(08-07-2023, 09:50 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(08-05-2023, 09:34 AM)Caldrac Wrote: That's an easy numbers game to play. James was good during his time but it was clear with Manning that you had to focus on what was more important. His ability to read and react and get the easy, short stuff in and out of his hands always was an option to compensate for a lack luster running game. They used to run the hell out of those screens that Kansas City does now. 

Harrison, Wayne, Clark >>> James. 

I think moving forward though, RB's can be incentivized and motivated to run harder in their prime knowing they're not going to see some of these 2nd and 3rd contracts that the other position groups get. Set milestones in the contract language that the owners are on the hook for. 

If 500 yards is hit - You're owed an X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,000 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,500 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees at a pro-rate based upon the average of the current top three paid RB's.

Same can be done with total amount of carries, total amount of TD's, etc. I think it's somewhat fair. It just needs to be normalized. This goes back to how Clowney was being tagged a few years ago and everybody got into a debate about where he fits in exactly on a pay scale system in the NFL. They were breaking down his snap counts between OLB and DE and they were trying to literally short change him by tagging him at a position of lesser value. I think a similar situation came up when Deebo Samuel's extension was mentioned. He's a WR/RB but tends to be uniquely good at both roles interchangeably. 

Nobody is going to get mad about paying a RB extra money on top of his base salary if he's hitting specific targets that benefit the team and his personal bank account. And for those that might argue, "Well, what if he gets to the 10 yard line and he's 1 TD away from hitting a bonus but they pull him out of the line-up?".

Not the teams problem. Maybe he should have ran harder three plays earlier to hit that TD goal. Maybe he should have worked harder on his footwork so the turf monster didn't get him just 5 yards shy in last week's game before stumbling to the ground. Maybe he should have hit the weights harder in the summer so he could have broken that tackle at 2nd and goal, etc.

Yeah, but if you do that, are the WR and QB or OLB not going to want escalators in their deals, too?
A good agent may be able to sweet-talk these clauses into a deal without it becoming mandate; but the costs will likely be that without the escalator, the RB is going to have to settle for lower deal, kind of a way of gambling on themself.

I don't think so. With all due respect to those position groups and players. They're grossly overpaid compared to everybody else, and, in some cases, rightfully so. It's a game of impact. Impact players are going to have an impact on your overall salary cap. That's the price you pay for premium players. Those guys shouldn't get escalators when compared to RB's. I am pretty sure the pay gap is noticeably different. 

I think the first contract for a RB should be uniquely handled with languages that benefit the player at the front end of his contract Vs. the latter. Of course those can be incentivized as well.

---