(05-20-2024, 08:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2024, 08:03 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]I actually agree with this conceptually. But it remains a real problem league wide. RBs are clearly easily replaceable and shouldn't be paid much but unlike kickers or punters (sorry guys) they are put to significant abuse.
Rookie cap applications and permitting rbs to get more money early does make some sense. I get the unfairness compared to other players but man it's tough for rbs. I'd not recommend anyone be one.
I demand a special dispensation for Fullbacks. They aren't nearly as appreciated as Running Backs are!
Haha. They're lucky to make a team anymore.
(05-17-2024, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2024, 01:20 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Agree --- I know the NFL is not going to make special rules for position but in your opinion, would it make sense if the NFL should adjust the rules to allow RBs to come out after being 2 years removed from HS? Not only does it allow star RBs to get through their rookie contract at a younger age, but it saves so much wear and tear from the hits star RBs take in their Jr year. Just look at Fournette, he had 300 carries in his Sophomore year then got hurt in his Jr year and only played 7 games.
I don't think that's a good idea. But how about, every 200 carries is a year off of your rookie contract?
I like the idea, especially when Derek Henry is limited to 199 carries in his initial 4 years (as the Titans avoid an earlier 2nd contract) .... resulting in 0 carries vs the Jags in the last few weeks of the season.
(05-17-2024, 11:21 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Take Running backs off the salary cap. That'd solve the financials of it.
That would be quite interesting for cash strapped teams that spend excessive $$ on their QBs. I could see KC, Baltimore, Dallas, and other teams potentially paying $15m+ on Saquon if there wasn't a cap hit.
(05-20-2024, 10:28 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2024, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that's a good idea. But how about, every 200 carries is a year off of your rookie contract?
I like the idea, especially when Derek Henry is limited to 199 carries in his initial 4 years (as the Titans avoid an earlier 2nd contract) .... resulting in 0 carries vs the Jags in the last few weeks of the season.
(05-17-2024, 11:21 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Take Running backs off the salary cap. That'd solve the financials of it.
That would be quite interesting for cash strapped teams that spend excessive $$ on their QBs. I could see KC, Baltimore, Dallas, and other teams potentially paying $15m+ on Saquon if there wasn't a cap hit.
The carries would have to roll over season to season for it to work. The 200th carry is a year off, whether that occurs in year 1 of play or year 2.
But that gets complicated because how do you handle the last year of a contract, if the RB hits his 200th in the last year is he immediately a free agent, taken out of the game? Not great. I suppose the rule just wouldn't apply for the last year, which again creates an incentive for a team to get right to 199 and then shut a guy down in his second to last year.
Here's maybe a better idea. Pay them per carry. A player on a rookie deal gets whatever their initial contract says, or, $40,000 per carry, whichever is greater. A guy with 250 carries automatically gets at least $10 million regardless of what round he was drafted in.
(05-20-2024, 10:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 10:28 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]I like the idea, especially when Derek Henry is limited to 199 carries in his initial 4 years (as the Titans avoid an earlier 2nd contract) .... resulting in 0 carries vs the Jags in the last few weeks of the season.
That would be quite interesting for cash strapped teams that spend excessive $$ on their QBs. I could see KC, Baltimore, Dallas, and other teams potentially paying $15m+ on Saquon if there wasn't a cap hit.
The carries would have to roll over season to season for it to work. The 200th carry is a year off, whether that occurs in year 1 of play or year 2.
But that gets complicated because how do you handle the last year of a contract, if the RB hits his 200th in the last year is he immediately a free agent, taken out of the game? Not great. I suppose the rule just wouldn't apply for the last year, which again creates an incentive for a team to get right to 199 and then shut a guy down in his second to last year.
Here's maybe a better idea. Pay them per carry. A player on a rookie deal gets whatever their initial contract says, or, $40,000 per carry, whichever is greater. A guy with 250 carries automatically gets at least $10 million regardless of what round he was drafted in.
You want teams to run even less I see. Lots more shovel passes coming right up.
Also if I'm a late round rb I'd hate that I might get 10 carries in a year but play a ton on ST.
We also have to figure out how you salary cap manage that.
(05-20-2024, 12:43 PM)HardcoreMoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 10:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The carries would have to roll over season to season for it to work. The 200th carry is a year off, whether that occurs in year 1 of play or year 2.
But that gets complicated because how do you handle the last year of a contract, if the RB hits his 200th in the last year is he immediately a free agent, taken out of the game? Not great. I suppose the rule just wouldn't apply for the last year, which again creates an incentive for a team to get right to 199 and then shut a guy down in his second to last year.
Here's maybe a better idea. Pay them per carry. A player on a rookie deal gets whatever their initial contract says, or, $40,000 per carry, whichever is greater. A guy with 250 carries automatically gets at least $10 million regardless of what round he was drafted in.
You want teams to run even less I see. Lots more shovel passes coming right up.
Also if I'm a late round rb I'd hate that I might get 10 carries in a year but play a ton on ST.
We also have to figure out how you salary cap manage that.
While I could see teams switching players out based on this kind of rule change, I really don't think they'd change a play call to save $40k. If that actually happened, I'd make receptions pay just as much as carries. Some receivers would get a benefit no one asked for but they wouldn't be mad about it. Most receivers are already bringing in more than $40k per reception anyways.
(05-20-2024, 10:24 AM)cland Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 08:55 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I demand a special dispensation for Fullbacks. They aren't nearly as appreciated as Running Backs are!
Haha. They're lucky to make a team anymore.
WHAT?!?!?!?! That is JUST NOT RIGHT!!! We must alter the entire CBA to compensate for this travesty! They are clearly worth more, in fact, we should MANDATE that ALL teams must carry two...no THREE fullbacks on their roster. They are the foundation and backbone of the NFL!!!
The current CBA is in place till 2031.
Any changes made to it (prior top then) are more likely to come from the league/ownership and not from player concerns.
I don't see any way RBs are going to gain ground on their devaluation unless fewer quality backs begin coming out of the NCAA. Which is doubtful.
There is no likely no help on the way for NFL RB salary concerns.
(05-20-2024, 02:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The current CBA is in place till 2031.
Any changes made to it (prior top then) are more likely to come from the league/ownership and not from player concerns.
I don't see any way RBs are going to gain ground on their devaluation unless fewer quality backs begin coming out of the NCAA. Which is doubtful.
There is no likely no help on the way for NFL RB salary concerns.
Nor should there be, the market decides that they just aren't worth very much because replacement cost is almost nil. That's also why we vehemently oppose drafting one early (or at all really), it's just not worth the investment.
(05-20-2024, 02:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The current CBA is in place till 2031.
Any changes made to it (prior top then) are more likely to come from the league/ownership and not from player concerns.
I don't see any way RBs are going to gain ground on their devaluation unless fewer quality backs begin coming out of the NCAA. Which is doubtful.
There is no likely no help on the way for NFL RB salary concerns.
It's unlikely but not impossible. If enough RBs decide to hold out, especially rookie RBs, there would be a negotiation at that point. But the other position groups would not want that. They'd understand that opening the book for one position could open the book for all of them.
But it does highlight the basic injustice of any union contract: folks already in the workplace are negotiating and voting on behalf of folks who aren't yet in the workplace.
(05-20-2024, 03:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 02:18 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]The current CBA is in place till 2031.
Any changes made to it (prior top then) are more likely to come from the league/ownership and not from player concerns.
I don't see any way RBs are going to gain ground on their devaluation unless fewer quality backs begin coming out of the NCAA. Which is doubtful.
There is no likely no help on the way for NFL RB salary concerns.
It's unlikely but not impossible. If enough RBs decide to hold out, especially rookie RBs, there would be a negotiation at that point. But the other position groups would not want that. They'd understand that opening the book for one position could open the book for all of them.
But it does highlight the basic injustice of any union contract: folks already in the workplace are negotiating and voting on behalf of folks who aren't yet in the workplace.
You think a bunch of 5th, 6th, 7th round RBs are going to join a holdout when they have a golden opportunity to start right away in the NFL instead?
I can't imagine that happening.
They don't care about the Saquon Barkley's of the league (which are a dying breed anyway - zero 1st round RBs taken this year BTW)
They care about making a 53 man roster.
(05-20-2024, 04:05 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 03:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It's unlikely but not impossible. If enough RBs decide to hold out, especially rookie RBs, there would be a negotiation at that point. But the other position groups would not want that. They'd understand that opening the book for one position could open the book for all of them.
But it does highlight the basic injustice of any union contract: folks already in the workplace are negotiating and voting on behalf of folks who aren't yet in the workplace.
You think a bunch of 5th, 6th, 7th round RBs are going to join a holdout when they have a golden opportunity to start right away in the NFL instead?
I can't imagine that happening.
They don't care about the Saquon Barkley's of the league (which are a dying breed anyway - zero 1st round RBs taken this year BTW)
They care about making a 53 man roster.
Unlikely but not impossible, I said. They'd get $40k per carry as well. A 4th round pick is currently getting $1 million per year, and they're stuck making that regardless of if they outperform it. They could make more money once they get that 26th carry.
They wouldn't do it for Saquon. They'd do it for themselves.
"I want $80k per catch!"
"Well we want $115k per tackle!"
"Well I want $1.5 million per sack!"
"I don't care what ya'll get but we want $2 million per TD pass"
(05-20-2024, 04:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 04:05 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]You think a bunch of 5th, 6th, 7th round RBs are going to join a holdout when they have a golden opportunity to start right away in the NFL instead?
I can't imagine that happening.
They don't care about the Saquon Barkley's of the league (which are a dying breed anyway - zero 1st round RBs taken this year BTW)
They care about making a 53 man roster.
Unlikely but not impossible, I said. They'd get $40k per carry as well. A 4th round pick is currently getting $1 million per year, and they're stuck making that regardless of if they outperform it. They could make more money once they get that 26th carry.
They wouldn't do it for Saquon. They'd do it for themselves.
Nah
"Good enough" RBs are in surplus. Ain't no way they all screw themselves out of opportunity that way. Too many others ready to step up and cross the picket line. And the vast majority know they won't get a second contract and don't care.
They'd be happy to get a cheap rookie deal and pray they get that little 2 year vet minimum extension should they prove worthy.
Look at it like a possible 3 million on the rookie deal and maybe 4-8 mil more if extended VS. zero NFL money and scrambling around the B-leagues for peanuts.
3 million with a chance to turn it into 7 mil or more is gonna be too attractive to unionize over for a bunch of 21 year old athletes.
(05-20-2024, 04:29 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]"I want $80k per catch!"
"Well we want $115k per tackle!"
"Well I want $1.5 million per sack!"
"I don't care what ya'll get but we want $2 million per TD pass"
If guys got paid weekly per recognized stats or metrics combined with getting paid a big bonus for winning the super bowl and smaller bonuses for the division crown and playoff wins, it would make things very interesting and even more exciting. NFLPA would never, though.
(05-20-2024, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 04:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Unlikely but not impossible, I said. They'd get $40k per carry as well. A 4th round pick is currently getting $1 million per year, and they're stuck making that regardless of if they outperform it. They could make more money once they get that 26th carry.
They wouldn't do it for Saquon. They'd do it for themselves.
Nah
"Good enough" RBs are in surplus. Ain't no way they all screw themselves out of opportunity that way. Too many others ready to step up and cross the picket line. And the vast majority know they won't get a second contract and don't care.
They'd be happy to get a cheap rookie deal and pray they get that little 2 year vet minimum extension should they prove worthy.
Look at it like a possible 3 million on the rookie deal and maybe 4-8 mil more if extended VS. zero NFL money and scrambling around the B-leagues for peanuts.
3 million with a chance to turn it into 7 mil or more is gonna be too attractive to unionize over for a bunch of 21 year old athletes.
Yep. That's where storytime begins. Ever hear the one about Jack Del Rio and some of his teammates armed with crowbars and baseball bats sitting on a tailgate by the stadium?
(05-20-2024, 05:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2024, 04:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Nah
"Good enough" RBs are in surplus. Ain't no way they all screw themselves out of opportunity that way. Too many others ready to step up and cross the picket line. And the vast majority know they won't get a second contract and don't care.
They'd be happy to get a cheap rookie deal and pray they get that little 2 year vet minimum extension should they prove worthy.
Look at it like a possible 3 million on the rookie deal and maybe 4-8 mil more if extended VS. zero NFL money and scrambling around the B-leagues for peanuts.
3 million with a chance to turn it into 7 mil or more is gonna be too attractive to unionize over for a bunch of 21 year old athletes.
Yep. That's where storytime begins. Ever hear the one about Jack Del Rio and some of his teammates armed with crowbars and baseball bats sitting on a tailgate by the stadium?
No. No clue what that is about.
But JDR and that ilk are ancient and extinct dinosaurs in the landscape of the modern athlete.
There may come a day when the RB financial "inequity" (if you want to go that far) changes, but I'd wager it will be well down the road and not a result of some mass holdout.
More likely just a result of young athletes shying away from the position more and more over time unless they know the NFL is not in their future. Less surplus may notch up demand, but even that is unlikely as the league continues to embolden the passing game with rules changes and safety measures. Making the run game and those ball carriers even more devalued.
(05-19-2024, 10:25 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2024, 08:20 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]Etienne hasn't even hit his prime.
Some RBs are impact players for years.
This conversation is about 2 years too early.
ETN is 25 years old. He is most definitely in his prime right now. Especially at the RB position.
Only 2 out of the top 10 rushers last year are younger than ETN.
2 of the top 10 are 30+
He has only played 2 seasons in the NFL.
His prime years are still ahead of him.
I’ve seen some really good ideas.
None of them are in this thread.
(05-20-2024, 05:48 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (05-19-2024, 10:25 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]ETN is 25 years old. He is most definitely in his prime right now. Especially at the RB position.
Only 2 out of the top 10 rushers last year are younger than ETN.
2 of the top 10 are 30+
He has only played 2 seasons in the NFL.
His prime years are still ahead of him.
Yes, 2 are younger than him and 2 are 30, or over. The rest are 25-27, aka their prime like him. ETN has 2, maybe 3 years (hopefully) of good production left and history tells us the decline will be coming shortly after that.
He has only played 2 seasons in the NFL because hes already missed an entire season with a foot injury. Lets not forget about that.
Either way, the point that has been made here stands. He's in his prime right now. Use the crap out of him for 2, maybe 3 more seasons and let him go.