(07-25-2023, 08:38 AM)Mikey Wrote: (07-24-2023, 01:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: I agree completely.
It is a CBA problem that can only be fixed with a new (or amended) CBA.
Right now, rookies drafted in later rounds or going undrafted are eligible to receive a bonus if they play a certain number of snaps. It takes at least 2 years to earn the bonus.
To me the only fair thing would be to expand this so it applies to all rookies, with additional bonuses being available based on production, not just snaps. There should be a bonus for any running back on their rookie contract who appears on the top 10 rushing yards list for the season, for instance. A guy should only need one good year to earn a bonus like this, and then they could earn it again if they do the same thing next year.
You're right that play style and selection can be cyclical, but even if teams start calling more running plays, that doesn't mean the guy getting the ball is a highly paid guy on a second contract. It's probably still gonna be a lower paid journeyman, or someone on their rookie contract.
How does the CBA change the positional value? Do you all see any possible rule change that might make teams rely more on run game that could be done before 2030?
Does anyone honestly think the CBA will restructure compensation for RB and the rest of the league will accept the hit in their own salaries?
And I could absolutely see money ball happen if the incentives are based on snap counts, carries, yardage, etc - set up RB by committee, pay three guys cheap and don't worry about hitting any of those milestones. What if an RB is op 3 at midseason, and breaks an ankle? No bucks for you.
It's messy. I think the only way to re-value the run game is to make the pass game harder. I don't see the league reverting, though. Fantasy, stats and highlight reels love them some inflated numbers.
Long story long:
RBs are screwed in the current system money wise until further notice. A few elites will get notable 2nd contracts. Many strong contributors will not. They are too easily replaced in the 3rd-6th rounds and even an early rounder is a more acceptable salary to most teams' cap situation.
They'll have to settle for 2 or 3 year deals below the value of their production if they want to keep playing after their rookie contract.
The most common "fix" being floated by former players, fans and pundits is an incentive based pay structure amended into the CBA so that backs who are churning out significant production can receive a bump in salary that gets them closer to the pay scale of WR/TE who are producing similar numbers.
Could smart GMs and coaches play a form of "moneyball" with a committee of backs to keep a player out of certain incentive ranges? Yes, absolutely.
But it's the only suggestion I've seen that gives these devalued backs any hope of getting paid in 2nd contracts.
Personally - I understand why they are unhappy with the pay disparity, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for a guy taking 7 mil per year who thinks he's owed 12.
Especially when we know full well that this position so frequently has players hit the injury or wear-and-tear wall in the middle of their 2nd deal.
