can market his services to the XFL, the CFL, and the Arena League.
3) Most US citizens don't have the option to market their services simultaneously to every division in their company after 4-5 years.


You know the landscape if you are pursing a career as an NFL RB. Those rules are made by the employees. I'm sure the NFL would have no problem conceding a higher RB pay scale if the revenue split was the same if that was what it took to reach an agreement with the union. Due to that, this "issue" falls squarely on the players.

 

[Chaka]

1) The best F22 pilot can't market their services to any company on the planet.
2) Bijan can market his services to the XFL, the CFL, and the Arena League.
3) Most US citizens don't have the option to market their services simultaneously to every division in their company after 4-5 years.

1) Military service isn't a terrible comp, particularly when you throw in the draft aspect. But if that's the best comp we got, I'll stand by my position.

2) Specious

3) You're right, they don't need to wait 4-5 years to market themselves to any division in a company. They can do it from the jump. Of course that sounds like Bijan trying to become a WR or a TE which, surprisingly he may be allowed to do with the Falcons if they decided that were his best fit.

 

[humpback]

This means in the next decade or so, RB will be a scarce commodity, you won't be able to find a true RB

What are you talking about?

How can you not be excited about a matchup featuring Zonovan Knight going mano-a-mano against DeeJay Dallas????

That's must sleep SEE TV right there.

Did Isiah Pacheco going mano-a-mano against Joe Mixon in the AFCCG get your juices flowing?

This isn't that complicated. Teams decide how much they value certain players/positions and pay them accordingly. That can change from year to year and player to player, but I don't see how changing rules and "forcing" teams to value a specific position more makes sense, and it would also come with it's own set of drawbacks.

I get how people don't like it or whatever, but it comes with the territory. If/when things shift, perhaps due to a dearth of RB talent in the future, the market will adjust with it.

 

[FFCollusion]

The solution is shorter rookie contracts for RBs, and no franchise tags. Teams are only using the Tag to exploit players, and that wasn't it's initial design.

RBs peak and hit their prime too early. So a team rides them into the ground for their 4 year rookie deal, franchises them for the 5th year, and let them go for their 6th year, were the RB is now 26-27 years old, with a ton of mileage on them, and the "market" is not interested in them at that point of their careers.

That system works for QBs, WRs, and TEs who slowly develop and have careers 2-3 times as long as RBs. But the RB position can't afford to lose that time. They need to be in a position where they can leverage the best part of their careers, not be taken advantage of by it.

Jonathan Taylor is the perfect example. 3 straight years of unquestionable talent and production that makes it clear to us all that he is a top flight RB in this league... But he has to play his 4th year, the team might have a 5th year option, and then then tag him at least once... And THEN he can try to negotiate his salary?

It's too late. His time is NOW.

The system is unfair, in that all rookie contracts for all positions are weighed the same, but we all know the career paths for different positions are not the same.

If you want to see the market shift, then stop artificially forcing the market to be at the end of the RBs prime of their career. You have to not let the teams have 100% of the bargaining tools. I'm fine with a "fair market" but a clause that says "I don't have to negotiate with you, I can force you to play for me for a predetermined price" is NOT a fair market. Give JT and Jacobs the ability to go play for any team they want, and I guarantee you the "market" for their services gets more competitive and more expensive.

Full disclosure. I am not a RB or an NFL rookie, I do not know what the downsides are, or would be, for shorter rookie contracts, or how that would hurt the other 90% of RBs in the league.

But the franchise tag has to go. That has to be changed before the 7 year agreement is up. (Also who in their right mind thought negotiating a league that adapts as quick as the NFL once every 7 years was a good idea?). I'm willing to buy that the tag was intended, presented, and agreed upon in good faith. But like any system in the world, eventually people figure out how to exploit it, and min/max it to their benefit. And we can see that as clear as day right now.

If you want the market to shift, make it a fair and free market.

 

[Amused to Death]

If you want the market to shift, make it a fair and free market.

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

It seems to me the only time an RB gets paid beyond their rookie contract is on bad teams looking to sell jerseys and season tickets or a team loaded with value at the important positions (QB, O- & D-lines, WRs, DBs) and can afford to fit a high priced RB under their cap.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

NFL TEs make about the same. Where is the thread on them?

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

 

[FFCollusion]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

The full back position, ceased to exist, because people actually stopped using them.
RBs touch the ball at the 2nd highest rate of any position. They have not been phased out of the NFL. This "evolution" is just a shift in pass:run ratios. I'd hardly quantify that as an actual evolution, just an adaptation.
If teams start going 5 wide and empty backfields at a significant rate, then we can compare the evolution of the positions.
Until then these are not really comparable, in my opinion.

There's also 2 other angles why I don't think this rebuttal holds water.

1: If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?
2: The pass:run ratio are slightly skewed, because the top tier RBs CATCH passes. Using a "pass happy league" mentality against RBs when guys like Ekeler lead their team in almost every receiving stat last year, where's the logic that RB isn't valuable?
It's not fair to use their passing game skill as evidence against them.
If you want to say the market for 2 down backs is dying due to the shift, I'll agree with you. But when Ekeler, CMC, and Barkley are the entire offense on the ground AND through the air, then it doesn't seem like a good faith argument.
Rhamondre, Fournette, Kamara, Mixon, Jones are all flirting with 80 targets a year. The RB position has evolved with the pass happy league, so that dual threat RBs are still just as valuable as they were. That's why the top RBs (JT, Barkley, Ekeler, Jacobs) are the loudest right now, because they aren't old school ground and pound running backs. They are evolved RBs who do everything and deserve to be paid accordingly.

2 down backs are being phased out, devalued, etc but guys like I just listed are NOT replaceable with 7th round picks.

Not every team has a Mahomes. I don't see anyone saying WRs are useless because Mahomes just won a SB without any, so why the same logic used against RB? Funny part of this contradiction? Jerick McKinnon is a 3rd round RB and was basically the WR2 for the team from the RB position.

McKinnon had more reception TDs than Justin Jefferson and Tyreek Hill last year. Using the Chiefs to argue that championship teams don't need RBs, or that they aren't important, or why a guy like CMC, Ekeler, Barkley shouldn't get paid is flawed logic. Those guy's do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

I think this is an age/philosophical divide….

I’m probably gonna say this in a manner that’s going to offend some people, but…..

I am of the opinion that people should get paid for the value that they bring to the team/job.

Others need everything to be equal or fair even though they don’t bring the same value to the table.

Totally bizarre. In my opinion.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

Their salaries and contract years are almost identical.

NFL Rankings

Listing the top salaries, cap-hits, contracts, bonuses, and more for all active NFL players.

www.spotrac.com

 

[Chaka]

I am of the opinion that people should get paid for the value that they bring to the team/job.

But RBs don't because their value is locked in at a below market rate when they provide the most on field value. By the time they are free to negotiate a new deal it is reasonable to question if they can bring the same on field after 4-5 years of more physical punishment than any WR/TE or QB ever takes.

Again the mistake is believing RBs bring less value on the field when the reality is they bring the most value when they are not allowed to realize that value in their contracts.

I don't think anyone is saying Dalvin should be getting $15 mil/year but I think many people are believe guys like Jacobs, Barkley & Pollard are getting screwed out of the best earning years of their careers.

 

[Amused to Death]

If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?

Two RBs were drafted in the first round in '23, Bijan Robinson drafted 8th overall is still only counting about 2% of the cap. Gibbs maxes out at 1.8% during his contract. So yes, they're drafted in the first round but its still not a very large portion of the cap. If you increase the RB rookie pay scale, they'll only fall further in the draft.

San Fran was able to trade for CMC only because he counted less than 1% of the cap in '22 and will only count 1.4% in '23. What do you think SF is going to do in '24 when he balloons up to 5.5% of the cap as a 28 year old? With a post June 1 cut savings of over $12m?

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I am of the opinion that people should get paid for the value that they bring to the team/job.

But RBs don't because their value is locked in at a below market rate when they provide the most on field value. By the time they are free to negotiate a new deal it is reasonable to question if they can bring the same on field after 4-5 years of more physical punishment than any WR/TE or QB ever takes.

Again the mistake is believing RBs bring less value on the field when the reality is they bring the most value when they are not allowed to realize that value in their contracts.

I don't think anyone is saying Dalvin should be getting $15 mil/year but I think many people are believe guys like Jacobs, Barkley & Pollard are getting screwed out of the best earning years of their careers.

This is a very good argument and probably one you should've use when I asked you much early in the thread about your stance.

What can be done about that? Not sure. Things aren’t always going to be exactly equal for everyone.

They made the decision to play running back.

What else can be done?

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I work harder at my job than most of my superiors, but they still get paid more. Do I need to call the labor board or something?

I don’t wanna get political and I’m 100% not but the only word I know that describes what some of you are looking for is Socialism.

 

[FFCollusion]

If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?

Two RBs were drafted in the first round in '23, Bijan Robinson drafted 8th overall is still only counting about 2% of the cap. Gibbs maxes out at 1.8% during his contract. So yes, they're drafted in the first round but its still not a very large portion of the cap. If you increase the RB rookie pay scale, they'll only fall further in the draft.

San Fran was able to trade for CMC only because he counted less than 1% of the cap in '22 and will only count 1.4% in '23. What do you think SF is going to do in '24 when he balloons up to 5.5% of the cap as a 28 year old? With a post June 1 cut savings of over $12m?

That's an entirely different discussion.

You said the NFL transitioned AWAY from RBs. Now you're shifting the argument to cap percentages?

I don't care if the cap % is 1 or 100, either they're shifting away from RB or they're not.

They're shifting away from 2 down backs who can't catch. It's no coincidence the 2 first round backs are both elite pass catchers.

So, my counter point to you, is that RBs are evolving WITH the NFL, so I think your claim that RBs are being phased out and aren't valuable, is too short sighted. RBs have adapted to evolve with the NFL, and as long as they can benefit the pass happy nature of the league, they are still relevant to it.

It's not like Fullbacks where they don't fit into a formation. RBs are still in 99% of all formations, they just have a different role. Having a different role doesn't make you obsolete, quite the opposite really. They created a role that keeps them relevant, important, and impactful, to stay relevant in the new NFL. That's the exact opposite of what happened with Fullbacks.

We are going to see the same thing with TEs, where there needs to be a partition between "blocker" and "pass catcher" potentially with different pay scales, I have no clue. Same thing with RBs, 2 down backs vs pass catching backs.

There's no simple answer, other than not letting trans leverage and exploit the tag against RBs. That's the first step that needs to be amended in the CBA ASAP.

 

[Amused to Death]

You said the NFL transitioned AWAY from RBs.

I said the NFL has transitioned away from WORKHORSE RBs and can build a championship caliber team with mid-round rookies and camp cuts.

Bottom line, only 10 teams have invested more than 5% of their cap TOTAL in the RB position in '23

 

[Chaka]

I work harder at my job than most of my superiors, but they still get paid more. Do I need to call the labor board or something?

I don’t wanna get political and I’m 100% not but the only word I know that describes what some of you are looking for is Socialism.

Are you forbidden from asking from a raise? Are you not allowed to shop your services to competing corporations.

It is laughable to suggest RBs reworking their deal is some form of socialism when the system they are in is predicated on asset redistribution to the worst teams.

Burn it down and let the real market decide.

 

[Chaka]

I work harder at my job than most of my superiors, but they still get paid more. Do I need to call the labor board or something?

I don’t wanna get political and I’m 100% not but the only word I know that describes what some of you are looking for is Socialism.

Who is looking for socialism? I have been calling out the NFL for their socialist tendencies since the beginning of this thread. Although I have worked hard, not always successfully, to not use words like socialism or communism. I know some people find those triggering.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I work harder at my job than most of my superiors, but they still get paid more. Do I need to call the labor board or something?

I don’t wanna get political and I’m 100% not but the only word I know that describes what some of you are looking for is Socialism.

Are you forbidden from asking from a raise? Are you not allowed to shop your services to competing corporations.

It is laughable to suggest RBs reworking their deal is some form of socialism when the system they are in is predicated on asset redistribution to the worst teams.

Burn it down and let the real market decide.

Am I forbidden to ask for a raise? No. Are runningbacks forced to play for the NFL against their will?

 

[Chaka]

I work harder at my job than most of my superiors, but they still get paid more. Do I need to call the labor board or something?

I don’t wanna get political and I’m 100% not but the only word I know that describes what some of you are looking for is Socialism.

Are you forbidden from asking from a raise? Are you not allowed to shop your services to competing corporations.

It is laughable to suggest RBs reworking their deal is some form of socialism when the system they are in is predicated on asset redistribution to the worst teams.

Burn it down and let the real market decide.

Am I forbidden to ask for a raise? No. Are runningbacks forced to play for the NFL against their will?

Nope.

Specious, but nope.

 

[FFCollusion]

You said the NFL transitioned AWAY from RBs.

I said the NFL has transitioned away from WORKHORSE RBs and can build a championship caliber team with mid-round rookies and camp cuts.

And I said if they transitioned away from them, why was Bijan drafted 8th overall? Gibbs 14th?
Then you tried to pivot to pay scales, which have zero relevance.

Maybe what you meant to say was they pivoted away from PAYING workhorse RBs large percentages of money?

2 different topics.

 

[Amused to Death]

You said the NFL transitioned AWAY from RBs.

I said the NFL has transitioned away from WORKHORSE RBs and can build a championship caliber team with mid-round rookies and camp cuts.

And I said if they transitioned away from them, why was Bijan drafted 8th overall? Gibbs 14th?
Then you tried to pivot to pay scales, which have zero relevance.

Maybe what you meant to say was they pivoted away from PAYING workhorse RBs large percentages of money?

2 different topics.

Eh, never mind. You're right.

 

[humpback]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

The full back position, ceased to exist, because people actually stopped using them.
RBs touch the ball at the 2nd highest rate of any position. They have not been phased out of the NFL. This "evolution" is just a shift in pass:run ratios. I'd hardly quantify that as an actual evolution, just an adaptation.
If teams start going 5 wide and empty backfields at a significant rate, then we can compare the evolution of the positions.
Until then these are not really comparable, in my opinion.

There's also 2 other angles why I don't think this rebuttal holds water.

1: If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?
2: The pass:run ratio are slightly skewed, because the top tier RBs CATCH passes. Using a "pass happy league" mentality against RBs when guys like Ekeler lead their team in almost every receiving stat last year, where's the logic that RB isn't valuable?
It's not fair to use their passing game skill as evidence against them.
If you want to say the market for 2 down backs is dying due to the shift, I'll agree with you. But when Ekeler, CMC, and Barkley are the entire offense on the ground AND through the air, then it doesn't seem like a good faith argument.
Rhamondre, Fournette, Kamara, Mixon, Jones are all flirting with 80 targets a year. The RB position has evolved with the pass happy league, so that dual threat RBs are still just as valuable as they were. That's why the top RBs (JT, Barkley, Ekeler, Jacobs) are the loudest right now, because they aren't old school ground and pound running backs. They are evolved RBs who do everything and deserve to be paid accordingly.

2 down backs are being phased out, devalued, etc but guys like I just listed are NOT replaceable with 7th round picks.

Not every team has a Mahomes. I don't see anyone saying WRs are useless because Mahomes just won a SB without any, so why the same logic used against RB? Funny part of this contradiction? Jerick McKinnon is a 3rd round RB and was basically the WR2 for the team from the RB position.

McKinnon had more reception TDs than Justin Jefferson and Tyreek Hill last year. Using the Chiefs to argue that championship teams don't need RBs, or that they aren't important, or why a guy like CMC, Ekeler, Barkley shouldn't get paid is flawed logic. Those guy's do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time.

Those guys may do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time, but Pacheco and McKinnon only make a little over $2mil combined. And if one or both of them get hurt, or decide they aren't happy and want to sit out or leave town, they'll get someone else to take their place cheaply and not skip a beat.

There are very few RBs who are true difference makers- why put all your eggs into 1 super expensive basket when you can have 2 (or 3) baskets for a fraction of the cost?

 

[msudaisy26]

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

Their salaries and contract years are almost identical.

NFL Rankings

Listing the top salaries, cap-hits, contracts, bonuses, and more for all active NFL players.

www.spotrac.com

In what context? Unless the link is broken I am seeing that tight ends make more and average tight ends get make more than elite backs.

 

[Amused to Death]

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

Their salaries and contract years are almost identical.

NFL Rankings

Listing the top salaries, cap-hits, contracts, bonuses, and more for all active NFL players.

www.spotrac.com

In what context? Unless the link is broken I am seeing that tight ends make more and average tight ends get make more than elite backs.

A TE is much harder to replace than a RB and have longer careers.

 

[msudaisy26]

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

NFL TEs make about the same. Were is the thread on them?

I'm not totally sure if that is true, but even if so, several tight ends have gotten extensions like Cole Kmet in the past few years because they can provide surplus value later in their careers.

Not saying that as a defense of the RB "problem", just adding the context.

Their salaries and contract years are almost identical.

NFL Rankings

Listing the top salaries, cap-hits, contracts, bonuses, and more for all active NFL players.

www.spotrac.com

In what context? Unless the link is broken I am seeing that tight ends make more and average tight ends get make more than elite backs.

A TE is much harder to replace than a RB and have longer careers.

Disagree on the first part, totally agree on the second, but I was asking because he said they basically make the same and I am not seeing that. I also realize people look at it differently, some look at AAV, or guarantees, or total of contract.etc.

 

[FFCollusion]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

The full back position, ceased to exist, because people actually stopped using them.
RBs touch the ball at the 2nd highest rate of any position. They have not been phased out of the NFL. This "evolution" is just a shift in pass:run ratios. I'd hardly quantify that as an actual evolution, just an adaptation.
If teams start going 5 wide and empty backfields at a significant rate, then we can compare the evolution of the positions.
Until then these are not really comparable, in my opinion.

There's also 2 other angles why I don't think this rebuttal holds water.

1: If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?
2: The pass:run ratio are slightly skewed, because the top tier RBs CATCH passes. Using a "pass happy league" mentality against RBs when guys like Ekeler lead their team in almost every receiving stat last year, where's the logic that RB isn't valuable?
It's not fair to use their passing game skill as evidence against them.
If you want to say the market for 2 down backs is dying due to the shift, I'll agree with you. But when Ekeler, CMC, and Barkley are the entire offense on the ground AND through the air, then it doesn't seem like a good faith argument.
Rhamondre, Fournette, Kamara, Mixon, Jones are all flirting with 80 targets a year. The RB position has evolved with the pass happy league, so that dual threat RBs are still just as valuable as they were. That's why the top RBs (JT, Barkley, Ekeler, Jacobs) are the loudest right now, because they aren't old school ground and pound running backs. They are evolved RBs who do everything and deserve to be paid accordingly.

2 down backs are being phased out, devalued, etc but guys like I just listed are NOT replaceable with 7th round picks.

Not every team has a Mahomes. I don't see anyone saying WRs are useless because Mahomes just won a SB without any, so why the same logic used against RB? Funny part of this contradiction? Jerick McKinnon is a 3rd round RB and was basically the WR2 for the team from the RB position.

McKinnon had more reception TDs than Justin Jefferson and Tyreek Hill last year. Using the Chiefs to argue that championship teams don't need RBs, or that they aren't important, or why a guy like CMC, Ekeler, Barkley shouldn't get paid is flawed logic. Those guy's do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time.

Those guys may do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time, but Pacheco and McKinnon only make a little over $2mil combined. And if one or both of them get hurt, or decide they aren't happy and want to sit out or leave town, they'll get someone else to take their place cheaply and not skip a beat.

There are very few RBs who are true difference makers- why put all your eggs into 1 super expensive basket when you can have 2 (or 3) baskets for a fraction of the cost?

Because rosters are limited to 53.
You're not wrong (obviously the committee system is alive and well) but keeping 2-3 RBs to do 1 means job, means you lose 1-3 spots somewhere else. You then need a back up for both of those roles, right? A 2 down back and a CoP pass catcher. Who do you lose? A 3rd QB, kick returner, special teams player, linemen depth... Everything comes at a cost in the big picture. It's not just 1 RB vs 2 like we want to make it out to be. It's never that simple.

And let's not allow everyone to shift the narrative. I'm at work, but go look at all of the highest odds SB favorite teams. KC used a first on CEH right? I know he was a bust, but they thought a 1st round RB was the path to reach their SB dreams. McKinnon is a 3rd round pick.
9ers went and got CMC. (1st)
Eagles went out and got Swift (early 2nd)
Bengals drafted Mixon in the 2nd
Bills drafted Cook in the 2nd, Moss in the 3rd, Singletary in the 3rd.

The notion these teams have completely given up on RBs and are using some FA scrubs doesn't really hold up in my opinion. Not yet anyways. But I think they're trying to artificially get there. If you can force Fournette, Hunt, Zeke, Cook to be on the street and put them against each other to take minimal deals... now you can do both, because you artificially put talent on the scrap heap and then use supply and demand to force them to take cheap deals. Teams are saying "we don't wanna pay" but they still want to USE those backs, so there is still some leverage.

Like I said, I understand the shift the NFL is undergoing, I just think it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If RBs don't have a good career to start, they can't get paid. If you do start your career well, you're worn out and can't get paid. No matter what path a RBs career goes, they're at the mercy, and I believe that's because they don't hit the market until their peak has passed and teams were able to run them into the ground. If the RB is lucky to peak in their 4th season setting them up for maximum leverage... Teams just say "nah you're stuck with us", and then reset the RB back to square 1. If you don't do well in your franchise year, no one is going to give you big contract. If you ball out in your franchise year, we'll, you're too worn down and your best years are behind you...

I support a free market. Let the RBs hit the market when they're peaking like QBs/WRs/TEs and do not allow teams to deny negotiations for salary... And I guarantee you the market self corrects. Watch how much the Giants approach changes when Barkley is free to sign with the Eagles instead of Swift.

It's basically economics. If you deny a RB, or any employee, the ability to seek employment from the only other 31 places of employment, you artificially erase 'demand' in the market, leaving only supply. How could anyone possibly negotiate a fair contract for themselves when 1 side can deny you any opportunity to work anywhere else?

If the franchise tag disappears, and teams still refuse to pay RBs in their prime, then I'll believe the narrative. But I'm betting 3 year rookie contracts and no 5th year option or franchise exploits, would immediately alter the market.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

 

[Amused to Death]

9ers went and got CMC. (1st) CMC counted $690k against the cap last year and will count only $3.4 million in '23. Let's see what SF does with him in '24 when he's 28 and counts $14.1 mil and a cap savings of $12 million if he's cut after June 1st.
Eagles went out and got Swift (early 2nd) The Eagles let Sanders walk (who counts $2.5 million against the cap for CAR) and replaced him with 2 cast offs, Penney and Swift each for $1 million. Eagles' 4 RBs (if the carry 4) will count a total of $5.1 million against the cap.
Bengals drafted Mixon in the 2nd
Bills drafted Cook in the 2nd, Moss in the 3rd, Singletary in the 3rd. James Cook hasn't made more than $2 million per ($5.8 million total over 4 years), Moss has never made over $1.1 million, and Singletary maxed out at $2.8 for the Bills. So for all 3, the Bills never went over $6 million for all 3 combined in a year.

"KC used a first on CEH right? I know he was a bust, but they thought a 1st round RB was the path to reach their SB dreams.
McKinnon is a 3rd round pick."
CEH was a bust, so we agree he contributed nothing to their SBs. They signed McKinnon on a 3 year, $3 million deal. CEH's production was replaced by a dirt cheap FA and a 7th round rookie.

So outside of Mixon, each of those examples are cheap. Who care where they were drafted, we're talking about their pay scale. Not one high priced RB among them other than Mixon, who at age 26 still had to take a pay cut to stay on his team.

 

[ghostguy123]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

 

[FFCollusion]

9ers went and got CMC. (1st) CMC counted $690k against the cap last year and will count only $3.4 million in '23. Let's see what SF does with him in '24 when he's 28 and counts $14.1 mil and a cap savings of $12 million if he's cut after June 1st.
Eagles went out and got Swift (early 2nd) The Eagles let Sanders walk (who counts $2.5 million against the cap for CAR) and replaced him with 2 cast offs, Penney and Swift each for $1 million. Eagles' 4 RBs (if the carry 4) will count a total of $5.1 million against the cap.
Bengals drafted Mixon in the 2nd
Bills drafted Cook in the 2nd, Moss in the 3rd, Singletary in the 3rd. James Cook hasn't made more than $2 million per ($5.8 million total over 4 years), Moss has never made over $1.1 million, and Singletary maxed out at $2.8 for the Bills. So for all 3, the Bills never went over $6 million for all 3 combined in a year.

"KC used a first on CEH right? I know he was a bust, but they thought a 1st round RB was the path to reach their SB dreams.
McKinnon is a 3rd round pick."
CEH was a bust, so we agree he contributed nothing to their SBs. They signed McKinnon on a 3 year, $3 million deal. CEH's production was replaced by a dirt cheap FA and a 7th round rookie.

So outside of Mixon, each of those examples are cheap. Who care where they were drafted, we're talking about their pay scale. Not one high priced RB among them other than Mixon, who at age 26 still had to take a pay cut to stay on his team.

No YOU are talking about their pay scale which I've already made perfectly clear to you 17 times, and I thought it finally clicked, but guess not.

I'm talking about the notion that the RB position is dying, akin to the FB position OR that you can build championship teams without RBs.

You just keep quoting me 50 times and talking about money. There can be different discussions in the same thread. Get it through your head.

 

[Amused to Death]

No YOU are talking about their pay scale

I'm sorry, what's the title of this thread?? How to fix the RB pay scale, correct?

 

[Amused to Death]

You just keep quoting me 50 times and talking about money.

Yes, I'm talking about money - in a thread about RB money and how teams don't need to spend much on RBs to build a championship caliber team.

 

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps the RB position isn't less valuable than in decades past. Maybe there's just an influx of guys who can get the job done, ya know, supply and demand.
If there were 50 franchise QBs out there, you wouldn't see many 265 million dollar deals.

 

[Amused to Death]

Perhaps the RB position isn't less valuable than in decades past. Maybe there's just an influx of guys who can get the job done, ya know, supply and demand.
If there were 50 franchise QBs out there, you wouldn't see many 265 million dollar deals.

You can just point to the example above - a 1st round RB bust was replaced by a cheap FA and a 7th round pick.

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

 

[humpback]

If you want the market to shift, the NFL would have to move away from the pass happy league it is now. Did anyone cry when fullbacks were phased out of the game? Fact is, very few teams rely on a workhorse RB anymore and they can just load up on mid-round rookies and low priced camp cuts and still build championship caliber teams.

Exactly. I don't remember anyone looking to solve the pay scale "problem" for fullbacks. It was the game evolving. The whole thing is honestly kind of fascinating.

The full back position, ceased to exist, because people actually stopped using them.
RBs touch the ball at the 2nd highest rate of any position. They have not been phased out of the NFL. This "evolution" is just a shift in pass:run ratios. I'd hardly quantify that as an actual evolution, just an adaptation.
If teams start going 5 wide and empty backfields at a significant rate, then we can compare the evolution of the positions.
Until then these are not really comparable, in my opinion.

There's also 2 other angles why I don't think this rebuttal holds water.

1: If the NFL is evolving, why are they still drafting RBs in the 1st round?
2: The pass:run ratio are slightly skewed, because the top tier RBs CATCH passes. Using a "pass happy league" mentality against RBs when guys like Ekeler lead their team in almost every receiving stat last year, where's the logic that RB isn't valuable?
It's not fair to use their passing game skill as evidence against them.
If you want to say the market for 2 down backs is dying due to the shift, I'll agree with you. But when Ekeler, CMC, and Barkley are the entire offense on the ground AND through the air, then it doesn't seem like a good faith argument.
Rhamondre, Fournette, Kamara, Mixon, Jones are all flirting with 80 targets a year. The RB position has evolved with the pass happy league, so that dual threat RBs are still just as valuable as they were. That's why the top RBs (JT, Barkley, Ekeler, Jacobs) are the loudest right now, because they aren't old school ground and pound running backs. They are evolved RBs who do everything and deserve to be paid accordingly.

2 down backs are being phased out, devalued, etc but guys like I just listed are NOT replaceable with 7th round picks.

Not every team has a Mahomes. I don't see anyone saying WRs are useless because Mahomes just won a SB without any, so why the same logic used against RB? Funny part of this contradiction? Jerick McKinnon is a 3rd round RB and was basically the WR2 for the team from the RB position.

McKinnon had more reception TDs than Justin Jefferson and Tyreek Hill last year. Using the Chiefs to argue that championship teams don't need RBs, or that they aren't important, or why a guy like CMC, Ekeler, Barkley shouldn't get paid is flawed logic. Those guy's do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time.

Those guys may do Pacheco's job and McKinnon's at the same time, but Pacheco and McKinnon only make a little over $2mil combined. And if one or both of them get hurt, or decide they aren't happy and want to sit out or leave town, they'll get someone else to take their place cheaply and not skip a beat.

There are very few RBs who are true difference makers- why put all your eggs into 1 super expensive basket when you can have 2 (or 3) baskets for a fraction of the cost?

Because rosters are limited to 53.
You're not wrong (obviously the committee system is alive and well) but keeping 2-3 RBs to do 1 means job, means you lose 1-3 spots somewhere else. You then need a back up for both of those roles, right? A 2 down back and a CoP pass catcher. Who do you lose? A 3rd QB, kick returner, special teams player, linemen depth... Everything comes at a cost in the big picture. It's not just 1 RB vs 2 like we want to make it out to be. It's never that simple.

And let's not allow everyone to shift the narrative. I'm at work, but go look at all of the highest odds SB favorite teams. KC used a first on CEH right? I know he was a bust, but they thought a 1st round RB was the path to reach their SB dreams. McKinnon is a 3rd round pick.
9ers went and got CMC. (1st)
Eagles went out and got Swift (early 2nd)
Bengals drafted Mixon in the 2nd
Bills drafted Cook in the 2nd, Moss in the 3rd, Singletary in the 3rd.

The notion these teams have completely given up on RBs and are using some FA scrubs doesn't really hold up in my opinion. Not yet anyways. But I think they're trying to artificially get there. If you can force Fournette, Hunt, Zeke, Cook to be on the street and put them against each other to take minimal deals... now you can do both, because you artificially put talent on the scrap heap and then use supply and demand to force them to take cheap deals. Teams are saying "we don't wanna pay" but they still want to USE those backs, so there is still some leverage.

Like I said, I understand the shift the NFL is undergoing, I just think it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If RBs don't have a good career to start, they can't get paid. If you do start your career well, you're worn out and can't get paid. No matter what path a RBs career goes, they're at the mercy, and I believe that's because they don't hit the market until their peak has passed and teams were able to run them into the ground. If the RB is lucky to peak in their 4th season setting them up for maximum leverage... Teams just say "nah you're stuck with us", and then reset the RB back to square 1. If you don't do well in your franchise year, no one is going to give you big contract. If you ball out in your franchise year, we'll, you're too worn down and your best years are behind you...

I support a free market. Let the RBs hit the market when they're peaking like QBs/WRs/TEs and do not allow teams to deny negotiations for salary... And I guarantee you the market self corrects. Watch how much the Giants approach changes when Barkley is free to sign with the Eagles instead of Swift.

It's basically economics. If you deny a RB, or any employee, the ability to seek employment from the only other 31 places of employment, you artificially erase 'demand' in the market, leaving only supply. How could anyone possibly negotiate a fair contract for themselves when 1 side can deny you any opportunity to work anywhere else?

If the franchise tag disappears, and teams still refuse to pay RBs in their prime, then I'll believe the narrative. But I'm betting 3 year rookie contracts and no 5th year option or franchise exploits, would immediately alter the market.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

There's a lot to unpack here.

No, you don't need back ups for both of those roles, not on the active roster. If someone gets injured during the game, the other can take on both roles- they actually act as back-ups for each other. Do you really think teams like KC and Buffalo have 1-3 more RBs active on game days? Of course not, it's a non-factor.

Yes, KC used a 1st on CEH, and he makes ~$2.5mil per year. Add him to Pacheco and McKinnon and it's still a fraction of one "top" RB. And now you have multiple built in back ups.

CMC is one of those rare difference makers at RB, it's why he got paid (and also a bit of a cautionary tale for other teams). Swift was a 2nd round pick, but that's not what the Eagles gave up for him, they gave up scraps. And he makes less than $2mil. Not sure what your point is with the other guys- 2nd and 3rd round picks aren't massive investments, and more importantly, they don't make a lot of money at all.

I haven't read every post but I'm pretty sure you're creating a giant straw man- I highly doubt anyone has said that teams have completely given up on RBs and are using some FA scrubs. They are simply realizing that investing big $ in RBs generally doesn't pay off. Let's not try and shift the narrative...

Lol at "forcing" those RBs on the street. No, their lack of production and/or over inflated asking price is why they aren't signed.

I think you're wrong about what would happen in your hypothetical that's never going to be reality anyway. The Eagles just let their very productive RB walk, they weren't willing to give him the modest ~$6.5mil that he got in free agency and instead are going with cheaper options. Do you honestly think they'd pay ~3x that amount for Barkley? I certainly don't.

 

[ghostguy123]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

I wonder how things would look in our every day jobs if all our companies had a salary cap.

 

[JetMaxx]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

I wonder how things would look in our every day jobs if all our companies had a salary cap.

Howie Roseman would still dominate it

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

I wonder how things would look in our every day jobs if all our companies had a salary cap.

Interesting. I'm guessing we wouldn't give a lick about parity.

ETA: and they do, it's called a budget.

 

[ghostguy123]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

I wonder how things would look in our every day jobs if all our companies had a salary cap.

Interesting. I'm guessing we wouldn't give a lick about parity.

ETA: and they do, it's called a budget.

So MLB has a salary cap then?

 

[Chaka]

Is everyone just ignoring the Chubba Hubbard era in Carolina?

Haven’t read all 3 pages so apologies if it’s been brought up already. But my opinion the only way this gets fixed is through the CBA. The rookie scale for running backs needs to be adjusted as that first few years are their peak earning potential as it stands now. The longevity of the position is so short that capping the only real time teams are willing to pay for them is an artificial governor to the position and kills any leverage RB’s have. Until that happens they (RB’s) are incredibly limited on options.

If you arbitrarily attach escalators or other parameters specific to RBs only they’d just fall even farther in drafts. They’d potentially make less money.

The best thing they can do is try to get drafted as early as possible.

But at least that’s the marketplace working as it should. I would also bet elite talents like Bijan still go early at at least finally get paid.

But it's not really a marketplace. You can enter most markets when you are 18 years old and aren't forced to work for a specific employer.

Really they are entering an asset redistribution system where they are the asset but have no control over their market value. Everything that happens after that, including second contracts are fruit of the poisoned tree.

They can choose a different path if they’d like. These guys aren’t victims. Stop acting like they are.

Take Pat Tillman’s path. Or Myron Rolle’s.

Just like any other job in the world. If you don’t like the pay then do something else.

No one is saying they are victims. That's your interpretation.

I am not trying to change your mind, or anyone else's, about anything. I'm pointing out the NFL system of employment goes against virtually everything America represents.

It's an anti-market, asset redistribution system.

Would having most players moving around to different teams every year help or hurt the product? I'll answer for you, it would hurt it.
Hence, less money.
The current system is making guys more money. Would some guys benefit short term? Sure. Long term the current way is better than having everyone a free agent or whatever

Probably, possibly let them fight it out in an open market and we'll find out.

I wonder how things would look in our every day jobs if all our companies had a salary cap.

Interesting. I'm guessing we wouldn't give a lick about parity.

ETA: and they do, it's called a budget.

So MLB has a salary cap then?

IDK I don't follow MLB

ETA: I wonder how it would look if every company in a given industry was required to have the same budget.

 

[need2know]

pay that man his money

youtu.be

 

[Chaka]

One small tweak to the CBA that would help just a little bit is if a team doesn't pick up a fifth year option (like the Raiders didn't with Jacobs last season) they should forfeit the ability to use the franchise tag on that player the following season.

Pick a lane team.