7-27-2023

[flippy]

I hear lots of good ideas, but in reality any idea that gets implemented will likely be worked around because teams do not value the position given that these players seem to grow on trees and replacements are abundant.

Maybe they could try something like limiting the number of carries in a season for player safety.

The players should be thinking less about $ and more about longevity and health. If they could stay healthy longer like other positions, then the money too would follow.

What if the league put a cap on carries at 150-200? I bet more guys would last longer and end up getting paid more because of it.

You wouldn?t have to limit receptions so you would likely have more versatile backs and a different skill set.

plus if guys are trying to do good for others, there would likely be more money invested in the #2 and #3 RBs because they would be just as important.

overall that could be good for the league cause there?s so many UDFAs with loads of potential who would get more chances.

[feltdizz]

I hear lots of good ideas, but in reality any idea that gets implemented will likely be worked around because teams do not value the position given that these players seem to grow on trees and replacements are abundant.

Maybe they could try something like limiting the number of carries in a season for player safety.

The players should be thinking less about $ and more about longevity and health. If they could stay healthy longer like other positions, then the money too would follow.

What if the league put a cap on carries at 150-200? I bet more guys would last longer and end up getting paid more because of it.

You wouldn?t have to limit receptions so you would likely have more versatile backs and a different skill set.

plus if guys are trying to do good for others, there would likely be more money invested in the #2 and #3 RBs because they would be just as important.

overall that could be good for the league cause there?s so many UDFAs with loads of potential who would get more chances.

nope, less touches means less production

shortening their first contract is the best option IMO. Let them re-up before they are “too old” at 27.. lol.

[flippy]

nope, less touches means less production

shortening their first contract is the best option IMO. Let them re-up before they are ?too old? at 27.. lol.

teams still will not want to pay them because theyre easier to replace.

Of course individual production would go down. I am suggesting thinking of this completely different and treating RBs like people instead of objects.

I also get the only thing that could force something like this would be to have a class action suit by all the former running backs suing the NFL for $bs since they shortened guys careers and earning abilities due to overuse or something like that.

Clearly the data shows these guys dont last because they get overworked and breakdown.

giving an RB 300+ carries is in some ways similar to treating them like a sweat shop worker. Everyone knows it will impact their eventual quality of life. And that?s where the heart of the problem is imho.

[Joel Buchsbaum]

and we know most RBs won?t agree to that. They know as much as the owners do that declining productivity and increase injuries are going to happen. It?s why the market is what it is

Yes, but the GMs can say we offered that, and let the fans react. I think the RB market is trending upward. Rookie RB Robison is going to be at least very good, and there are some 2nd yard players that will be much more down than they are. Watch out for the Jets RB Hall. And Seattle RB Walker II.

All the backs getting paid and big 2nd corrects have SPEED and can have game braking players as a runner and receiver.

[Joel Buchsbaum]

I have to say, it is hard to feel sorry for a RB like Saquon. Aside from the fact that at the age of 27 he will have amassed career earnings of around $38M, he did have the opportunity to earn significantly more but rejected a long-term deal reportedly with an AAV of around $13M and $19M guaranteed. Is that less than what a lesser receiver makes? Is it a tiny fraction of what a QB makes? Sure. But you can't accept the benefits of the outrageous amounts that being a professional athlete brings you and then complain that others are being paid more outrageous sums. What's next? Complaining that you deserve more than Jaylen Brown of the Celtics who will receive $304M guaranteed? Or that Lionel Messi will get team equity with a freakin MLS team? How about instead, Saquon compares his value to WNBA players or USNWT soccer players? His value in this crazy universe is what some team is willing to pay him. Next year he will have a new value. If he has a problem, speak with the union to renegotiate the CBA to entitle RBs more compensation at the expense of other player positions.

+1 What are the potions that deserve less money?

The answer if the union and owners agree to it is let the RB spot only do an initial 3 year contact only because in a football sense they burn the candles at both ends faster than the other positions do. They get used heavily... they just do. This has to be approach the right way, not by N. Harris bitching as if he is getting shafted like a star RB on his 2nd contact. He is not that guy.

My $02

-JB

[feltdizz]

+1 What are the potions that deserve less money?

The answer if the union and owners agree to it is let the RB spot only do an initial 3 year contact only because in a football sense they burn the candles at both ends faster than the other positions do. They get used heavily... they just do. This has to be approach the right way, not by N. Harris bitching as if he is getting shafted like a star RB on his 2nd contact. He is not that guy.

My $02

-JB

NJ is a RB and speaking on the topic. He repeated that this has nothing to do with how he is treated right now as a Steeler.

[NorthCoast]

+1 What are the potions that deserve less money?

The answer if the union and owners agree to it is let the RB spot only do an initial 3 year contact only because in a football sense they burn the candles at both ends faster than the other positions do. They get used heavily... they just do. This has to be approach the right way, not by N. Harris bitching as if he is getting shafted like a star RB on his 2nd contact. He is not that guy.

My $02

-JB

Tie the pay to RB touches. Najee would be a rich man right now.

[Northern_Blitz]

NB, ...let's fast forward to when the CBA comes to an end. What do you think the PA could suggest to remedy the RB position pay scale? I personally don't see a resolution that would satisfy the RB's in the NFL. The supply is just too plentiful for them to have any leverage.

I don't think they can do anything RB specific that would be supported by the rest of the union.

Most union members would be happy to get a 2nd contract of any kind. They aren't going to feel sorry for guys like Barkley who feel comfortable turning down $13M multi-year deals in favor of $11M single year deals.

And if they do propose something, the league will ask them for some kind of concession. Which is why the rest of the union (most of whom are in worse positions than above average RBs who don't get paid like above average WRS) won't agree.

Things I think they could ask for (the league will ask for another game probably): Guaranteed contracts (maybe fully guaranteed rookie deals...or at least more guarantees, but this is happening organically anyway); better benefits, particularly for guys who are in the league for shorter periods (currently need 3 years to get an NFL pension); max contract amounts (not RB specific, helps everyone but QBs).

I talked about maybe having some kind of cap exemption for some amount of a 2nd contract for a RB if it's within some kind of salary range if they've been on the same team for 4 years or more. They already have something like this for vets on the same team for 4 years (gave Edmunds this benefit last season, Gentry and Mason this benefit this year). But making it RB specific means that all players have to give something up for a special interest group. And I don't see why they'd vote for that.

[Northern_Blitz]

I hear lots of good ideas, but in reality any idea that gets implemented will likely be worked around because teams do not value the position given that these players seem to grow on trees and replacements are abundant.

Maybe they could try something like limiting the number of carries in a season for player safety.

The players should be thinking less about $ and more about longevity and health. If they could stay healthy longer like other positions, then the money too would follow.

What if the league put a cap on carries at 150-200? I bet more guys would last longer and end up getting paid more because of it.

You wouldn?t have to limit receptions so you would likely have more versatile backs and a different skill set.

plus if guys are trying to do good for others, there would likely be more money invested in the #2 and #3 RBs because they would be just as important.

overall that could be good for the league cause there?s so many UDFAs with loads of potential who would get more chances.

That's an interesting idea Flip. Particularly when the league pushes through the 18th game we know is coming eventually.

[Northern_Blitz]

nope, less touches means less production

shortening their first contract is the best option IMO. Let them re-up before they are “too old” at 27.. lol.

Might work. But would it only be for RBs? I think they'd have to push for this for everyone.

Although currently rookie contracts are better than 2nd contracts for RBs. And if they're taken early, they are probably more guaranteed too. So this would be a double edged sword.

[feltdizz]

Might work. But would it only be for RBs? I think they'd have to push for this for everyone.

Although currently rookie contracts are better than 2nd contracts for RBs. And if they're taken early, they are probably more guaranteed too. So this would be a double edged sword.

why would it need to be for anyone else?

aren’t all the arguments that RB is the one position that is devalued due to wear and tear?

[flippy]

The leading rusher on the last 6 SuperBowl winner had less than 1000 yards rushing for the season.

The leading rusher for the 2014 Pats had just over 400 yards.

It?s hard to make a case for RBs having huge value relative to others.

[Joel Buchsbaum]

That's an interesting idea Flip. Particularly when the league pushes through the 18th game we know is coming eventually.

IMO the human body can't take an 18th game season after season. It will shorten careers.