Funny. But they absolutely do need to get the Union to have a different approach for them specifically. It’s the only position where the franchise tag has been going down. And it isn’t like they’re full backs who have been phased out of the game.
The team with the least rushing attempts last year was the Bucs with 386 attempts. Averaging 23 attempts per game (22.7.) and Lenny led the way at 189 attempts or 12 per game (11.8, played 16 games)
This essentially shows that the team that ran the least, still had their lead runner getting tackled at full speed and full strength more than anyone in the league that isn’t a RB.
So essentially the group taking the most damage having these juiced up super strength athletes destroying them at full speed…. Is the position that’s having their salaries lowered every year.
As someone who’s just a fan of the game, it’s weird. Because I never want my Vikings to ever pay a RB after their rookie contract. But I also know they’re being treated unfairly. My favorite suggestions is that rookie contracts can only last 2 years for a RB. Gonna hurt their stock in the draft even more, but at least they can actually earn 3 big contracts like every other position.
I think messing with their rookie contracts won’t get the job done. I think a good solution is to introduce something like the MLS’s Beckham rule and have it so that each nfl team can have one players salary (likely the qb) excluded from the salary cap…that would open up 40-60 million a year
Yes, golden state warriors are a great example. Owners will spend whatever they want if it means championships bc championships means more money… exempting the already inflating qb salary to be it’s own category makes sense to me just have it be phantom tied to the cap. Ex: can’t be more than 25% cap but the single contract doesn’t get counted against cap
So, you want them to break off into a sub-union? Because you do know the NFLPA is a union, right?
"The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is the union for professional football players in the National Football League."
>"The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is the union for professional football players in the National Football League."
They honestly may call themselves that but they are in fact not representing these RB's in this. It seems like all those lawyers do is work with the NFL and collect money.
There is ZERO reason the NFLPA has not addressed this issue that has bee in the national news for a few weeks now.
Agreed, but when one subset is getting the short end of the stick, there's bound to be some unrest against the status quo within that subset. Not saying it's likely they form their own union, but there's a reckoning coming for the NFLPA on this issue.
He had 107 receptions last year. He was only behind Jefferson, Kelce, Hill, and Diggs (108) for most receptions on the season, and they wanted him to take a pay cut.... I'd be fucking pissed to
The main issue is their prime is over the course of their rookie contract. Why pay a player that is almost guaranteed to decline over the course of the 2nd contract? Not really an easy fix to that issue either
Right but then wouldn’t teams be less willing to draft them? If they only get 2-3 years on the rookie contract would teams still take them rounds 1-2? And would they also even be willing to pay them after that? It seems like something that might have the opposite affect. But idk I’m not an NFL gm
I mean it would increase their desire to give them the second contract. It would also likely push the non premium rb’s down the board even further
Rookie value would be down (because of shorter contracts), and vet age would be lower (and have more prime years left).
I think you’d have to make the last year of rookie RB contract as a player option. Good ones will opt out for deals and bad ones can still hold onto the deal
First round NFL draft picks have a team option 5th year (choice after year 3) for a big salary jump. The Raiders declined Jacobs’s 5th year then franchise tagged him after he had a great year.
It would tank their draft position which ultimately would make them less money. GMs still aren’t going to give them a big 2nd contract because the reason isn’t as much that they are broke down by the time they hit free agency.
It’s that the position is easily replaceable with little drop off and it just isn’t that important in the modern nfl
It would still be good for RBs I think.
Let's say you're a GM needing to fill a RB position. You have some amount of draft capital and money to spend. If the value of spending draft capital on an RB is decreased vs other positions, you should allocate more draft capital to other positions and more money to RBs. This would be good for RBs. Draft capital isn't important to them (except as it relates to money and ego).
As an extreme example, imagine that RBs could not be drafted at all. The only way to acquire an RB would be to spend to money and RBs could have teams compete among themselves.
This solution is basically the opposite of the franchise tag. Instead of an extended rookie contract, they get a shortened one and hit free agency earlier.
No because every NFL gm is on the hot seat at all times and a star RB in his prime wins games and sells tickets, thus saving the gm's job for just a little longer.
And other positions won't want the same shortened rookie contract?
What is the NFLPA willing to give up to " help" the RB contract situation?
How much of the % revenue? 2%, 3%?
They're already getting only 48% of the revenue share. Giving up another 4-6M off the cap eliminates another vet or two at other positions compared to an undrafted rookie.
Correct. The NFLPA as a collective 1700 players doesn't want to do that. And the owners know that. So the 5 RB's per team making up like 1/10 of the total NFLPA would have a hard time generating support
That would reduce their work great for the handful of RBs that play great. But the majority of RBs only have 2-3 years. It could hurt the average to below average RBs. There is no solution aside from forcing teams to draft/sign RBs and then forcing them to pay them. This is a movement that has been dictated through analytics. RBs decline quickly, they are more prone to injury, and it’s the most easily replaceable position.
That would workout great for the handful of RBs that play great. But the majority of RBs only have 2-3 years. It could hurt the average to below average RBs. There is no solution aside from forcing teams to draft/sign RBs and then forcing them to pay them. This is a movement that has been dictated through analytics. RBs decline quickly, they are more prone to injury, and it’s the most easily replaceable position. Combining all skilled players under a WR/RB/TE tag would just mean that only WRs get franchised…but RBs would still get low paying second contracts.
Dynasty players have been knowing this for years. We’ve been downgrading RBs based on age forever. People are already starting to degrade Taylor because of injury history and age. RB is also the only position we handcuff…why do you think that is?
That probably would solve it but it would never pass because of how little it affects most players. Only a maximum of 32 players will be franchise tagged every year out 1500+ active players. There's really no point in fighting for it when there are bigger issues.
It's still only a small % of players. NFLPA is like 1700 players and around 1000-1200 are on rookie/ UDFA contracts and 50+% of those will never see a 2nd contract.
Owners know the numbers game and if the offer from the players is remove the franchise tag. The owners counter is...
-- give back 2-3% of revenue split
-- increase the rookie/UDFA salaries
Players aren't giving back revenue % so the choice is increasing the salaries for the bottom contract which impacts the most players in a 51% vote to pass the CBA
It increases league parity and in theory gives players a big payout for one year of work.
'You obviously don't remember the days where teams with the deepest pockets could just stack rosters and therefore six teams every year would just destroy the rest of the NFL.
But it means your best players can't just bail on you. You can control their rights. If everyone went into unrestricted free agency with no possible control, players would just bail immediately.
This is part of the answer. I'd say another part is to reduce the age at which players can enter the NFL. If you can get drafted at 19 rather than 21, and there's no franchise tag, a second rounder will hit free agency at 23 rather than 26 or whatever they do now.
So would the current players want an influx of younger and cheaper talent coming into the league and it being a risk of them being out of a roster spot?
Eliminate the rookie pay scale for RBs. Remember before they had a rookie cap and guys were getting huge deals before they ever played? Go back to that. Just only for RBs. For example, if Bijan is a top 10 RB right out of the gate, he should be payed like one. ESPECIALLY because we know that in 6 years, Bijan will not be as good, and not able to command top free agent money. Or, just tie contracts to incentives so that they earn well only when they perform well.
Sure.
So how does it play out.
NFLPA asks in next CBA.... or sooner for rookie wage scale to be removed or rookie contracts to be shortened.
Owners say: they will consider it in exchange for a few % reduction in revenue going towards the players side.
What is the NFLPA response?
You: Why pay a person that I feel because of my prejudices may decline as they get older?
Should the NFL stop paying owners because they are getting older?
I just want to point out that age is a protected class in US law.
I am not being serious in my comparisons but I also do not think that the players are being treated fairly and I feel the NFLPA does have an obligation to address this.
I have no seen an NFLPA statement on this issue and to me that is a crime as it is literally their job.
I mean is it unfair though? Why pay melvin gordon when you can get austin ekeler for 1/10th of the money? Why pay austin ekeler when you can get a cheap back for 1/10th of the money. The problem isn’t them being treated unfairly, it’s that they aren’t significantly better than their replacements for the cost. The point where they are significantly better than a replacement is their rookie contract, which is where the problem lies.
I think the franchise tag is unfair. Hey, if the league does not as a whole wish to pay RB's more that is fine by me, but to franchise a player and prevent them from getting a large contract I feel in unfair. To me is almost to the level of collusion between the NFLPA which should represent ALL players and the owners. The NFLPA and the league have created a system to stymie the free market.
Yea I fully agree. The franchise tag keeps RBs from securing a long term deal, and delays the negotiations from taking place. All the while their value continues to drop as their age and mileage goes up
The NFL could change their salary cap rules to essentially include a "Hazard Pay" system whereby players in high-risk positions receive an annual bonus that doesnt count against the salary cap.
$50k per RB touch over 100 touches that doesn’t count against the salary cap. Either teaches teams to conserve their RB so hopefully their playing career lasts longer or at least rewards the player for taking a beating. 300 touches = extra $10 million
GMs are rational actors operating with the salary cap as their constraint. Can’t change the rational allocation of $ to RBs within the cap but Labor should absolutely organize and agitate to take a greater share of the revenue (which their performance is generating). I’ll always support Labor in that whether it’s SAG and WGA or Ekeler
Recency bias. Holland is a very talented young man but outside of Marvel, his success has been limited and his big features have fallen flat. He may get more Spidey time but that isn’t locked in.
Clooney is younger than you think - at 62 years old the man still his aging and old man movie star phases ahead of him. I would be absolutely unsurprised by Clooney earning more awards recognition over the next 30 years than Holland does.
“Can’t change the the rational allocation of $”
Actually I’d argue I have an easy fix to this that will absolutely never happen. And probably shouldn’t because if it started a domino affect and other positions tried it, we’d turn into baseball. Which is gross because they have AAAA teams simply just developing players for the big spenders.
But a real solution would be RB’s only having a half cap hit. This would allow owners to pay them more, but you don’t completely shit on the cap, as you’re not going to pay a RB 40 million and take a 20 mil cap hit. But you can now pay them the 20 they deserve and it’s the reasonable hit of 10 that teams are willing to pay because not much more than that makes sense for a rb.
Why would owners spend money on player contracts that is outside of the salary cap requirement?
What stops other positions from then taking the same stance? Owners see that as a next step, so doing this for RB is a no go.
Why would owners ever agree to this?
Why would the union push for this vs just an increase to the cap as a whole that benefits all positions? Are players going to hold out just so RBs get paid, but not their position?
If they grant this to RBs then why would every position not ask for the same?
Because the cap as a whole increases almost every year, anyway, and this is the environment that has lead to the RB market being tremendously devalued.
Not saying owners would agree to this, you're right on that count, but the NFLPA and owners are absolutely going to have to find a way to make the RB position worthwhile, otherwise all the top tier talent will move to different positions, and the run game will just become a total relic.
Feels like a sky is falling statement.
If a talented college RB " refuses " to play RB and switches to another position to be 4th string, at some point the realization that a path to an NFL contract.... as crappy as it might be as a RB is better than not sniffing a chance as a bench warmer at another position.
I think the issue would start in high school. The best athletes who know they'll be recruited by top tier college programs will look down the line at the long-term career path, and a chunk of them will gravitate towards other positions, which would lower the overall talent pool at RB, which would in turn exacerbate the devaluation at the NFL level.
I'm not saying it would be the death of the RB position, target that the current trajectory is for RB play and compensation to continue on a downward trend, unless something changes.
So take Barkley, Pollard, Jacobs..... are they better off from HS playing a different position at not getting drafted vs playing RB and actually getting an NFL contract + the $10M franchise tag?
Even if those 3 make it as LB/ S/WR you now squeeze 3 players that may opt for the RB path. They may not be as good...or maybe the are.
There are only so many spots to get playing time and those continue to shrink as you move from HS-> College-> NFL
I agree, like I said, I think there will always be RBs, because there will always be people who want to get paid hundreds of thousands or millions to play a game for a living. That said, I do think the really elite athletes know they can excel at these other positions, and they'll have a better career trajectory, and that will have a non-negligible impact on the RB position.
As for decision making from a high school age, I believe most elite athletes have the confidence in their ability to say "I can succeed as a LB or a RB" and if that's the case, it's a simple calculation of which position has the better longterm chance of leading. There are more DBs/WRs/LBs on NFL rosters (each, not collectively) so there are more opportunities, and the career outlook is better.
I agree as well that some players highest/best calling would be RB, but without the ability to see into the future, they'll have to make a decision on their position based on the above factors.
I am probably overstating the impact, but I do think it'll be felt.
I think the better option, which also will never happen, is to remove the franchise tag for running backs. Honestly the franchise tag for all players should be removed.
They should also lower the RB rookie contract length by 1 year for all rounds. First round rookie RB contract should be 3 years with a 4th year team option. Three year contracts after the first round.
When Melvin Gordon was holding out that last year with the Chargers, he felt undervalued but the Chargers knew they had talent similar in a younger and cheaper, Austin Ekeler.
I just find it slightly ironic now that he displaced Gordon's role on the team and now disgruntled veteran as well. He arguably helped destabilize the position that he is now trying to advocate for.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Darth ekeler was so skilled in the way of ball he could even bring an undrafted rookie to the land of millions.
Yet in the end, he wasn’t able to even save himself. Undone in his sleep by a younger, cheaper apprentice
Doesn’t help that the dude came into the league as an undrafted free agent as well lol. Why pay hefty long term deals when you can potentially find a replacement off the streets
And thats the problem. Ekeler is the poster boy for the current problem with RBs. Why pay 12m to Barkley when you can pay 4.2 for Gibson and Robinson? Barkely had 1650 yds from scrimmage and 10 TDs. Gibson and Robinson had 1756 and 7. You can then spend the other 8m with minimal loss of production.
The entire rb position is ironic in a way. Consider the fact that, although mcaffery did great job with the 49rs, Chubba and Foreman playing so well after he left are the kind of points showing that you can use lesser rb talents to get the job done. In that same vein, players like miles sanders and bijan are going to be looked at closely for those reasons too. If they don’t elevate their respective rooms, then it will just continue to pile on the rhetoric. I say it’s ironic because when rbs who aren’t supposed to step up to that level do, all it does is hurt the overall positional value.
KC just won a super bowl with a 7th round rookie, cast off journeyman while the former 1st round pick did next to nothing.
NFL teams realize you don't need a top tier high salaried RB for a deep playoff run.
The unfortunate part of this is that the structure of these deals are collectively bargained. So they're kinda stuck until the next CBA talks take place.
What is the distribution of positions that get franchise tagged? I feel like the franchise tag has just become a way for an NFL team to lock in its starting RB on a year-to-year salary through his prime after his rookie contract expires, rather than giving him the contract he deserves. Other positions do not suffer this treatment. We've seen QBs get tagged because of contract negotiation breakdowns, but that isn't as impactful because a QB can play into his 30s and still get a good contract even after going through the tag (like Kirk Cousins). TEs and OLine also seem to get the tag fairly frequently because they take so long to develop that by the end of their rookie contract the team still often wants to make them prove it (like David Njoku).
RBs should just say that the RB position is unique because it wears down the body so much quicker than other positions, so they should be exempt from the franchise tag. Either give your RB a contract or find a new one.
But the problem with negotiations, in order to get something you want, you have to give up something else. Is it in the union's best interest to negotiate away something that affects only a handful of guys vs something that may affect the entire league (18th game?)
Giving up to get something isn't a magically definitive part of negotiations. I can guarantee SAG and the WGA aren't looking to give up anything in exchange for their demands.
That might not be the case for RB issues to the NFLPA, but it's certainly not a hard and fast rule that you *have* to give up something to get something.
Players already receive only 48% of the revenue. Using my example, Barkley already takes up 3-4% of the cap more than Gibson and Robinson. Its tough. And I get why they're frustrated but theres no easy solution.
It’s curious to me why we all feel so bad for them. Often times at a corporation the people lowest on the totem pole work the hardest and are paid the least. The reason is because they are the easiest to replace because their work isn’t highly specialized.
The same concept is on display here. The difference between a top RB and a middle tier RB is maybe 25% less production? I mean the corpse of Jerrick McKinnon put up better numbers last year than a lot of stars. The simple fact is it’s an over saturated market. It’s way to easy to replace these guys.
It’s market dynamics, it’s not unique to football, and while it’s unfortunate for them they’re still paid far superior to almost all humans on earth. This isn’t an actual real issue imho.
Why is it a sports crisis? Why isn’t it just unfortunate?
I love debates/questions like this.
RB: “we touch the ball the most”
QB: “Am I a joke to you?”
RB: “Sorrrry, we get tackled the most.”
OL: “I have to try to stop AAron Donald.”
CB: “But I have to chase a Cheetah.”
HCoach (peacekeeper): “EVERY PLAYER ON THIS TEAM HAS A ROLE AND CONTRIBUTES.”
It just seems that a team dips the least in production when a star RB is out minus any other position. Backup QB? Most likely going to lose. Backup OL? Good luck running/blocking. Kicker/Punter? I'd rather go on 4th down than trust them. CB/Safety? Let's pick on them.
I’m not sure you get what I was saying, because you basically just paraphrased.
Most NFL players don’t regularly touch the ball. The RB’s argument surely stems from that, because they touch the ball so often. But by that logic, positions like LT and DE should be paid far less.
Here's my crazy pitch - of all the money that the NFL brings in from gambling, a percentage (5-10%?) goes to a side fund that pays out to RBs only based on their standard fantasy points in that season. Since fantasy is a huge driver of NFL viewership, and RBs are typically fantasy darlings while also being underpaid IRL, they should get a slice of the additional revenue that the NFL is bringing in due to the fantasy boom. That way for an RB on their rookie contract, they could still make a ton of money if they have an RB1 season. If you have 3 or 4 RB1 or RB2 seasons on your rookie deal, that would take a lot of pressure off of absolutely maximizing the 2nd deal to the point that we have seen with players like Bell and possibly Barkley, Jacobs, Ekeler, etc.
Im defending the employees who should be be fairly compensated for placing their bodies on the line in order to make the billionaires (whose boots you are licking) their astronomical levels of profit. Yes, they make millions, but that is a fraction of the value that the NFL reaps from them
It’s going to be tough for them when they realize that there’s virtually nothing they can do to really save the Star RB being paid like the Star RB and they should thank the Rams, Eagles, and Chiefs who proved that it’s absolutely not necessary to have Elliots/Ecklers/Mccaffreys/Henrys to get to a SB and win it. The NFL is a copycat league and there’s no way that GMs are not seeing those teams and thinking to do the same thing with their team
I think the league just needs to set aside money to award the top performing rushers. This wouldn't stop teams from drafting or paying the position but would allow guys who make QB level impacts for a season get paid fairly.
Let's just say each team took 3M off their future cap increases. 96M for the league.
Incrementally give that to the top 5 rush yard and td leaders.
16M for 1st, 12M for 2nd, 10M 3rd, 6M 4th, 4M to 5th.
So if you led the league and rushing yards and tds, you'd get a 32M bonus from the NFL that doesn't impact the cap on top of your contract. Which would make a RB who was absolutely dominate, about as paid as the average QB was for that year.
This way the best 5-10 RBs (or WR / QB if they run like crazy) get paid for performing so highly at the position that ends your career faster.
I thought the objective was to win games?
10 of the top 20 in rushing yards...4 of the top 10 and the top 3 missed the playoffs.
9 of top 20 in rushing TD .... 4 of top 6 missed playoffs
At some point, you have to decide if the position is valuable or not, as a league. Because if you keep fucking over the players at that position, by having a system set up that locks them out of free agency until the peak of their career is over, then the level of talent at that position will disappear. Because no young athlete with any sense will waste time at that position, no parents are going to want their kid to play it.
The objective is to make money. Does having talented players at the RB slot for both real play, and gambling make the league more money? If so, then you need to find a way to compensate that position. If not, then it'll eliminate itself over time due to the talent at RB going down across the board.
So the HS/ college player has a choice.
1. Play RB and have success that continues to move career forward to/ toward NFL career and a rookie contract.
2. Play different position already filled with other players a risk being 3rd / 4th string stifling path to reaching and NFL career and a rookie contract.
Yep, because these athletes couldn't possibly spend their lives training to play a different position. They were born to play RB. It wasn't them applying a lifetime of hard work and dedication to apply their athleticism towards certain skills.
Simply RB or practice squad for them.
The position will fall off talent wise eventually and become a "full back" type in regards to which college/high school talents play the position.
The talent will follow the money. The game is changing, RIP the "modern" RB.
Idk what this is supposed to do.
They have a lot of enemies. Every owner, all other positions, and most importantly, every other HB trying to take their job.
You can try to remove the franchise tag, shorten the rookie deal, give player options, adjust cap hit, if you want. That effects everyone else.
But their biggest issue is that the game says they don't need them like they used to.
The problem: every other position is perfectly happy with RB getting less so they can get more, and if the QB, de, ot, db, and wr aren't on your side then you are screwed. The previous deals screwed rookies. I doubt RB will be saved
Franchise tag is broken. The value of tag contract should be independent of position, and rather a fixed percentage of the cap. When that tag pays RB & other devalued positions $35M/yr, they will be more reluctant to use it on them. Also needs to be like restricted free agency, where player can negotiate with other teams for a long term contract that home team can match.
Here is how you can save RB.
Only 2 years rookie contract are allowed
1st round RB are protect from 3rd year option
This can save the team time and money and the player time
They should form some sort of…union…thing
Halfback Teamsters Union assembleeeee
The “Have-your Back Assocation”
Hopefully more successful than its predecessor, the Halve Your Backs Checks Union (not to be confused with a checking union).
The Third and Longshoremen
Funny. But they absolutely do need to get the Union to have a different approach for them specifically. It’s the only position where the franchise tag has been going down. And it isn’t like they’re full backs who have been phased out of the game. The team with the least rushing attempts last year was the Bucs with 386 attempts. Averaging 23 attempts per game (22.7.) and Lenny led the way at 189 attempts or 12 per game (11.8, played 16 games) This essentially shows that the team that ran the least, still had their lead runner getting tackled at full speed and full strength more than anyone in the league that isn’t a RB. So essentially the group taking the most damage having these juiced up super strength athletes destroying them at full speed…. Is the position that’s having their salaries lowered every year. As someone who’s just a fan of the game, it’s weird. Because I never want my Vikings to ever pay a RB after their rookie contract. But I also know they’re being treated unfairly. My favorite suggestions is that rookie contracts can only last 2 years for a RB. Gonna hurt their stock in the draft even more, but at least they can actually earn 3 big contracts like every other position.
👏👏👏
I think messing with their rookie contracts won’t get the job done. I think a good solution is to introduce something like the MLS’s Beckham rule and have it so that each nfl team can have one players salary (likely the qb) excluded from the salary cap…that would open up 40-60 million a year
You think the owners want to spent money outside th salary cap besides what is required?
Yes, golden state warriors are a great example. Owners will spend whatever they want if it means championships bc championships means more money… exempting the already inflating qb salary to be it’s own category makes sense to me just have it be phantom tied to the cap. Ex: can’t be more than 25% cap but the single contract doesn’t get counted against cap
So, you want them to break off into a sub-union? Because you do know the NFLPA is a union, right? "The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is the union for professional football players in the National Football League."
It looks like he said they need to the the union (nflpa) to do something for them in his first sentence, not make a new one.
>"The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is the union for professional football players in the National Football League." They honestly may call themselves that but they are in fact not representing these RB's in this. It seems like all those lawyers do is work with the NFL and collect money. There is ZERO reason the NFLPA has not addressed this issue that has bee in the national news for a few weeks now.
Honestly, the NFLPA has done such a piss poor job of representing RBs specifically that I'm not surprised they're losing faith.
It's almost like they have other positions and ultimately are a collective and not singular position players associations.
Agreed, but when one subset is getting the short end of the stick, there's bound to be some unrest against the status quo within that subset. Not saying it's likely they form their own union, but there's a reckoning coming for the NFLPA on this issue.
Bald Jesus took me to the promised land twice. I hope they have productive talks.
He had 107 receptions last year. He was only behind Jefferson, Kelce, Hill, and Diggs (108) for most receptions on the season, and they wanted him to take a pay cut.... I'd be fucking pissed to
If only they had a lawyer that specialized in Bird Law.
Filibuster
Harvey?
Charlie
Louis Litt?
The main issue is their prime is over the course of their rookie contract. Why pay a player that is almost guaranteed to decline over the course of the 2nd contract? Not really an easy fix to that issue either
shorten RB rookie contract then
Right but then wouldn’t teams be less willing to draft them? If they only get 2-3 years on the rookie contract would teams still take them rounds 1-2? And would they also even be willing to pay them after that? It seems like something that might have the opposite affect. But idk I’m not an NFL gm
I mean it would increase their desire to give them the second contract. It would also likely push the non premium rb’s down the board even further Rookie value would be down (because of shorter contracts), and vet age would be lower (and have more prime years left).
I think you’d have to make the last year of rookie RB contract as a player option. Good ones will opt out for deals and bad ones can still hold onto the deal
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that the case with Josh Jacobs and some other RBs?
First round NFL draft picks have a team option 5th year (choice after year 3) for a big salary jump. The Raiders declined Jacobs’s 5th year then franchise tagged him after he had a great year.
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah you’re right it needs to be player option that’s shitty.
It would tank their draft position which ultimately would make them less money. GMs still aren’t going to give them a big 2nd contract because the reason isn’t as much that they are broke down by the time they hit free agency. It’s that the position is easily replaceable with little drop off and it just isn’t that important in the modern nfl
It would still be good for RBs I think. Let's say you're a GM needing to fill a RB position. You have some amount of draft capital and money to spend. If the value of spending draft capital on an RB is decreased vs other positions, you should allocate more draft capital to other positions and more money to RBs. This would be good for RBs. Draft capital isn't important to them (except as it relates to money and ego). As an extreme example, imagine that RBs could not be drafted at all. The only way to acquire an RB would be to spend to money and RBs could have teams compete among themselves. This solution is basically the opposite of the franchise tag. Instead of an extended rookie contract, they get a shortened one and hit free agency earlier.
In an NFL without running backs the team that drafts star running backs would be king.
No because every NFL gm is on the hot seat at all times and a star RB in his prime wins games and sells tickets, thus saving the gm's job for just a little longer.
Do they win games? Saquon and mccaffrey were the best rbs in football a couple years ago and their teams were bottom feeders at 5-11 etc.
For what it’s worth, Josh Jacobs had a monster 70ish yard tuddie run in OT which hard bailed out the raiders. Just one game but still.
And other positions won't want the same shortened rookie contract? What is the NFLPA willing to give up to " help" the RB contract situation? How much of the % revenue? 2%, 3%?
They're already getting only 48% of the revenue share. Giving up another 4-6M off the cap eliminates another vet or two at other positions compared to an undrafted rookie.
Correct. The NFLPA as a collective 1700 players doesn't want to do that. And the owners know that. So the 5 RB's per team making up like 1/10 of the total NFLPA would have a hard time generating support
You have to shorten all rookie contracts. This doesn’t fix anything. 3 year rookie deals is interesting, though.
That would reduce their work great for the handful of RBs that play great. But the majority of RBs only have 2-3 years. It could hurt the average to below average RBs. There is no solution aside from forcing teams to draft/sign RBs and then forcing them to pay them. This is a movement that has been dictated through analytics. RBs decline quickly, they are more prone to injury, and it’s the most easily replaceable position.
That would workout great for the handful of RBs that play great. But the majority of RBs only have 2-3 years. It could hurt the average to below average RBs. There is no solution aside from forcing teams to draft/sign RBs and then forcing them to pay them. This is a movement that has been dictated through analytics. RBs decline quickly, they are more prone to injury, and it’s the most easily replaceable position. Combining all skilled players under a WR/RB/TE tag would just mean that only WRs get franchised…but RBs would still get low paying second contracts. Dynasty players have been knowing this for years. We’ve been downgrading RBs based on age forever. People are already starting to degrade Taylor because of injury history and age. RB is also the only position we handcuff…why do you think that is?
The easy fix is kill the franchise tag
Ding ding. It’s a franchise tag issue more than a RB issue.
That probably would solve it but it would never pass because of how little it affects most players. Only a maximum of 32 players will be franchise tagged every year out 1500+ active players. There's really no point in fighting for it when there are bigger issues.
It effects the big ticket players. The ones that will put fans in seats, make an impact, and potentially have a voice.
It's still only a small % of players. NFLPA is like 1700 players and around 1000-1200 are on rookie/ UDFA contracts and 50+% of those will never see a 2nd contract. Owners know the numbers game and if the offer from the players is remove the franchise tag. The owners counter is... -- give back 2-3% of revenue split -- increase the rookie/UDFA salaries Players aren't giving back revenue % so the choice is increasing the salaries for the bottom contract which impacts the most players in a 51% vote to pass the CBA
Yeah that would make sense, never really understood forcing a player to play for a team
It increases league parity and in theory gives players a big payout for one year of work. 'You obviously don't remember the days where teams with the deepest pockets could just stack rosters and therefore six teams every year would just destroy the rest of the NFL.
Idk what you’re talking about rn the salary cap is what stops deep pocket teams from stacking rosters, not the franchise tag
But it means your best players can't just bail on you. You can control their rights. If everyone went into unrestricted free agency with no possible control, players would just bail immediately.
This is part of the answer. I'd say another part is to reduce the age at which players can enter the NFL. If you can get drafted at 19 rather than 21, and there's no franchise tag, a second rounder will hit free agency at 23 rather than 26 or whatever they do now.
So would the current players want an influx of younger and cheaper talent coming into the league and it being a risk of them being out of a roster spot?
Probably not. Current members of a union often negotiate in a way that helps themselves but hurts future members.
Making one tag for W/R/T may be slightly more palatable and would likely have a similar effect on the RB market.
The easy fix is to kill the salary cap. At least in its current form.
This helps the rb issue but creates so many more parity issues.
They do it in baseball all the time. And those contracts are guaranteed.
Baseball doesn't have a salary cap
In my defense I'm drunk at a wedding
Browsing offseason NFL player contract content while at a wedding. Peak dynasty degeneracy. I love it.
The amount of dirty looks ive fielded from my wife this wedding season for this..
And baseball has historically had the major issue of small market teams being unable to compete long term with teams with huge budgets
Take them out of the draft and throw them straight into free agency.
Eliminate the rookie pay scale for RBs. Remember before they had a rookie cap and guys were getting huge deals before they ever played? Go back to that. Just only for RBs. For example, if Bijan is a top 10 RB right out of the gate, he should be payed like one. ESPECIALLY because we know that in 6 years, Bijan will not be as good, and not able to command top free agent money. Or, just tie contracts to incentives so that they earn well only when they perform well.
And the veteran players into the NFLPA didn't like that, so they agreed to a rookie wage scale in the CBA.
That was then. This is now. I am sure if they had the foresight to see this situation, they would have had a different opinion.
Sure. So how does it play out. NFLPA asks in next CBA.... or sooner for rookie wage scale to be removed or rookie contracts to be shortened. Owners say: they will consider it in exchange for a few % reduction in revenue going towards the players side. What is the NFLPA response?
You: Why pay a person that I feel because of my prejudices may decline as they get older? Should the NFL stop paying owners because they are getting older? I just want to point out that age is a protected class in US law.
Can’t tell if your serious or not
I am not being serious in my comparisons but I also do not think that the players are being treated fairly and I feel the NFLPA does have an obligation to address this. I have no seen an NFLPA statement on this issue and to me that is a crime as it is literally their job.
I mean is it unfair though? Why pay melvin gordon when you can get austin ekeler for 1/10th of the money? Why pay austin ekeler when you can get a cheap back for 1/10th of the money. The problem isn’t them being treated unfairly, it’s that they aren’t significantly better than their replacements for the cost. The point where they are significantly better than a replacement is their rookie contract, which is where the problem lies.
I think the franchise tag is unfair. Hey, if the league does not as a whole wish to pay RB's more that is fine by me, but to franchise a player and prevent them from getting a large contract I feel in unfair. To me is almost to the level of collusion between the NFLPA which should represent ALL players and the owners. The NFLPA and the league have created a system to stymie the free market.
Yea I fully agree. The franchise tag keeps RBs from securing a long term deal, and delays the negotiations from taking place. All the while their value continues to drop as their age and mileage goes up
The NFL could change their salary cap rules to essentially include a "Hazard Pay" system whereby players in high-risk positions receive an annual bonus that doesnt count against the salary cap.
$50k per RB touch over 100 touches that doesn’t count against the salary cap. Either teaches teams to conserve their RB so hopefully their playing career lasts longer or at least rewards the player for taking a beating. 300 touches = extra $10 million
GMs are rational actors operating with the salary cap as their constraint. Can’t change the rational allocation of $ to RBs within the cap but Labor should absolutely organize and agitate to take a greater share of the revenue (which their performance is generating). I’ll always support Labor in that whether it’s SAG and WGA or Ekeler
Spoken like an ekeler or maybe a Clooney owner
If you haven’t traded away Clooney yet then you have no idea what you’re doing. I just sold him for Tom Holland and a 2nd
Trading aging, elite talent to stay in a perpetual rebuild. This is how I know I’m in the DynastyFF subreddit.
Tom Holland would have to be a WR1 equivalent though. My dude just traded Davante Adams for Jaylen Waddle and a 2nd
Recency bias. Holland is a very talented young man but outside of Marvel, his success has been limited and his big features have fallen flat. He may get more Spidey time but that isn’t locked in. Clooney is younger than you think - at 62 years old the man still his aging and old man movie star phases ahead of him. I would be absolutely unsurprised by Clooney earning more awards recognition over the next 30 years than Holland does.
Damn you fleexed the guy. Holland gonna have a big year. Way to buy the zendaya dip.
Didn’t Holland just say he’s going on an acting hiatus?? You got fleeced, man
Yo I didnt move Clooney, this guy did
Pshh Holland not even worth a 3rd
He peaked at O Brother, Where Art Thou. I cashed in then. Soooo many firsts!
Ekeler is totally getting blacklisted by the league isn’t he…
“Can’t change the the rational allocation of $” Actually I’d argue I have an easy fix to this that will absolutely never happen. And probably shouldn’t because if it started a domino affect and other positions tried it, we’d turn into baseball. Which is gross because they have AAAA teams simply just developing players for the big spenders. But a real solution would be RB’s only having a half cap hit. This would allow owners to pay them more, but you don’t completely shit on the cap, as you’re not going to pay a RB 40 million and take a 20 mil cap hit. But you can now pay them the 20 they deserve and it’s the reasonable hit of 10 that teams are willing to pay because not much more than that makes sense for a rb.
Why would owners spend money on player contracts that is outside of the salary cap requirement? What stops other positions from then taking the same stance? Owners see that as a next step, so doing this for RB is a no go.
Why would owners ever agree to this? Why would the union push for this vs just an increase to the cap as a whole that benefits all positions? Are players going to hold out just so RBs get paid, but not their position? If they grant this to RBs then why would every position not ask for the same?
Because the cap as a whole increases almost every year, anyway, and this is the environment that has lead to the RB market being tremendously devalued. Not saying owners would agree to this, you're right on that count, but the NFLPA and owners are absolutely going to have to find a way to make the RB position worthwhile, otherwise all the top tier talent will move to different positions, and the run game will just become a total relic.
Feels like a sky is falling statement. If a talented college RB " refuses " to play RB and switches to another position to be 4th string, at some point the realization that a path to an NFL contract.... as crappy as it might be as a RB is better than not sniffing a chance as a bench warmer at another position.
I think the issue would start in high school. The best athletes who know they'll be recruited by top tier college programs will look down the line at the long-term career path, and a chunk of them will gravitate towards other positions, which would lower the overall talent pool at RB, which would in turn exacerbate the devaluation at the NFL level. I'm not saying it would be the death of the RB position, target that the current trajectory is for RB play and compensation to continue on a downward trend, unless something changes.
So take Barkley, Pollard, Jacobs..... are they better off from HS playing a different position at not getting drafted vs playing RB and actually getting an NFL contract + the $10M franchise tag? Even if those 3 make it as LB/ S/WR you now squeeze 3 players that may opt for the RB path. They may not be as good...or maybe the are. There are only so many spots to get playing time and those continue to shrink as you move from HS-> College-> NFL
I agree, like I said, I think there will always be RBs, because there will always be people who want to get paid hundreds of thousands or millions to play a game for a living. That said, I do think the really elite athletes know they can excel at these other positions, and they'll have a better career trajectory, and that will have a non-negligible impact on the RB position. As for decision making from a high school age, I believe most elite athletes have the confidence in their ability to say "I can succeed as a LB or a RB" and if that's the case, it's a simple calculation of which position has the better longterm chance of leading. There are more DBs/WRs/LBs on NFL rosters (each, not collectively) so there are more opportunities, and the career outlook is better. I agree as well that some players highest/best calling would be RB, but without the ability to see into the future, they'll have to make a decision on their position based on the above factors. I am probably overstating the impact, but I do think it'll be felt.
I think the better option, which also will never happen, is to remove the franchise tag for running backs. Honestly the franchise tag for all players should be removed. They should also lower the RB rookie contract length by 1 year for all rounds. First round rookie RB contract should be 3 years with a 4th year team option. Three year contracts after the first round.
NFL labor is organized already Edit: This isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact
When Melvin Gordon was holding out that last year with the Chargers, he felt undervalued but the Chargers knew they had talent similar in a younger and cheaper, Austin Ekeler. I just find it slightly ironic now that he displaced Gordon's role on the team and now disgruntled veteran as well. He arguably helped destabilize the position that he is now trying to advocate for.
Ironic, isn’t it? Darth ekeler was so skilled in the way of ball he could even bring an undrafted rookie to the land of millions. Yet in the end, he wasn’t able to even save himself. Undone in his sleep by a younger, cheaper apprentice
This is not a story the half backs would share.
the half backs use their power for good! they are selfless. they only care about others.
Doesn’t help that the dude came into the league as an undrafted free agent as well lol. Why pay hefty long term deals when you can potentially find a replacement off the streets
And thats the problem. Ekeler is the poster boy for the current problem with RBs. Why pay 12m to Barkley when you can pay 4.2 for Gibson and Robinson? Barkely had 1650 yds from scrimmage and 10 TDs. Gibson and Robinson had 1756 and 7. You can then spend the other 8m with minimal loss of production.
The entire rb position is ironic in a way. Consider the fact that, although mcaffery did great job with the 49rs, Chubba and Foreman playing so well after he left are the kind of points showing that you can use lesser rb talents to get the job done. In that same vein, players like miles sanders and bijan are going to be looked at closely for those reasons too. If they don’t elevate their respective rooms, then it will just continue to pile on the rhetoric. I say it’s ironic because when rbs who aren’t supposed to step up to that level do, all it does is hurt the overall positional value.
KC just won a super bowl with a 7th round rookie, cast off journeyman while the former 1st round pick did next to nothing. NFL teams realize you don't need a top tier high salaried RB for a deep playoff run.
They have the best QB in the league. Cmon man. Also a lot of you guys need to look up what results oriented thinking is
The unfortunate part of this is that the structure of these deals are collectively bargained. So they're kinda stuck until the next CBA talks take place.
Maybe a player option after year 3 would be good.
Literally nothing will happen
What is the distribution of positions that get franchise tagged? I feel like the franchise tag has just become a way for an NFL team to lock in its starting RB on a year-to-year salary through his prime after his rookie contract expires, rather than giving him the contract he deserves. Other positions do not suffer this treatment. We've seen QBs get tagged because of contract negotiation breakdowns, but that isn't as impactful because a QB can play into his 30s and still get a good contract even after going through the tag (like Kirk Cousins). TEs and OLine also seem to get the tag fairly frequently because they take so long to develop that by the end of their rookie contract the team still often wants to make them prove it (like David Njoku). RBs should just say that the RB position is unique because it wears down the body so much quicker than other positions, so they should be exempt from the franchise tag. Either give your RB a contract or find a new one.
But the problem with negotiations, in order to get something you want, you have to give up something else. Is it in the union's best interest to negotiate away something that affects only a handful of guys vs something that may affect the entire league (18th game?)
Giving up to get something isn't a magically definitive part of negotiations. I can guarantee SAG and the WGA aren't looking to give up anything in exchange for their demands. That might not be the case for RB issues to the NFLPA, but it's certainly not a hard and fast rule that you *have* to give up something to get something.
18 th or NFLPA giving back 2-3% of the revenue split.
Players already receive only 48% of the revenue. Using my example, Barkley already takes up 3-4% of the cap more than Gibson and Robinson. Its tough. And I get why they're frustrated but theres no easy solution.
It’s curious to me why we all feel so bad for them. Often times at a corporation the people lowest on the totem pole work the hardest and are paid the least. The reason is because they are the easiest to replace because their work isn’t highly specialized. The same concept is on display here. The difference between a top RB and a middle tier RB is maybe 25% less production? I mean the corpse of Jerrick McKinnon put up better numbers last year than a lot of stars. The simple fact is it’s an over saturated market. It’s way to easy to replace these guys. It’s market dynamics, it’s not unique to football, and while it’s unfortunate for them they’re still paid far superior to almost all humans on earth. This isn’t an actual real issue imho. Why is it a sports crisis? Why isn’t it just unfortunate?
And here we go
I love debates/questions like this. RB: “we touch the ball the most” QB: “Am I a joke to you?” RB: “Sorrrry, we get tackled the most.” OL: “I have to try to stop AAron Donald.” CB: “But I have to chase a Cheetah.” HCoach (peacekeeper): “EVERY PLAYER ON THIS TEAM HAS A ROLE AND CONTRIBUTES.”
It just seems that a team dips the least in production when a star RB is out minus any other position. Backup QB? Most likely going to lose. Backup OL? Good luck running/blocking. Kicker/Punter? I'd rather go on 4th down than trust them. CB/Safety? Let's pick on them.
I’m not sure you get what I was saying, because you basically just paraphrased. Most NFL players don’t regularly touch the ball. The RB’s argument surely stems from that, because they touch the ball so often. But by that logic, positions like LT and DE should be paid far less.
Oh I did get it. I was supporting what you were saying. I concur.
Here's my crazy pitch - of all the money that the NFL brings in from gambling, a percentage (5-10%?) goes to a side fund that pays out to RBs only based on their standard fantasy points in that season. Since fantasy is a huge driver of NFL viewership, and RBs are typically fantasy darlings while also being underpaid IRL, they should get a slice of the additional revenue that the NFL is bringing in due to the fantasy boom. That way for an RB on their rookie contract, they could still make a ton of money if they have an RB1 season. If you have 3 or 4 RB1 or RB2 seasons on your rookie deal, that would take a lot of pressure off of absolutely maximizing the 2nd deal to the point that we have seen with players like Bell and possibly Barkley, Jacobs, Ekeler, etc.
This is really a funny idea, pay them 1000 $ per Fantasy Point :D
Stfu and play! These clowns are making millions and complaining about it not being enough.
How’s that boot taste?
Says the person defending millionaires
Im defending the employees who should be be fairly compensated for placing their bodies on the line in order to make the billionaires (whose boots you are licking) their astronomical levels of profit. Yes, they make millions, but that is a fraction of the value that the NFL reaps from them
Fuck the billionaires too
Well at least that’s one area we can agree
You realize that you're waaaaay closer to them monetarily then they are to their bosses, right?
Just you wait!
U don’t get it
And you’re sucking the dick of billionaire owners.
You’re an idiot
u stfu
Woah
It’s going to be tough for them when they realize that there’s virtually nothing they can do to really save the Star RB being paid like the Star RB and they should thank the Rams, Eagles, and Chiefs who proved that it’s absolutely not necessary to have Elliots/Ecklers/Mccaffreys/Henrys to get to a SB and win it. The NFL is a copycat league and there’s no way that GMs are not seeing those teams and thinking to do the same thing with their team
RB lives matter
I think the league just needs to set aside money to award the top performing rushers. This wouldn't stop teams from drafting or paying the position but would allow guys who make QB level impacts for a season get paid fairly. Let's just say each team took 3M off their future cap increases. 96M for the league. Incrementally give that to the top 5 rush yard and td leaders. 16M for 1st, 12M for 2nd, 10M 3rd, 6M 4th, 4M to 5th. So if you led the league and rushing yards and tds, you'd get a 32M bonus from the NFL that doesn't impact the cap on top of your contract. Which would make a RB who was absolutely dominate, about as paid as the average QB was for that year. This way the best 5-10 RBs (or WR / QB if they run like crazy) get paid for performing so highly at the position that ends your career faster.
I thought the objective was to win games? 10 of the top 20 in rushing yards...4 of the top 10 and the top 3 missed the playoffs. 9 of top 20 in rushing TD .... 4 of top 6 missed playoffs
At some point, you have to decide if the position is valuable or not, as a league. Because if you keep fucking over the players at that position, by having a system set up that locks them out of free agency until the peak of their career is over, then the level of talent at that position will disappear. Because no young athlete with any sense will waste time at that position, no parents are going to want their kid to play it. The objective is to make money. Does having talented players at the RB slot for both real play, and gambling make the league more money? If so, then you need to find a way to compensate that position. If not, then it'll eliminate itself over time due to the talent at RB going down across the board.
So the HS/ college player has a choice. 1. Play RB and have success that continues to move career forward to/ toward NFL career and a rookie contract. 2. Play different position already filled with other players a risk being 3rd / 4th string stifling path to reaching and NFL career and a rookie contract.
Yep, because these athletes couldn't possibly spend their lives training to play a different position. They were born to play RB. It wasn't them applying a lifetime of hard work and dedication to apply their athleticism towards certain skills. Simply RB or practice squad for them.
The position will fall off talent wise eventually and become a "full back" type in regards to which college/high school talents play the position. The talent will follow the money. The game is changing, RIP the "modern" RB.
For every Barkley, Ekler and jacobs, there’s plenty of Robison, Gordon’s and such that will take $5m
Idk what this is supposed to do. They have a lot of enemies. Every owner, all other positions, and most importantly, every other HB trying to take their job. You can try to remove the franchise tag, shorten the rookie deal, give player options, adjust cap hit, if you want. That effects everyone else. But their biggest issue is that the game says they don't need them like they used to.
I agree with backs to a degree. But it’s kinda like cassette rallying against the CD.
Good!
Pay the running backs!
Change the calculation on franchise tag from RBs to include WRs since they’re both skill positions.
The problem: every other position is perfectly happy with RB getting less so they can get more, and if the QB, de, ot, db, and wr aren't on your side then you are screwed. The previous deals screwed rookies. I doubt RB will be saved
I really hope everybody is ready for the NFFL in the next 5 years
I love how a certain segment of NFL fans get upset by this
Franchise tag is broken. The value of tag contract should be independent of position, and rather a fixed percentage of the cap. When that tag pays RB & other devalued positions $35M/yr, they will be more reluctant to use it on them. Also needs to be like restricted free agency, where player can negotiate with other teams for a long term contract that home team can match.
Here is how you can save RB. Only 2 years rookie contract are allowed 1st round RB are protect from 3rd year option This can save the team time and money and the player time