(07-25-2023, 07:32 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: (07-25-2023, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Yeah - they are.
Fewer and fewer productive backs are getting 2nd contracts and the offers they are receiving are not commensurate with their production numbers. Shorter deals as well. That is a devaluing compared to how the position was formerly treated league-wide.
If you were a top ten back and your rookie deal ran out - you most likely got paid handsomely 10 years ago.
Teams are rethinking that methodology now.
The tags you mentioned actually prove the point. Those guys used to get 4 year deals. Now they are getting tagged because the teams don't intend to keep them around for long. They'll just draft new ones to use up.
No they aren't. Teams are just being smarter about it being they have a shorter shelf life. Why not use the tag on the position with the shorter shelf life? If they were devalued one wouldnt of just got selected with the 8th pick and one with the 12th. Hell, we just took one in the first a couple years ago and its looking like a damn good pick whether you liked it or not. Not to mention one was taken right before Etienne as well. If you draft a RB in the first why not just use his first 5 years on the rookie contract with the 5 year option and then tag him twice, thats 7 years and just covering your own [BLEEP] in the last couple instead of the huge contract. If hes 21 or 22 when drafted he will be 28 or 29 after those 7 years and usually when backs start to decline a bit. Teams are just being smarter about it and covering their own [BLEEP] and i still think backs will continue to go in the 1st and 2nd rounds if the talent is there being how valuable they can be.
You are making the point for NYC. In the past, teams would sign that first rounder who excelled to a second deal instead of double-tagging. You saw players stay their entire career (or dang near) with one team. Teams prefer to draft fresh legs (and often well below the top ten picks of a darft) than re-up with the guy that they've invested time and cash to develop.
It's this simple - the difference between the RB taken in the top 10 and the RB taken in the top 100 is very often minimal. Teams understand that, and opt to roll the dice on the cheaper option way more often than a team commits long-term to an RB.
And 2 RB getting taken early in a darft (Harris and Etienne are not early picks so don't bother with that baloney) is not a frequent occurrence. That's not a valid argument to claim that teams value the position. If they did, we'd see many years of teams jockeying for position to snag the elite RB in a darft.
Compare the RB position to the WR - you're talking about a 7-year lifespan max for a RB, we got WR playing well into their 30's, making dang near double what an RB does. The RB position has very little value in today's game. It sucks for guys who excel at the position, because they won't have the same chance to get the scratch that a kid playing some other position might.
