RB$ circling the wagons for fellow RBs

[BullBuchanan]

6 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Do you just want to grandstand here?  You admit they are not a valuable position.  You're right that they don't make much compared to their peers. But they also don't have to play in the NFL.

 

If the owners' unilaterally decided tomorrow to increase the cap $10M, RB's would still get paid peanuts because they are WORTH peanuts.

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

Edited July 18, 2023 by BullBuchanan

[Doc Brown]

25 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

so you think these players really just won’t play? I’m not debating what kind of money they will get, but somebody will sign them. Guaranteed.

 

A top five running back that’s 24 or 25 years old.

 

Josh Jacobs is only 25.  Pollard is 26.  It’s a question currently being answered.

[dave mcbride]

47 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

These same GMs are giving Daniel Jones $40M a year. Forgive me if I don't defer 100% of judgement to their expertise.

I don't disagree that many drafted RBs turn out to be "fine". As far as how many Late/undrafted ones are key contributors on their teams? Not many

All of the top 8 backs from last year were 1st or 2nd round picks. There are a handful of guys in the next tier down from the 4th round and only Ekeler, mostert, wilson And Pacheco that were 6th rd or later in the top 25.

The most reliable way to get elite production from an RB is still to draft one in the top 50 picks.

Any list of top 8 backs that doesn't include the undrafted Austin Ekeler is doing it wrong. He was 8th in yards from scrimmage and first in TDs (18). Regardless, we're talking past each other at this point. I think the following: a) although it still matters, of course, the running game is far less important than the passing game; b) running backs are easily replaced because there are so many competent ones, and virtually all teams think this way; c) individual player stats aren't the best way to measure production because most teams have RBs by committee; d) productive running games are primarily a product of good o-lines; and e) it is the height of foolishness to overspend on the RB position. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[JoPoy88]

8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

But the rookie wage scale isn’t prejudiced against running backs, it applies to every position. And it’s not really relevant to what Barkley, Ekeler and Jacobs are talking about.

[JAMIEBUF12]

Well Josh Jacobs has missed 6 starts.Saquon Barkley has missed 17 starts.He averages 12 games a season.
I don’t see the “oft injued runninbacks” offering to put in their contracts that they won’t take any pay when they are not available to play.At some point availabilty is just as important as stats are.GO BILLS!!

[JoPoy88]

29 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

so you think these players really just won’t play? I’m not debating what kind of money they will get, but somebody will sign them. Guaranteed.

 

A top five running back that’s 24 or 25 years old.

 

Pollard is playing; he signed his tag. The other 2 can’t be signed by just somebody, they’ve also been tagged.

[C.Biscuit97]

42 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It's not a big deal to have a top flight RB. Because they aren't valuable.

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

But the rookie wage scale isn’t prejudiced against running backs, it applies to every position. And it’s not really relevant to what Barkley, Ekeler and Jacobs are talking about.

It absolutely is and I already supplied evidence why it is. They have the shortest career length of any position and with the current trend an NFL team can keep them locked up on their rookie deal + one year of franchise for the entirety of their career. That isn't true for any other position.

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

You could even do it for QBs.

[JoPoy88]

6 minutes ago, JAMIEBUF12 said:

Well Josh Jacobs has missed 6 starts.Saquon Barkley has missed 17 starts.He averages 12 games a season.
I don’t see the “oft injued runninbacks” offering to put in their contracts that they won’t take any pay when they are not available to play.At some point availabilty is just as important as stats are.GO BILLS!!

missing 6 starts over 4 seasons seems pretty durable to me.

[dave mcbride]

38 minutes ago, FireChans said:

The NFLPA argued for the rookie scale contract because they didn’t like vets getting out paid by rookies. 
 

Any system designed to increase RB pay scale artificially is going to impact every other position negatively by decreasing their money. So that will never ever happen. The NFLPA works for all the players, not just RB’s. Christian McCaffrey ain’t arguing that centers need to get paid more.
 

just like punters, if you wanna get those $100M contracts, you better be involved in passing or stopping the pass. If you can’t, you’re probably not gonna make as much. 

This. ^^

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

It absolutely is and I already supplied evidence why it is. They have the shortest career length of any position and with the current trend an NFL team can keep them locked up on their rookie deal + one year of franchise for the entirety of their career. That isn't true for any other position.

You could even do it for QBs.

that’s why I said the rookie term length should be shorter for RBs. The point you’re making about the actual rookie $ scale I’m not following - their playing position doesn’t hurt them there in terms of contract dollars.

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

I think it's impossible to argue that WR quality doesn't affect QB play. GB went from having a great passing offense to a mediocre one when they let Adams get away last season. He's elite, and they had no replacement. 

[BullBuchanan]

10 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Any list of top 8 backs that doesn't include the undrafted Austin Ekeler is doing it wrong. He was 8th in yards from scrimmage and first in TDs (18). Regardless, we're talking past each other at this point. I think the following: a) although it still matters, of course, the running game is far less important than the passing game; b) running backs are easily replaced because there are so many competent ones, and virtually all teams think this way; c) individual player stats aren't the best way to measure production because most teams have RBs by committee; d) productive running games are primarily a product of good o-lines; and e) it is the height of foolishness to overspend on the RB position. 

Autin Ekeler wasn't top 8 in yards last year, so he's not on that list. Neither were other obvious top 8 backs that were top picks like Jonathan Taylor. I also mentioned Ekeler explicitly.

[Don Otreply]

34 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Wrong again. NFL running backs earn on average $1.8M per season and their average length of career is 2.57 years. That's $4.6M before taxes for a life of a career. it's not poor, but far from rich when it has to last 50+ years. if you live off the interest maybe you take home 140-160K a year. That's a firmly middle-class stipend.

NFL franchises on the other hand are worth an average of $4 Billion dollars. The Running back would have to play for 2,222 years to earn that much. THAT is what rich is.

That is life changing wages , it’s all about how one handles their finances. There is a thing called getting a job after football, and not pissing away a windfall. That’s on them, and how is it you came up with this silly notion that these guys should never have to get a job after their football years? 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Don Otreply

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Now do wrs. How many top 5 ones have won SBs? You could probably do this for most positions besides qbs.

7 of the 8 top receivers last season made the playoffs lol. 8 of the top 9.

[dave mcbride]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Autin Ekeler wasn't top 8 in yards last year, so he's not on that list. Neither were other obvious top 8 backs that were top picks like Jonathan Taylor. I also mentioned Ekeler explicitly.

He was literally eighth overall and sixth among running backs. You can't exclude receiving yardage when judging running backs. Pass catching ability and route running is literally why McCaffrey and Kamara got paid, which seems to be the root of your concern. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/scrimmage.htm

 

Kamara has a 5 year/75 million contract (a bad contract, btw; he's in decline) and McCaffrey makes over $16 million per year. Those are Hopkins/OBJ numbers. It's because they can catch the damn ball and make plays in the receiving game. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by dave mcbride

[FireChans]

25 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

8 of them were still drafted in the first 4 rounds and 2 of them in the top 12 picks. They clearly are worth more than peanuts to those two teams. Young RBs appear to be worth plenty, the problem is that they are locked into a low level of compensation through that deal and their value after that deal is far diminished to when it was they signed it.

If they didn't allow RBs to be drafted at all, I would imagine top RB prospects like Bijan Robinson would get paid well on the open market.

Holy smokes bro.  Do you not understand the vets do not want ROOKIES to make more money.

 

The older players HATED that AP got a massive deal before he took a snap.

 

Allowing RB's to make more money on their rookie deals WILL HURT players like Barkley and Jacobs.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

The CBA has the players getting 48% of league revenue. We could certainly argue that the players deserve more than 50%, but the players agreed to this amount.

 

How it gets divided up after that per position shouldn't matter.

 

You can't start changing rules about drafting and rookie contracts for just one position. The league is always changing and evolving and cycling through trends. Positional values change.

 

You are only making some millions, and want more millions? Change positions.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by DrDawkinstein

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, JoPoy88 said:

that’s why I said the rookie term length should be shorter for RBs. The point you’re making about the actual rookie $ scale I’m not following - their playing position doesn’t hurt them there in terms of contract dollars.

I'll restate it then. Young RBs are the most NFL ready of any position. Their value is front-loaded more than any other position.

However, with the rookie wage scale they have two things working against them The first we agree on, and that's they are locked into a long term that robs them of their ability to get a contract based on their success.

The second, which we haven't yet agreed on, is related to the first. Young RBs who are in their first couple of years in the league provide more value than veteran players, but they are making the same amount of money on the rookie scale as players who provide less value early in their careers. The NFLPA needs to acknowledge that they are a consumable resource unlikely to be able to cash in on a second contract they way a WR or TE can and work to get them paid upfront.

two year ago Jonathan Taylor was the top RB in the league contributing over 2100 yards from scrimmage include 1800 rushing and he made a total of 2.5M. His reward was to have his compensation dropped to 2.1 the following year.

In 2020 Aaron Jones, David Montgomery, and James Robinson were the 3-5 leading rushers who made 2.1, 1.0, and 0.9M respectively on rookie deals. It's a much different sitaution for receivers where the only top 5 producer earning no money is Justin Jefferson, and you better believe he's going to get paid

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Holy smokes bro.  Do you not understand the vets do not want ROOKIES to make more money.

 

The older players HATED that AP got a massive deal before he took a snap.

 

Allowing RB's to make more money on their rookie deals WILL HURT players like Barkley and Jacobs.

 

 

I think it’s actually an interesting point. If history has shown that a RB, even when really good, rarely can get a second contract because his own rookie contract success probably means he’s been worked to ‘death’, then I’m sure the market will adjust.