NFL - NEWS & NOTES

"Almost" falls between 83% and 77% of consecutive tags, depending on whether he matches the incentives.

We are arguing semantics at this point.


The real argument is whether he should have signed a contract he felt was injust? I applaud him for not signing it. It is only "dumb" if at the end of 2025, he has made less than $39M or has a career ending injury in 2023. If these two things are void, then he made the right choice. For all we know, these two RBs could ultimately change the way RBs are compensated, that's a far reach at this point, but has there ever been a position group meeting in the history of the NFL? There may have been, but I genuinely have never heard of one....

 

Which is what he attempting to do, rather than sign a contract he doesn't agree with....

 

I agree 100%, this isn't about player vs owner, it's an individual player that decided not to sign a contract he didn't agree with.

Once again in 100% agreement

Depends on how deep the "movement" gets.

Le'Veon Bell was a lone man standing that year and he never recovered from it. This time around, there were two voices, one of which called together the collective to start a process of change... doesn't mean a change will happen, but the process was started.

 

The numbers are too far off to effectively ask me what would I agree with, which is why I put out the actual situation.

 

The entire franchise tag amount is still guaranteed, the difference is.. He received $2M of that guaranteed money NOW, instead of split amongst 17 game checks AND he got an opportunity to add another $900k+ at the end of the season.

 

Change how? Or, maybe better, change what?

It's an open marketplace. They can't force owners to give them what they want.

So long as the market is running in the direction it currently is, rushers are going to be devalued and remain at the current, or a potentially lower rate for several years.

 

It isn't a genuine open market place, It can be collectively bargained, but then they would have to give something up in it's place. Other position groups aren't going to be willing to give that up. Now, they could bargain to set aside a portion of the salary cap and add additional funds to it in order to compensate based on production rather than speculation. That has been talked about in the media, but probably unrealistic.

In the end, the RBs as a whole could organize a sit down strike. What do you think might happen if the entire position group gets injured on consecutive plays during any given week of play?

 

I'll give you the percentage breakdown, but the point remains that he gave up more in the way of guaranteed money, so my original take on it stands - In the event of career trajectory changing injury, he's worse off with this deal than he would have been taking the Giants' offer.

Again, I'm not arguing your opinion, but the fact remains that he signed a deal for not only less than what he was asking, but less than he was offered, with no future guarantee of anything.

I understand your point on the potential of what could happen, but that's an 'if' that no one knows.

He could just as easily get a worse offer than this most recent one if things don't break his or the Giants way in 2023.

More power to them, but they can't change basic math to work in their favor.

There are 'X' amount of dollars to spend each season. A sensible GM is not going to invest heavily in a running back if he is comfortable with his ability to replace him in the future.

In this specific circumstance, as I said from the beginning - I would have transition tagged Daniel Jones and gave Barkley a deal in the $15mil range for 3 to 4 seasons to be the constant while I continued evaluating the quarterback position.

 

If they strike as a position group, they will be replaced as a position group, IMO.

 

It's an open marketplace in the sense that the players value is determined by what a team is willing to spend for that player.

Why would any player give up money for another player just because the position balance is disagreeable for some?

I can't see a sound reason for that to be a part of the disucssion.

 

I wouldn't argue the position is devalued, in the same sense that the TE group is devalued.

My argument has always been that the league's devaluation is out of place. Everyone's(I'm not exaggerating) argument is that the RB position is part of a larger collective, utilizing a committee to be effective... That's exactly what the WR group has done for decades.

There were 22 1,000 yard receivers in 2022
There were 16 1,000 yard RBs in 2022

The average pay for a RB in the NFL is $1,794,000
The average pay for a WR in the NFL is $2,280,000

In my opinion, it's misplaced.

 

Then you would be sending boys in to play against men... You can't erase a position group and replace them when the rest of the league is in the top 1% of athletes in the world

 

Once again, I agree.. that wasn't what was said, it was said to set aside the money WHILE ADDING TO IT in order to pay them for production. That was the idea being thrown around. I don't see how it would ever work, but it has been talked about.

Other things could be bargained for, like how the use of the franchise tag is used for certain position groups, it doesn't have to be a RB only discussion. It could also benefit groups like the TE, G and even K for the undervalue of the franchise tag.

 

Which is fair, but I think you are basing that criterion solely on performance rather than dollars and cents, which is where my opinion derives from.

 

You can if you're ownership and you decide you are not going to give in.

And no, there is no possible way that every running back that would be available to play would agree not to. There are guys that have worked hard and tried to break through their entire life, along with countless vets that never got what they considered a fair shot that would jump at the chance to scab in and take reps.

 

This is something that would have to be done in the next CBA, but I have serious doubts that the majority of the players would vote to make significant pay structure changes that the owners would ultimately find ways to recoup through other means.

Until the market resets itself for running backs, what we are seeing now will be the standard, IMO.

 

No doubt.. Owners have made that clear.

I don't think the pay structure will change, too many moving parts. But to negotiate how the franchise tag is used could be explored.

This market is what it is because of the ease of the franchise tag on the clubs. Take it out of the equation and I think the market for these backs would be more significant than others believe.

Big difference between a Josh Jacobs, Saquon Barkley and Tony Pollard in their prime and aging(over used, something you can relate to Tim) backs like Zeke Elliot, Leonard Fournette and even Kareem Hunt.

The only one that surprises me and you could use as a bullet to your argument would be Dalvin Cook. I am surprised he hasn't received a good offer.

 

Rumor is that he may have a suspension of some form coming down the pipeline...

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure how much it would affect things in the whole.

The Giants used it here as a backstop to keep him from hitting the market, but Saquon obviously didn't want to go.

If he did leave the Giants, how many teams would have been willing to pay the price he was asking? Jacobs was dominant last season and the Raiders basically said they could give a fuck less, which is alarming considering how poor their coaching situation is.

Could Saquon have gotten the money he wanted? Possibly, but Zeke is still unemployed, so what is the real market for an FA RB?

We may have gotten to the point where a team is willing to let a guy like that end up on another roster if the demand at pay is aggressive.

 

This got an audible chuckle.

 

Reading this conversation just makes me laugh at Leveon Bell. Could've done 5yrs and 70mill. I don't know the particulars but with what these RBs are signing for now....well.
I know the market for backs was a bit different in 2018 with guys like Gurley getting paid.
In the end, I think Barkley will regret not taking the money. We'll see.