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.

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

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

---

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

---

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.

Yes, let's be rational.

There isn't anything to fix. It's being managed just fine. 

---

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.

---

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

Yes, let's be rational.

There isn't anything to fix. It's being managed just fine. 

You assert it, therefore it is.  Perfect rationality. For you anyhow.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

...isn't that what the supplemental pay that NYC cited is already doing? If you outperform your deal, you get a share of some pooled money if your pre-determined salary is not up to the level you performed? Why are we seeking to reinvent the wheel that's already rolling just fine?

It is sort-of doing that, but the supplemental payouts are too small since, even after the supplement, Elliot was getting like 5x more per snap than Robinson was. Draft position should matter, but not that much.

I guess the NFLPA disagrees, since they okayed the last CBA, including the rookie pay scale.

---

This is such a Mikesez argument.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

Thing is, we still see RBs getting taken early and getting those big-dollar deals. While not many, the ones that do prove in college that they can produce, carry a workload, and do so usually against top competition.

JRob was a unicorn, in a sense. He produced against second-tier (relatively) competition in CFB, and was able to produce for an season here. Most of the guys taken in the sixth rounds each year aren't a team's bellcow back nor are they racking up consecutive 1000-yard seasons to demand the fat paychecks.

You want to see RB value go up? It's gonna require rule changes to make run game easier while also stifling passing games. For now, the rules heavily favor QBs and the air. If the game was more heavy skewed toward running the ball, teams would draft more RBs and draft them higher, thereby altering their market. Their pay discrepancy is a symptom of the state of the game, both in rules and replaceability.

---

It is sort-of doing that, but the supplemental payouts are too small since, even after the supplement, Elliot was getting like 5x more per snap than Robinson was. Draft position should matter, but not that much.

I guess the NFLPA disagrees, since they okayed the last CBA, including the rookie pay scale.

Again, that's begging the question - the actual point of dispute is, is the NFLPA, composed mostly of veterans on their second contract, the right set of people to represent 15 and 16 year old children who won't even be drafted for another 6 or 7 years?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Thing is, we still see RBs getting taken early and getting those big-dollar deals. While not many, the ones that do prove in college that they can produce, carry a workload, and do so usually against top competition.

JRob was a unicorn, in a sense. He produced against second-tier (relatively) competition in CFB, and was able to produce for an season here. Most of the guys taken in the sixth rounds each year aren't a team's bellcow back nor are they racking up consecutive 1000-yard seasons to demand the fat paychecks.

You want to see RB value go up? It's gonna require rule changes to make run game easier while also stifling passing games. For now, the rules heavily favor QBs and the air. If the game was more heavy skewed toward running the ball, teams would draft more RBs and draft them higher, thereby altering their market. Their pay discrepancy is a symptom of the state of the game, both in rules and replaceability.

Actually, no, there is a sharp downward trend of RBs taken early. See stat at bottom of post. 

Because the position has been devalued.

The game evolves. Positional importance shifts. 

Might be bad luck for running backs' bank accounts, but it's not any more complicated than that.

They don't need saving. It really just is what it is. 

---

2024 - zero 1st round RBs
One - 2nd round RB

2023 - zero 1st round RB
One - 2nd round RB

2022 -zero 1st round RB
three - 2nd round RB (of the 6 six seasons played by those three backs - two 1000 yard seasons have been recorded)

---

Thing is, we still see RBs getting taken early and getting those big-dollar deals. While not many, the ones that do prove in college that they can produce, carry a workload, and do so usually against top competition.

JRob was a unicorn, in a sense. He produced against second-tier (relatively) competition in CFB, and was able to produce for an season here. Most of the guys taken in the sixth rounds each year aren't a team's bellcow back nor are they racking up consecutive 1000-yard seasons to demand the fat paychecks.

You want to see RB value go up? It's gonna require rule changes to make run game easier while also stifling passing games. For now, the rules heavily favor QBs and the air. If the game was more heavy skewed toward running the ball, teams would draft more RBs and draft them higher, thereby altering their market. Their pay discrepancy is a symptom of the state of the game, both in rules and replaceability.

Actually, no, there is a sharp downward trend of RBs taken early. See stat at bottom of post. 

Because the position has been devalued.

The game evolves. Positional importance shifts. 

Might be bad luck for running backs' bank accounts, but it's not any more complicated than that.

They don't need saving. It really just is what it is. 

---

2024 - zero 1st round RBs
One - 2nd round RB

2023 - zero 1st round RB
One - 2nd round RB

2022 -zero 1st round RB
three - 2nd round RB (of the 6 six seasons played by those three backs - two 1000 yard seasons have been recorded)

For about a decade, fewer and fewer teams had a bell cow RB and fewer and fewer RBs were reaching 1000 yards.  

That trend is reversing.  In 2021 only seven players got to 1000 yards rushing.  But in 2022 sixteen players got there.  It is now becoming more important to have one of the top running backs, after years of it being less important.  And the top guys are almost all former first round picks.  This trend you see in the draft is a fluke, I predict.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Actually, no, there is a sharp downward trend of RBs taken early. See stat at bottom of post. 

Because the position has been devalued.

The game evolves. Positional importance shifts. 

Might be bad luck for running backs' bank accounts, but it's not any more complicated than that.

They don't need saving. It really just is what it is. 

---

2024 - zero 1st round RBs
One - 2nd round RB

2023 - zero 1st round RB
One - 2nd round RB

2022 -zero 1st round RB
three - 2nd round RB (of the 6 six seasons played by those three backs - two 1000 yard seasons have been recorded)

For about a decade, fewer and fewer teams had a bell cow RB and fewer and fewer RBs were reaching 1000 yards.  

That trend is reversing.  In 2021 only seven players got to 1000 yards rushing.  But in 2022 sixteen players got there.  It is now becoming more important to have one of the top running backs, after years of it being less important.  And the top guys are almost all former first round picks.  This trend you see in the draft is a fluke, I predict.

OK - I don't necessarily agree with any of that in the way that you've stated/framed it - but - 

What does that have to do with their pay scale or the surplus of players at the position? 

If teams like the business model of running the wheels off of a back (MANY of whom are picked in the 3rd-6th rounds) and continuing to draft their replacements instead of signing second contracts, what's the problem? 

It works. There are rare exceptions when a back is worthy of a deal and the team has money to burn,  but I don't see a problem here. 

Drafting and developing at the easiest position to do so seems really smart to me. I whole-heartedly support the methodology. There is no reason to alter the way teams choose to address their backfield rostering decisions.

---

For about a decade, fewer and fewer teams had a bell cow RB and fewer and fewer RBs were reaching 1000 yards.  

That trend is reversing.  In 2021 only seven players got to 1000 yards rushing.  But in 2022 sixteen players got there.  It is now becoming more important to have one of the top running backs, after years of it being less important.  And the top guys are almost all former first round picks.  This trend you see in the draft is a fluke, I predict.

OK - I don't necessarily agree with any of that in the way that you've stated/framed it - but - 

What does that have to do with their pay scale or the surplus of players at the position? 

If teams like the business model of running the wheels off of a back (MANY of whom are picked in the 3rd-6th rounds) and continuing to draft their replacements instead of signing second contracts, what's the problem? 

It works. There are rare exceptions when a back is worthy of a deal and the team has money to burn,  but I don't see a problem here. 

Drafting and developing at the easiest position to do so seems really smart to me. I whole-heartedly support the methodology. There is no reason to alter the way teams choose to address their backfield rostering decisions.

Not much.  Mikey brought it up.  I don't want to take anything away from a guy who was lucky enough to get picked in the first round.  I just want to see the guys who weren't high picks get richer rewards year to year, if they prove themselves.  They shouldn't have to wait for that second contract that may never come.  

The problem theoretically goes away if all RBs from now on are late round picks, and that's what you predict. The disparity in pay during that first contract would be small in that case. But I predict that we will see RBs picked in the first round again in the next few years.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Thing is, we still see RBs getting taken early and getting those big-dollar deals. While not many, the ones that do prove in college that they can produce, carry a workload, and do so usually against top competition.

JRob was a unicorn, in a sense. He produced against second-tier (relatively) competition in CFB, and was able to produce for an season here. Most of the guys taken in the sixth rounds each year aren't a team's bellcow back nor are they racking up consecutive 1000-yard seasons to demand the fat paychecks.

You want to see RB value go up? It's gonna require rule changes to make run game easier while also stifling passing games. For now, the rules heavily favor QBs and the air. If the game was more heavy skewed toward running the ball, teams would draft more RBs and draft them higher, thereby altering their market. Their pay discrepancy is a symptom of the state of the game, both in rules and replaceability.

Actually, no, there is a sharp downward trend of RBs taken early. See stat at bottom of post. 

Because the position has been devalued.

The game evolves. Positional importance shifts. 

Might be bad luck for running backs' bank accounts, but it's not any more complicated than that.

They don't need saving. It really just is what it is. 

---

2024 - zero 1st round RBs
One - 2nd round RB

2023 - zero 1st round RB
One - 2nd round RB

2022 -zero 1st round RB
three - 2nd round RB (of the 6 six seasons played by those three backs - two 1000 yard seasons have been recorded)

Bijan Robinson went eighth in '23. Jahmyr Gibbs went at 12. Guys are still getting picked early.

We've seen guys like Barkley, Fournette and Zeke go in the top 5 of their drafts. It's not common, yes, but it is still occurring. Not with the frequency that RB went in the 80's and 90's, but as you said, the game has evolved.

I'm in line with you, I don't think we need to restructure how the league operates just because a position group is not getting the premium draft slots with frequency. The thing is, there will always be an exploit - either the UDFA don't make what the draft picks do, or the vets get the incentive, whatever it may be - and the owners and GMs will find the cheapest, least detrimental solution to keep the roster filled.

---

Actually, no, there is a sharp downward trend of RBs taken early. See stat at bottom of post. 

Because the position has been devalued.

The game evolves. Positional importance shifts. 

Might be bad luck for running backs' bank accounts, but it's not any more complicated than that.

They don't need saving. It really just is what it is. 

---

2024 - zero 1st round RBs
One - 2nd round RB

2023 - zero 1st round RB
One - 2nd round RB

2022 -zero 1st round RB
three - 2nd round RB (of the 6 six seasons played by those three backs - two 1000 yard seasons have been recorded)

For about a decade, fewer and fewer teams had a bell cow RB and fewer and fewer RBs were reaching 1000 yards.  

That trend is reversing.  In 2021 only seven players got to 1000 yards rushing.  But in 2022 sixteen players got there.  It is now becoming more important to have one of the top running backs, after years of it being less important.  And the top guys are almost all former first round picks.  This trend you see in the draft is a fluke, I predict.

That may be reversing the logic. Why are the top guys getting picked in the first round, if they aren't the ones that are good enough to consistently lead the league in rushing? You also have guys like Algaier, Stevenson and Pollard on that list. You would almost expect the 1000-yard list to be littered with former first round guys. For one thing, teams that invest in those guys are going to put the ball in their hands to prove the pick was worthwhile (or because the dude is in fact legit and merits the focus of the offense)

If you're a GM worth a darn, you earn your money finding those 4th round guys that can get you the quality yards for a fraction of what the other team is paying $25M guaranteed.

Wasn't the argument that the back of the draft guys not making any money in comparison to the top guys? Not sure where this trail is headed.

---