(08-15-2023, 10:22 AM)I am Yoda Wrote:

(07-25-2023, 07:32 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: 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.

Someone earlier in the thread has one component that will work: remove the ability to tag RBs.  Then further stipulate that certain production benchmarks trigger being paid a commensurate salary with WRs. Production should result in compensation. OTH, I don’t think RBs will get the length of contracts of other offensive weapons based on their wearing out sooner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk