OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

[kamihamster]

they should probably down the rookie deals to 3 years with a 4th year option that is based off their performance and not the draft slot they were taken. they should also make all contracts guaranteed. the elite guys will have to be willing to strike if they dont get what they want. the not so elite guys would be smart to strike as well so that there's a serious lack in talent. Bell is right in that he is a top RB and a WR2 and should get paid accordingly. it's hard to get guys to strike tho, they can't see that the immediate loss in income will be made up in their next contract.

what they should do is come up with a table that has performance numbers and the salary that that performance brings. the table can act as a guide on how much a player should make. then contracts will be based off of performance and not positional comparisons.

So new contracts would be based on past performances? I can see issues with that.

there's issues no matter what you do.

when drafted, they get a salary based off of where they were drafted. they may outperform or under perform their salary. not perfect but no one is complaining. once they get to their second contract, 1st non-rookie contract, they can look back on their career thus far and can come up with a salary based off what they have done. it will be up to the agent and team to determine what they can expect. say they were injured, or just wasn't getting many snaps their first two years. they can throw those years out and calculate average production based off the years when healthy/getting snaps. with all things they can under or over perform their contract, but at least there's some sort of guideline on how to pay the man. right now they're saying Freeman is highest paid RB getting paid X and you're the number one so we will pay you just above what he's making. completely unfair.

[Oddball456]

RBs market is definitely off. Underpaid coupled with the shortened career makes it by far the least paid position for value to team.
Devonta Freeman is the highest paid RB on an actual contract. 8.2 million per year

There are 21 Wrs making more than him. The likes of Marqise Lee and Randall Cobb are in that batch, not exactly all stars there

Kenny Stills and Albert Wilson on Miami are just below that at 8mil

You really think those guys are more valuable to their team than a top 5 back in the league?

Damndest problem is with the shortened career and them being in their prime out the gate as opposed to WRs taking 3 years to figure out the nuances, rookie RBs are the best bang for your buck. Why re-sign a guy to a big money deal who'll regress in 2 or 3 years, when you can get a step down for dirt cheap for the next 4 or 5 years?

RB is definitely the worst place to be for an elite athlete in the NFL. Lowest pay, shortest career, highest (TE?) injury risk; why go there unless your body type demands it? Curious to see if there's a shift of a team's top athlete in highschool/middle school with those God gifted genes no longer wanting to play RB unless his body type forces him to it

I agree with this. And it isn't that Bell is just a RB, he also had the 10 most receptions in the league overall last year at 85. Bell, Kamara, CMC, etc would have all been better off, both financially and health-wise, if they would have been WR in HS and college than ever becoming an RB.

That said, I have no clue how to actually even things out. Well, maybe one thing would be teams are required to allocate a percentage of salary cap to each position.

10% to QBs
15% to WRs
15% to RBs
15% to DL
12% to LBs
15% to OL
15% to BDs
3% to Special teams

Random % but you get the idea. That would force teams to actually spend money on RBs

[Cult of Dionysus]

Let them negotiate individually, just let them do it three years in, at 25 to 26.

[Lotto4Life]

Ain't right that top WRs make 2x the money that top RBs make.

Why?

[Cult of Dionysus]

Ain’t right they have to take 10-40 times the hits of a WR, but wait until their 5th or 6th season before they can get their 2nd contract.

[Valhalla]

The NFL is not a socialist or communist league. It's a free market league. Markets change. People largely choose their own career path. Some paths are more lucrative than others, and there is no set market algorithm that weighs the difficulty or longevity of a job with the pay scale received. It's true throughout American society that job difficulty/longevity/risk and pay received are not the same, and it's not a direct relation with your education level, but more-so just an effect of supply and demand. Why do we gripe when we see the same thing in the NFL?

Edit: What I mean to say is, it's not some conspiracy or group effort of franchises to keep underpaying RBs to help each other out. The reason RBs don't get paid is simply due to their peers. There are too many capable RBs flooding the market. For that problem to go away, we either need to see a marked reduction in the average caliber of athletes choosing to play RB, or we need to see a marked increase in the average caliber of athletes filling in the other positions.
I'm presuming this isn't likely to happen, as the body type of RBs is probably the most common athletic body type that chooses football skill positions. Note that the other position being absolutely low-balled and abused in free agency is Safety. Same body type, as "capable" safeties flood the market in a largely replaceable position.

[DLF3000]

Bell's insane. Take the deal.

Somewhat near twice the salary of the next RB? Over how many years? 30M guaranteed?

Who does he think he is, Kirk Cousins? QBs are protected like crazy, RBs are about opposite there.

The nature of the position is what it is. Reminds me of Jimmy Graham trying to get WR money. Good they fight for more, sure.

But man it's not like Bell was offered 9 or 10M - there's a chasm between his offer and Freeman's. So I don't buy this "playmaker" pay vs. RB pay sob story.

If you can even have sob stories surrounding tens of millions of dollars. #Filthy Rich 1st World Problems

I could see the players fighting for no back-to-back franchise tags, maybe, but that's all I got. Then again, I thought they didn't like the tag but after the past two years I'm not so sure.

[clarion contrarion]

I think the best solution is two fold - one Make only the 1st year $ guaranteed and thus allow players to renegotiate after the 1st year . The fact that the personnel guys screwed the pooch and allowed a premium player slip to the 6th round should not cost the player $ there is no justification on god's green earth that alfred morris has been paid less money than david wilson or trent richardson based on his career arc and draft slot he should have been able to get paid going into year two , he frigging earned it .

2nd make a franchise tag MEAN IT if you are a franchise player it simply means you must be the highest paid player for the franchise that year. You want to keep a player that badly PROVE IT ! The players are getting screwed comparatively and as bad as I would hate to lose out on football I hope the players just drill the owners in the next contract . Not in terms of % of pay outs but as far as the draconian rules the owners flourish under such as the multi year franchise tags the 4 year lock down of rookie deals that is so preposterous on its very basest level.

One last grip stop the idiotic compensatory pick system - stop rewarding teams for being cheap and not paying their players - if they want to allow them to hit the market they could get right of 1st refusal and then after that they are SOL .

whew I feel better !

[Valhalla]

...
One last grip stop the idiotic compensatory pick system - stop rewarding teams for being cheap and not paying their players - if they want to allow them to hit the market they could get right of 1st refusal and then after that they are SOL .

whew I feel better !

I sort of like this idea...but it does eliminate one more strategy a GM can employ. Those guys need to earn their absurd contracts somehow.

[Lotto4Life]

The NFL is not a socialist or communist league. It's a free market league.

The league itself is socialist, with somewhat free markets within the workforce.

[hockeyBjj]

Let me see if I can simplify this enough for a forum post. NHL, despite all it's bleep ups with lock outs, did get one thing right with their salary arbitration processes

A player who has vastly over performed his current contract, who is not getting an extension/new contract from his current team, can propose they go to arbitration. The player submits what he feels he deserves to be paid, submit evidence to back that up, and then the arbitrator sets the player's salary. Either at what he's asking for, no increase on his current salary, or most likely; somewhere in between. The team can then accept it (which they normally do) or release him for 0 dead money to become an unrestricted free agent.

There are also avenues for a team to get out of a crap contract with a guy who busted without simply cutting the guy and eating dead money. The arbitration can be provoked from the team on the underperforming player. It cannot lower his salary to less that 85% of what he was making and may only be used against a player once in his career. Basically if a guy is a flop and has too much dead money to cut, a team can let the non-biased arbitrator review and if they're correct on him succking for the $$$ paid, they can slash 15% of his salary and keep him on the team

[Titans95]

Is there any position that is different? I thought it was based on what round you were drafted in, regardless of position. I would say that if that's the case, it's pretty fair. If you are a higher pick, you get money based on your draft position, regardless of position, I believe. It's the same for every position on their rookie deals. Not sure how it's unfair.

Its unfair because a 26 year old WR is entering his prime whereas a RB's age and usage is a "concern". The fairest thing to do is get rid of the franchise tag completely especially multi year franchise tags. There isn't a single player Rb or a different position that likes playing on a short term deal like that.

The Franchise Tag is a key component and that won't go anywhere. The reality is the Vets wanted a rookie salary cap to leave more money for them in the second contract since the overall average in the league is just over 4 years I think.

Talking fair when a star RB gets a guaranteed 14.5 million or so for 1 year as a franchise player is a bit rich don't you think. Cousins made massive money for two years using the Franchise tag.

Why is it a Key component? You won't find a single player that is playing on the franchise tag happy about it when they could have hit the open market and likely signed a long term deal making similar money each year. Cousins came out all right but what happens to a player that gets hit and is paralyzed like Shazier? Every player wants to have guarantees and a one year deal doesn't do that especially if you're getting Franchised tagged that means you're one of the best at your position and should be getting paid accordingly. Did Cousins make massive money? He got paid 24 million the second year on the tag and has ZERO guarantees after that but had no choice at all to approach other teams so it was either take 20 million per year for 5 years or risk playing with no guarantees to be able to officially hit the open market. He is now making 28 million a year for a grand total of 84 GUARANTEED for 3 years that is wayyyyy more than the Tag and would've probably gotten a very similar deal in 2017 if he didn't get forced into the Tag....All the tag does is take power away from the players and put it in the hands of the organizations. IF anything they need to demand no more than a one year tag.

[Titans95]

Let me see if I can simplify this enough for a forum post. NHL, despite all it's bleep ups with lock outs, did get one thing right with their salary arbitration processes

A player who has vastly over performed his current contract, who is not getting an extension/new contract from his current team, can propose they go to arbitration. The player submits what he feels he deserves to be paid, submit evidence to back that up, and then the arbitrator sets the player's salary. Either at what he's asking for, no increase on his current salary, or most likely; somewhere in between. The team can then accept it (which they normally do) or release him for 0 dead money to become an unrestricted free agent.

There are also avenues for a team to get out of a crap contract with a guy who busted without simply cutting the guy and eating dead money. The arbitration can be provoked from the team on the underperforming player. It cannot lower his salary to less that 85% of what he was making and may only be used against a player once in his career. Basically if a guy is a flop and has too much dead money to cut, a team can let the non-biased arbitrator review and if they're correct on him succking for the $$$ paid, they can slash 15% of his salary and keep him on the team

That's brilliant. I think most GM's are concerned with guaranteed money because of bust players that give up, most players have no intentions of getting a contract and just sitting back (some do but most love the game), I feel like most of them are worried that they'll get paralyzed and never play again or have their leg shattered and they've lost a step and won't get compensated for injuries in their contract. Idk if this is a thing or not but can teams fully guarantee contracts based on injury and if that injury occurs and they need to drop that player just not have that salary go towards the cap? Like if Eric Berry is never the same from his achilles they decide to cut him from the team but still pay his contract out just not have it count toward the Cap and Berry himself can either accept this payment and wait until his contract is up to play football again or he can decline the contract and become a free agent.

[Valhalla]

The NFL is not a socialist or communist league. It's a free market league.

The league itself is socialist, with somewhat free markets within the workforce.

I suppose in a sense you’re right.

[Blueboy]

Bell's insane. Take the deal.

Somewhat near twice the salary of the next RB? Over how many years? 30M guaranteed?

Who does he think he is, Kirk Cousins? QBs are protected like crazy, RBs are about opposite there.

The nature of the position is what it is. Reminds me of Jimmy Graham trying to get WR money. Good they fight for more, sure.

But man it's not like Bell was offered 9 or 10M - there's a chasm between his offer and Freeman's. So I don't buy this "playmaker" pay vs. RB pay sob story.

If you can even have sob stories surrounding tens of millions of dollars. #Filthy Rich 1st World Problems

I could see the players fighting for no back-to-back franchise tags, maybe, but that's all I got. Then again, I thought they didn't like the tag but after the past two years I'm not so sure.

I see your point and essentially agree with it -- but on the other hand, a WR like Sammy Watkins is making $30M guaranteed. Bell is fully correct in valuing himself as a different tier of player than that, and it's completely unfair for his position to cap his value so much.