Yeah. As many have already cited, expect to see him get used and abused for the next two years at the minimum and then they'll look to part ways. Bigsby may or may not be his replacement already.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Yeah - the current NFL is not a place to fall in love with a running back on your team.
Second contracts are hard to come by.

It's the antithesis of the QB position.

There are never enough good QBs -- but RBs come out of the woodwork every year in rounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and UDFA.

Shortage (QB) = increased demand and price
Surplus (RB) = lower demand and price

---

Yeah - the current NFL is not a place to fall in love with a running back on your team.
Second contracts are hard to come by.

It's the antithesis of the QB position.

There are never enough good QBs -- but RBs come out of the woodwork every year in rounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and UDFA.

Shortage (QB) = increased demand and price
Surplus (RB) = lower demand and price

Not to mention the short lifespan of most RBs.

---

Yeah - the current NFL is not a place to fall in love with a running back on your team.
Second contracts are hard to come by.

It's the antithesis of the QB position.

There are never enough good QBs -- but RBs come out of the woodwork every year in rounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and UDFA.

Shortage (QB) = increased demand and price
Surplus (RB) = lower demand and price

Not to mention the short lifespan of most RBs.

No doubt.

Vastly different product life cycles.

---

Yeah maybe not this year more so due to the fact that it wouldn't count as a year of his contract if he sat out the entire year if it came to that, so he'd be right back in the same spot next year only a year older.  I could definitely see him sitting out next offseason though and perhaps into the season.  The 5th year option salary on RBs is still relatively peanuts and he could sustain a career ending injury during the season and never even see the tag or the salary that comes with it.  Forfeiting or threatening to forfeit a $6M salary in an effort to get a (practical) 3 year deal with 2+ years guaranteed isn't being stupid if it works and if it leads to $10M+ annual salaries during that time.  It would probably wind up being something less than the tag whatever it is, so the team is getting some type of savings out of the deal and would also allow the team to likely part ways when he's 28 or 29 once his usefulness as an NFL RB is very likely over.

It may depend heavily on how much Tank asserts himself this year and if he commands a significantly increased role.  If that doesn't happen, ETN will have increased leverage next offseason assuming we don't go RB early in the draft next year and assuming he has another good year this year.   I'd probably be advising him to hold out in that scenario if I were his counsel.  He'll be shouldering way too much risk still in his prime producing years as it stands.

The only player I can think of that sat out a whole year is Bell and that was the worst mistake of his career, he lost a ton and was never the same again. 6 mil for 1 year is good money for a RB.  Even if he did sit out he would still have the 1 year contract left on the Jags, the year doesn't disappear. Justin  Blackmon was on our roster for like 10 years because he didn't finish the contract, the years on the contract don't go away until you play them. 

  Etienne isn't going to sit out, I think RBs have learned sitting out doesn't nothing but cost you money in the long run and the time off from sitting out usually hurts their play as well which will cost them money on their next contract.  I can think of one RB that sat out that it actually helped them.  Sitting our is one of the dumbest things a player can do.

The goal is not to sit out or sit out for long.  The goal is to use the idea of holding out or a couple of missed game to force the hand of the FO.  The difference with Bell was he was not eligible for a 5th year option since he wasn't selected in the 1st round.  He held out the year of his 2nd consecutive franchise tag and was slated to make over $14M that year.  That's a lot to forfeit. A lot more than what Etienne would.  Etienne will have a 5th year option salary of $6.1 million and will still be facing two tags and shouldering all injury risk each year.  There's clearly scenarios where he doesn't hold out or has no leverage to do so, but as I mentioned previously, if he's again a significant part of the offense this year and poised to be next year as well AND there is no one stepping up taking on a meaningful portion of the run game responsibilities from him like Bigsby AND the team doesn't invest in RB significantly next offseason, it would be the most opportune time for him to hold out or at least threaten to under those circumstances.  

As much as the team has most of the leverage here, they also have a desire to field the most competitive team they can especially if they feel the squad is a playoff contender which we're already there on that.  If taking away one of Trevor's most explosive pieces (with no real replacement) would contribute to losses in the regular season, and it very well might under the above circumstances, it could force the hand of the FO to throw him a bone is all.  No one is throwing significant guarantees at an age 29 RB which is what Etienne would enter free agency as after the 5th year option and two tags, if applied.  His "payday" as it stands is going to be the two tag years if he survives them and if he survives even getting to them by getting through 2024 and 2025 relatively unscathed.  If I'm him or his agent, these things are going through my mind and if I see a point where there's increased leverage for me to use, I'm using it if I'm him is all.

Conversely, if Bigsby doesn't show up this year while Etienne continues to do so, this situation might be the impetus for either signing significant help at RB or spending another relatively high (maybe 3rd or 4th round) pick on on RB next offseason which may nix any thoughts of him using the nuclear option.  I do think Bigsby will show up this year though so probably not a perfect storm for Etienne next offseason.  Still, I'd be highly motivated to produce this season and I'd be looking for a way to start negotiations next offseason to avoid the tags if I were him.

---

Yeah - the current NFL is not a place to fall in love with a running back on your team.
Second contracts are hard to come by.

It's the antithesis of the QB position.

There are never enough good QBs -- but RBs come out of the woodwork every year in rounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and UDFA.

Shortage (QB) = increased demand and price
Surplus (RB) = lower demand and price

Milton Friedman approves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Fix the O-Line!

Yeah - the current NFL is not a place to fall in love with a running back on your team.
Second contracts are hard to come by.

It's the antithesis of the QB position.

There are never enough good QBs -- but RBs come out of the woodwork every year in rounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and UDFA.

Shortage (QB) = increased demand and price
Surplus (RB) = lower demand and price

Not to mention the short lifespan of most RBs.

Agree --- I know the NFL is not going to make special rules for position but in your opinion, would it make sense if the NFL should adjust the rules to allow RBs to come out after being 2 years removed from HS? Not only does it allow star RBs to get through their rookie contract at a younger age, but it saves so much wear and tear from the hits star RBs take in their Jr year.   Just look at Fournette, he had 300 carries in his Sophomore year then got hurt in his Jr year and only played 7 games.

---

The only player I can think of that sat out a whole year is Bell and that was the worst mistake of his career, he lost a ton and was never the same again. 6 mil for 1 year is good money for a RB.  Even if he did sit out he would still have the 1 year contract left on the Jags, the year doesn't disappear. Justin  Blackmon was on our roster for like 10 years because he didn't finish the contract, the years on the contract don't go away until you play them. 

  Etienne isn't going to sit out, I think RBs have learned sitting out doesn't nothing but cost you money in the long run and the time off from sitting out usually hurts their play as well which will cost them money on their next contract.  I can think of one RB that sat out that it actually helped them.  Sitting our is one of the dumbest things a player can do.

The goal is not to sit out or sit out for long.  The goal is to use the idea of holding out or a couple of missed game to force the hand of the FO.  The difference with Bell was he was not eligible for a 5th year option since he wasn't selected in the 1st round.  He held out the year of his 2nd consecutive franchise tag and was slated to make over $14M that year.  That's a lot to forfeit. A lot more than what Etienne would.  Etienne will have a 5th year option salary of $6.1 million and will still be facing two tags and shouldering all injury risk each year.  There's clearly scenarios where he doesn't hold out or has no leverage to do so, but as I mentioned previously, if he's again a significant part of the offense this year and poised to be next year as well AND there is no one stepping up taking on a meaningful portion of the run game responsibilities from him like Bigsby AND the team doesn't invest in RB significantly next offseason, it would be the most opportune time for him to hold out or at least threaten to under those circumstances.  

As much as the team has most of the leverage here, they also have a desire to field the most competitive team they can especially if they feel the squad is a playoff contender which we're already there on that.  If taking away one of Trevor's most explosive pieces (with no real replacement) would contribute to losses in the regular season, and it very well might under the above circumstances, it could force the hand of the FO to throw him a bone is all.  No one is throwing significant guarantees at an age 29 RB which is what Etienne would enter free agency as after the 5th year option and two tags, if applied.  His "payday" as it stands is going to be the two tag years if he survives them and if he survives even getting to them by getting through 2024 and 2025 relatively unscathed.  If I'm him or his agent, these things are going through my mind and if I see a point where there's increased leverage for me to use, I'm using it if I'm him is all.

Conversely, if Bigsby doesn't show up this year while Etienne continues to do so, this situation might be the impetus for either signing significant help at RB or spending another relatively high (maybe 3rd or 4th round) pick on on RB next offseason which may nix any thoughts of him using the nuclear option.  I do think Bigsby will show up this year though so probably not a perfect storm for Etienne next offseason.  Still, I'd be highly motivated to produce this season and I'd be looking for a way to start negotiations next offseason to avoid the tags if I were him.

He could try it but I just don't see it moving the needle much if any at all for Baalke to give him a long term extension.

---

Not to mention the short lifespan of most RBs.

Agree --- I know the NFL is not going to make special rules for position but in your opinion, would it make sense if the NFL should adjust the rules to allow RBs to come out after being 2 years removed from HS? Not only does it allow star RBs to get through their rookie contract at a younger age, but it saves so much wear and tear from the hits star RBs take in their Jr year.   Just look at Fournette, he had 300 carries in his Sophomore year then got hurt in his Jr year and only played 7 games.

I don't think that's a good idea.  But how about, every 200 carries is a year off of your rookie contract?

---

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

Take Running backs off the salary cap. That'd solve the financials of it.

---

Take Running backs off the salary cap.  That'd solve the financials of it.

Why are they special?

---

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

Take Running backs off the salary cap.  That'd solve the financials of it.

No it would not.  This same argument has been made for a couple positions, QB's specifically.  All it does is increase the salary cap which can only be done by the next CBA.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Take Running backs off the salary cap.  That'd solve the financials of it.

Why are they special?

No they are just probably near the least valuable position on the field so allocating much cap to them is silly.

---

Take Running backs off the salary cap.  That'd solve the financials of it.

No it would not.  This same argument has been made for a couple positions, QB's specifically.  All it does is increase the salary cap which can only be done by the next CBA.

QB would be the last position to have implications with the cap, they are probably the most important on the field.

---

I actually think removing the rookie cap number for RBs has some validity. Most RBs are ready to go in the first or second year.  This way they come in, give it all they have, and at least they have some long term salary (comparatively.)   It also removes some of the cap savings by replacing them with a newly drafted rook.

---

NYC4jags Wrote:
Can we leave the personal insults behind for a while and get back to some semblance of topic, gents?
Please, and thank you.

I actually think removing the rookie cap number for RBs has some validity. Most RBs are ready to go in the first or second year.  This way they come in, give it all they have, and at least they have some long term salary (comparatively.)   It also removes some of the cap savings by replacing them with a newly drafted rook.

You remove it from RBs, you are going to have to remove it from everyone.

---

I actually think removing the rookie cap number for RBs has some validity. Most RBs are ready to go in the first or second year.  This way they come in, give it all they have, and at least they have some long term salary (comparatively.)   It also removes some of the cap savings by replacing them with a newly drafted rook.

You remove it from RBs, you are going to have to remove it from everyone.

The league and NFLPA can agree to anything in terms of the rookie cap, what is your reasoning?

---

NYC4jags Wrote:
Can we leave the personal insults behind for a while and get back to some semblance of topic, gents?
Please, and thank you.

I actually think removing the rookie cap number for RBs has some validity. Most RBs are ready to go in the first or second year.  This way they come in, give it all they have, and at least they have some long term salary (comparatively.)   It also removes some of the cap savings by replacing them with a newly drafted rook.

You remove it from RBs, you are going to have to remove it from everyone.

I actually agree with this conceptually.  But it remains a real problem league wide.  RBs are clearly easily replaceable and shouldn't be paid much but unlike kickers or punters (sorry guys) they are put to significant abuse.

Rookie cap applications and permitting rbs to get more money early does make some sense.  I get the unfairness compared to other players but man it's tough for rbs.  I'd not recommend anyone be one.

---

Etienne hasn't even hit his prime.

Some RBs are impact players for years.

This conversation is about 2 years too early.

---

Etienne hasn't even hit his prime.

Some RBs are impact players for years.

This conversation is about 2 years too early.

ETN is 25 years old. He is most definitely in his prime right now. Especially at the RB position.

---

You remove it from RBs, you are going to have to remove it from everyone.

I actually agree with this conceptually.  But it remains a real problem league wide.  RBs are clearly easily replaceable and shouldn't be paid much but unlike kickers or punters (sorry guys) they are put to significant abuse.

Rookie cap applications and permitting rbs to get more money early does make some sense.  I get the unfairness compared to other players but man it's tough for rbs.  I'd not recommend anyone be one.

I demand a special dispensation for Fullbacks. They aren't nearly as appreciated as Running Backs are!

---

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