OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

[Cult of Dionysus]

Think it's kinda unfair that the NFL CBA treats RBs the same way, putting them on 4-year contracts (with a 5th year option for 1st rounders) and tags thereafter. These guys wear out much faster than other positions. Think the next time around, they should treat RBs differently. Maybe reduce it to 3-year contracts (with a 4th year option for 1st rounders) and limit to 1 tag.

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

[FantasyFreak]

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.

[ericanadian]

Such a move would push rookies further down the draft chart resulting in smaller opening contracts. Their best option is probably to try to eliminate franchise tages.

[Pac_Eddy]

RBs aren't treated any different than other positions in the CBA. It's the market for RBs that is different.

It sucks that they can't get the dollars or years that other positions do, but that's how it's shaken out. They've got to go where the guaranteed dollars are and I don't blame them one bit. And you can't blame the teams for not throwing long deals at them either; it seems to work to go cheap and/or platoon RBs, even though the elite guys still prove to be elite.

[Ice]

As Bell just turned down 70 Million with over 30 million in guarantees the first two years.

[Fantasyfanatic11]

As Bell just turned down 70 Million with over 30 million in guarantees the first two years.

This.

I truly believe Bell is one of the best RB's this game has ever seen with everything that he does but man you're really betting on yourself (injuries, performance etc.) by rejecting that offer.

[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.

[Cult of Dionysus]

RB is not every other position. Indeed, it is like no other position. Their windows are much smaller than that of other players, who can routinely play well into their 30s. Whereas, running backs are typically perceived (fairly or not) as being on the downward trend well before their 30th birthday. And it is rare for a RB to maintain their production. So while some RBs do get a rich contract at the age of 27, almost none ever get a 2nd one.

A one-size fits all approach does not take this into account.

[Ice]

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.

[Cult of Dionysus]

I’m not thinking specifically about Bell. Looking at this more generally. And the simple reality is that RBs are getting shafted given their short windows / shelf lives.

And this will have long term consequences, as top talent will gravitate to other positions and sports, since their earning potential as a NFL RB is hampered, especially when you also factor in the physical toll the position takes.

[hockeyBjj]

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

[ArrylT]

I do not think it will have a huge impact - because RBs at the High School and College level are still super stars - see Leonard Fournette & Saquon Barkley. Also whether you are making 4 million a year or 9 million a year, you're still making a lot more than you could outside professional sports. So I do not see too many RBs coming from NCAA deciding, I'm going to convert to another position to make more money. Players are usually converted to keep themselves playing in the NFL, like Julian Edelmans of the world, not to increase their salaries.

That does not mean RBs do not deserve to be paid more. The recent trend of high 1st round draft picks should help slow the process of treating RBs like penny stocks - and if guys like Fournette & Barkley can fully live up to their potential and join the Gurleys & Bells then maybe they can adjust things.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/18/saquo ... -nfl-draft

[FantasyFreak]

As Bell just turned down 70 Million with over 30 million in guarantees the first two years.

Yeah, I think his stubbornness will cost him. I think he is grossly overestimating the guaranteed money people will be willing to give him after another heavy workload and being a year older. Especially if he gets hurt again.

[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.

[Pac_Eddy]

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.