RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[HappyDays]

7 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

 

And yet, the NFL wouldn't exist without the Pegulas of the world fronting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash. I know the new way of thought is that the mega-rich aren't worth their income, but the reality is people with the ability to invest that much capital up front are the foundation of any economy. I don't think only a handful of people in the world could perform the job of an NFL owner, but only a handful can afford it. That handful rightly collects the value of their investment. And ultimately the players are doing just fine, at least the smart ones.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by HappyDays

[JoPoy88]

13 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.

That split was negotiated by the players’ representative, their union. The NFL is not a worker cooperative. If you’re arguing it should be, fine. But that’s not particularly realistic or helpful here.

[FireChans]

12 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

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.

 

 

Increasing the number of cheap rookie RB’s would just prevent even more vet RB’s from making money as FAs.

 

Did anyone in here take economics?

 

”How do we increase demand? Increase supply of course!”

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

That split was negotiated by the players’ representative, their union. The NFL is not a worker cooperative. If you’re arguing it should be, fine. But that’s not particularly realistic or helpful here.

Like I said, he’s just trying to grandstand and make this some kind of “workers vs the bourgeoise” thing.

Edited July 20, 2023 by FireChans

[Doc Brown]

23 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

Unlikely, because as evidence suggests it's very difficult to replace elite runners. You can't just go get another Derrick Henry when you want one.

2021 Titans 8 games with Derrick Henry -147.6 rushing yards per game.  Henry: 219 carries, 937 yards, 4.3ypc.  20 carries of ten yards or more (6-2 record)  

 

2021 Titans 9 games after his toe injury with rotating backups - 135.8 yards per game.  193 carries, 908 yards, 4.7ypc.  22 carries of ten yards or more. (6-3 record)

 

It's more about the o-line and scheme and having a back like Henry will give you a little bit more overall (11.8 more rushing yards per game in this case) but not significant enough to pay a back top money.

[Airseven]

People are too hung up on fairness these days. RBs have durability concerns because of the pounding they take. It’s important to have a good one, but they’re expendable because there’s plenty of good ones out there…and usually cheaper, younger, or healthier. It’s isn’t necessarily fair to each one maximizing their financial value. Too bad.

[BullBuchanan]

10 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

That split was negotiated by the players’ representative, their union. The NFL is not a worker cooperative. If you’re arguing it should be, fine. But that’s not particularly realistic or helpful here.

I never said it should be. It's just the reality of the situation that they players are the product and responsible for all the value. Also, it should be obvious, but the current deal was negotiated before this refusal the re-sign RBs was agreed to by the entire NFL body.

10 hours ago, FireChans said:

Increasing the number of cheap rookie RB’s would just prevent even more vet RB’s from making money as FAs.

 

Did anyone in here take economics?

 

”How do we increase demand? Increase supply of course!”

Like I said, he’s just trying to grandstand and make this some kind of “workers vs the bourgeoise” thing.

Maybe you should have stayed for the second half of the first class. What exists in the RB market today amounts to artificial price fixing. Teams aren't paying for RB contracts because they don't have to. They can just draft for free and hold them on cheap deals. If they didn't have that option, theyd have to pay or go without.

[Norcalbillsfan]

I get from the RBs perspective, it sucks, you can be elite and not get a contract.

 

But at the same time how often do we hear "it's a business" we see players hold out and demand more money all the time. But when FOs refuse to pay RBs they are labeled greedy. I thought it's a business? 

 

For almost 20 years not a single SB champion has paid top dollar to an RB. Chiefs just won with Pacheco. 

 

If RBs want to band together and hate someone, hate on zeke. He ruined it for everyone lol

[Don Otreply]

I’ve seen a couple of talking heads taking up this topic in the last 48 hrs or so. They do their virtually useless talking head stuff to appear like they have the pulse of the situation, it’s kinda funny really. Being that it is a lesser value position than others, what is it that the group as a whole is realistically expecting to happen?  In my work life I was pretty damn good at what I did, and was payed accordingly, but people in other disciplines within the company were paid more than I was, isn’t this always the case in every field of employment?
 

How is it different in football? 
 

The answers is; it isn’t any different. 
 

Just look at FG / extra point kickers, and the number of points they score every season compared to their teammates…, just sayin, it is what it is
 

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by Don Otreply

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

I never said it should be. It's just the reality of the situation that they players are the product and responsible for all the value. Also, it should be obvious, but the current deal was negotiated before this refusal the re-sign RBs was agreed to by the entire NFL body.

Maybe you should have stayed for the second half of the first class. What exists in the RB market today amounts to artificial price fixing. Teams aren't paying for RB contracts because they don't have to. They can just draft for free and hold them on cheap deals. If they didn't have that option, theyd have to pay or go without.

Every position is fixed by the cap and the draft. Why are punters, STers and RB’s at the bottom?

Edited July 20, 2023 by FireChans

[BullBuchanan]

59 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Every position is fixed by the cap and the draft. Why are punters, STers and RB’s at the bottom?

And that's where you're either intentionally or incorrectly omitting 2/3 of the story. ST'ers like Taiwan Jones, Andre Roberts etc can play well into their mid 30s. Punters play into their late 30s and 40s. Many of them get the opportunity for multiple contracts.

The landscape for RBs is changing to a place where they do not.

No one is debating that you get paid a rookie wage based one where you're drafted, so stop trying to make that the point. We all know it does. The difference is that some people provide more value later in their careers (QB, WR) and RBs provide their maximum contributions int he first couple of seasons.

Price fixing a WR early hurts them less because they'll have the opportunity to get paid top dollar as they realize their potential,

[FireChans]

6 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

And that's where you're either intentionally or incorrectly omitting 2/3 of the story. ST'ers like Taiwan Jones, Andre Roberts etc can play well into their mid 30s. Punters play into their late 30s and 40s. Many of them get the opportunity for multiple contracts.

The landscape for RBs is changing to a place where they do not.

No one is debating that you get paid a rookie wage based one where you're drafted, so stop trying to make that the point. We all know it does. The difference is that some people provide more value later in their careers (QB, WR) and RBs provide their maximum contributions int he first couple of seasons.

Price fixing a WR early hurts them less because they'll have the opportunity to get paid top dollar as they realize their potential,

Taiwan Jones made $12M in a 12 year career. Saquon has already made $38M in a 5 year career.

[maddenboy]

On 7/19/2023 at 7:40 AM, Shaw66 said:

Well, there has to be a solution somewhere. 

 

So far, its pretty debatable whether there is even a problem.

 

And if so, what is the problem?

 

so far, the only problem is that a couple RBs every year feel like they are underpaid due to the system.   But they are paid perfectly, according to economics.

[maddenboy]

11 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

I never said it should be. It's just the reality of the situation that they players are the product and responsible for all the value. Also, it should be obvious, but the current deal was negotiated before this refusal the re-sign RBs was agreed to by the entire NFL body.

Maybe you should have stayed for the second half of the first class. What exists in the RB market today amounts to artificial price fixing. Teams aren't paying for RB contracts because they don't have to. They can just draft for free and hold them on cheap deals. If they didn't have that option, theyd have to pay or go without.

these 2 sentences contradict

 

Unless the reason teams "dont have to" is collusion.  But you are admitting that its economics and reality, not cheating, that means they dont have to.

 

And its only "artificial" to the extent that its the result of a man-made CBA.   But it is a natural result of that CBA.  No behind-the-scenes smoky rooms are necessary

[T master]

I have to agree with these  guys the RB by comity may be a okay thing of the franchise but there are those that are worth getting paid .

 

What would the Bills of the 90's looked like with out Thurman Thomas ?? I'm thinking a hole lot different than they did ! 

 

The Titans wouldn't have done as good with out Henry (personal opinion) I don't think as the so called experts say that RB 's are a dime a dozen & you can just plug & play them & expect a team to have a good running game .

 

Singletary was a good RB for the Bills but i feel given the moves Beane has made that this year we will see a much better & more dependable running game on the Bills offense .

 

And most Championship teams that win a Super Bowl have a above average RB & running game to use as needed in winning the championship . Last year the Chiefs RB Pacheco had a few really good runs that helped them and added to the over all production of their offense & helped them win the big one .

 

So despite what the experts say I feel a better than just good RB in todays passing league game is a important part of being a championship team .

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, maddenboy said:

So far, its pretty debatable whether there is even a problem.

 

And if so, what is the problem?

 

so far, the only problem is that a couple RBs every year feel like they are underpaid due to the system.   But they are paid perfectly, according to economics.

Not always.  Their value is artificially controlled by the CBA; first round running back gets less than he could if the market were free.  When he finally gets to be a free agent, he is past his prime.  So he misses the opportunity to get paid his actual value.  

[maddenboy]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Not always.  Their value is artificially controlled by the CBA; first round running back gets less than he could if the market were free.  When he finally gets to be a free agent, he is past his prime.  So he misses the opportunity to get paid his actual value.  

sorry

 

i meant 'within the economics of the CBA.'

 

And the CBA doesnt have specific provisons for RBs, of course.  

[Shaw66]

10 hours ago, maddenboy said:

sorry

 

i meant 'within the economics of the CBA.'

 

And the CBA doesnt have specific provisons for RBs, of course.  

Got it. 

 

The running backs do have a point. But the fact remains, within the NFL they aren't worth as much as they think.  Running backs don't win Super Bowls.  

[dave mcbride]

On 7/20/2023 at 1:04 AM, FireChans said:

Increasing the number of cheap rookie RB’s would just prevent even more vet RB’s from making money as FAs.

 

Did anyone in here take economics?

 

”How do we increase demand? Increase supply of course!”

Like I said, he’s just trying to grandstand and make this some kind of “workers vs the bourgeoise” thing.

 

[BullBuchanan]

15 hours ago, maddenboy said:

these 2 sentences contradict

 

Unless the reason teams "dont have to" is collusion.  But you are admitting that its economics and reality, not cheating, that means they dont have to.

 

And its only "artificial" to the extent that its the result of a man-made CBA.   But it is a natural result of that CBA.  No behind-the-scenes smoky rooms are necessary

They don't contradict at all. Read the rest of the post again for the context and let me know what's confusing to you and I'll try to help.

As for why it's artificial, you're correct. There doesn't need to be collusion for it to be an artificial price fixing. That's what makes it artificial and not just price fixing.

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

Taiwan Jones made $12M in a 12 year career. Saquon has already made $38M in a 5 year career.

His value is exponentially higher, so he should. You're the one that brought up STers, not me. I was just showing you how your example of STers was poor. Don't move the goalposts now in order to make yourself look correct.

[MJS]

15 hours ago, maddenboy said:

So far, its pretty debatable whether there is even a problem.

 

And if so, what is the problem?

 

so far, the only problem is that a couple RBs every year feel like they are underpaid due to the system.   But they are paid perfectly, according to economics.

Completely agree. Teams are going to do what is best for them from a competitive standpoint and a financial standpoint. Players do the same. Sometimes those objectives align and sometimes they don't.

 

Running backs wanting to get paid more money makes sense. Who doesn't want to get paid more money? But it doesn't make sense for teams to do that because they can replace a RB without that big of a drop-off in production. There is a strong supply of decent to good running backs.

 

If you want to get paid more, don't become a Running back. It is exactly the same for any job out there. Jobs that pay the most have a high demand and a low supply.