(05-22-2024, 01:00 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(05-22-2024, 12:42 PM)mikesez Wrote: The rookie table is set by negotiation between NFLPA and NFL.  Neither side brings any future rookies to the table.  Most of NFLPA voters are on their 2nd contract.  

A union negotiation is not a market.  The table was drawn up after the Sam Bradford debacle but the previous system wasn't really a market negotiation either.  The teams, after using their first overall pick, were unable to walk away from that player without totally losing the value of the pick.  When either side is unable to walk away, it is not a free market anymore.

Wow. 

You have an odd perspective of all this. 

The union negotiation AFFECTS the market. 
Player association members' contract status means very little in that dynamic. 

Of course the market will REFLECT the CBA at times.  It has a direct influence. 
Draft position absolutely matters in salary dispensation. And you will at times see a parallel between the CBA rookie structure and second contracts. It just makes too much sense. 

There is indeed a real market for running backs and it is affected by the CBA, and more importantly it is affected currently by a surplus wherein the supply exceeds demand driving down price. 

Simple. 

You want RBs to get paid more and see more 2nd contracts?  Slow down the production of the product. There are too many available.

Of course it matters.  That's a given.  What I'm trying to discuss with you is, should it matter as much as it does, and can there be a future system where it matters less than it does now?

Yes, if you stretch out the timescale of your analysis to the scale of an entire football career from pee-wee on, and if you imagine that the parents of a talented child have perfect control of that child and perfect rational understanding of that child's prospects, interests, and likely adult height and build, and if you assume that those perfectly rational and perfectly informed parents are strong willed and able to overrule the coach who will always want that man among boys to play RB, you will see something like a free market action where the supply of running backs reacts to the demand for running backs.

Other than that it ain't happening.  The market ain't free jack.  It's managed end to end.  Let's be rational and shift the conversation to how to manage it better.

The RB who is not quite good enough to make an NFL team, he's taking a beating in college, then not taking a beating in the NFL, and not getting NFL money, and nothing has changed for him. 

The RB who is good enough to make an NFL team, he takes a beating in college, takes a beating in the NFL, then is out, but unless he gets a second contract, his pay will never be based on his actual NFL performance, only based on what a GM thought his performance might be in the year he was drafted.  That's not rational, it hurts the product on the field, and it's unfair to the guys actually taking the beating on the field.

---

(05-22-2024, 02:07 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-22-2024, 01:00 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Wow. 

You have an odd perspective of all this. 

The union negotiation AFFECTS the market. 
Player association members' contract status means very little in that dynamic. 

Of course the market will REFLECT the CBA at times.  It has a direct influence. 
Draft position absolutely matters in salary dispensation. And you will at times see a parallel between the CBA rookie structure and second contracts. It just makes too much sense. 

There is indeed a real market for running backs and it is affected by the CBA, and more importantly it is affected currently by a surplus wherein the supply exceeds demand driving down price. 

Simple. 

You want RBs to get paid more and see more 2nd contracts?  Slow down the production of the product. There are too many available.

Individual running backs just aren't important, just find one who fits your system and you'll also find two more just like him.

That's nonsense.  The Jags are a much better team when ETN is healthy and available.

---