OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
User avatar
thebeast
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5645
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:40 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby thebeast » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:03 pm

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:44 am 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.
Who cares? Such is life. Equality and fairness are rare/nonexistent in the workplace. RBs are replaceable and as such they don’t have the same earning potential as WRs, who don’t have the same earning potential as QBs, who don’t have the same earning potential as owners.

User avatar
Vcize
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Vcize » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:27 pm

Fantasyfanatic11 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:34 am
Ice wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:25 am 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.
Not really. He's getting $14 million guaranteed on the franchise tag already. So the $30 million guaranteed is only an extra $16 million, which he will get easily next year even if he tears his ACL this year. And if he doesn't tear his ACL this year, he'll probably get a lot more.

Also that $30 million was a structured guarantee, not a full guarantee, so it's even less than it sounds.
12 Team FFPC TE Premium
QB: Herbert, Brady
RB: Barkley, Mixon, Jav Williams, Pierce, Drake
WR: Jefferson, AJ Brown, Metcalf, Hopkins, Peoples-Jones
TE: Kittle, Goedert

User avatar
Vcize
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Vcize » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:33 pm

DLF3000 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:55 pm 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.
He's not insane. He'll make far more money over the next two years playing out the franchise tag and hitting the market next year than the guaranteed money he was getting in that deal.

On top of that, RB contracts are about to go up. While it's true that the position has been devalued it's not to the extent of the current contracts. The current lowball contracts are a combination of that devaluing but also a big gap in the quality of RB talent entering the league. All of the elite RBs are either in their 30's now (and hence no longer getting paid big money) or still on their rookie deals.

We all know the 2nd contract is where guys get their big payday. Right now the highest paid 2nd contract guys other than Freeman (who is a good, but not great committee back) are Jerrick McKinnon, Duke Johnson, and Lamar Miller.

The top RB contracts are going to look a lot different when Bell, DJ, Gurley, and Zeke all sign their 2nd contracts.
12 Team FFPC TE Premium
QB: Herbert, Brady
RB: Barkley, Mixon, Jav Williams, Pierce, Drake
WR: Jefferson, AJ Brown, Metcalf, Hopkins, Peoples-Jones
TE: Kittle, Goedert

User avatar
Vcize
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Vcize » Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:40 pm

Titans95 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:22 pm
Ice wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:53 am
Titans95 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:38 am

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.
While I am on your side on this, I think you are way off on how things worked out for Cousins. Things worked out swimingly for him and showed why NOT taking a long-term deal is by far the better play if you could guarantee you weren't going to have a major injury.

The deal he turned down in 2017 was 5 years $53 million. He likely would have gotten more than that on the open market but not a ton more. Instead he took $24 million on the tag and then signed 3 years for $84 million guaranteed. So instead of taking marginally more than $53 million over 5 years he got $108 million in 4 years. So he got twice as much money in one fewer year. He came out of that like a champ.
12 Team FFPC TE Premium
QB: Herbert, Brady
RB: Barkley, Mixon, Jav Williams, Pierce, Drake
WR: Jefferson, AJ Brown, Metcalf, Hopkins, Peoples-Jones
TE: Kittle, Goedert

User avatar
Valhalla
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5360
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:26 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Valhalla » Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:00 pm

Vcize wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:33 pm
DLF3000 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:55 pm 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.
He's not insane. He'll make far more money over the next two years playing out the franchise tag and hitting the market next year than the guaranteed money he was getting in that deal.

On top of that, RB contracts are about to go up. While it's true that the position has been devalued it's not to the extent of the current contracts. The current lowball contracts are a combination of that devaluing but also a big gap in the quality of RB talent entering the league. All of the elite RBs are either in their 30's now (and hence no longer getting paid big money) or still on their rookie deals.

We all know the 2nd contract is where guys get their big payday. Right now the highest paid 2nd contract guys other than Freeman (who is a good, but not great committee back) are Jerrick McKinnon, Duke Johnson, and Lamar Miller.

The top RB contracts are going to look a lot different when Bell, DJ, Gurley, and Zeke all sign their 2nd contracts.
Excellent point

User avatar
clarion contrarion
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:11 am

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby clarion contrarion » Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:53 am

It is an excellent point , so long as none get hurt or say a guy like james conner or samuels start producing at 80 to 85% of bell's level when he is gone the way a tuckered out deangelo williams performed. Or if the league doesn't continue to usher in guys like kamara and hunt in the 3rd round that they can get for < .10 on the dollar of what bell is making this season. One of the biggest changes is the philosophy - in that defenses have changed and always change to stop what is working thus forcing offensive coordinators to change what they do .
Or when bell leaves and goes somewhere & flops because he didn't have a mike munchak coached oline with 3 pro bowlers a HoF qb and
HoF wr to distract defenses .

Cowboys still control zeke for at least 3 ( or 4) more years rams w/ gurley and johnson in the desert for 2 more years when he will be going into age 29 season I believe . Johnson is the one even if he tears up the league that will not get a powerball deal and is a candidate for a double franchise tag again assuming he plays at that level. Even gurley will be headed to his age 27 season if double franchised headed into the 2021 season then the new CBA will be negotiated .

All 3 of those premium backs are tied up through the balance of the current CBA and it is nearly impossible to know what can happen after that as the new agreement / strike lockout can and will change the landscape.
.....this has been a public service announcement from forum superstar clarion contrarion
QB luck- driskell
WR ant brown evans c davis golladay godwin gordon j washington doctson watson lazard patrick henderson
RB mixon cohen chubb aaron jones hunt malcolm brown
TE eifert howard njoku
K tucker DEF pittsburgh chicago
2012 , 2014 2015 2016 2017 & 2018 ACDL Champion 5 IN A ROW 6 in 7 years- now that is dynasty!
2013 ACDL runner up
2013 2014 2017 & 2018 (Undefeated 15-0 ) WORILDS OF HURT CHAMPION
2010 2014 & 2015 7 Rings for Steeltown CHAMPION 2011 & 2013 7 rings runner up
2018 Experts Dynasty League Champion
there is no after football
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
— Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Pac_Eddy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5044
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Pac_Eddy » Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:24 am

Great point about RB contracts about to go up. Totally agree. Some excellent young backs that teams will NOT want to leave.
Not all that counts can be counted. Not all that can be counted counts.

Lotto4Life
Player of the Year
Player of the Year
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:48 am

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Lotto4Life » Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:13 am

Valhalla wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:29 pm
Lotto4Life wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:47 pm
Valhalla wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:51 am 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.
I have no idea. I typed a bunch of smart sounding words and hoped they were in the right order.

Lotto4Life
Player of the Year
Player of the Year
Posts: 2364
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:48 am

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Lotto4Life » Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:13 am

clarion contrarion wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:53 am It is an excellent point , so long as none get hurt or say a guy like james conner or samuels start producing at 80 to 85% of bell's level when he is gone the way a tuckered out deangelo williams performed. Or if the league doesn't continue to usher in guys like kamara and hunt in the 3rd round that they can get for < .10 on the dollar of what bell is making this season. One of the biggest changes is the philosophy - in that defenses have changed and always change to stop what is working thus forcing offensive coordinators to change what they do .
Or when bell leaves and goes somewhere & flops because he didn't have a mike munchak coached oline with 3 pro bowlers a HoF qb and
HoF wr to distract defenses .

Cowboys still control zeke for at least 3 ( or 4) more years rams w/ gurley and johnson in the desert for 2 more years when he will be going into age 29 season I believe . Johnson is the one even if he tears up the league that will not get a powerball deal and is a candidate for a double franchise tag again assuming he plays at that level. Even gurley will be headed to his age 27 season if double franchised headed into the 2021 season then the new CBA will be negotiated .

All 3 of those premium backs are tied up through the balance of the current CBA and it is nearly impossible to know what can happen after that as the new agreement / strike lockout can and will change the landscape.
I'm curious what he'll do without Haley as well.

Ice
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6590
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Ice » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:36 am

No doubt as revenues increase RB contracts will increase to a degree but Bell's offer was above current market value. He is risking a lot of money this year under the tag due to injury, age and team performance.

The reasons are pretty obvious why RB's will not command the kind of money the players I call Island players do.

QB's run the show because they touch the ball every snap.
LT's are on an Island and the great ones have to beat out the great ones on the on the other side to protect the QB.
DE's the great ones make the money to disrupt the QB and they have to beat the LT's or some RT's to protect the blind side.
WR's have to stretch the field and beat the best and fastest DB's through beating the Press and doubles to stretch the field and open running lanes.
DB's on an island have to control the best WR's.

RB's, the few really good ones are still reliant on the O Line's and more and more teams use specialty backs to gain a speed advantage and skill set advantage.

RB's rely on a lot of other positions for their success. That won't change. A few years ago when Bell went down and D. Williams came in his production was on par with Bell's production. Two years ago when Gurley struggled it was obvious his O Line was a mess. As the Rams improved at QB and Line play, Gurley's production increased.

No doubt RB's are critical but the position itself is not extremely difficult given they really only have to the hit hole and pick up a blitz. While not easy obviously, better backs are still function to a degree of others. RB's also have increased risk factors for injury.

In today's game, with more spread offenses with quick strike ability we are seeing the Hunt's and Kamara types excelling out of the gate which is great for fantasy but doesn't necessarily help backs 3-5 years down the line.

What I do expect is more teams will reach into the later 1st round of drafts for RB's like Seattle and NE for the reason to get that 5th year option to continue to control the expenditures of the RB position.

IMO Bell should have taken that contract. 90% certain this is his last year in Pittsburgh. Doubt he gets more than his offer next year. If he stays the price point will be about the same but a shorter contract. Bell is probably hoping he can get 30 million in guarantees next contract which means he wins but only marginally given he would have made 45 million the first 3 years of the deal.

The DE's tag is about 3 million more than RB's in year one of a tag and a couple of players like Lawrence and Ansah are also betting on the come. These players have a better chance of getting better contracts due to positional value if they produce at high levels this year.

I don't feel bad at all for the RB's in the NFL. They get paid extremely well. I get they they believe they are more valuable than other positions but the reality is teams just don't see it that way given it isn't an island position. It is more like a safety or LB position on defense.
The Clock is Running and there are no Timeouts

Ice
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6590
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Ice » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:13 am

Titans95 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:22 pm
Ice wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:53 am
Titans95 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:38 am

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.
It is a key component for the league. The players may not like it but there are actually several players that don't mind it given they are getting top tier money for that year. I am sure Ansah is really happy there is a F Tag. He has been playing injured the last couple of years and he is an immense talent. He will get 17 plus million in hopes of having a great year to get a real legit contract next year. He is an example of player that can use this to his advantage.

When the teams put in a salary contract for rookies it was agreed to by the CBA that teams had the right to protect themselves to a degree for a key asset. The price point is extremely high like in top 5 money so that player cannot hold them hostage in negotiations. If a player doesn't agree he doesn't have to sign his agreed on tender or new contract in hopes of doing better. That is a players choice.

The Steelers or Cowboys with Lawrence in this case are fine with it and I assure the fans of these teams don't want to lose those assets this season. The player wins in getting a guaranteed one year deal. The fans win as they still have a shot to compete. The team wins because they can defer monies or they can address the issue next year.

QB's are little different due to price point. Cousins did great but the team didn't mind as they didn't win with him and felt they could get a better QB that fit their philosophy. The team also had Cousins dirt cheap for several years. If they believed he was the answer then they would have done what the Seahawks did or the Ravens did a few years ago.

The tag doesn't just put the power in the owners hands. They are paying through the nose for that players services that year. If you think the Owners controlled Cousins then the obvious question is; What did they receive for Cousins? They paid huge money for him and then had to trade for Alex Smith.

Bottom line is the tag is a simple check and balance for teams and fans. The player is paid massive money, average of top 5 salaries in the league. This one year contract is FULLY Guaranteed the moment the player signs it. In the event the player refuses to sign the team can withdraw the offer.

Bell will make 14 plus million guaranteed this season once signed even if he can't play this season due to injury in camp. What people seem to be arguing is that he deserves more...... The reality is what he deserves has nothing to do with it. He gets what he negotiates not what he deserves. The CBA ensures he will get 14 plus million as an asset that both the team and CBA agrees he is worth this season.
The Clock is Running and there are no Timeouts

User avatar
Cult of Dionysus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Cult of Dionysus » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:25 am

I'm not saying he should get more, and I don't think there's many others who are saying it. What I KNOW I'm saying and what I think some others ARE also saying is that given the physical toll the game takes on RBs, it seems a bit unfair to have them wait 4 - 5 years (plus possibly two tags on top of that) until they can get their 2nd contract.

I also don't think this will change much as neither the NFLPA nor the owners will want to address this. RBs make up a small contingent of the NFLPA, and other positions benefit from the lower salaries paid to RBs. So it's the RBs versus everyone else.

User avatar
Titans95
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4593
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Titans95 » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:20 am

Ice wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:13 am
Titans95 wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:22 pm
Ice wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:53 am

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.
It is a key component for the league. The players may not like it but there are actually several players that don't mind it given they are getting top tier money for that year. I am sure Ansah is really happy there is a F Tag. He has been playing injured the last couple of years and he is an immense talent. He will get 17 plus million in hopes of having a great year to get a real legit contract next year. He is an example of player that can use this to his advantage.

When the teams put in a salary contract for rookies it was agreed to by the CBA that teams had the right to protect themselves to a degree for a key asset. The price point is extremely high like in top 5 money so that player cannot hold them hostage in negotiations. If a player doesn't agree he doesn't have to sign his agreed on tender or new contract in hopes of doing better. That is a players choice.

The Steelers or Cowboys with Lawrence in this case are fine with it and I assure the fans of these teams don't want to lose those assets this season. The player wins in getting a guaranteed one year deal. The fans win as they still have a shot to compete. The team wins because they can defer monies or they can address the issue next year.

QB's are little different due to price point. Cousins did great but the team didn't mind as they didn't win with him and felt they could get a better QB that fit their philosophy. The team also had Cousins dirt cheap for several years. If they believed he was the answer then they would have done what the Seahawks did or the Ravens did a few years ago.

The tag doesn't just put the power in the owners hands. They are paying through the nose for that players services that year. If you think the Owners controlled Cousins then the obvious question is; What did they receive for Cousins? They paid huge money for him and then had to trade for Alex Smith.

Bottom line is the tag is a simple check and balance for teams and fans. The player is paid massive money, average of top 5 salaries in the league. This one year contract is FULLY Guaranteed the moment the player signs it. In the event the player refuses to sign the team can withdraw the offer.

Bell will make 14 plus million guaranteed this season once signed even if he can't play this season due to injury in camp. What people seem to be arguing is that he deserves more...... The reality is what he deserves has nothing to do with it. He gets what he negotiates not what he deserves. The CBA ensures he will get 14 plus million as an asset that both the team and CBA agrees he is worth this season.
I disagree, I think more often than not the players are upset they are on the franchise tag, most likely they would be getting top 5 money in the open market on a long term contract without the franchise tag, Ansah may not have gotten top 5 money but he would've been up there in same with Laurence. What did the Redskins get? They got a QB that wouldve been paid top 5 money anywhere else for cheap on a short term deal with NO RISK, Cousins had no choice but to play a season with no money guaranteed if he was injured, they did that to him not once but twice, multiple teams would have gladly paid Cousins top 5 money on a long term deal the first time he got tagged let alone the second. Teams can hold players hostage for over 6 years. A small rookie contract and then give them little to no guarantees for the next 2-3 years if necessary. This is especially troubling for RB's that get drafted in the 3rd round and then get franchised two years in a row, that leaves them only 1 opportunity to get a decent contract heading into their age 27 season without being able to test to open market one time...As for the fans, a team may be said to see a player go while on the opposite end another team will be ecstatic to see a player join their team....more trades and free agency would be better for fans as more happens, this is one reason why the NBA is doing so well. The franchise tag is an extremely shitty deal for football players playing a very brutal sport that has no long term guaranteed money beyond that year, like I said most of those players getting tagged could easily go to a new team in the open market and get paid close to the tags salary each year on a 4-5 year deal with half of that guaranteed. As for RB's its even worse to add to the fact that why on earth would a team every pay a RB more than the 8mill they get now when they can just risk free tag them for 2 years and run them into the ground and start over with another dirt cheap rookie.

I'm not even saying RB's need to be paid the same as WR's, I'm saying the Tag in general is for the owners and no one else, especially multi year tags. No tags =more free agencies, more incentive to lock your "franchise" players down before letting them become free agents, more trades, a better market for players to get paid accordingly.

User avatar
kamihamster
Captain
Captain
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby kamihamster » Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:30 am

if they keep the franchise tag, maybe they change it so that if a player gets injured, and is not cleared for the next season, that the team will have to pay them the franchise tag pay for the next year... and if cut they have to pay 80%. that way it still is team friendly in that it's a one year commitment and one year of control, but if a serious injury occurs, it's not completely SOL for the player in that they will get paid for another year of rehab at a decent salary.
NTL (est 2016): (8-0)
12-team, PPR, 1QB,2RB,3WR,1TE,1FLX
QB: A.Rodgers, D.Jones
RB: A.Kamara, K.Johnson, K.Drake, Da.Henderson, C.Anderson, K.Ballage, T.Montgomery, J.Wilson, D.Ogunbowale, Dw.Washington, J.Kelly, P.Perkins, A.Blue
WR: O.Beckham, D.Hopkins, C.Kupp, D.Chark, R.Foster, A.Wilson, J.Reynolds, S.Morgan, B.Pringle, O.Johnson, D.Williams, D.Willis
TE: J.Cook, M.Andrews, A.Shaheen, B.Jarwin
2020 Picks: 3, 4
2021 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4
2022 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4

Home League (est 2014): 2018 Champ (6-2)
12-team, NPPR-6ptTD, 1QB,2RB,3WR,1TE,2FLX,1K,1DST,4IDP
QB: P.Mahomes, J.Goff
RB: D.Cook, A.Kamara, J.Mixon, M.Breida, S.Michel, F.Gore, D.Guice, K.Ballage, D.Ogunbowale, R.Bonnafon, J.Scarlett, W.Gallman, J.Kelly, J.Wilson
WR: D.Adams, J.Smith-Schuster, T.Boyd, A.Robinson, L.Fitzgerald, Jo.Brown, M.Valdes-Scantiling, K.Harmon, Z.Pascal
TE: E.Engram, A.Hooper
DST: NOS
K: W.Lutz
2020 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2021 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Ice
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6590
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: OT: Should NFL CBA treat RBs differently?

Postby Ice » Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:05 am

Agree or not, I don't see a chance a in Hades the league getting rid of the franchise tag. The players are making huge sums of money and the league which holds the vast majority of the risks of business are sharing over 60% of all revenues. The salary cap for each team in 2018 is approximately 177 plus million. This is a 10 million increase per team over last year.

It is ridiculous think the NFL will cede all rules that insulate them from league risk and competitive balance. Players should consider themselves lucky to have some protections such as guaranteed contracts in such a violent sport.

A FRANCHISE CONTRACT is fully guaranteed. Anyone who doesn't believe that is a risk to an owner is flat out wrong. There are 14,554,000 reasons the Steelers now have risk on Bell.

The NFL average price is 4 Million.

To put Bell's contract in perspective. Bell is the highest paid RB in the league this year by $6,200,000.

Anyone who doesn't think he is winning as he pulls down 8.3 million more this year than Zeke and $10,000,000 more than the league average might want to reevaluate.
The Clock is Running and there are no Timeouts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlackOmega, Google [Bot], Lumps, TheTroll and 32 guests