NFL - NEWS & NOTES

NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reports the Giants and Saquon Barkley were unable to come to terms on a new deal ahead of Monday’s franchise tag deadline.


Barkley and the Giants are reportedly nowhere close to a deal. Officially set to earn $10.1 million on the franchise tag, Barkley will first have to sign the tag if he hopes to get paid in any capacity in 2023. Barkley totaled 1,650 yards and 10 touchdowns last season with the Giants, serving as the primary ball carrier in an offense that was largely devoid of offensive playmakers. Despite his high-end production, the Giants appear unwilling to dish out a long-term deal to their bell cow back, who will be 26 at the start of the season. Barkley hasn’t ruled out the possibility of sitting out the season, although it’d be surprising to see things reach that point. A holdout could suppress his ADP in the coming weeks, but Barkley has top-five fantasy upside if/when he plays.

 

NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reports the Raiders and Josh Jacobs did not come to terms on a long-term deal ahead of the franchise tag deadline.


Jacobs has yet to sign his franchise tag tender, and as Rapoport notes, it’s “unclear when he’ll show to play on the tag,” but playing on the tag is the only option Jacobs is left with at this time. In a market that’s been down for running backs all offseason, not even last year’s rushing champion could secure a long-term deal with his own team. Jacobs will now earn $10.1 million on the franchise tag this season and will have to try to secure a long-term deal next offseason. Much like last season, Jacobs is expected to handle the majority of the touches for the Raiders and is on the RB1 radar in fantasy.

 

Lions signed No. 12 overall pick RB Jahmyr Gibbs to a four-year contract.


Gibbs is set to join the Lions in training camp when things kick off later this month. A dual-threat back who has been praised for his receiving upside, Gibbs figures to factor into Detroit’s offensive game plan as early as Week 1. Fantasy managers hope that’s the case, as they’ve been scooping up Gibbs as a mid-RB2 in fantasy drafts for the majority of the summer. He’s likely a risky bet in standard leagues, but in half and full-PPR formats, Gibbs’ pass-catching abilities should make him a valuable fantasy asset in his rookie campaign.

 

Barkley tweeted just minutes before the deadline; "it is what it is"

After i read that, I cant and dont feel sorry for a guy who turned down $10+M to paly ball in NY when the market 'is what it is'.

 

“The #Raiders & #Giants can offer their RB1s a 1 year contract at any price point this summer.”

This is the most significant point of the current situation. It also leads to my original argument. In no way are the players still beholden to play for a flat $10M contract on the franchise tag. If the teams want to be fair with the RBs, they can add REACHABLE incentives to pay their worth.

This is why the treatment of RBs is such a travesty, D Hopkins, who hasn’t performed in two straight seasons, and when he DID perform at his peak he was on par with the production of these two RBs, received an incentive laden contract that will pay him more for doing less than these two as well.

The NFL priorities are fucked up

 

Capitalism, baby. It was only a matter of time before employers did the same thing to players that they do to the rest of us - they've certainly been chipping away at it whenever they could. And remember, this is an employee base with a strong union. But when you're dealing with a fucked up system, there's only so much you can do.

 

yeah, I’m not arguing the system, it is what it is. Like I said earlier, what are they going to do, go on strike as a position group? Of course not.

My personal opinion is that the teams have gotten off track on what value really means when it comes to spending resources on the talent pool. The Browns are paying Chubb on average $12.2M, to me that’s a bargain compared to what these second rate WRs are getting in the market. IE DeAndre Hopkins.. he hasn’t produced the past two seasons, why would you think he will get back to prime at the age of 31?

 

They haven't "gotten off track", they've collectively decided that the RB position isn't worth paying, and that the draft system (which also already limits a player's income, imagine that) is a better way of acquiring players at the position than just paying them. And that's largely due to the mileage that gets put on these players - teams run them into the ground and then dispose of them at the lowest possible cost. Sound familiar to anything else in our daily lives?

The union is going to need to strike, most likely. The teams won't fix this, the league won't fix this, so the players will have to. And it's clearly not about the talent - there's plenty of that - so it'll have to come from the union. Longterm, no fix likely means that players will stop playing RB in college, then high school, and the talent pool will dry up. That's not great.

 

What incentive do young players have to be RBs if they are treated like hot garbage at the NFL level?

 

And everyone voted on the current CBA as it stands and its good till 2030. Maybe the union/players should have had the decrement to see this coming?

 

This is an option and probably the only leverage left to be tried and i hadnt thought of this until now, but Im leaning that your right with this assessment. Too bad it may have to go that route, but currently its the only thing that may work. Im still wrapping my head around players turning down $10M, but i can relate to the comparisons to other positions... this is a tough thing that has developed.

 

Just to advocate and counter this line of reasoning, which I dont disagree with, where would you draw the line when it comes down to comparisons to what the 'other guy' is making at various positions? This type of view might lead to all positions and players demanding equal or close to the 'other guys' wages? Clearly some positions are more demanding/vital than others, apples to oranges, if you will, but drawing a line of payment demarcation seems a bit tricky. Comparing a RB1 to a WR2 I can live with, but does the TE want RB2 cash also... does CB get what the Edge guy gets... what a mess, lol. Hopefully reason and leadership and players and GM's/owners can compromise a bit and see the dangers they are entering.

 

On a side note - plumbing sucks! Ive done it for a living and just spent a full 2 hours under the kitchen sink (new faucets/drain work). Everything in this old house falls to pieces when you touch it and my tools are primitive. Somebody please put me out of my misery.

Id hire it done, but todays plumbers want QB1 money just to walk in the front door! 'F' that!

 

Here's one for @Torgo

 

I know the feeling. I'm a retired welder with old equipment. My 110 volt mig welder is over 15 Y/O. My portable rod welder was made in the 80's. (10 HP Briggs & Straton engine and a Chevy car alternator with a bunch of wires connected to everything) There's no way I'm paying some guy $150.00 to knock on my front door. My wife has horses, and they can break anything. Just shoot me now!!

 

It should be based on value, nothing to do with positions.

If a RB2 is consistently getting 1,000 yards and 10 TDs, pay him… if a WR2 is getting 709 yards and 3 TDs, don’t pay them more than the player that’s rushing for 1300 yards and 12 TDs.

TEs are the same, depends on production, not position.

 

I like your answer, couldnt agree more. Its commonsensicle. <---new word alert