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.

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

---

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

---

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

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

You can keep trying to convince me 10 mil is as good as 40 mil, but I'm afraid you're going to lose this argument.

---

Yeah - they are.

Fewer and fewer productive backs are getting 2nd contracts and the offers they are receiving are not commensurate with their production numbers. Shorter deals as well.  That is a devaluing compared to how the position was formerly treated league-wide. 
If you were a top ten back and your rookie deal ran out - you most likely got paid handsomely 10 years ago. 
Teams are rethinking that methodology now. 

The tags you mentioned actually prove the point. Those guys used to get 4 year deals. Now they are getting tagged because the teams don't intend to keep them around for long. They'll just draft new ones to use up.

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.

You are making the point for NYC. In the past, teams would sign that first rounder who excelled to a second deal instead of double-tagging. You saw players stay their entire career (or dang near) with one team. Teams prefer to draft fresh legs (and often well below the top ten picks of a darft) than re-up with the guy that they've invested time and cash to develop.

It's this simple - the difference between the RB taken in the top 10 and the RB taken in the top 100 is very often minimal. Teams understand that, and opt to roll the dice on the cheaper option way more often than a team commits long-term to an RB.

And 2 RB getting taken early in a darft (Harris and Etienne are not early picks so don't bother with that baloney) is not a frequent occurrence. That's not a valid argument to claim that teams value the position. If they did, we'd see many years of teams jockeying for position to snag the elite RB in a darft.

Compare the RB position to the WR - you're talking about a 7-year lifespan max for a RB, we got WR playing well into their 30's, making dang near double what an RB does. The RB position has very little value in today's game. It sucks for guys who excel at the position, because they won't have the same chance to get the scratch that a kid playing some other position might.

---

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

It's always semantics when you try to argue a point. The position does not have the value it once did. What would be the word you use for that situation?

Consider the cost of things in the 70's vs. the costs of things today. In 1975, a brand new car was less than $5k. Gas was under a buck. A dollar was worth one whole dollar. Today, a new car is easily 20-30K. Gas is 3-4 bucks a gallon. A dollar is worth one whole dollar. Did the value of the cars and gas go up, or did the value of the dollar decrease? Your dollar is still important. Your dollar is still useful. Your dollar isn't as valuable as it once was.

---

Teams being smarter about keeping them literally equates to a decrease in their value 

If more and more teams are not signing then to 4 and 5 year second contracts then they are literally devalued 

It's pretty simple

It doesn't mean they aren't 'valuable' 
It means they can't get paid like they used to - which - is - ummm - really?? Do i need to continue?

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

The sixth-highest paid RB (outside of the tag) got a 3 year, 21M deal with 13.5 guaranteed. The sixth-highest WR got a 3 year, 72M deal with 58.2M guaranteed.

Most players are not going to hit that figure. So let's look at averages. Per OTC, Out of 182 RB, the average deal totals 5.4M, with avg bonus 2.16M, and APY 1.9M. Out of 401 WR, the average deal totals 8.23M, avg bonus 4.507M, and APY of 2.73M. But WR are the offensive focus, you say? OK, TE - 189 of em. avg deal is 6.89M, bonus 3.26M, APY 2.31M.

everyone say it with me. D E V A L U E D. RB are just as much a contributor to most offenses, if not more, considering their proportion of touches, but are getting paid less with a shorter expected career.

---

Running backs need to quit whining and crying. There's no crying in football. What they are doing is borderline entitlement. Teams will pay players based on how THEY perceive value. Not how the players perceive it. It does not matter who is right, the teams can sign anyone they want as long as the player agrees.

interesting article

https://overthecap.com/running-back-perf...-over-time

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

I thought this was interesting take:
https://youtu.be/q5Sgf7jsQ8Q

---

I heard someone mention that the RBs should go on strike. It's an interesting idea. They could. But the point of the story is that there are 2 or 3 well qualified athletes who are not on any roster who may be willing to be scabs.

---

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

Teams being smarter about it means they are devalued and less valuable now?   You probably also think a 4 year 40 mil deal is more than if a player played on 4, 1 year deals at 10 mil a year. If they continue playing at a high level they will get paid like they used to even if its not a long term deal.  They just have to continue to produce and stay healthy

Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

I think you missed the 4, in front of the 1 year 10 mil deal.  If a player signs a 1 year, 10 mil deal all guaranteed 4 years in a row its the same amount of money as if a player signs a 4 year 10 mil deal all guaranteed.  Thats exactly what its about is the guaranteed money hence the teams tagging them and playing it smart.  They dont want to sign them to a huge contact and the player get a bad injury or fall off being the RB position is the position where the player's play falls off the fastest/youngest.

---

This is Jonathan Taylor's agent responding to colts owner Jim Irsay re: RB value -

https://twitter.com/malkikawa/status/168...61408?s=20

You just HATE to see it
LOL

Please, Jim Irsay, go ahead and escalate this into a holdout

---

Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

You can keep trying to convince me 10 mil is as good as 40 mil, but I'm afraid you're going to lose this argument.

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

You can keep trying to convince me 10 mil is as good as 40 mil, but I'm afraid you're going to lose this argument.

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I hear what you're saying, but 3, 4 and five year deals almost always contain more guaranteed money than one year deals

This is precisely why these backs are up in arms about being devalued

They are increasingly not getting these lucrative second contracts, that traditionally were longer deals with more guaranteed money, percentage, wise

---

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I hear what you're saying, but 3, 4 and five year deals almost always contain more guaranteed money than one year deals

This is precisely why these backs are up in arms about being devalued

They are increasingly not getting these lucrative second contracts, that traditionally were longer deals with more guaranteed money, percentage, wise

Definitely the longer deals used to have more guaranteed but teams aren't going to pay that anymore. If you look at the contracts league wide, I think the trend will be downward for the length of deals on a whole as players want more guaranteed money and teams saying fine but you have to cut a year off and take less overall.

RBs are just seeing a larger cut to the years and overall amounts.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Players want guarantees.  A 1 year contract sounds nice, but what if at the end of the year the team decides they don't want to renew it?
A 1 year deal at 10 million will have only 10 million guaranteed.
A 4 year deal at 40 million is going to have more than 10 million guaranteed and it will have a larger signing bonus.

You can keep trying to convince me 10 mil is as good as 40 mil, but I'm afraid you're going to lose this argument.

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Exactly, they just have to stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money.

---

10 will be close to 40 because the RB will never see the 40 million.

You can't talk terms of 4 year deals for a RB. Players want guaranteed money but they don't want to give up years on a deal. RBs are only going to get 2 years guaranteed now. So sign a 2 year 20-25 million or sign a 4 year 60 million deal that only has 20-25 million guaranteed. It's the exact same deal as the 2 year deal as the last 2 years will never be paid.

For a RB, they have to decide if they want to sign a short-term deal that is guaranteed or if they want a long-term deal that isn't but may pay them more if they ever actually play the contract out. If they stay healthy and don't drop off in performance, the 1 or 2 year deals will make them more money in the long run. If they get hurt or drop off the long-term deal may pay them more if they get hurt in year 1 but after that it is a wash or may even pay them less.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Exactly, they just have to stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money.

Meanwhile - other positions are getting paid big guarantees with multi year deals and don't have to jump through the hoops of one year deal, after one year deal. But running backs have to jump through hoops now. 

And that is because, say it with me class, "Running Backs Have Been Devalued." 

Every mega deal made with a RB over the past 5 years has resulted in the player being released early, traded, or restructured to get that money off the books. A few of those still had years remaining and the player was not even a starter anymore.

---

Meanwhile - other positions are getting paid big guarantees with multi year deals and don't have to jump through the hoops of one year deal, after one year deal. But running backs have to jump through hoops now. 

And that is because, say it with me class, "Running Backs Have Been Devalued." 

Every mega deal made with a RB over the past 5 years has resulted in the player being released early, traded, or restructured to get that money off the books. A few of those still had years remaining and the player was not even a starter anymore.

Not devalued but realistic with them not being able to remain at a high level of play for a long time. Teams still spend money or picks on them.

Comparing them to WRs is crazy because teams have to over pay for garbage there. You need 6 WRs and you can be fine with 2 RBs. The talent and limited spots on a roster make it easier to find talent later or even sign someone off the street. WRs are much harder to find late and the production is spread around. It enables interchangeable WRs to make close to $10 million. A WR off the street won't play but a RB could be successful enough.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Meanwhile - other positions are getting paid big guarantees with multi year deals and don't have to jump through the hoops of one year deal, after one year deal. But running backs have to jump through hoops now. 

And that is because, say it with me class, "Running Backs Have Been Devalued." 

Every mega deal made with a RB over the past 5 years has resulted in the player being released early, traded, or restructured to get that money off the books. A few of those still had years remaining and the player was not even a starter anymore.

Not devalued but realistic with them not being able to remain at a high level of play for a long time. Teams still spend money or picks on them.

Comparing them to WRs is crazy because teams have to over pay for garbage there. You need 6 WRs and you can be fine with 2 RBs. The talent and limited spots on a roster make it easier to find talent later or even sign someone off the street. WRs are much harder to find late and the production is spread around. It enables interchangeable WRs to make close to $10 million. A WR off the street won't play but a RB could be successful enough.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

No

They are devalued. 

They used to get big lucrative second contracts if they produced. 

Now they don't. 

Because they are not valued the same way anymore. 

What you want to label as GM's being "realistic" about long term performance is, in fact, a major part of their devaluing.

---

Meanwhile - other positions are getting paid big guarantees with multi year deals and don't have to jump through the hoops of one year deal, after one year deal. But running backs have to jump through hoops now. 

And that is because, say it with me class, "Running Backs Have Been Devalued." 

Every mega deal made with a RB over the past 5 years has resulted in the player being released early, traded, or restructured to get that money off the books. A few of those still had years remaining and the player was not even a starter anymore.

Not devalued but realistic with them not being able to remain at a high level of play for a long time. Teams still spend money or picks on them.

Comparing them to WRs is crazy because teams have to over pay for garbage there. You need 6 WRs and you can be fine with 2 RBs. The talent and limited spots on a roster make it easier to find talent later or even sign someone off the street. WRs are much harder to find late and the production is spread around. It enables interchangeable WRs to make close to $10 million. A WR off the street won't play but a RB could be successful enough.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Yup, stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money even if it's one year deals

---

Not devalued but realistic with them not being able to remain at a high level of play for a long time. Teams still spend money or picks on them.

Comparing them to WRs is crazy because teams have to over pay for garbage there. You need 6 WRs and you can be fine with 2 RBs. The talent and limited spots on a roster make it easier to find talent later or even sign someone off the street. WRs are much harder to find late and the production is spread around. It enables interchangeable WRs to make close to $10 million. A WR off the street won't play but a RB could be successful enough.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Yup, stay healthy and play at a high level and they will get their money even if it's one year deals

Nobody wants to roll the dice on their health and productivity every year, not when multi year guarantees used to be a thing.  They are mad that the multi year guarantees aren't a thing anymore.  The only guarantee they have is their rookie deal, and if they were drafted in a later round (or not at all) they might be SOL.  If you're an undrafted guy, lead the league in rushing for your first four years, then get a career ending injury, you never get paid.  That's pretty messed up.  Though admittedly the same thing can happen to any player, for running back it's more likely.

---

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