RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[gonzo1105]

I think both sides are correct in their feelings. I always felt like and I know there are examples both ways but guys who catch a lot of passes are more valuable than runners nowadays and I always felt those guys lasted longer in the league. 

 

I would honestly out of Pollard, Barkley, and Jacobs probably pay Pollard before anyone else because he has production both as a runner and pass catcher. Ekeler has the same story but I can understand the Chargers being hesitant to pay him because his body and frame is so small and that kind of pounding has to take a toll on it after awhile. 

[Mr. WEO]

If the team in question didn't so utterly depend on it's RB, this would be easier.  But with the cap increasing every year, it's hard to justify the Giants not popping 2-3 mil more on Barkley.  Where would it come from?  Jones would have taken 2-3 mil less per year...because he sucks---and needs Barkley in the backfield.

 

 

[machine gun kelly]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Play 3 years and you are vested into NFL healthcare for life.

 

Taxes and agent fees will come out right about 40%. So still leaves me with $7M+.

 

A $5M principal nest egg should give anyone a salary of $200k (or more) a year for the rest of your life. For doing nothing. Better off then 99% of us civilians.

 

edit:

Federal Taxes will be about 36.5%. The blended State Tax rate will be about 5%. Agent fee cannot be more than 3%. So that is 44.5%.

For the sake of discussion, let's call it 45%.

 

$15M - 45% = $8,250,000

For the sake of discussion, let's call it $8M

 

At an ultra conservative 3% draw, that principal generates $240k/yr. Forever. Plus anything over 3% generated by my investments gets added onto the principal.

 

Maybe I can't live like a show-off diva baller. But my family and I can definitely live comfortably for a loooong time.

 

Dawk, thanks for the sanity.  What you demonstrated in your exMples I’ve made for a long time.  The only part you missed is when you make $225k, I’ve not been taxed yet.

 

These guys are actually living off that 4% draw of 200k, which is a ver nice living.

 

the real point is these guys are fighting a losing battle.  They won’t change the market, just like Bell didn’t, Graham didn’t for TE’s who are pass catchers.  It’s the way of the world.  You’re paid by your value.  
 

im no more valuable than the fantastic teacher or police officer who is the best at their job.  We move towards our talents, and our lives are by choice.

 

The NFL market for RB’s is now platoon based, knowing they drop at 27 or so, so they won’t get paid a WR wage.

 

They can blow smoke about their own union, their own wage scale, but why would all the other positions in the union vote for one position group.  They won’t Nd they know it.

 

it doesn’t matter what’s fair.  Life’s not fair.  
 

I was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day on MTC.  He mentioned Chris Johnson told his two boys (one a WR and the other in middle school a RB like dad).  He told his younger son once he gets to HS, he’s converting him to WR and not up for debate.

 

My point is even the current RB’s who’ve just recently retired know not to let their boys who have incredible talent follow the RB path.  My boys were great at football, but were exceptional at lax.  If my sons were graded with NFL talent and they weren’t, I’d push hard for them to love to any other position.  WR, TE, LINE, whatever met their physical capabilities.

 

Lastly, there guys on a rookie and even one modest second contract can live a nice life if they don’t piss it away.  That falls on them and sorry of other positions get paid more.  The owners league and PA Owe them nothing.  Just like the PA doesn’t owe the TE’s WR money as their advocate.

[Gregg]

24 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

If the team in question didn't so utterly depend on it's RB, this would be easier.  But with the cap increasing every year, it's hard to justify the Giants not popping 2-3 mil more on Barkley.  Where would it come from?  Jones would have taken 2-3 mil less per year...because he sucks---and needs Barkley in the backfield.

 

 

 

If Barkley and the Giants end up parting ways I wonder if the Bills and Giants would look into a possible trade before the 2024 season. Beane and Schoen are familiar with each other from their Buffalo days. It would have to makes sense salary wise for the Bills to pursue this. Barkley is an elite level player, and the Bills could use more of those on offense. Again, this would be something that would happen after the season if it does at all.

[BullBuchanan]

8 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s not just about aging RB’s, it’s about the quantity of RB’s. RB is the easiest position to find a replacement. I actually don’t know what the solution would be.

 

For regular people it works the same way. You get paid based on how many people can do your job equally as well. Cashiers at Walmart get paid a low wage because there are millions of people that can do the job.

 

I don’t know if anything can help RB’s because the NFL is all about passing now. If they had shorter deals I think some RBs would get paid but the majority of them still would be replaced with cheaper options.

 

I think teams will just avoid drafting RBs all together if they become too expensive. You don’t win Championships when your RB is the the focus of the offense. RBs will end up like FB’s soon enough. 
 

 

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

[BullBuchanan]

9 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

When every one of them is a top three percent or better wage earner annually in America, why is anyone feeling sorry for them, when the vast majority of Americans make far less annually, and ya know what, they would give their eye teeth for just one years worth of a RBs wages…, folks perspective is really out of wack on these guys incomes, they all make large money compared to the ninety fifth percentile and lower of all wage earners in America and world wide, F ing cry babies is what they are, don’t piss your money away and get a god da-n job when your time in football is over, it ain’t rocket science. 

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

[JoPoy88]

14 minutes ago, Gregg said:

 

If Barkley and the Giants end up parting ways I wonder if the Bills and Giants would look into a possible trade before the 2024 season. Beane and Schoen are familiar with each other from their Buffalo days. It would have to makes sense salary wise for the Bills to pursue this. Barkley is an elite level player, and the Bills could use more of those on offense. Again, this would be something that would happen after the season if it does at all.

are you assuming the Giants will sign him to a deal after this season and immediately trade him? Not sure why’d they do that. Barkley doesn’t have a contract and now can’t sign one until next year. 

[billsfan89]

9 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

When every one of them is a top three percent or better wage earner annually in America, why is anyone feeling sorry for them, when the vast majority of Americans make far less annually, and ya know what, they would give their eye teeth for just one years worth of a RBs wages…, folks perspective is really out of wack on these guys incomes, they all make large money compared to the ninety fifth percentile and lower of all wage earners in America and world wide, F ing cry babies is what they are, don’t piss your money away and get a god da-n job when your time in football is over, it ain’t rocket science. 

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

[Gregg]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

are you assuming the Giants will sign him to a deal after this season and immediately trade him? Not sure why’d they do that. Barkley doesn’t have a contract and now can’t sign one until next year. 

 

Good point. I do think he will play this season, but he will only sign on for this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley wants to move on from the Giants. The NYC area media is reporting that he wasn't happy with how the contract negotiation was handled and he isn't happy he didn't get a new deal.

[SoCal Deek]

Why is this a story? Edmunds left because he found someone willing to pay him more. Hopkins has a thread longer than a country mile. All NFL players want to make more money. If they can find a team that will pay them more…good for them. If not, you play for less money. That last sentence more or less applies to EVERY player regardless of position. 

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, Gregg said:

 

Good point. I do think he will play this season, but he will only sign on for this year. I wouldn't be surprised if Barkley wants to move on from the Giants. The NYC area media is reporting that he wasn't happy with how the contract negotiation was handled and he isn't happy he didn't get a new deal.

Yes - he can only sign on for this year (by signing his tag, which he has not done.) The window for signing a longer term deal is now closed.

[C.Biscuit97]

57 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I think most fans would say centers are more important than RBs. Maybe not.

 

 

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

21 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

It’s not like the RB money is coming from cancer Research. I always hate this argument because it makes It seem like there is no such thing as context. Yes without any context these players have large salaries. But they do not exist in a vacuum.

 

Why should the owners run them down and not allow them to make as much money as they can in their narrow window of opportunity? There should be some adjustment to how RB’s are treated. Lowering their rookie deals by one year and eliminating the exclusive franchise tag for the position would be a decent start to allowing these guys to hit the market younger and avoid franchise tag traps.

The other thing people forget is that for a lot of these guys they are compressing the prime earning years of their entire life into 3-4 years in their early to mid twenties. If you're a plumber or programmer, you usually make more money the older you get, but for the majority of NFL players, they'll never make more money than they do while they're int he league. Given that the average career is less than 4 years long and most guys never make more than a million a season, that's not a lot of money for a lifetime.

If you want to retire at 30 and live a totally normal every day, suburban lifestyle outside any top 50 city in the US, you better plan on having $4M-$6M stashed away. Yea, there's nothing stopping these guys from getting normal jobs after retirement, but when football has been your only focus since you were 8 years old, you probably aren't well equipped to go earn a couple hundred grand a year at a fortune 500 company.

[Don Otreply]

14 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Because they are still workers and they are getting shafted by their employers based on their contributions. The money exists, it's just a matter of who gets it. It doesn't benefit you to ***** on a fellow worker just because they may earn more than you. It doesn't matter if they work at McDonalds or the NFL. It doesn't matter is they make $7/hr or $1M/hr. They should still get the maximum they can for the value they provide their employers, because it benefits all of us for that to happen.

The whole "they should quit crying about how much money they make" perspective is an incredibly toxic attitude that does nothing but set workers and society backwards.

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

 Center is a weird position. They are probably the second smartest guys on the team but most centers are arguably the worst blockers (they have help on each side). I think while it is important to have a good, smart C, they are thought to be the most replaceable o line position. I think they are lowest drafted non kicking team position on average. 
 

but it’s an interesting point. 

Imagine if the Bills got McCaffery last year? He single handedly changed the 49ers season. Henry used to carry the Titans garbage offense. 

If we had a player on offense that wasn't emotionally exhausted, maybe it would've made the difference. I think it was a huge missed at bat for Beane.

Just now, Don Otreply said:

Yeah because making six figures and more annually is such a hardship

Who said it was a hardship? Your envy over what other people make is blinding you to the reality that you have more in common with them than you do differences.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

10 hours ago, JoPoy88 said:

The star RBs are never going to get teams to budge on handing out bigger money to veteran backs who are 26-27 years old. The positional value and average career length just isn’t there

 

What would be feasible and fairer to these guys is altering the rookie contract structure for RBs and set their max term lower than other positions. 2 or 3 year rookie terms would allow RBs to get to FA sooner with more of their future value intact. The truly great ones would get more and better offers. All the rest would get what they get or fall by the wayside. 

 

I think the best you could do would be to let rookie contracts be the length the player wants to sign.  The slotting thing doesn't allow a player to get more money than their slot, and there are guard rails about raises and extensions.  They should be able to ask for a raise at any time.  Why can Pacheco rush for 800 yards and another 200 in the playoffs, but be forced to play this year at 880K and can't even ask for an extension until after NEXT season?  Would GM's be willing to tack on a year or two at a reduced rate to get them a bonus?  

[Ya Digg?]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Why is this a story? Edmunds left because he found someone willing to pay him more. Hopkins has a thread longer than a country mile. All NFL players want to make more money. If they can find a team that will pay them more…good for them. If not, you play for less money. That last sentence more or less applies to EVERY player regardless of position. 

Except your argument doesn’t apply here. They weren’t allowed to negotiate with other teams to find out what they could get paid 

[dave mcbride]

39 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

The guy behind Derrick Henry has averaged 6.3 ypc  over the past two seasons. And it turns out that Tony Pollard was better than Zeke the last couple of years. To paraphrase Charles DeGaulle, the graves are filled with indispensable running backs. Nick Chubb doesn't win his team games; the passing game does. Same with Ekeler. Barkley finally played on a winner when the team hired a good passing-game coach -- Daboll -- and the QB stepped up his game (plus the team was very lucky in close games). In Barkley's best season by far, the team went 5-11.  Chubb (much like Marshawn for the Bills) generally plays for losing teams -- the Browns have had losing seasons in four out of his five season there, and in their only winning season (2020), the QB actually had a good season (95.9 passer rating) that also turned out to be the best of his career. As for McCaffrey, he's a terrific receiver (not a third-option dump-off specialist), and hence he's paid accordingly. 

 

No position is easier to replace except maybe linebacker. Guards who can play decently are harder to replace. People really need wrap their heads around the concept of "value above replacement player" and the fact that there is an oversupply of decent running backs.  I'm old enough to remember Mike Gillislee looking like a superstar for the Bills (calling out @BADOLBILZ!).

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[Don Otreply]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

If we had a player on offense that wasn't emotionally exhausted, maybe it would've made the difference. I think it was a huge missed at bat for Beane.

Who said it was a hardship? Your envy over what other people make is blinding you to the reality that you have more in common with them than you do differences.

Projecting there Billbull, I have no envy, I’m retired and winter in the Bahamas and summer on the Connecticut shore, I’m just stating real income numbers, they aren’t hurting financially no matter how much you crow about it.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

27 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's the thing though, it's not easy to replace elite RBs, even if people keep repeating it. Yea, you can replace guys like Devin Singletary all day long. Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffery, Josh jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley? Good luck with that. One of those guys comes out of the draft every couple of years.

Do you "need" one? clearly not. Are they major contributors tot heir team's offensive production? Undoubtedly.

 

I think the fact that there are 0 super bowls among these elite running backs shows that they really aren't necessary to team success.  The teams are better with them in there, there is more home run potential among this group, but how much?  Would it be better suited to spend on offensive linemen, who can have a greater impact on both passing and running game?