Yep, 30th overall to a team that already had a Super Bowl quality roster led by a HOF QB. Almost like the RB was the least important part of the offense since they let their All Pro RB go and replaced him with a kid who stepped in and did just fine.

They still had a number of holes on that defense and also could of upgraded a few players on that oline.  So now it's OK to draft a RB in the 1st when you have a great QB and WRs while with holes on the D and oline could be upgraded?

Lol, their lines were fine as was their defense. As I've repeatedly said, RBs are very low in difficulty to acquire or replace, a good team can take one wherever they want. Bad teams shouldn't do that because the positional value is just too low to help a bad team before the player ages out. Good teams can get rid of a great running back, drop in a rookie, and keep winning, ie Indy in this example and  KC this past season. And then when the player becomes too expensive just move to the next guy. Grind them down and dump them.

---

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

Tony Dungy is no stranger to routing RB money elsewhere to make efficient use of cap space.
Edge had two good years left in the tank - but it didn't make sense for them to be spent with the colts.

https://twitter.com/TonyDungy/status/168...30337?s=20

That's an easy numbers game to play. James was good during his time but it was clear with Manning that you had to focus on what was more important. His ability to read and react and get the easy, short stuff in and out of his hands always was an option to compensate for a lack luster running game. They used to run the hell out of those screens that Kansas City does now. 

Harrison, Wayne, Clark >>> James. 

I think moving forward though, RB's can be incentivized and motivated to run harder in their prime knowing they're not going to see some of these 2nd and 3rd contracts that the other position groups get. Set milestones in the contract language that the owners are on the hook for. 

If 500 yards is hit - You're owed an X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,000 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,500 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees at a pro-rate based upon the average of the current top three paid RB's.

Same can be done with total amount of carries, total amount of TD's, etc. I think it's somewhat fair. It just needs to be normalized. This goes back to how Clowney was being tagged a few years ago and everybody got into a debate about where he fits in exactly on a pay scale system in the NFL. They were breaking down his snap counts between OLB and DE and they were trying to literally short change him by tagging him at a position of lesser value. I think a similar situation came up when Deebo Samuel's extension was mentioned. He's a WR/RB but tends to be uniquely good at both roles interchangeably. 

Nobody is going to get mad about paying a RB extra money on top of his base salary if he's hitting specific targets that benefit the team and his personal bank account. And for those that might argue, "Well, what if he gets to the 10 yard line and he's 1 TD away from hitting a bonus but they pull him out of the line-up?".

Not the teams problem. Maybe he should have ran harder three plays earlier to hit that TD goal. Maybe he should have worked harder on his footwork so the turf monster didn't get him just 5 yards shy in last week's game before stumbling to the ground. Maybe he should have hit the weights harder in the summer so he could have broken that tackle at 2nd and goal, etc.

Yeah, but if you do that, are the WR and QB or OLB not going to want escalators in their deals, too?
A good agent may be able to sweet-talk these clauses into a deal without it becoming mandate; but the costs will likely be that without the escalator, the RB is going to have to settle for lower deal, kind of a way of gambling on themself.

---

That's an easy numbers game to play. James was good during his time but it was clear with Manning that you had to focus on what was more important. His ability to read and react and get the easy, short stuff in and out of his hands always was an option to compensate for a lack luster running game. They used to run the hell out of those screens that Kansas City does now. 

Harrison, Wayne, Clark >>> James. 

I think moving forward though, RB's can be incentivized and motivated to run harder in their prime knowing they're not going to see some of these 2nd and 3rd contracts that the other position groups get. Set milestones in the contract language that the owners are on the hook for. 

If 500 yards is hit - You're owed an X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,000 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees.
If 1,500 yards is hit - You're owed an additional X amount of payout in guarantees at a pro-rate based upon the average of the current top three paid RB's.

Same can be done with total amount of carries, total amount of TD's, etc. I think it's somewhat fair. It just needs to be normalized. This goes back to how Clowney was being tagged a few years ago and everybody got into a debate about where he fits in exactly on a pay scale system in the NFL. They were breaking down his snap counts between OLB and DE and they were trying to literally short change him by tagging him at a position of lesser value. I think a similar situation came up when Deebo Samuel's extension was mentioned. He's a WR/RB but tends to be uniquely good at both roles interchangeably. 

Nobody is going to get mad about paying a RB extra money on top of his base salary if he's hitting specific targets that benefit the team and his personal bank account. And for those that might argue, "Well, what if he gets to the 10 yard line and he's 1 TD away from hitting a bonus but they pull him out of the line-up?".

Not the teams problem. Maybe he should have ran harder three plays earlier to hit that TD goal. Maybe he should have worked harder on his footwork so the turf monster didn't get him just 5 yards shy in last week's game before stumbling to the ground. Maybe he should have hit the weights harder in the summer so he could have broken that tackle at 2nd and goal, etc.

Yeah, but if you do that, are the WR and QB or OLB not going to want escalators in their deals, too?
A good agent may be able to sweet-talk these clauses into a deal without it becoming mandate; but the costs will likely be that without the escalator, the RB is going to have to settle for lower deal, kind of a way of gambling on themself.

I don't think so. With all due respect to those position groups and players. They're grossly overpaid compared to everybody else, and, in some cases, rightfully so. It's a game of impact. Impact players are going to have an impact on your overall salary cap. That's the price you pay for premium players. Those guys shouldn't get escalators when compared to RB's. I am pretty sure the pay gap is noticeably different. 

I think the first contract for a RB should be uniquely handled with languages that benefit the player at the front end of his contract Vs. the latter. Of course those can be incentivized as well.

---

"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, but if you do that, are the WR and QB or OLB not going to want escalators in their deals, too?
A good agent may be able to sweet-talk these clauses into a deal without it becoming mandate; but the costs will likely be that without the escalator, the RB is going to have to settle for lower deal, kind of a way of gambling on themself.

I don't think so. With all due respect to those position groups and players. They're grossly overpaid compared to everybody else, and, in some cases, rightfully so. It's a game of impact. Impact players are going to have an impact on your overall salary cap. That's the price you pay for premium players. Those guys shouldn't get escalators when compared to RB's. I am pretty sure the pay gap is noticeably different. 

I think the first contract for a RB should be uniquely handled with languages that benefit the player at the front end of his contract Vs. the latter. Of course those can be incentivized as well.

I can think of 9 other positions who aren't going to be ok with that.

---

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

If running backs don't like what they are being paid, then they can go get another job. Sell insurance or drive a truck.

---

If running backs don't like what they are being paid, then they can go get another job.  Sell insurance or drive a truck.

....just so long as they stay off your lawn, right?

---

If running backs don't like what they are being paid, then they can go get another job.  Sell insurance or drive a truck.

....just so long as they stay off your lawn, right?

Well, if they go to work for the landscaping company I suppose it would be ok.

---

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

I don't think so. With all due respect to those position groups and players. They're grossly overpaid compared to everybody else, and, in some cases, rightfully so. It's a game of impact. Impact players are going to have an impact on your overall salary cap. That's the price you pay for premium players. Those guys shouldn't get escalators when compared to RB's. I am pretty sure the pay gap is noticeably different. 

I think the first contract for a RB should be uniquely handled with languages that benefit the player at the front end of his contract Vs. the latter. Of course those can be incentivized as well.

I can think of 9 other positions who aren't going to be ok with that.

The other position groups can speak for themselves.  Maybe they'll be fine with it.
And if they're not, maybe all rookie contracts should have incentive structures based on snap counts and league rankings.
What happened to JRob was not fair to him, bottom line.

---

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

I can think of 9 other positions who aren't going to be ok with that.

The other position groups can speak for themselves.  Maybe they'll be fine with it.
And if they're not, maybe all rookie contracts should have incentive structures based on snap counts and league rankings.
What happened to JRob was not fair to him, bottom line.

You understand the NFLPA represents ALL the players, not just one group, right? If the NFLPA ticks off 90% of its membership to satisfy 10%, the current board won't be around long.

You're not going to see RB go on strike, nor do I think you see a unilateral support behind them if they did. Everybody else is getting capital-p Paid, and if they (or their agents) are wise, they'd understand that any redistribution of the pie means their slice is gonna be smaller.

I do believe that JRob would have qualified for the fund that the NFL has in place to compensate guys who outperform their contract. He made pennies that year, and had a slam-dunk case that he deserved a bit of extra money. As stated before though, it's bad news to rely on that fund or use that fund to justify the present state of the league. Players shouldn't have to rely on a tip jar of sorts to get paid.

---

I can think of 9 other positions who aren't going to be ok with that.

The other position groups can speak for themselves.  Maybe they'll be fine with it.
And if they're not, maybe all rookie contracts should have incentive structures based on snap counts and league rankings.
What happened to JRob was not fair to him, bottom line.

thatsnothowanyofthisworks.jpg

JRob was the exception and exceptions aren't how CBAs work.

---

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

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.

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

---

Fix the O-Line!

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

WRs en masse: "Then you damn well better get that tag off of us too! And we should be paid like the quarterbacks!"

---

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

Guys, with all the rule changes in the past 10 years the owners figured out they can get 4-5 yards a play running. They can get 6-7 yards a play passing. So they are paying running backs less and investing in OL, WR and DB's. The system is in no way broken. The same rules for ALL players. The owners have a pot of money and spend it on players to build the best team. You have to go back to Superbowl XXXII to find a RB as the MVP (Terrell Davis 1997-1998 season)

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Guys, with all the rule changes in the past 10 years the owners figured out they can get 4-5 yards a play running. They can get 6-7 yards a play passing.  So they are paying running backs less and investing in OL, WR and DB's. The system is in no way broken. The same rules for ALL players. The owners have a pot of money and spend it on players to build the best team.  You have to go back to Superbowl XXXII to find a RB as the MVP (Terrell Davis 1997-1998 season)

congrats, after 5 pages you discovered the entire theme of the thread. The rule changes made passing easier, so now QB and WR suck up the lion's share of your cap. But, you don't see draft and replace strategies at those positions - players are paid their premium and kept with the team what picked em - not so much for the RB.

And unfortunately I think that's the only realistic way to revalue the position - rule change. CBA is in effect for years to come, and likely not up for amendment till then. Owners (and other players for that matter) aren't going to suddenly feel a twinge of sympathy and start overpaying their RBs. And outside of endorsements/investments, I don't see any way that RBs are going to suddenly change the situation.

@And you're wrong, Dominic Rhodes was MVP in 2007, they just gave it to Peyton cuz they weren't sure he'd ever make it back@

---

Guys, with all the rule changes in the past 10 years the owners figured out they can get 4-5 yards a play running. They can get 6-7 yards a play passing.  So they are paying running backs less and investing in OL, WR and DB's. The system is in no way broken. The same rules for ALL players. The owners have a pot of money and spend it on players to build the best team.  You have to go back to Superbowl XXXII to find a RB as the MVP (Terrell Davis 1997-1998 season)

congrats, after 5 pages you discovered the entire theme of the thread. The rule changes made passing easier, so now QB and WR suck up the lion's share of your cap. But, you don't see draft and replace strategies at those positions - players are paid their premium and kept with the team what picked em - not so much for the RB.

And unfortunately I think that's the only realistic way to revalue the position - rule change. CBA is in effect for years to come, and likely not up for amendment till then. Owners (and other players for that matter) aren't going to suddenly feel a twinge of sympathy and start overpaying their RBs. And outside of endorsements/investments, I don't see any way that RBs are going to suddenly change the situation.

@And you're wrong, Dominic Rhodes was MVP in 2007, they just gave it to Peyton cuz they weren't sure he'd ever make it back@

I don't understand why it's so damn important to raise the value of running backs.  I know a few of them are unhappy with not getting big offers, but who cares?  The market sets the value.  They're not as important as they used to be.

---

congrats, after 5 pages you discovered the entire theme of the thread. The rule changes made passing easier, so now QB and WR suck up the lion's share of your cap. But, you don't see draft and replace strategies at those positions - players are paid their premium and kept with the team what picked em - not so much for the RB.

And unfortunately I think that's the only realistic way to revalue the position - rule change. CBA is in effect for years to come, and likely not up for amendment till then. Owners (and other players for that matter) aren't going to suddenly feel a twinge of sympathy and start overpaying their RBs. And outside of endorsements/investments, I don't see any way that RBs are going to suddenly change the situation.

@And you're wrong, Dominic Rhodes was MVP in 2007, they just gave it to Peyton cuz they weren't sure he'd ever make it back@

I don't understand why it's so damn important to raise the value of running backs.  I know a few of them are unhappy with not getting big offers, but who cares?  The market sets the value.  They're not as important as they used to be.

This whole thread is because one poster on here should of known better but insists that RBs aren't worth less.

---

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

Guys, with all the rule changes in the past 10 years the owners figured out they can get 4-5 yards a play running. They can get 6-7 yards a play passing.  So they are paying running backs less and investing in OL, WR and DB's. The system is in no way broken. The same rules for ALL players. The owners have a pot of money and spend it on players to build the best team.  You have to go back to Superbowl XXXII to find a RB as the MVP (Terrell Davis 1997-1998 season)

See second post of thread, LOL.



Nice pull on the SB MVP.

---

Yeah, but if you do that, are the WR and QB or OLB not going to want escalators in their deals, too?
A good agent may be able to sweet-talk these clauses into a deal without it becoming mandate; but the costs will likely be that without the escalator, the RB is going to have to settle for lower deal, kind of a way of gambling on themself.

I don't think so. With all due respect to those position groups and players. They're grossly overpaid compared to everybody else, and, in some cases, rightfully so. It's a game of impact. Impact players are going to have an impact on your overall salary cap. That's the price you pay for premium players. Those guys shouldn't get escalators when compared to RB's. I am pretty sure the pay gap is noticeably different. 

I think the first contract for a RB should be uniquely handled with languages that benefit the player at the front end of his contract Vs. the latter. Of course those can be incentivized as well.

I initially thought about that but came to realize that RBs would then fall to the later rounds.  I mean, why draft a RB in rounds 1-3 if their contract is going to be front loaded.  Just go pick up a 26 year old vet for $3m

---

Kind of funny that RBs are taking the hit, whereas the OL was traditionally the most underpaid and underappreciated players back in the day.  Heck, Boselli only made $31m if my google search rendered correct info.

---

The other position groups can speak for themselves.  Maybe they'll be fine with it.
And if they're not, maybe all rookie contracts should have incentive structures based on snap counts and league rankings.
What happened to JRob was not fair to him, bottom line.

thatsnothowanyofthisworks.jpg

JRob was the exception and exceptions aren't how CBAs work.

What I'm saying is don't presume that other position groups would be opposed.   Let the NFLPA reps and prominent players say that for you.

---

The other position groups can speak for themselves.  Maybe they'll be fine with it.
And if they're not, maybe all rookie contracts should have incentive structures based on snap counts and league rankings.
What happened to JRob was not fair to him, bottom line.

You understand the NFLPA represents ALL the players, not just one group, right? If the NFLPA ticks off 90% of its membership to satisfy 10%, the current board won't be around long.

You're not going to see RB go on strike, nor do I think you see a unilateral support behind them if they did. Everybody else is getting capital-p Paid, and if they (or their agents) are wise, they'd understand that any redistribution of the pie means their slice is gonna be smaller.

I do believe that JRob would have qualified for the fund that the NFL has in place to compensate guys who outperform their contract. He made pennies that year, and had a slam-dunk case that he deserved a bit of extra money. As stated before though, it's bad news to rely on that fund or use that fund to justify the present state of the league. Players shouldn't have to rely on a tip jar of sorts to get paid.

Pretty sure you need 3 solid seasons of high snap counts before you can tap into that fund.  JRob only had 1.

---

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

---