Jonathan Taylor is your 1.01 now.

[FantasyFreak]

As of now, it seems like Fantasy Football Players are more concerned about it than the Players Union is.

I am not sure I agree with this. The biggest goal in the last CBA negotiations for the PU was to raise the salary tide for the non elite players. This represents the largest % of members of their union. I believe the elite RB pay scale was an unintended result of their bigger effort. I feel pretty strongly this piece will be a central piece of the next negotiation. They signed it, they have to live with it, but please don't blame a player that has outplayed his contract to want more compensation.

Agreed, that comment was partly in jest, but people are suggesting that it should be done now, and that's not likely, In 2030, something can definitely be done, but won't likely happen now. They aren't going to strike, and demand a new CBA over this.

[FantasyFreak]

Man, the people arguing strenuously on the side of the league/owners is some tough reading. Comparing being an NFL player to any normal day job is ridiculous and if you can't see the very shitty situation that running backs are stuck in then I don't really know what to say.

I'm not personally vying on the owners, I telling the reality of the situation. Why are people here so obsessed with it? Are people going on and on about it on other forums lamenting the plight of factory workers? Doubtful. The CBA is what it is, and that's merely what I'm pointing out, that their own union put them in this spot, and the RB position simply isn't valued as it once was. That's just the reality of it, and they're going to have to deal with the parameters of it.

This isn't "people who support the owners" vs "people whos support the players". People around here can tell themselves that, if it makes them feel better, but I for one, am merely pointing out the realities of the situation, and forgive me if I don't go to bed at night tossing and turning over JT's situation.

NFL football, in the scheme of human life, is really not that more important, and there are people who may not be getting a fair shake that aren't in the highest tax bracket, so I hope that people here who are just "fighting for the little guy" vs the Billionaires, put that energy into people making a whole lot less, and may be taken advantage of, making minimum wage, or close to.

We could go on about it all day. Rookies used to make more, the vets had an issue with it, so it got changed. JJ is arguably one of the most underpaid players in the league. Christian Kirk is lapping his salary. What if JJ suffered a Victor Cruz type injury, and couldn't play the same way again, before his next deal?

I come here to get away from politics, etc. but this thread is just pages and pages of Union stuff, and I am contributing to it, but I don't really want to at this point, it's getting a bit much. If this thread is going to keep going on about this stuff, I'm just going to stay away from it for a while, until JT plays some football and we can talk about how he looks on the field. I'm interested to see how he'll look with A Rich, I think he could have some big lanes, but it might take a little bit, due to all the time missed, to see him get going.

[Ice]

Man, the people arguing strenuously on the side of the league/owners is some tough reading. Comparing being an NFL player to any normal day job is ridiculous and if you can't see the very shitty situation that running backs are stuck in then I don't really know what to say.

I see a lot of people that have no concept about fair market value. It’s not for or against some agreed on Contract. It is very basic business.

Taylor signed a contract
Taylor got hurt
Taylor wants more money

The Colts say no, play out your contract or don’t.
The Colts have been paying Taylor all year at this point and his contribution is 0 YTD. The Colts are living up to their contract. Is Taylor?

People who really think the players got steamrolled in the CBA don’t really have a clue.

A few positions simply are not as important as QB, OL, DL, CB, and WR

A CEO is going to make more than the AR clerk. The business concepts are the same and thinking otherwise is naive.

How people can’t understand basic business is amazing.

I could care less if Taylor plays for 3 million or 10 million on his next contract. Teams budget salaries by position and positional talent. It’s been that way for years.

Sucks to be a RB but if Taylor doesn’t want to play so be it, there will be 100 prospects wanting that roster spot.

RB’s don’t really win games. The vast majority are completely reliant on other positions for their success

The goods will get around 10m per on their 2nd contract. The first rounders will get their draft slot pay like every other.

This isn’t hard and fair is just a BS fantasy.

[hoos89]

The "players" as a whole didn't get steamrolled, but the problem is that the players have very divergent interests depending on circumstances (and especially position). It's hard to argue that the RBs are getting a fair shake here when the best players in the position are routinely prevented from seeking the open market and they're probably the most likely position to suffer major injury.

It's ridiculous to claim that JT bears blame for not performing under his contract when he had do say in how much he was paid, for how long, or for what team...and the team that picked him gets to just lock him up indefinitely even if he does well.

Also the fact that teams are continuing to draft RBs in the 1st and 2nd round and use the franchise tag to lock them up puts the lie to the notion that they aren't important to success. The reason teams refuse to invest in them long term is that they are so injury prone and tend to wear down prior to hitting 30, which imo is pretty messed up.

The real issue is the franchise tag. That is not "basic business": nothing like it exists elsewhere in the business world. Also if this keeps up too much longer I wonder if the RBs could have a price fixing claim against the NFL because if this trend keeps up the franchise tag for RB is going to end up pretty close to final year rookie contract money.

[FantasyFreak]

https://twitter.com/adamlevitan/status/ ... 5365673164

LOL. I know Mild knows this one.

[Kurt G.O.A.T.]

https://twitter.com/adamlevitan/status/ ... 5365673164

LOL. I know Mild knows this one.

What else is he supposed to do? Give up $2.6m like it's nothing to a 2nd round player?

[FantasyFreak]

https://twitter.com/adamlevitan/status/ ... 5365673164

LOL. I know Mild knows this one.

What else is he supposed to do? Give up $2.6m like it's nothing to a 2nd round player?

It's a joke, man. He's just making a joke, probably a Seinfeld fan and it was an excuse to use a reference.

[Ice]

Players get roughly 48% of the revenue generated by the NFL.

If the players care about the slice of pie for RB’s they can easily negotiate how they want their revenue share divided in future contracts.

News flash to reality…… they won’t.

Teams will pay according to market value.

The owners pay all the salaries of all employees and costs of operations out of their share.

This has nothing to do with Taylor personally or about some fantasy notion of getting a fair shake. It’s the reality of business and those worried about poor Taylor should be screaming at their union to determine exactly how they want to divide their share of revenue in the future. The NFL for their part should have no issue complying.

The union agreed to a rookie wage scale so players could get a better second contract. They could easily take it a step further to help those poor RB’s or special team players out.

Taylor will play under his contract. Maybe the Colts will renegotiate but it is naive to think they should be under any obligation to do so given they are abiding by the rules.

[mild]

https://twitter.com/adamlevitan/status/ ... 5365673164

LOL. I know Mild knows this one.

I did think about that scene hearing all this Taylor talk. That's bang on.

Just show up and pretend like nothing has changed... classic George.

It's going to be fascinating seeing what happens with this. It's right on a knife edge.

[CGW]

"The real issue is the franchise tag. That is not "basic business": nothing like it exists elsewhere in the business world. Also if this keeps up too much longer I wonder if the RBs could have a price fixing claim against the NFL because if this trend keeps up the franchise tag for RB is going to end up pretty close to final year rookie contract money."

I'd love to see this tried as an antitrust conspiracy. Would be a classic misuse of our taxpayer dollars.

[Ice]

"The real issue is the franchise tag. That is not "basic business": nothing like it exists elsewhere in the business world. Also if this keeps up too much longer I wonder if the RBs could have a price fixing claim against the NFL because if this trend keeps up the franchise tag for RB is going to end up pretty close to final year rookie contract money."

I'd love to see this tried as an antitrust conspiracy. Would be a classic misuse of our taxpayer dollars.

Complete Strawman argument.

The Franchise tag has been around a long time and is basic contract language between the league and the CBA

Just because you don’t like doesn’t really matter. Business Contracts are basic business and contract language takes on countless forms.

Btw, Taylor is under contract not under the teams one annual tag agreed to by the players.

People often confuse rights with privilege. The NFL isn’t the government.

Players were awarded FA the league was awarded the opportunity to protect a single player for a maximum of 2 years depending on actual agreed to contract language.

The league is under ZERO obligation to slot player’s second contract salaries. They are under obligation to share revenue which they do.

The players certainly could agree to how they want to split their share

Barking up the wrong tree is an option I guess but all sides are following Stipulated contract terms whether one likes it or not.

[murphysxm]

"The real issue is the franchise tag. That is not "basic business": nothing like it exists elsewhere in the business world. Also if this keeps up too much longer I wonder if the RBs could have a price fixing claim against the NFL because if this trend keeps up the franchise tag for RB is going to end up pretty close to final year rookie contract money."

I'd love to see this tried as an antitrust conspiracy. Would be a classic misuse of our taxpayer dollars.

Complete Strawman argument.

The Franchise tag has been around a long time and is basic contract language between the league and the CBA

Just because you don’t like doesn’t really matter. Business Contracts are basic business and contract language takes on countless forms.

Btw, Taylor is under contract not under the teams one annual tag agreed to by the players.

People often confuse rights with privilege. The NFL isn’t the government.

Players were awarded FA the league was awarded the opportunity to protect a single player for a maximum of 2 years depending on actual agreed to contract language.

The league is under ZERO obligation to slot player’s second contract salaries. They are under obligation to share revenue which they do.

The players certainly could agree to how they want to split their share

Barking up the wrong tree is an option I guess but all sides are following Stipulated contract terms whether one likes it or not.

I think you are missing a basic premise if you think people are saying the Colts have an obligation to do anything outside the agreed upon contract and CBA terms. We all understand they are within the constraints and within their right. I believe what many of us are saying is the system and CBA diminish the value of this position. If a player is one of the best in the world, he has a professional right to raise their hand and say I should probably make more money than Cordarelle Patterson because I am, you know better and more valuable. The Colts don't have to do anything. The Colts are making a likely poor business decision that every potential free agent is watching by not taking care of their star player. I put much of this on Irsay's ego that he doesn't want to look week to his fellow owners. I also don't think any of us know the true nature of the conversations and the relationship as it stands now. To put this in real world business terms, JT is paying dues to a union that is not looking out for his best interests and I think he is trying to be a leader for future players by taking a stand. Happens everyday in he real world of business and unions. He just makes more than you do.

[killer_of_giants]

franchise tag is 32 players per season. the giants just had to pay daniel bloody jones a shitton of cash just so they could tag barkley...
i don't think that's the big issue.

as for "defending the owners", i haven't seen anyone doing it. the situation for RBs is (relatively...) grim, and they have no leverage. the fact that some don't see any viable solution for a RB to break the trend doesn't mean they're in favour of the owners.
that's the game, those are the rules, you agreed to them.
yes, when you were growing up, RBs still were getting paid, but that has changed and now you're left holding the bag. sucks (again, relatively) but that's what you signed for. if taylor manages to avoid playing and accrue a season, not getting fined, not getting tagged and getting a big contract next year, that would be great for him. i don't think it will happen, no chance, doesn't mean i *hope* it won't happen.

[Ice]

"The real issue is the franchise tag. That is not "basic business": nothing like it exists elsewhere in the business world. Also if this keeps up too much longer I wonder if the RBs could have a price fixing claim against the NFL because if this trend keeps up the franchise tag for RB is going to end up pretty close to final year rookie contract money."

I'd love to see this tried as an antitrust conspiracy. Would be a classic misuse of our taxpayer dollars.

Complete Strawman argument.

The Franchise tag has been around a long time and is basic contract language between the league and the CBA

Just because you don’t like doesn’t really matter. Business Contracts are basic business and contract language takes on countless forms.

Btw, Taylor is under contract not under the teams one annual tag agreed to by the players.

People often confuse rights with privilege. The NFL isn’t the government.

Players were awarded FA the league was awarded the opportunity to protect a single player for a maximum of 2 years depending on actual agreed to contract language.

The league is under ZERO obligation to slot player’s second contract salaries. They are under obligation to share revenue which they do.

The players certainly could agree to how they want to split their share

Barking up the wrong tree is an option I guess but all sides are following Stipulated contract terms whether one likes it or not.

I think you are missing a basic premise if you think people are saying the Colts have an obligation to do anything outside the agreed upon contract and CBA terms. We all understand they are within the constraints and within their right. I believe what many of us are saying is the system and CBA diminish the value of this position. If a player is one of the best in the world, he has a professional right to raise their hand and say I should probably make more money than Cordarelle Patterson because I am, you know better and more valuable. The Colts don't have to do anything. The Colts are making a likely poor business decision that every potential free agent is watching by not taking care of their star player. I put much of this on Irsay's ego that he doesn't want to look week to his fellow owners. I also don't think any of us know the true nature of the conversations and the relationship as it stands now. To put this in real world business terms, JT is paying dues to a union that is not looking out for his best interests and I think he is trying to be a leader for future players by taking a stand. Happens everyday in he real world of business and unions. He just makes more than you do.

Not missing a premise

Zero issue with any player wanting more or even asking.

The reality is many simply want to blame the owners when they don’t comply.

Taylor signed a contract. He can abide by those terms or not. That is his choice.

When Taylor signs his next contract or a tag he will in fact be paid at or near the top of the market as one of the best players at his position on the planet.

I would add the union looks after the collective so I don’t disagree they are not looking out for Taylor’s specific interests. If they truly were about fairness they would have negotiated equitable salaries for all members based on their revenue share.

[hoos89]

Because of the current approach by NFL teams to RBs, the cost to tag RBs is going down and will likely continue to go down over the next few years.
Which is pretty crazy...nfl salaries go up over time, not down. I understand that the union agreed to the tag in the CBA but the way the teams are collectively using it to drive RB salaries down feels pretty anticompetitive to me.