Jim Irsay And Jonathan Taylor And Salary Cap And Greed. I think we may be seeing this wrong. (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Its tough. I sympathize with the idea that the salary cap is essentially a zero sum game and that every extra dollar that goes to a RB is taken away from a LT, edge rusher, CB etc. Every fan wants their team to have a franchise QB, elite lines, stud WRs/CBs, and a Pacheco type productive 7th round rookie RB making next to nothing, because then their team looks like geniuses.

On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.

On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.

To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.

Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to significantly increase the franchise tag $ amount for RB's... not do away with it. I'm well aware that would require lowering the tag $ amount at other positions (zero sum game and all). But it could be spread amongst them, not taken from 1 or 2. And while we all understand the pecking order: QB, LT, edge rusher, CB (RB tag amount would obviously still be less than those)... it makes little sense that only K and P have a lower tag. Off ball LB, interior lineman and S are in a similar spot... but at least they tend to have longer shelf lives.

If the NFL and NFLPA agree to smooth the other franchise tags to increase the RB tag $ amount to one that would fairly compensate the elite RB in the absence of contract extension (and I emphasize elite RB, not replacement level)... it would in effect increase the likelihood teams would give the elite RB an extension at a lower annual $ amount. If the franchise tag is more painful, teams would have incentive to extend them instead. As it stands now, with the lowest tag $ amount besides K and P, and the shorter shelf life of RB, it is a an obvious move for teams to simply tag RB 1-2 times and then move on. By then RB are on the back 9 of their careers, if playing at all (see Sony Michel).

If Saquon Barkley was on the open market and the Giants didn't tag him, what do you think he would have gotten AAV?

His open market value. But then at least we’d know what that is for sure.

Plus I get the sense that for these guys it may be less about AAV and more about total guaranteed $. Otherwise, the AAV on a tag isn’t that bad.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

It’s fair because it’s the market. Completely agree that RB takes the most damage for the least pay. But that doesn’t make it unfair.

A preset 4-year rookie salary scale (with 2 additional tag years) that’s position-agnostic isn’t necessarily “the market”. It’s collectively bargained so I’m not saying they didn’t dig their own hole here, but that also doesn’t make it fair across every position group either.

Like it makes perfect sense that you don’t want to have to pay Sam Bradford $50M before he plays a single snap, but there’s also collateral damage from that decision. Fair or unfair isn’t really relevant but it’s also not “the market”

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Colts should ship off JT immediately, value be damned. He clearly doesn’t want to be there, and he’s super greedy & selfish.

Signed,

-Hull/Jackson shareholder

 

[Long Ball Larry]

https://twitter.com/Football_Guys/status/1686079455784026118?s=20

But can we give the "he's drunk" or "he's high" mocking a break when it's a known thing the guy's openly talked of battling addiction? It's way less funny when it's a real thing. Most all of us know someone dealing with this.

This is fair.

The reality is, while I’m sure he could’ve been more tactful, his “No way we are trading Taylor not now, and not October“ is probably the right response for the team.

I totally understand not wanting to break the bank for a player on a rookie deal coming off an injury-plagued season where he started 11 games at a position where the bottom is falling out of the market.

I also think it’s important to be fair with this. Everyone loves to play up the "evil greedy, rich owner" thing and make the NFL owners out to be the steel company execs trying to break the union and withhold money from their employees.

He may well be greedy. I don't know him. He's an NFL owner, so he's certainly rich. But Irsay isn't being greedy or rich or mean in this situation. He's still paying the same millions in salary no matter how this turns out.

Are people really just saying that he is being greedy and that is all this is about? I am not super-aware of the discourse, but I thought that the bigger issue is why does he need to be provocative on twitter about it rather than just letting it play out? Basically saying the NFL and the team don't care about you is pretty disrespectful and of course in the macro sense is true, but seems like an unnecessary shot at this time.

Irsay’s “crime“ here is putting a higher value on a left tackle or wide receiver or linebacker, or cornerback than Taylor would prefer. The same way most of us would if we ran an NFL team.

Distributing money to an NFL roster is a zero-sum game. If one player gets more, another player has to get less. That’s the salary cap.

Again, I don't think that's the real "crime" here. It's Irsay's inhumane response and public mockery of Taylor that seems like the more egregious act.

Which is not to say that the underlying position of the Colts' organization is wrong or that Taylor isn't instigating some in his own right. But I'm not sure that you are on point with the target of people's "outrage" here.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Its tough. I sympathize with the idea that the salary cap is essentially a zero sum game and that every extra dollar that goes to a RB is taken away from a LT, edge rusher, CB etc. Every fan wants their team to have a franchise QB, elite lines, stud WRs/CBs, and a Pacheco type productive 7th round rookie RB making next to nothing, because then their team looks like geniuses.

On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.

On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.

To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.

Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to significantly increase the franchise tag $ amount for RB's... not do away with it. I'm well aware that would require lowering the tag $ amount at other positions (zero sum game and all). But it could be spread amongst them, not taken from 1 or 2. And while we all understand the pecking order: QB, LT, edge rusher, CB (RB tag amount would obviously still be less than those)... it makes little sense that only K and P have a lower tag. Off ball LB, interior lineman and S are in a similar spot... but at least they tend to have longer shelf lives.

If the NFL and NFLPA agree to smooth the other franchise tags to increase the RB tag $ amount to one that would fairly compensate the elite RB in the absence of contract extension (and I emphasize elite RB, not replacement level)... it would in effect increase the likelihood teams would give the elite RB an extension at a lower annual $ amount. If the franchise tag is more painful, teams would have incentive to extend them instead. As it stands now, with the lowest tag $ amount besides K and P, and the shorter shelf life of RB, it is a an obvious move for teams to simply tag RB 1-2 times and then move on. By then RB are on the back 9 of their careers, if playing at all (see Sony Michel).

If Saquon Barkley was on the open market and the Giants didn't tag him, what do you think he would have gotten AAV?

His open market value. But then at least we’d know what that is for sure.

Plus I get the sense that for these guys it may be less about AAV and more about total guaranteed $. Otherwise, the AAV on a tag isn’t that bad.

Miles Sanders got 4 years, $25.4M, $11M at signing and $13M guaranteed. He was the highest paid RB on the market this year after going for 1350 yards from scrimmage and 11 TDs.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Its tough. I sympathize with the idea that the salary cap is essentially a zero sum game and that every extra dollar that goes to a RB is taken away from a LT, edge rusher, CB etc. Every fan wants their team to have a franchise QB, elite lines, stud WRs/CBs, and a Pacheco type productive 7th round rookie RB making next to nothing, because then their team looks like geniuses.

On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.

On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.

To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.

Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to significantly increase the franchise tag $ amount for RB's... not do away with it. I'm well aware that would require lowering the tag $ amount at other positions (zero sum game and all). But it could be spread amongst them, not taken from 1 or 2. And while we all understand the pecking order: QB, LT, edge rusher, CB (RB tag amount would obviously still be less than those)... it makes little sense that only K and P have a lower tag. Off ball LB, interior lineman and S are in a similar spot... but at least they tend to have longer shelf lives.

If the NFL and NFLPA agree to smooth the other franchise tags to increase the RB tag $ amount to one that would fairly compensate the elite RB in the absence of contract extension (and I emphasize elite RB, not replacement level)... it would in effect increase the likelihood teams would give the elite RB an extension at a lower annual $ amount. If the franchise tag is more painful, teams would have incentive to extend them instead. As it stands now, with the lowest tag $ amount besides K and P, and the shorter shelf life of RB, it is a an obvious move for teams to simply tag RB 1-2 times and then move on. By then RB are on the back 9 of their careers, if playing at all (see Sony Michel).

If Saquon Barkley was on the open market and the Giants didn't tag him, what do you think he would have gotten AAV?

His open market value. But then at least we’d know what that is for sure.

Plus I get the sense that for these guys it may be less about AAV and more about total guaranteed $. Otherwise, the AAV on a tag isn’t that bad.

Miles Sanders got 4 years, $25.4M, $11M at signing and $13M guaranteed. He was the highest paid RB on the market this year after going for 1350 yards from scrimmage and 11 TDs.

Pretty good benchmark there. I think all eagles fans (including you and I) would agree that Barkley and Jacobs are appreciably better RBs than Sanders and would have probably gotten more guaranteed money in a vacuum.

All that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that Howie played the RB room perfectly for 2023.

 

[Birdie048]

How much do you think the NCAA / SEC / Georgia makes?

I agree NCAA is also a multi-Billion business and the whole education cost is another challenge being neglected.
But the NCAA brings in serious $$ from the TV contracts (including Playoff/Bowl Games TV), not gate attendance at college games. For the school players to be the "Star" names in college and get good NIL $ is more reasonable than NFL teams making $ off the short term RB physical cost.
I agree. It is what the Market says it is.
I don't blame either side in the JT/Irsay issue. Both have a claim. I put more of the blame on the CBA & US Govt for it's neglect.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

All that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that Howie played the RB room perfectly for 2023.

At the moment I concur. It’ll be interesting to revisit this comment in say, November. If Penny & Swift are both injured and the Eagles are running out a Gainwell / Scott tandem, maybe notsomuch

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

All details aside, Irsay did come off like a total **** In his comments.

I mean, what else is new, but that’s a time he really should have just said nothing.

 

[massraider]

Whatever, the makeup of the Eagles is such that a high-priced RB is a luxury they cannot afford.

Other teams that do not have Jalen Hurts, AJ Brown, and waves of D-linemen that need to get paid can afford a top RB.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

All that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that Howie played the RB room perfectly for 2023.

At the moment I concur. It’ll be interesting to revisit this comment in say, November. If Penny & Swift are both injured and the Eagles are running out a Gainwell / Scott tandem, maybe notsomuch

Well, then Howie can trade for JT

 

[-OZ-]

US Govt for it's neglect.

I was with you until this.
I don’t want the US government involved in this any more than it already is.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Its tough. I sympathize with the idea that the salary cap is essentially a zero sum game and that every extra dollar that goes to a RB is taken away from a LT, edge rusher, CB etc. Every fan wants their team to have a franchise QB, elite lines, stud WRs/CBs, and a Pacheco type productive 7th round rookie RB making next to nothing, because then their team looks like geniuses.

On the other hand, I get the argument of RBs here too, as the productivity scale of RBs in general are for the most part inverted from other positions. They are maybe at their best in years 2 and 3, as opposed to say a defensive tackle or a TE, and certainly QBs, who need a few years of seasoning before really hitting their peaks professionally, and that’s where a rookie salary scale makes a lot more sense.

On top of that, franchise tagging years 5 and 6 creates a negative feedback loop of sorts on the position where the best of the best rarely get to determine what really is the true “market” for top end RBs since they are close to end of market life come year 7. And it makes it more likely that teams use the tag on that position specifically because it costs less to use it there.

To me, the most equitable thing to do would be that franchise tags after the rookie deal are ineligible to be used on RBs. If we’re saying the market says RBs should be paid less, fine, then free agency should settle that issue rather quickly.

Also, if I’m a top college RB, I’m now determining if I can make more in NIL money by staying in school vs being a 3rd or 4th round pick at best (because hey why even take a RB earlier than that amirite?) and getting replaced as early as possible.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to significantly increase the franchise tag $ amount for RB's... not do away with it. I'm well aware that would require lowering the tag $ amount at other positions (zero sum game and all). But it could be spread amongst them, not taken from 1 or 2. And while we all understand the pecking order: QB, LT, edge rusher, CB (RB tag amount would obviously still be less than those)... it makes little sense that only K and P have a lower tag. Off ball LB, interior lineman and S are in a similar spot... but at least they tend to have longer shelf lives.

If the NFL and NFLPA agree to smooth the other franchise tags to increase the RB tag $ amount to one that would fairly compensate the elite RB in the absence of contract extension (and I emphasize elite RB, not replacement level)... it would in effect increase the likelihood teams would give the elite RB an extension at a lower annual $ amount. If the franchise tag is more painful, teams would have incentive to extend them instead. As it stands now, with the lowest tag $ amount besides K and P, and the shorter shelf life of RB, it is a an obvious move for teams to simply tag RB 1-2 times and then move on. By then RB are on the back 9 of their careers, if playing at all (see Sony Michel).

If Saquon Barkley was on the open market and the Giants didn't tag him, what do you think he would have gotten AAV?

His open market value. But then at least we’d know what that is for sure.

Plus I get the sense that for these guys it may be less about AAV and more about total guaranteed $. Otherwise, the AAV on a tag isn’t that bad.

Miles Sanders got 4 years, $25.4M, $11M at signing and $13M guaranteed. He was the highest paid RB on the market this year after going for 1350 yards from scrimmage and 11 TDs.

Pretty good benchmark there. I think all eagles fans (including you and I) would agree that Barkley and Jacobs are appreciably better RBs than Sanders and would have probably gotten more guaranteed money in a vacuum.

All that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that Howie played the RB room perfectly for 2023.

Yeah, they won't spend money on RBs. Organizational philosophy. I think a lot of teams are moving towards that.

 

[Snotbubbles]

All that said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that Howie played the RB room perfectly for 2023.

At the moment I concur. It’ll be interesting to revisit this comment in say, November. If Penny & Swift are both injured and the Eagles are running out a Gainwell / Scott tandem, maybe notsomuch

They would trade for a guy if Swift and Penny got hurt. They traded for Jay Ajayi mid-season and won a Superbowl with him, Blount and Clement. RB is an easy position to plug and play.

 

[rockaction]

I put more of the blame on the CBA & US Govt for it's neglect

The U.S. government ensures good-faith bargaining for the CBA by employer and union. It's not really neglecting anything here. If you choose to say they're not addressing a fundamental unfairness within the CBA, the government defers greatly to the bargaining bodies. If you're talking about players that haven't entered the league yet getting shafted, seniority bargaining on behalf of those who have not entered the league yet has long been a cornerstone of labor law because there aren't any really good solutions otherwise. So, you have a labor law that will always value seniority over members entering the profession. The fact that this now bites senior members because of the pay scale is an irony for sure. The rookie contracts are now very valuable because of their depressed cost bargained for by the senior players themselves.

They helped create that market and are now bit by it because their replacements are easy to come by and cheaper against the cap.

It's actually too bad. I'm not anti-player here. I've long seen this coming. It started out of the analytics world, and once they're right about something, that just sinks in to the sport and only drastic changes will stop the sport from drastically changing. Just like analytics did with baseball, so is the football world changing.

Deamon, of all people, raised the point about running backs and the range of height being 5'8"-6'0". It's an easily replaceable height and weight requirement because you don't have to be too fast or too big -- you just need the proper thickness and reasonable (still world class) athleticism to be a running back. But there aren't too many outlier qualities about them compared to an EDGE or LT when one really thinks about it. Even CBs have to run blazing speeds that very few humans can reach. But a lot of people are 5'10" and can conjure up a BMI of 30 while retaining muscle. Leg day is for real.

 

[Birdie048]

I put more of the blame on the CBA & US Govt for it's neglect

The U.S. government ensures good-faith bargaining for the CBA by employer and union. It's not really neglecting anything here. If you choose to say they're not addressing a fundamental unfairness within the CBA, the government defers greatly to the bargaining bodies. If you're talking about players that haven't entered the league yet getting shafted, seniority bargaining on behalf of those who have not entered the league yet has long been a cornerstone of labor law because there aren't any really good solutions otherwise. So, you have a labor law that will always value seniority over members entering the profession. The fact that this now bites senior members because of the pay scale is an irony for sure. The rookie contracts are now very valuable because of their depressed cost bargained for by the senior players themselves.

They helped create that market and are now bit by it because their replacements are easy to come by and cheaper against the cap.

It's actually too bad. I'm not anti-player here. I've long seen this coming. It started out of the analytics world, and once they're right about something, that just sinks in to the sport and only drastic changes will stop the sport from drastically changing. Just like analytics did with baseball, so is the football world changing.

Deamon, of all people, raised the point about running backs and the range of height being 5'8"-6'0". It's an easily replaceable height and weight requirement because you don't have to be too fast or too big -- you just need the proper thickness and reasonable (still world class) athleticism to be a running back. But there aren't too many outlier qualities about them compared to an EDGE or LT when one really thinks about it. Even CBs have to run blazing speeds that very few humans can reach. But a lot of people are 5'10" and can conjure up a BMI of 30 while retaining muscle. Leg day is for real.

Thanks. I chose my words poorly. I put more blame on College tuition issues on US Govt.
The CBA is 100% on the NFLPA.
Thanks for clarifying the idea on "Good-faith" efforts.

 

[Birdie048]

US Govt for it's neglect.

I was with you until this.
I don’t want the US government involved in this any more than it already is.

Sorry ... Govt was related to College Tuition escalation issues ... Not this RB/Free Trade Market/CBA issues... My apologies.