2023 Free Agency

[Pullo Vision]

Nothing is going to happen anytime soon, but hopefully it's something prioritized in the next CBA.

It's a tough one to find a solution for given the uniqueness of the career prime/length situation for RB's, and the fact that they represent only a small fraction of the player base. The elite guys who are getting tagged - we're only talking about 3-5 guys a year, ultimately. That's not enough to make a change.

So long as we're passing time in the dead part of the offseason, though - I did see a fun solution that I thought had some merit.

If an OL is tagged, then the tag figure is calculated via all linemen. So it's an average of LT, RT, C, G's all summed into one, the top 5. (This is why you never see a Centre getting tagged)

What if it was calculated the same way for all offensive skill players? So WR, TE, and RB all counted as the same tag number - and that was calculated on the top 5 from that player pool? Call it the "Offensive Skill Position" tag.

Sure, they'd all be WR's in terms of making the calculation - but it would definitely solve the leverage problem that both RB's and TE's have in regards to getting held "contract hostage" by the tag.

Anyway, it'll never happen. But I thought it was interesting.

Interesting idea. Like how it addresses multiple tag issues.

Would be interesting to hear the pros/cons debate on including QBs in that "Offensive Skill Position" group.

[Pullo Vision]

when a failed, jealous gm that has been wrong about any opinion he's ever had on the rams offers this piece of news that wasn't backed up by any insider in the nfl media i'm gonna have to pass on it's authenticity.

no team would trade for him at that price after his injury riddled season and the rams wouldn't trade him when he was the only qb on their roster.

Took a little digging but found this- "The Rams would have (we’re told) welcomed the opportunity to trade Stafford. If Aaron Rodgers hadn’t decided to join the Jets, Stafford could have become the Plan B, if he would have been willing to go to New York." Liked to trade him and pursuing trades are two completely different things, though.

This article suggests that the roster still has holes (specifically along the oline) and a 1-4 start to the season (@Seattle, vSF, @Cin, @Colts, vPhi) could lead to trade rumors or actual trade talk.

straight from the horse's mouth.

-----------------------------------------

It appears as if Los Angeles Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford is staying put after all.

Despite rumors to the contrary, general manager Les Snead shot down rumors of that they were 'making calls' in regards to a trade of Stafford, calling their Super Bowl-winning quarterback one of the franchise's key pillars for the future.

“We’re going to definitely rely on Matthew," Snead said on Thursday. "He’s definitely one of our pillars. He’s definitely someone we’re going to rely on as we remodel this.”


Snead would go on to describe Stafford, alongside Cooper Kupp and Aaron Donald, as one of the franchise's 'weight-bearing walls'.

These comments from snead come in the midst of a report from NFL insider Michael Lombardi, who claimed the Rams were actively shopping Stafford in an effort to get out from under his massive contract.

https://www.si.com/nfl/rams/news/los-an ... ade-rumors

Yep, saw it. Just like I question Lombardi for potentially trying to get clicks by misrepresenting conversations between teams, I question a GM trying to put out "we tried to trade our QB" flames. Here's another perspective after Kevin Demoff spoke-

It is true that if the Rams didn’t want to have any conversations about Stafford, but listened anyway, that would directly refute Lombardi’s rumors that Les Snead was “desperate” to trade the quarterback. That’s more like “injecting a narrative” than it is semantics.

However, if the Rams went back and forth on trade compensation for Stafford and couldn’t get a team to give up enough to justify a deal, then it could be argued that there’s nothing wrong with an “NFL insider” reporting that he’s heard the franchise is having active trade conversations with their star quarterback. It’s not like teams actively negotiate trade terms with all of their star players every year.

[mild]

What if it was calculated the same way for all offensive skill players? So WR, TE, and RB all counted as the same tag number - and that was calculated on the top 5 from that player pool? Call it the "Offensive Skill Position" tag.

Would be interesting to hear the pros/cons debate on including QBs in that "Offensive Skill Position" group.

The main con would be that you'd never see an Offensive Skill Player get tagged again - unless they were a QB. We're talking a difference of over $12mil between the QB franchise tag figure ($32mil) vs. the WR franchise tag ($19.7mil) figure for 2023.

For that reason alone, the Owners would never let it happen. I'd actually agree with them - QB deserves to stand on an island in a lot of ways as a value/skill proposition, contract value being chief among those reasons. (That money gap is liable to get even bigger in 2024 post Burrow and Herb extensions, too)

I think if it's TE, WR, and RB - then it addresses the biggest problem subjectifying the worth of these Elite outlier RB's and TE's who function closer to a WR than the average players at their position do.

FWIW I thought the suggestion of Rookie Performance Bonuses was really solid thinking too - I'd love to see something like that, as it would incentivise everything we already love about a College player coming into the NFL and "making the leap" over a 4 year timeframe. Ultimately, if you play well - it should be rewarded. That's the crux of this whole issue.

[Lumps]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

[Bronco Billy]

51 RBs (which includes both HBs and FBs) last year were 27 yrs old or older. Apparently they aren’t just used for their rookie contract and then thrown in the garbage grinder as a group. If they’re healthy and can contribute meaningfully at a reasonable cost they’ll maintain their jobs. Kind of like any other player.

C’mon man. I KNOW you are smarter than making this statement and standing on it.

Just looking at the numbers. Last year 34.4% of RBs were 27 yrs old or older. Comparing them to WRs, 34.5% of WRs were 27 yrs old or older.

Also of interest, average RB pay was $1.8M while average WR pay was $2.8M. That’s clearly skewed by the number and amounts of the upper level players at each position. However, another interesting stat is that NFL teams employed RBs at a ratio of 2:3 to WRs despite most teams running 1 RB at a time at the position while playing 2 or more WRs. That implies that the in-season replacement level of RBs is higher which would also drive down average pay.

Just food for discussion.

[Kurt G.O.A.T.]

Took a little digging but found this- "The Rams would have (we’re told) welcomed the opportunity to trade Stafford. If Aaron Rodgers hadn’t decided to join the Jets, Stafford could have become the Plan B, if he would have been willing to go to New York." Liked to trade him and pursuing trades are two completely different things, though.

This article suggests that the roster still has holes (specifically along the oline) and a 1-4 start to the season (@Seattle, vSF, @Cin, @Colts, vPhi) could lead to trade rumors or actual trade talk.

straight from the horse's mouth.

-----------------------------------------

It appears as if Los Angeles Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford is staying put after all.

Despite rumors to the contrary, general manager Les Snead shot down rumors of that they were 'making calls' in regards to a trade of Stafford, calling their Super Bowl-winning quarterback one of the franchise's key pillars for the future.

“We’re going to definitely rely on Matthew," Snead said on Thursday. "He’s definitely one of our pillars. He’s definitely someone we’re going to rely on as we remodel this.”


Snead would go on to describe Stafford, alongside Cooper Kupp and Aaron Donald, as one of the franchise's 'weight-bearing walls'.

These comments from snead come in the midst of a report from NFL insider Michael Lombardi, who claimed the Rams were actively shopping Stafford in an effort to get out from under his massive contract.

https://www.si.com/nfl/rams/news/los-an ... ade-rumors

Yep, saw it. Just like I question Lombardi for potentially trying to get clicks by misrepresenting conversations between teams, I question a GM trying to put out "we tried to trade our QB" flames. Here's another perspective after Kevin Demoff spoke-

It is true that if the Rams didn’t want to have any conversations about Stafford, but listened anyway, that would directly refute Lombardi’s rumors that Les Snead was “desperate” to trade the quarterback. That’s more like “injecting a narrative” than it is semantics.

However, if the Rams went back and forth on trade compensation for Stafford and couldn’t get a team to give up enough to justify a deal, then it could be argued that there’s nothing wrong with an “NFL insider” reporting that he’s heard the franchise is having active trade conversations with their star quarterback. It’s not like teams actively negotiate trade terms with all of their star players every year.

Every team listens to trade offers for every player on their team. It's their duty. Doesn't mean they want to trade them or are trying to persue a trade. It's just doing their due diligence.

[MFundercover]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

I remember when edp started screaming and throwing things when the Eagles drafted Hurts over Mims. Lol

[FantasyFreak]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

I remember when edp started screaming and throwing things when the Eagles drafted Hurts over Mims. Lol

Just shows you, you don't really win or lose on draft day, because of what the media big boards say, or talking heads think the teams should do. Really have to wait before judging draft picks.

[j4pac]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

I’ve been much better at determining who NOT to draft than who to draft. But I guess that’s also important

[Cameron Giles]

51 RBs (which includes both HBs and FBs) last year were 27 yrs old or older. Apparently they aren’t just used for their rookie contract and then thrown in the garbage grinder as a group. If they’re healthy and can contribute meaningfully at a reasonable cost they’ll maintain their jobs. Kind of like any other player.

C’mon man. I KNOW you are smarter than making this statement and standing on it.

Just looking at the numbers. Last year 34.4% of RBs were 27 yrs old or older. Comparing them to WRs, 34.5% of WRs were 27 yrs old or older.

Also of interest, average RB pay was $1.8M while average WR pay was $2.8M. That’s clearly skewed by the number and amounts of the upper level players at each position. However, another interesting stat is that NFL teams employed RBs at a ratio of 2:3 to WRs despite most teams running 1 RB at a time at the position while playing 2 or more WRs. That implies that the in-season replacement level of RBs is higher which would also drive down average pay.

Just food for discussion.

I don't think the discussion is "does the NFL employ RBs?" because.....well, they surely do, even after their rookie contract. The discussion is "does the NFL have a path for RBs to maximize career earnings during their prime relative to their use and production?" and the answer is an overwhelming....no.

RB is essentially the auto loan of your dreams: You can buy it brand new, drive it into the ground for 4-5 years, pay very little on the loan itself, and then trade it in for a brand new car to start the clock all over again.

RB is the only position in the NFL where players are considered to be in their prime during a cost-controlled rookie scale contract. Every other position has a prime during the second and sometimes third contract, which means they are rewarded for current and future production. The RB position simply has to be treated differently than others so that players can have the ability to be compensated more for their prime years.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/franchise-tag/

- Franchise tag for WR has steadily increased since 2013, and the number will only get higher especially after players like CeeDee and Jefferson get deals.

- Franchise tag for RBs has declined since 2019. It's the only position in the NFL where salary is actively decreasing. In 2013, the franchise tag for a RB was worth $6M+ more than one for a kicker/punter. 10 years later, it's only around $4M more.

[Bronco Billy]

C’mon man. I KNOW you are smarter than making this statement and standing on it.

Just looking at the numbers. Last year 34.4% of RBs were 27 yrs old or older. Comparing them to WRs, 34.5% of WRs were 27 yrs old or older.

Also of interest, average RB pay was $1.8M while average WR pay was $2.8M. That’s clearly skewed by the number and amounts of the upper level players at each position. However, another interesting stat is that NFL teams employed RBs at a ratio of 2:3 to WRs despite most teams running 1 RB at a time at the position while playing 2 or more WRs. That implies that the in-season replacement level of RBs is higher which would also drive down average pay.

Just food for discussion.

I don't think the discussion is "does the NFL employ RBs?" because.....well, they surely do, even after their rookie contract. The discussion is "does the NFL have a path for RBs to maximize career earnings during their prime relative to their use and production?" and the answer is an overwhelming....no.

RB is essentially the auto loan of your dreams: You can buy it brand new, drive it into the ground for 4-5 years, pay very little on the loan itself, and then trade it in for a brand new car to start the clock all over again.

RB is the only position in the NFL where players are considered to be in their prime during a cost-controlled rookie scale contract. Every other position has a prime during the second and sometimes third contract, which means they are rewarded for current and future production. The RB position simply has to be treated differently than others so that players can have the ability to be compensated more for their prime years.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/franchise-tag/

- Franchise tag for WR has steadily increased since 2013, and the number will only get higher especially after players like CeeDee and Jefferson get deals.

- Franchise tag for RBs has declined since 2019. It's the only position in the NFL where salary is actively decreasing. In 2013, the franchise tag for a RB was worth $6M+ more than one for a kicker/punter. 10 years later, it's only around $4M more.

You missed the whole point. Looking at a small snapshot of very limited statistics, it seems incredibly unbalanced against RBs. A pretty good case can be made about that regarding the top RBs. But when examining the numbers a bit deeper and looking at the position as a whole rather than parsing out the top few players, it doesn’t seem quite as unbalanced as what is being portrayed.

[Cameron Giles]

You missed the whole point. Looking at a small snapshot of very limited statistics, it seems incredibly unbalanced against RBs. A pretty good case can be made about that regarding the top RBs. But when examining the numbers a bit deeper and looking at the position as a whole rather than parsing out the top few players, it doesn’t seem quite as unbalanced as what is being portrayed.

The list you're using isn't a great reflection of what's actually happening. The numbers are skewed heavily by a ton of players who aren't as relevant to the conversation. Also, it's not reflecting what relevant players are actually getting when their first deal is up, which is the heart of the discussion.

When you look at the top salaries:

- 11 RBs under contract are scheduled to make $2M or more next season.
- 42 WRs under contract are scheduled to make $2M or more next season.

That's almost a 4:1 ratio.

When you look at players who are starters:

- In 2022, teams only spent $6M on starting RBs
- In 2022, teams only spent $21M on starting WRs

When you look at "veteran" players:

- Brandon Bolden is the 11th highest paid RB in the league at 1.65M.
- Cedrick Wilson is the 11th highest paid WR in the league at 7M.

It's very unbalanced. The highest paid RB in the league next year (Nick Chubb) is the equivalent of a team's 3rd WR (Curtis Samuel).

Ultimately though, it's still a conversation about whether RBs have an opportunity to cash in on their prime years and they largely do not. Every other position does though, and sometimes they have that ability multiple times.

[Bronco Billy]

When you look at the top salaries:

- 11 RBs under contract are scheduled to make $2M or more next season.
- 42 WRs under contract are scheduled to make $2M or more next season.

That's almost a 4:1 ratio.

When you look at players who are starters:

- In 2022, teams only spent $6M on starting RBs
- In 2022, teams only spent $21M on starting WRs

Great. Let’s look at these numbers. So if we assume that these teams start 1 RB, 2 outside WRs, and a slot WR as their base offense - a very normal base set in today’s NFL - the ratio of starting WRs to starting RBs is 3:1.

So divide those WR $$$ by 3, and you get that in 2022 NFL teams averaged $6M on a starting RB and $7M on a starting WR. Suddenly that doesn’t seem quite so lopsided, does it?

Let’s look at the first set of numbers quoted here. Even if the average base set of half the teams is 3 wide, that means every week teams start 80 WRs and 32 RBs. That means 21 starting RBs make less than $2M but that at a minimum 38 starting WRs make less than $2M.

Again, not quite as lopsided as what is being portrayed on a cursory level.

Now I’m a RB guy and I do agree that the top RBs are being undercompensated compared to other positions. They are that valuable. But given that they play a position that has more supply than demand of competent NFL level quality, where in other positions that is not the case, that is an unfortunate fact.

Just like how people who put their lives on the line for their country and community make much, much less than those whose vocation is merely entertainment - it sure as hell is not fair, but given the economic realities it is how life shakes out. It’s flippant to say, I know, but no one is forcing RBs to play football. They choose to do so even though they know their relative compensation will be lower. It sucks that they don’t make as much as other positions, but it’s just an economic reality.

[CGW]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

Let me guess, someone's going to tell me this will hurt ARSB.

[YouMightDieTryin]

Denzel Mims traded to Detroit.

Let me guess, someone's going to tell me this will hurt ARSB.

It actually might. Having to watch him in practice is going to be painful.