RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[JoPoy88]

26 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Every position would want that and you’d be right back where they started with QBs and WRs getting big deals earlier. Also veteran players would be left behind. 
 

They aren’t changing the rules for a few RBs.

 

 

yeah it’s a purely theoretical option. It’s not equitable at all and would never fly with the other players.

[dave mcbride]

13 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

The above is 100% true, however; things didn't work out the way that the NFLPA was hoping for. What happend was that the quarterbacks got almost all of the money that used to go to rookies. In many cases, older vets were and are being cut in order to pay quarterbacks. Their jobs are often taken by low paid rookies.

 

I agree that the RB position is less important than it ever was. Of course this is due to the rule changes. I understand this but I can also understand why the RBs are so angry. 

 

In the last 4 years, Ryan Tannehill has been paid approx. 96 million dollars. Derrick Henry made approx 40 million. I heard these numbers today on Sirius Radio. Daniel Jones recently signed a 4 year contract for 160 million. Reports of guaranteed money vary between 82 and 92 million. Now, who could possibly blame Henry or Barkley for being unhappy?

 

RBs are subject to extreme violence on almost every play. Their frustration under these circumstances is easy to understand but this is the way of the world. Macy's has closed many stores because folks are shopping on Amazon. Many of ones that remain open are getting decimated by shoplifters. It isn't fair, but such is life.

 

 

Like it or not, Ryan Tannehill and the TN passing game have been far more instrumental to TN's success than Henry. With a healthy Tannehill and AJ Brown, the Titans went 12-5 in 2021 and 30-13 overall with Tannehill as as starter between 2019 and 2021. With an unhealthy Tannehill, no AJ Brown, and a healthy and productive Henry, they went 7-10 in 2022 (and 1-4 in the games Tannehill was out). Prior to Tannehill's arrival, they were perennially slightly above average even with Henry, going 9-7 three straight years until canning Marriota six games into the 2019 season. In 2019, Tannehill became the starter after six games and went 7-3 with a 117.5 rating (Marriota had gone 2-4). Tannehill also got them to the conference championship game  that year. Over the next two seasons, they went 23-10, and he had a great season in 2021 (106.5 rating).

 

Point is, when the passing game improved, TN got better. When the passing game got worse, the TN running game (which was strong in 2022) could not save the day. 

 

The passing game rules the NFL. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by dave mcbride

[Shaw66]

6 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

Yes that probably would happen. It’s not anywhere near an ideal solution. Basically these few elite backs are trying to buck the enormous press of the NFL economy as it stands today - it won’t work, and I was just throwing out ideas.

 

no change within the CBA related to rookie scale or terms would ever pass, by the way. It would not be equitable to change the rules for just one position group (even though given the realities of the game, it arguably would be “fairer” to RBs.)

Well, there has to be a solution somewhere. 

 

Somehow, to be fair to them, the running backs need to be able to hit free agency earlier; otherwise, sooner or later they will sue and probably win by arguing that the current CBA is an unlawful restraint on trade.   I don't know what the legal rationale is for the league and the current players to restrict the bargaining power of players coming into the league, because ordinarily employers can't do something like that. (This goes back to Curt Flood.) The justification for rookie deals under the CBA is that even though they don't get to negotiate their contracts, they get decent pay, and they get multi-year contracts that assure that they have a guaranteed payday.  The rationale for allowing teams to tie up first rounders for five years is (1) pay is good, if not true value for some of the first rounders, and (2) their payday comes with the second contract.  It's becoming clear, however, that for many running backs there is no second-contract payday.  It's a problem unique to running backs, because their value tends to decline faster than players at any other position.  Maybe part of the solution is to allow rookie running backs drafted in the first round to elect a contract without a fifth-year option. 

 

Look at Singletary.  Better-than-average starting running back on a playoff team, and all he got was a one-year $2.5 million deal.  A similarly skilled player at almost any other position gets a multi-year deal.  

 

On the other hand, if you look at Latavius Murray's contract history, it's hard to say there isn't a path to good career comp for running backs.   Prior to coming to Buffalo, he earned something like $19 million in ten years.   He has been a valuable back but not a true star.  He was better than Singletary early on, so he got a better second contract.  

 

I think the problem really is the occasional first-rounder who can get squeezed out his second-contract payday because of the fifth year option.  If he had been a free agent a year ago, he would have gotten a nice deal somewhere, and the Giants would have been forced to pony up or let him go.  Or he'd be on his second season of being tagged by the Giants, which would be a fair payday for Barkley.   If Barkley gets knocked out with injury this year, his value will be way down next spring.  

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

I feel RBs who can catch are much valuable. IMO, Guys like Christian McCafferey & Austin Eckler are in their own league. And McCaffrey is making 12 mill a year which ain’t bad at all. If you aren’t getting paid then expand your skill set or become ELITE at one thing. Buffalo has been trying to find a RB like this for years.

[Bill from NYC]

53 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Like it or not, Ryan Tannehill and the TN passing game have been far more instrumental to TN's success than Henry. With a healthy Tannehill and AJ Brown, the Titans went 12-5 in 2021 and 30-13 overall with Tannehill as as starter between 2019 and 2021. With an unhealthy Tannehill, no AJ Brown, and a healthy and productive Henry, they went 7-10 in 2022 (and 1-4 in the games Tannehill was out). Prior to Tannehill's arrival, they were perennially slightly above average even with Henry, going 9-7 three straight years until canning Marriota six games into the 2019 season. In 2019, Tannehill became the starter after six games and went 7-3 with a 117.5 rating (Marriota had gone 2-4). Tannehill also got them to the conference championship game  that year. Over the next two seasons, they went 23-10, and he had a great season in 2021 (106.5 rating).

 

Point is, when the passing game improved, TN got better. When the passing game got worse, the TN running game (which was strong in 2022) could not save the day. 

 

The passing game rules the NFL. 

Your point is well taken. I did point out that in the NFL and NCAA, RBs are less important these days. The stats that you posted above are very interesting, but my take on them is perhaps slightly different than yours.

 

For instance, I don't think that Tannehill is a very good QB. Perhaps he is in the 50 percentile? Marriotta bordered on terrible imo. I think that much of Tannehill's success was due to defenses having to stay close and try to limit Henry, who is all but unstoppable when he gets into his rythym. I think that a better QB on that team probably would have taken them deep into the playoffs.

 

Again, I don't dispute that football is now a passing game, and it doesn't really matter what I, or anybody else prefers. Taking player safety and fan interest into account, it is extremely unlikely for this to ever change. The owners are looking at protection for their main assets, which obviously are QBs. The days of Turkey Jones head slamming Bradshaw to the turf on a late hit are gone forever, just like the days of blood thirsty safeties owning the middle of the field. 

 

Given all of the above, I still can understand how players such as Barkley and Henry resent the fact that average QBs make at least twice as much as them while they are doing more of the heavy lifting but again, I cannot foresee this situation changing any time soon, if ever.

 

Jmo.

[BullBuchanan]

2 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

I’m all for free markets and agree that there are just too many excellent RB which devalues the position overall.  A few elite ones will always get deals well above but those are about individual teams needs at that point in time. 
 

the reality is that all NFL players are already overpaid. As are the owners/coaches etc. it’s entertainment and basically that’s it, huge business entertainment but entertainment nonetheless.  
 

Players complaining about their “worth” always make me laugh when they want Millions more per year. 

They aren't even close to overpaid. You could very reasonably argue they are underpaid.

The NFL made 11.9 BILLION in revenue last year. That's 11,900 million dollars. The players are responsible for nearly 100% of that revenue and yet get less than 50% of revenue. No one watches the Bills to see Terry Pegula. No one has a Denise York jersey on their wall, not even her kids.

Whether they make millions or $7/hr is inconsequential. What matters is the value of their output. Int he case of NFL players, that value happens to be $11.9 billion and rising.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Every position would want that and you’d be right back where they started with QBs and WRs getting big deals earlier. Also veteran players would be left behind. 
 

They aren’t changing the rules for a few RBs.

 

 

I love how certain fans believe they can speak with such absolute certainty. You have no idea what the Union will and will not negotiate. Heck, in most Unions half the actual members have almost no idea what the negotiations are about until after the new agreement is voted in. And, it’s not at all unusual for Unions to have specific carve outs for specific job descriptions. In fact, it’s the norm, not the exception. The issue with RBs is indeed unique and it’s not purely about pay. I cannot see the QBs making an argument that their careers are being cut short by the pounding; especially when we’ve seen Brady, Rodgers, and so many others playing until they’re practically senior citizens. 😉

[dave mcbride]

30 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Your point is well taken. I did point out that in the NFL and NCAA, RBs are less important these days. The stats that you posted above are very interesting, but my take on them is perhaps slightly different than yours.

 

For instance, I don't think that Tannehill is a very good QB. Perhaps he is in the 50 percentile? Marriotta bordered on terrible imo. I think that much of Tannehill's success was due to defenses having to stay close and try to limit Henry, who is all but unstoppable when he gets into his rythym. I think that a better QB on that team probably would have taken them deep into the playoffs.

 

Again, I don't dispute that football is now a passing game, and it doesn't really matter what I, or anybody else prefers. Taking player safety and fan interest into account, it is extremely unlikely for this to ever change. The owners are looking at protection for their main assets, which obviously are QBs. The days of Turkey Jones head slamming Bradshaw to the turf on a late hit are gone forever, just like the days of blood thirsty safeties owning the middle of the field. 

 

Given all of the above, I still can understand how players such as Barkley and Henry resent the fact that average QBs make at least twice as much as them while they are doing more of the heavy lifting but again, I cannot foresee this situation changing any time soon, if ever.

 

Jmo.

Good points. I think Tannehill is a better than average QB when healthy, but that's JMO. The larger issue, which you raise, is that if RBs want to change things, they should be lobbying the league to get rid of the newer rules protecting QBs and allowing receivers to run wild because of increased enforcement of defensive holding/interference. That's why they're less valuable now. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, the league-average passer rating, which focuses on passing game efficiency, was in the mid 70s (it was 74 in 1981), and now it's in the high 80s. The vast improvement in passing game efficiency across the league made passing far more valuable because it produces a lot more yards per play on average (7 as opposed to around 4.3). The chance of those changes happening, of course, are nil.

Edited July 19, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Like it or not, Ryan Tannehill and the TN passing game have been far more instrumental to TN's success than Henry. With a healthy Tannehill and AJ Brown, the Titans went 12-5 in 2021 and 30-13 overall with Tannehill as as starter between 2019 and 2021. With an unhealthy Tannehill, no AJ Brown, and a healthy and productive Henry, they went 7-10 in 2022 (and 1-4 in the games Tannehill was out). Prior to Tannehill's arrival, they were perennially slightly above average even with Henry, going 9-7 three straight years until canning Marriota six games into the 2019 season. In 2019, Tannehill became the starter after six games and went 7-3 with a 117.5 rating (Marriota had gone 2-4). Tannehill also got them to the conference championship game  that year. Over the next two seasons, they went 23-10, and he had a great season in 2021 (106.5 rating).

 

Point is, when the passing game improved, TN got better. When the passing game got worse, the TN running game (which was strong in 2022) could not save the day. 

 

The passing game rules the NFL. 

This is completely wrong. Tannehill is a product of Henry. See his numbers before and after he got to Tennessee. There is not a single team that plays Tennessee who thinks we can’t let Tannehill beat us. It’s always about Henry. 
 

Henry deserves to make more money than Tannehill. He is their offense. 

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve said it before….one solution is to release RBs from the handcuffs of their rookie contract. By the Union’s own design big money is made (in every position) only after that rookie deal is over. Would it have other repercussions, yes it will. But for every action there’s an opposite reaction. That’s why it’s ‘collective’ bargaining. RBs as a whole would have to be ready to bet on themselves. 

Rbs should be able to enter the draft as soon as possible. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I love how certain fans believe they can speak with such absolute certainty. You have no idea what the Union will and will not negotiate. Heck, in most Unions half the actual members have almost no idea what the negotiations are about until after the new agreement is voted in. And, it’s not at all unusual for Unions to have specific carve outs for specific job descriptions. In fact, it’s the norm, not the exception. The issue with RBs is indeed unique and it’s not purely about pay. I cannot see the QBs making an argument that their careers are being cut short by the pounding; especially when we’ve seen Brady, Rodgers, and so many others playing until they’re practically senior citizens. 😉

You’re missing the whole point. Money is shared multiple ways. Between players and owners but also between players.

 

There is nothing that can be done without affecting other players. The teams are spending money as written in the CBA. 

If you think something can be done then say it. Shorter contracts is not a solution. It would create more issues. RBs aren’t the only position with a beef.

I also don’t think shorter contracts helps anyone besides the few elite RBs. The union is representing all players and all RBs. Not just Saquan Barkley. Teams carry 4 RBs on a roster.

 

5 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Rbs should be able to enter the draft as soon as possible. 

More RBs flooding the system wouldn’t help get them paid.

[Malazan]

On 7/17/2023 at 11:49 PM, maddenboy said:

And where is the extra money supposed to come from, to pay a running back?

 

This is something they gloss over. RBs get paid less, but that money isn't going into the owner's pocket. It's going to other players. There's a negotiated salary cap so there's a limited amount of funds so it's always weird.

 

..and anyone who thinks they're doing this 'for other RBs'.. I have a bridge to sell you.

[dave mcbride]

22 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

This is completely wrong. Tannehill is a product of Henry. See his numbers before and after he got to Tennessee. There is not a single team that plays Tennessee who thinks we can’t let Tannehill beat us. It’s always about Henry. 
 

Henry deserves to make more money than Tannehill. He is their offense. 

Rbs should be able to enter the draft as soon as possible. 

I think you're wrong. The TN passing game got a lot better after he arrived. It's a fact. And playing under Adam Gase does no QB favors whose name isn't Payton Manning. Also, he was objectively an above-average passer his final two years in Miami, with an adjusted passer rating above league average both years. 

 

Derrick Henry is a very good RB. I'm not arguing that. But he doesn't win you games. Competent-to-good QB play does, and despite the misinformed mockery of Tannehill that has populated this board for years upon years, he's objectively a pretty good QB. He's not as good as Josh Allen, obviously, but he's probably the best QB TN has had in team history (and I include McNair). The only comparable season to Tannehill's best seasons was McNair's MVP season in 2003.

 

And when I see TN vs the Bills over the Henry years, I assume that we can beat them without Tannehill (Mariota, etc.) Henry but struggle against Tannehill, who is a great play action passer (a genuine skill). 

 

In 2018 and 2019, the Bills played Mariota twice. They won 13-12 and 14-7. In 2020 and 2021 vs Tannehill, they lost 42-16 and 34-31. 

 

In other words, the scoreboard talks, and buls**t walks.

Edited July 19, 2023 by dave mcbride

[C.Biscuit97]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

You’re missing the whole point. Money is shared multiple ways. Between players and owners but also between players.

 

There is nothing that can be done without affecting other players. The teams are spending money as written in the CBA. 

If you think something can be done then say it. Shorter contracts is not a solution. It would create more issues. RBs aren’t the only position with a beef.

I also don’t think shorter contracts helps anyone besides the few elite RBs. The union is representing all players and all RBs. Not just Saquan Barkley. Teams carry 4 RBs on a roster.

 

More RBs flooding the system wouldn’t help get them paid.

But it would save trend on their tires. See what Wisconsin does to its rbs. Ron Dayne had 1220 Carrie’s before he took a nfl snap!

[Bill from NYC]

13 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 

Rbs should be able to enter the draft as soon as possible. 

I'm not sure how doable it is but that is a very interesting suggestion. Could you imagine the shape that Henry would be in without all of those carries at Alabama? Are you thinking after freshman or sophmore year?

I do know this: college coaches would absolutely freak out!!!

[DrDawkinstein]

24 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Rbs should be able to enter the draft as soon as possible. 

 

So everyone declares as a RB and then moves back to their real position after they get drafted?

 

I appreciate the brainstorming, but I dont see how there could be any position-specific rules on any of this.

 

The market is the market. If RBs are underpaid, don't be a RB.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

So everyone declares as a RB and then moves back to their real position after they get drafted?

 

I appreciate the brainstorming, but I dont see how there could be any position-specific rules on any of this.

 

The market is the market. If RBs are underpaid, don't be a RB.

Exactly.

 

Most owners want to win. If paying a RB like other top positions helped them win then they would do it. 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Exactly.

 

Most owners want to win. If paying a RB like other top positions helped them win then they would do it. 

 

I also dont understand what letting thim in a year or two earlier would fix? The position isnt valued. They would just be younger when they were done with their rookie contract and not getting a 2nd deal. Getting there sooner doesnt make the position more valuable in today's NFL.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by DrDawkinstein

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

You’re missing the whole point. Money is shared multiple ways. Between players and owners but also between players.

 

There is nothing that can be done without affecting other players. The teams are spending money as written in the CBA. 

If you think something can be done then say it. Shorter contracts is not a solution. It would create more issues. RBs aren’t the only position with a beef.

I also don’t think shorter contracts helps anyone besides the few elite RBs. The union is representing all players and all RBs. Not just Saquan Barkley. Teams carry 4 RBs on a roster.

 

More RBs flooding the system wouldn’t help get them paid.

So in your opinion, you would advise RBs against agreeing to such a deal. That's fair enough. As I said there are pros and cons to everything in a negotiation. In the end, it won't be up to either you or me. And remember I'm not saying this is what I would recommend. You asked what a 'solution' might be. The RBs will have to make their case to each other and to the Union. Exactly as is and has been done in every other Labor Union...ever.

[QCity]

4 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I also don't understand what letting them in a year or two earlier would fix? The position isn't valued. They would just be younger when they were done with their rookie contract and not getting a 2nd deal. Getting there sooner doesn't make the position more valuable in today's NFL.

 

 

 

Also it's not really the age, it's the mileage.  Fred Jackson was effective into his 30's because he didn't get a full NFL workload until he was 27/28.

 

I guess these poor RB's are just going to have to start clipping Beefaroni coupons out of the Sunday paper.

[Behindenemylines]

6 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

They aren't even close to overpaid. You could very reasonably argue they are underpaid.

The NFL made 11.9 BILLION in revenue last year. That's 11,900 million dollars. The players are responsible for nearly 100% of that revenue and yet get less than 50% of revenue. No one watches the Bills to see Terry Pegula. No one has a Denise York jersey on their wall, not even her kids.

Whether they make millions or $7/hr is inconsequential. What matters is the value of their output. Int he case of NFL players, that value happens to be $11.9 billion and rising.

You missed my point entirely.  Irrespective of the size of the business they are just entertainers. 
 

They aren’t curing cancer, solving world hunger or ending world wars

 

they play a game for the spectators amusement and nothing more. The fact it’s a billions dollar business doesn’t negate what they (the whole industry) is