Running Backs Don't Matter 101 (13 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

laughing at how some of you will try to justify how unimportant players that touch the ball 20-30x a game are.

laugh now, cry later... the elite athletes are going to run from playing RB, and it might as soon as now. the product on the field will suffer for it.

the nfl with no running game is the CFL.

Unimportant is not the right word. RBs simply do not have a lot of value at the moment, and that is being reflected in their current salaries. It is as plain as day.

You ask any GM in the league, "At what five positions do you need to have an elite player?", and I guarantee almost no one is saying RB.

The ability to run the ball has been devalued against a good passing game. Moving the ball through the air, especially with the newer rules, makes the passing game much more efficient and effective than running the ball. Most teams should probably be running less, unless you are getting more than 5 yards a pop.

 

[eighsse2]

I do think it's an arguably fair point that the rookie contract system puts RB's at a disadvantage, and possibly that shouldn't be the case.

My question is: why are rookie contracts regulated so much? I can't really find an answer. Only thing I can think of is, if rookie contracts were unregulated, it could cause a lot of awkward complications. If the highly touted rookie you just drafted isn't willing to play for the $10,000,000/year you were planning on paying him, and instead demands $25,000,000/year that you aren't willing to pay ... then what?

That seems like a good reason to restrict the deals. Is there any other reason as well?

There wasn't a rookie wage scale until about 10-15 years ago. The problem then was that the rookies, particularly the QBs, were making TOO much money. Then franchises had to commit their whole future to these guys before they ever stepped on the field and before you knew if they were any good, so drafting a bust at QB essentially killed your franchise for 5 years because you were stuck paying Aaron Rodgers money for Christian Ponder.

Sam Bradford was kind of the face of it at the time.

So they fixed that problem but inadvertently created another one in decreasing the value of vets since rookies are so much cheaper. And that, circling back to this thread, affects RBs more than most since unlike other positions it overlaps their entire period of peak earning potential.

So now it's probably time to look at it again and adjust it. When things come up like this, they typically eventually do something to try and fix it.

I guess that makes sense, but still kind of weird. Before there was a rookie wage scale, how did you know you'd be able to come to a deal, when you drafted them? What if your new #1 pick future-of-the-franchise QB says, "Yeah, so I'm going to need a 10 year, $700 million contact." Obviously you could turn him down, but then what, he can sign elsewhere and your pick is wasted? At the same time, he's obviously not going to get that from any other team.

But, all in all, shouldn't the "free market" have taken care of any dumb trends? Too many QB's being given huge rookie contracts and then busting ... So stop paying that much for them?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I do think it's an arguably fair point that the rookie contract system puts RB's at a disadvantage, and possibly that shouldn't be the case.

My question is: why are rookie contracts regulated so much? I can't really find an answer. Only thing I can think of is, if rookie contracts were unregulated, it could cause a lot of awkward complications. If the highly touted rookie you just drafted isn't willing to play for the $10,000,000/year you were planning on paying him, and instead demands $25,000,000/year that you aren't willing to pay ... then what?

That seems like a good reason to restrict the deals. Is there any other reason as well?

There wasn't a rookie wage scale until about 10-15 years ago. The problem then was that the rookies, particularly the QBs, were making TOO much money. Then franchises had to commit their whole future to these guys before they ever stepped on the field and before you knew if they were any good, so drafting a bust at QB essentially killed your franchise for 5 years because you were stuck paying Aaron Rodgers money for Christian Ponder.

Sam Bradford was kind of the face of it at the time.

So they fixed that problem but inadvertently created another one in decreasing the value of vets since rookies are so much cheaper. And that, circling back to this thread, affects RBs more than most since unlike other positions it overlaps their entire period of peak earning potential.

So now it's probably time to look at it again and adjust it. When things come up like this, they typically eventually do something to try and fix it.

I guess that makes sense, but still kind of weird. Before there was a rookie wage scale, how did you know you'd be able to come to a deal, when you drafted them? What if your new #1 pick future-of-the-franchise QB says, "Yeah, so I'm going to need a 10 year, $700 million contact." Obviously you could turn him down, but then what, he can sign elsewhere and your pick is wasted? At the same time, he's obviously not going to get that from any other team.

But, all in all, shouldn't the "free market" have taken care of any dumb trends? Too many QB's being given huge rookie contracts and then busting ... So stop paying that much for them?

A player could only sign with the team that drafted them or no one that current year. If they chose not to sign with the team that drafted them they could sit out the year and re-enter the draft the following year to be drafted by another team.

This is exactly what both John Elway and Eli Manning did with the teams that drafted them, threatening to not sign and re-enter the draft the following year (Elway was even going to play baseball for a year as he was drafted in baseball as well) unless they were traded, which both of them were.

Eli was drafted by the Chargers, he said "I'm not going to sign with you so either trade me to the Giants or I'll just sit out and go back into the draft next year".

 

[King of the Jungle]

The market will adjust and the better athletes will transition to different positions. There will always be someone willing to do the job knowing the financial “risk”. I feel bad for cops and firefighters, those guys are risking their lives and are grossly underpaid for it.

 

[menobrown]

I do think it's an arguably fair point that the rookie contract system puts RB's at a disadvantage, and possibly that shouldn't be the case.

My question is: why are rookie contracts regulated so much? I can't really find an answer. Only thing I can think of is, if rookie contracts were unregulated, it could cause a lot of awkward complications. If the highly touted rookie you just drafted isn't willing to play for the $10,000,000/year you were planning on paying him, and instead demands $25,000,000/year that you aren't willing to pay ... then what?

That seems like a good reason to restrict the deals. Is there any other reason as well?

There wasn't a rookie wage scale until about 10-15 years ago. The problem then was that the rookies, particularly the QBs, were making TOO much money. Then franchises had to commit their whole future to these guys before they ever stepped on the field and before you knew if they were any good, so drafting a bust at QB essentially killed your franchise for 5 years because you were stuck paying Aaron Rodgers money for Christian Ponder.

Sam Bradford was kind of the face of it at the time.

So they fixed that problem but inadvertently created another one in decreasing the value of vets since rookies are so much cheaper. And that, circling back to this thread, affects RBs more than most since unlike other positions it overlaps their entire period of peak earning potential.

So now it's probably time to look at it again and adjust it. When things come up like this, they typically eventually do something to try and fix it.

I guess that makes sense, but still kind of weird. Before there was a rookie wage scale, how did you know you'd be able to come to a deal, when you drafted them? What if your new #1 pick future-of-the-franchise QB says, "Yeah, so I'm going to need a 10 year, $700 million contact." Obviously you could turn him down, but then what, he can sign elsewhere and your pick is wasted? At the same time, he's obviously not going to get that from any other team.

But, all in all, shouldn't the "free market" have taken care of any dumb trends? Too many QB's being given huge rookie contracts and then busting ... So stop paying that much for them?

A player could only sign with the team that drafted them or no one that current year. If they chose not to sign with the team that drafted them they could sit out the year and re-enter the draft the following year to be drafted by another team.

This is exactly what both John Elway and Eli Manning did with the teams that drafted them, threatening to not sign and re-enter the draft the following year (Elway was even going to play baseball for a year as he was drafted in baseball as well) unless they were traded, which both of them were.

Eli was drafted by the Chargers, he said "I'm not going to sign with you so either trade me to the Giants or I'll just sit out and go back into the draft next year".

And don't forget Bo Jackson who actually carried out on the threat and made Tampa waste 1.1

 

[humpback]

The busts would. The good players wouldn't.

If Bijan Robinson came out this year and had a Saquon-like rookie year, and then magically he were a free agent next year, he would get a huge deal. Way bigger than his rookie deal. Way bigger than Saquon is getting now at 26 coming off a great year.

Running back value is way down from the old days, sure. But it's still way higher than these contracts dictate. It's just that the contracts aren't given out until the guys are too old to get a big contract. Teams have finally figured out that if you give a RB a huge deal at age 26 that means you're still going to be paying him huge money when he's 28 and likely declined significantly as a player.

Earlier you had advocated for a 3 yr. rookie contract I believe, correct? What do you think a RB would have signed for after a Saquon-like 1st 3 years? Certainly not a huge deal, way bigger than his rookie deal. He's being used as the poster child for this "movement", but the reality is, he's had 2 great seasons, 2 disastrous ones, and 1 mediocre one.

There wasn't a rookie wage scale until about 10-15 years ago. The problem then was that the rookies, particularly the QBs, were making TOO much money. Then franchises had to commit their whole future to these guys before they ever stepped on the field and before you knew if they were any good, so drafting a bust at QB essentially killed your franchise for 5 years because you were stuck paying Aaron Rodgers money for Christian Ponder.

Sam Bradford was kind of the face of it at the time.

So they fixed that problem but inadvertently created another one in decreasing the value of vets since rookies are so much cheaper. And that, circling back to this thread, affects RBs more than most since unlike other positions it overlaps their entire period of peak earning potential.

So now it's probably time to look at it again and adjust it. When things come up like this, they typically eventually do something to try and fix it.

It absolutely did not decrease the value of vets. The % of the salary cap that MUST be spent on vets went up, not down. Do you not see what top veterans at every position other that RB are signing for?

 

[Chaka]

Kill the un-American salary cap and kill the un-American draft.

Problem solved.

They'd probably make less on a true open market.

Possibly.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The busts would. The good players wouldn't.

If Bijan Robinson came out this year and had a Saquon-like rookie year, and then magically he were a free agent next year, he would get a huge deal. Way bigger than his rookie deal. Way bigger than Saquon is getting now at 26 coming off a great year.

Running back value is way down from the old days, sure. But it's still way higher than these contracts dictate. It's just that the contracts aren't given out until the guys are too old to get a big contract. Teams have finally figured out that if you give a RB a huge deal at age 26 that means you're still going to be paying him huge money when he's 28 and likely declined significantly as a player.

Earlier you had advocated for a 3 yr. rookie contract I believe, correct? What do you think a RB would have signed for after a Saquon-like 1st 3 years? Certainly not a huge deal, way bigger than his rookie deal. He's being used as the poster child for this "movement", but the reality is, he's had 2 great seasons, 2 disastrous ones, and 1 mediocre one.

Well obviously a guy tearing his ACL in his 3rd year of a 3 year contract is an outlier situation and a worst possible case scenario. Even still, I bet the contract Saquon would have gotten as a 23/24 year old that just tore his ACL would be better than the contract he was offered as a 26 year old coming off a healthy pro bowl season, which shows just how much those 2 years screw over a running back in the current system.

 

[Wingnut]

Leading rushers for last 10 Super Bowl winners:

2022 KC - I Pacheco 830 yds
2021 LAR - S Michel 845 yds
2020 TB - R Jones 978 yds
2019 KC - D Williams 498 yds
2018 NE - S Michel 931 yds
2017 PHI - L Blount 766 yds
2016 NE- L Blount 1161 yds
2015 DEN - R Hillman 863 yds
2014 NE - J Gray 412 yds
2013 SEA - M Lynch 1257

Interesting.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Leading receivers for last 10 Super Bowl winners:

2022 KC - T Kelce 1338 yds (J Smith-Schuster 933 yds)
2021 LAR - C Kupp 1947 yds
2020 TB - M Evans 1006 yds
2019 KC - T Kelce 1229 yds (T Hill 860 yds)
2018 NE - J Edelman 850 yds
2017 PHI - Z Ertz 824 yds (A Jeffrey 789 yds)
2016 NE- J Edelman 1106 yds
2015 DEN - D Thomas 1304 yds
2014 NE - GRONKSMASH 1124 yds (J Edelman 972 yds)
2013 SEA - G Tate 898 yds

 

[Wingnut]

Starting QBs for last 10 Super Bowl winners (and losers)

2022 - Mahomes (Hurts)
2021 - Stafford (Burrow)
2020 - Brady (Mahomes)
2019 - Mahomes (Garoppolo)
2018 - Brady (Goff)
2017 - Foles (Brady)
2016 - Brady (Ryan)
2015 - P Manning (Newton)
2014 - Brady (Wilson)
2013 - Wilson (P Manning)

 

[humpback]

The busts would. The good players wouldn't.

If Bijan Robinson came out this year and had a Saquon-like rookie year, and then magically he were a free agent next year, he would get a huge deal. Way bigger than his rookie deal. Way bigger than Saquon is getting now at 26 coming off a great year.

Running back value is way down from the old days, sure. But it's still way higher than these contracts dictate. It's just that the contracts aren't given out until the guys are too old to get a big contract. Teams have finally figured out that if you give a RB a huge deal at age 26 that means you're still going to be paying him huge money when he's 28 and likely declined significantly as a player.

Earlier you had advocated for a 3 yr. rookie contract I believe, correct? What do you think a RB would have signed for after a Saquon-like 1st 3 years? Certainly not a huge deal, way bigger than his rookie deal. He's being used as the poster child for this "movement", but the reality is, he's had 2 great seasons, 2 disastrous ones, and 1 mediocre one.

Well obviously a guy tearing his ACL in his 3rd year of a 3 year contract is an outlier situation and a worst possible case scenario. Even still, I bet the contract Saquon would have gotten as a 23/24 year old that just tore his ACL would be better than the contract he was offered as a 26 year old coming off a healthy pro bowl season, which shows just how much those 2 years screw over a running back in the current system.

Is it though? How many good, young RBs get hurt every year (see Hall and Javonte)? Again, one of the reasons RBs aren't super valuable is because they have shorter careers and get hurt fairly often. I absolutely do not think Saquon would have made more money than he did if his initial contact was only 3 years. The first contract would have been smaller obviously, and no one is breaking the bank for any RB coming off of a major injury. It's pretty rare for the first year back to be very good (his was awful) and some never return to form.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Leading receivers for last 10 Super Bowl winners:

2022 KC - T Kelce 1338 yds (J Smith-Schuster 933 yds)
2021 LAR - C Kupp 1947 yds
2020 TB - M Evans 1006 yds
2019 KC - T Kelce 1229 yds (T Hill 860 yds)
2018 NE - J Edelman 850 yds
2017 PHI - Z Ertz 824 yds (A Jeffrey 789 yds)
2016 NE- J Edelman 1106 yds
2015 DEN - D Thomas 1304 yds
2014 NE - GRONKSMASH 1124 yds (J Edelman 972 yds)
2013 SEA - G Tate 898 yds

Looking at that really illustrates how important a stud TE is these days. 6 of the last 10 Super Bowl winners had a future HOF TE (Kelce and Gronk). And two others had guys who were studs in the short term (Ertz and J. Thomas).

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Starting QBs for last 10 Super Bowl winners (and losers)

2022 - Mahomes (Hurts)
2021 - Stafford (Burrow)
2020 - Brady (Mahomes)
2019 - Mahomes (Garoppolo)
2018 - Brady (Goff)
2017 - Foles (Brady)
2016 - Brady (Ryan)
2015 - P Manning (Newton)
2014 - Brady (Wilson)
2013 - Wilson (P Manning)

So basically to win a SB a team needs a HOF QB. All other positions are irrelevant

 

[Todem]

The busts would. The good players wouldn't.

If Bijan Robinson came out this year and had a Saquon-like rookie year, and then magically he were a free agent next year, he would get a huge deal. Way bigger than his rookie deal. Way bigger than Saquon is getting now at 26 coming off a great year.

Running back value is way down from the old days, sure. But it's still way higher than these contracts dictate. It's just that the contracts aren't given out until the guys are too old to get a big contract. Teams have finally figured out that if you give a RB a huge deal at age 26 that means you're still going to be paying him huge money when he's 28 and likely declined significantly as a player.

Earlier you had advocated for a 3 yr. rookie contract I believe, correct? What do you think a RB would have signed for after a Saquon-like 1st 3 years? Certainly not a huge deal, way bigger than his rookie deal. He's being used as the poster child for this "movement", but the reality is, he's had 2 great seasons, 2 disastrous ones, and 1 mediocre one.

Well obviously a guy tearing his ACL in his 3rd year of a 3 year contract is an outlier situation and a worst possible case scenario. Even still, I bet the contract Saquon would have gotten as a 23/24 year old that just tore his ACL would be better than the contract he was offered as a 26 year old coming off a healthy pro bowl season, which shows just how much those 2 years screw over a running back in the current system.

Barkley had made 51MM guaranteed before he ever took an NFL snap.

I don’t care what he does. He can retire today….I don’t give a crap about him feeling disrespected or any multi million dollar athletes.

The guys I feel for are the late draft picks or UFA’s who have grinded their whole life and are vastly undervalued with similar and sometimes much better production than some of these overgrown babies who got 10’s of millions of dollars already.

And don’t get me wrong. Barkely earned that 51MM guaranteed with a life long work ethic to put himself in position to get that contract and be drafted in the top 5 or whatever it was.

But when he tweets “it is what it is” after not getting an extension…..my heart does not bleed. He is right…it is what it is….you got paid already. Be grateful.

I don’t side with the owners or players….I side with everyday people who don’t give a **** about professional athletes whining.

They are blessed to be paid what they are paid for playing a kids game.

 

[massraider]

Starting QBs for last 10 Super Bowl winners (and losers)

2022 - Mahomes (Hurts)
2021 - Stafford (Burrow)
2020 - Brady (Mahomes)
2019 - Mahomes (Garoppolo)
2018 - Brady (Goff)
2017 - Foles (Brady)
2016 - Brady (Ryan)
2015 - P Manning (Newton)
2014 - Brady (Wilson)
2013 - Wilson (P Manning)

So basically to win a SB a team needs a HOF QB. All other positions are irrelevant

I dunno, looks a stud TE is a pretty big deal.

 

[Insein]

Tom Grossi: When RBs try to get new contracts

 

[eighsse2]

Leading rushers for last 10 Super Bowl winners:

2022 KC - I Pacheco 830 yds
2021 LAR - S Michel 845 yds
2020 TB - R Jones 978 yds
2019 KC - D Williams 498 yds
2018 NE - S Michel 931 yds
2017 PHI - L Blount 766 yds
2016 NE- L Blount 1161 yds
2015 DEN - R Hillman 863 yds
2014 NE - J Gray 412 yds
2013 SEA - M Lynch 1257

Interesting.

Jonas Gray

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

 

[raidersraidersraiders]

more like a grief counseling meeting

 

[travdogg]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

Something tells me CMC ain't attending.

But seriously, I don't even really understand the point of this. This whole issue is basically an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Its actually somewhat ironic it'd be Ekeler's idea, since he's kind of the poster boy for letting the expensive high draft pick go and going with the younger cheaper guy.

 

[Insein]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

Something tells me CMC ain't attending.

But seriously, I don't even really understand the point of this. This whole issue is basically an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Its actually somewhat ironic it'd be Ekeler's idea, since he's kind of the poster boy for letting the expensive high draft pick go and going with the younger cheaper guy.

The problem in his case is that if you're not the expensive high draft picks, you may never get paid. The high draft picks are automatically top 5 paid at the position before they ever take a snap.

 

[zamboni]

Leading rushers for last 10 Super Bowl winners:

2022 KC - I Pacheco 830 yds
2021 LAR - S Michel 845 yds
2020 TB - R Jones 978 yds
2019 KC - D Williams 498 yds
2018 NE - S Michel 931 yds
2017 PHI - L Blount 766 yds
2016 NE- L Blount 1161 yds
2015 DEN - R Hillman 863 yds
2014 NE - J Gray 412 yds
2013 SEA - M Lynch 1257

Interesting.

Jonas Gray

And half of that came in one game.

 

[travdogg]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

Something tells me CMC ain't attending.

But seriously, I don't even really understand the point of this. This whole issue is basically an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Its actually somewhat ironic it'd be Ekeler's idea, since he's kind of the poster boy for letting the expensive high draft pick go and going with the younger cheaper guy.

The problem in his case is that if you're not the expensive high draft picks, you may never get paid. The high draft picks are automatically top 5 paid at the position before they ever take a snap.

Ekeler made top-10 RB money last year and is set to be 8th to 11th this year. That seems pretty in-line with his talent. Sure, he made half of what Derrick Henry did, but he's also not as good, or as important to his team.

The 4 highest paid RBs are CMC, Kamara, Henry, and Chubb. Other than Kamara (who was on that level at one point) that looks right to me. Would Ekeler make more on the open market? Maybe, maybe not. Its also possible nobody would have used him like the Chargers have, and his profile would be a lot lower.

I could understand the argument if the money that would be going to RBs was just being pocketed by the owners or whatever, but its being spent on better, more important players. Like Dallas dumping Zeke helps allow them extend guys like Lamb and Parsons, and if he plays great in 2023, maybe even Pollard. Same thing in Minnesota, they'll extend Jefferson, Hockenson, and maybe Darrisaw, all of those guys were much more important than Cook, and that's not even getting into his off-field issues. Even in NY, extending Dexter Lawrence was much more important than Barkley, as will be Andrew Thomas. One could make an argument about Daniel Jones, but NY was very clear about their feelings, and I can't say I disagree with them, even if I think Jones is an average starter.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

Imagine if it became public that owners were getting together to discuss how to not pay a certain position more money. There would be screams of collusion all over the place.

 

[menobrown]

Something tells me CMC ain't attending.

But seriously, I don't even really understand the point of this

CMC attended and most of the attendees were either the top of the market earning RB's ones on their rookie deal set to enter FA next off-eason.

Seems pointless, like a bunch of unhappy employees who arranged a get together at the bar after work for a ***** session that won't get anything done.

 

[-OZ-]

Per dov kleiman

Report: Top #NFL running backs planning a Zoom call for Saturday night to discuss their depressed market.

Multiple sources tell PFT's Mike Florio that #Chargers RB Austin Ekeler has organized the meeting and distributed the Zoom link.

All of the big-name running backs have been invited.

The RBs previously organized a group text chain aimed at addressing the declining running back market.

Imagine if it became public that owners were getting together to discuss how to not pay a certain position more money. There would be screams of collusion all over the place.

Imagine a group of employees getting together to discuss their employment, benefits and problems they find in the workplace. Some might even file a grievance once in a while.
(Don’t mind me, I’m just a Salty attorney dabbling a little in labor with a union)

 

[-OZ-]

Seems pointless, like a bunch of unhappy employees who arranged a get together at the bar after work for a ***** session that won't get anything done.

We call that Tuesday

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don’t side with the owners or players….I side with everyday people who don’t give a **** about professional athletes whining.

Agreed. If I can run with this theme for a minute, doesn't it strike y'all as odd that Patrick Mahommes was given a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to play football?

I'm not arguing against players getting paid...I'm questioning whether the NFLPA has its house in order looking after the 1500 guys a year playing the game when the elites are effectively getting infinite money. Methinks the NFPLA should re-organize with this premise in mind. In the current organizational model, owners are encouraged to overpay qbs, wrs, tackles and defensive ends. That won't change unless player representation takes on a more "no man left behind" orientation.

 

[Anarchy99]

I don’t side with the owners or players….I side with everyday people who don’t give a **** about professional athletes whining.

Agreed. If I can run with this theme for a minute, doesn't it strike y'all as odd that Patrick Mahommes was given a HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to play football?

I'm not arguing against players getting paid...I'm questioning whether the NFLPA has its house in order looking after the 1500 guys a year playing the game when the elites are effectively getting infinite money. Methinks the NFPLA should re-organize with this premise in mind. In the current organizational model, owners are encouraged to overpay qbs, wrs, tackles and defensive ends. That won't change unless player representation takes on a more "no man left behind" orientation.

I forget the actual breakdown, but the majority of pay in the league goes out to a small percentage of the players, while the huge majority of players get (relatively speaking) very little pay. Most of the league views players whining about franchise tags as rich people problems. There are tons of guys getting paid in the hundreds of thousands to a million dollars and change. They are not going to feel bad for guys making 10-15 times what they do on "just" a franchise tag.

 

[Faust]

Colts owner Jim Irsay took to social media to discuss the current RB landscape, saying some “agents are selling ‘bad faith’”.

Irsay’s exact post read, “NFL Running Back situation- We have negotiated a CBA,that took years of effort and hard work and compromise in good faith by both sides..to say now that a specific Player category whats another negotiation after the fact,is inappropriate. Some agents are selling ‘bad faith’”. Even in a jumbled social media post, Irsay’s argument isn’t getting lost in translation. The Colts owner, who will soon have to decide on whether or not he wants to extend running back Jonathan Taylor, is none-too-pleased about running backs looking for a way to regain some leverage on a down running back market. When questioned about a Taylor extension, Colts GM Chris Ballard recently said the running back “market is what the market is.” Taylor is currently on the active/PUP list with an ankle injury that dates back to last season. We’ll assume once he’s healthy, he’ll be on the field, although Irsay’s recent comments could cause Taylor to think differently.

 

[Faust]

Austin Ekeler wants to 'attack' franchise tag: 'It's detrimental to us as players'

 

[SoBeDad]

Good time to bump this thread. And note that the 49er running game and offense really took off when Brock was at the helm.

 

[massraider]

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1703857895069061414

NFL has filed a grievance, accusing the union of telling players to fake injuries.

This is some sleazy ish. Apparently the union leadership made this recommendation on a Zoom? Dumb, if true.

 

[humpback]

The busts would. The good players wouldn't.

If Bijan Robinson came out this year and had a Saquon-like rookie year, and then magically he were a free agent next year, he would get a huge deal. Way bigger than his rookie deal. Way bigger than Saquon is getting now at 26 coming off a great year.

Running back value is way down from the old days, sure. But it's still way higher than these contracts dictate. It's just that the contracts aren't given out until the guys are too old to get a big contract. Teams have finally figured out that if you give a RB a huge deal at age 26 that means you're still going to be paying him huge money when he's 28 and likely declined significantly as a player.

Earlier you had advocated for a 3 yr. rookie contract I believe, correct? What do you think a RB would have signed for after a Saquon-like 1st 3 years? Certainly not a huge deal, way bigger than his rookie deal. He's being used as the poster child for this "movement", but the reality is, he's had 2 great seasons, 2 disastrous ones, and 1 mediocre one.

Well obviously a guy tearing his ACL in his 3rd year of a 3 year contract is an outlier situation and a worst possible case scenario. Even still, I bet the contract Saquon would have gotten as a 23/24 year old that just tore his ACL would be better than the contract he was offered as a 26 year old coming off a healthy pro bowl season, which shows just how much those 2 years screw over a running back in the current system.

Is it though? How many good, young RBs get hurt every year (see Hall and Javonte)? Again, one of the reasons RBs aren't super valuable is because they have shorter careers and get hurt fairly often. I absolutely do not think Saquon would have made more money than he did if his initial contact was only 3 years. The first contract would have been smaller obviously, and no one is breaking the bank for any RB coming off of a major injury. It's pretty rare for the first year back to be very good (his was awful) and some never return to form.

Dobbins, Chubb, Saquon, Ekeler, Aaron Jones and David Montgomery all injured before they can make it through 2 games. Then you can add in a few others like Gainwell, Jamaal Williams, etc.

I think we're going to see more and more teams look to give 3-4 RBs a few mil per year instead of giving any one a huge contract.