How to Fix the RB Compensation Issue

[dieterbrock]

For one year.
We know that's not what a fair contract looks like for what Saquon produces and what he meant to wins and losses on that team.
RBs have shorter careers for a reason and now, their pay is being pushed down by artificial pressures (the salary cap and franchise number).
I don't know.. maybe you just remove the franchise tag for the RB position and see what that does to the pay.

Not sure I understand? The franchise tag ensures that he'll be paid among the top at the position, fully guaranteed. Without that, RB salaries would likely decrease!
Its unfortunate but some positions, long snapper, kicker, punter etc dont make much comparably either
You see teams winning with stables of RB's making less than what Saquon will earn.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Not sure I understand? The franchise tag ensures that he'll be paid among the top at the position, fully guaranteed. Without that, RB salaries would likely decrease!
Its unfortunate but some positions, long snapper, kicker, punter etc dont make much comparably either
You see teams winning with stables of RB's making less than what Saquon will earn.

chicken or the egg?

the teams are using the franchise tag to keep their rb at a price lower than they would be worth if they hit the market. these elite rbs would be making much more if they were a free agent the opening day of free agency. it's always the case. crazy money flying around at that time.

.

 

[dieterbrock]

chicken or the egg?

the teams are using the franchise tag to keep their rb at a price lower than they would be worth if they hit the market. these elite rbs would be making much more if they were a free agent the opening day of free agency. it's always the case. crazy money flying around at that time.

.

They get paid an average of the top 5 salaries, just like everyone else. Not sure I understand how franchise tagging an RB is any different than a QB? Same rules.
RB's have essentially been devaluing themselves

View: https://twitter.com/Marcus_Mosher/status/1493067757138628609?s=20

 

[Kupped]

Not sure I understand? The franchise tag ensures that he'll be paid among the top at the position, fully guaranteed. Without that, RB salaries would likely decrease!
Its unfortunate but some positions, long snapper, kicker, punter etc dont make much comparably either
You see teams winning with stables of RB's making less than what Saquon will earn.

No.. he would get more. Teams would be able to bid and not worry about compensation.
Without that tag.. one of those backs would’ve done better on a truly open market.

 

[dieterbrock]

No.. he would get more. Teams would be able to bid and not worry about compensation.
Without that tag.. one of those backs would’ve done better on a truly open market.

And what makes the RB position any different from any other position? Same rules, avg of top 5 salaries. What you are saying applies to anyone who's tagged, at any position

 

[Kupped]

And what makes the RB position any different from any other position? Same rules, avg of top 5 salaries. What you are saying applies to anyone who's tagged, at any position?

I think the biggest thing is the expected sharp dropoff on performance on the second contract.
The beating RBs take a different toll on performance than what other positions go through.
You’re not going to pay top dollar and give up big draft compensation for a RB.
It’s a different bet with other positions.

 

[Allen2McVay]

chicken or the egg?

Chicken! it was definitely the chicken.

 

[dieterbrock]

I think the biggest thing is the expected sharp dropoff on performance on the second contract.
The beating RBs take a different toll on performance than what other positions go through.
You’re not going to pay top dollar and give up big draft compensation for a RB.
It’s a different bet with other positions.

History says that isnt true though. The last 5 RB's to receive the tag (prior to this year)
Derrick Henry- received long term deal
LeVeon Bell- sat out year on 2nd tag, did receive long term deal after
Matt Forte- received long term deal
Ray Rice- received long term deal
Darren Sproles- played under tag, then got RFA deal (different rules then I guess) then signed a long term deal

So no doubt there is a cliff RB's seem to fall off when they hit 30, but the tag surely hadnt hindered guys from getting that big 2nd contract

 

[Kupped]

History says that isnt true though. The last 5 RB's to receive the tag (prior to this year)
Derrick Henry- received long term deal
LeVeon Bell- sat out year on 2nd tag, did receive long term deal after
Matt Forte- received long term deal
Ray Rice- received long term deal
Darren Sproles- played under tag, then got RFA deal (different rules then I guess) then signed a long term deal

So no doubt there is a cliff RB's seem to fall off when they hit 30, but the tag surely hadnt hindered guys from getting that big 2nd contract

I'm talking about outside competition for running backs who have been hit with the tag.

If you removed the tag and the 5th year option on first rounders for the RB position, you'd see contracts go up, imo.
The position still has a actual value.

If you were bringing in a rookie QB and didn't have a decent RB, why wouldn't you throw a 2 year, $15 million dollar contract at a player like Saquon or Jacobs going into their 5th year? It would be a huge value.

 

[dieterbrock]

I'm talking about outside competition for running backs who have been hit with the tag.

If you removed the tag and the 5th year option on first rounders for the RB position, you'd see contracts go up, imo.
The position still has a actual value.

If you were bringing in a rookie QB and didn't have a decent RB, why wouldn't you throw a 2 year, $15 million dollar contract at a player like Saquon or Jacobs going into their 5th year? It would be a huge value.

The last 5 had open competition or the player chose to stay put. RB's on tags have the same situation as any other position. They were tagged and they were able to sign long term deals.
RB's shouldnt have any rules specific to them, that doesnt make sense. Josh Jacobs has an offer from the Raiders that pays him top 5 RB money, but he wants more. So just like a player in any other position, he can play on the tag year and be a UFA next year
In any event, Jacobs 5th year option was declined, and Pollard wasnt a 1st round pick so neither of them when "benefit" from your proposal
There are no victims here, they are well paid for what they do, and there are many examples of RB's who have played well in to their 30's thus having future income opportunity.
The franchise tag rules may or may not be fair, but in that it at least consistent among all positions

 

[dieterbrock]

Prior to this season, the last 9 years saw only 3 RB's receive the franchise tag, so its not like there's some sort of history here. Heck there were even more kickers tagged than RB. That leaves a lot of players available to test the free agent market AND establish a baseline pay that this years tag values are based on.
Jacobs was a bit of a malcontent who coming off consecutive down years, had his 5th year option decline by the Raiders. Now he's a FA and is turning down top 5 money on a long term deal, doesnt sound like a victim to me.
Pollard? Dude can triple his career earnings with his tag value, and is coming off a nasty ankle injury that may not have him ready for the season. Cant say he's a victim
Barkley? I thought the dude was washed up as he didnt look to be the same player up until last year. I can understand the reluctance of the team to sign him long term, but he also has to see Daniel Jones sign a ludicrous deal. It's not an RB pay issue, its a ridiculous QB pay issue

 

[Kupped]

The last 5 had open competition or the player chose to stay put. RB's on tags have the same situation as any other position. They were tagged and they were able to sign long term deals.
RB's shouldnt have any rules specific to them, that doesnt make sense. Josh Jacobs has an offer from the Raiders that pays him top 5 RB money, but he wants more. So just like a player in any other position, he can play on the tag year and be a UFA next year
In any event, Jacobs 5th year option was declined, and Pollard wasnt a 1st round pick so neither of them when "benefit" from your proposal
There are no victims here, they are well paid for what they do, and there are many examples of RB's who have played well in to their 30's thus having future income opportunity.
The franchise tag rules may or may not be fair, but in that it at least consistent among all positions

I guess I'm not making my point well.
The franchise mechanism discourages outside competition and the specific compensation for signing someone on a franchise tag would really discourage someone from going after a top RB because of their expected career length.

Here's what I mean.. If you see a premium QB, Corner, Edge or LT on a non-exclusive franchise tag... you might consider throwing a bunch of money at him AND paying the draft compensation.. because it's so hard to get those types of players... AND because you can expect them to perform at a premium level for the duration of that second contract.

You just can't have that same expectation with RBs... so, there's no real threat from the outside, thus no upward market pressure.
After a few years of this.. the RB top 5 number has been driven down, because we know it's unwise to sign a RB to a massive 4 or 5 year second contract.

It's the RB lifespan and its relation to the cap and franchise tag that's driving their prices so far down, imo, not their actual value on the playing field.

No other position faces the same kind of dynamic.

The better you are as an RB, the shorter your career is likely to be, relative to other positions.

That's why I think they should be treated differently .. because the nature of their position and career duration is different.

And removing the franchise tag from the position and allowing them to be UDFAs after 4 years would adjust the market upward for them. At least that's what I think.

 

[dieterbrock]

It's the RB lifespan and its relation to the cap and franchise tag that's driving their prices so far down, imo, not their actual value on the playing field.

No other position faces the same kind of dynamic.

Sorry but this is just not true. As stated previously, the RB position is very rarely franchised tagged, significantly less than other positions. Only 3 RB in 9 seasons were tagged, thus a littany of RB were available to test the free agent market and set the market value.

And removing the franchise tag from the position and allowing them to be UDFAs after 4 years would adjust the market upward for them. At least that's what I think.

There's just no basis to this. As also stated, 2 of the 3 RB tagged this year are FA after 4 years.
Sorry but there is nothing that substantiates your opinion, conversely the recent history refutes that.

 

[Kupped]

Sorry but this is just not true. As stated previously, the RB position is very rarely franchised tagged, significantly less than other positions. Only 3 RB in 9 seasons were tagged, thus a littany of RB were available to test the free agent market and set the market value.

There's just no basis to this. As also stated, 2 of the 3 RB tagged this year are FA after 4 years.
Sorry but there is nothing that substantiates your opinion, conversely the recent history refutes that.

You say it's not true but do not address the lifespan of RBs issue. I think it's a factor in the 2nd contract market.

They are not truly "FAs" because they are under the tag, so there's not any real competition for their services.

There are definitely fewer "difference making" RBs out there, and that's brought down the Franchise value as well.

 

[dieterbrock]

You say it's not true but do not address the lifespan of RBs issue. I think it's a factor in the 2nd contract market.

They are not truly "FAs" because they are under the tag, so there's not any real competition for their services.

There are definitely fewer "difference making" RBs out there, and that's brought down the Franchise value as well.

You keep repeating false statements
Only 2 running backs received the franchise tag in the last 5 years, and both signed monster deals that paid them highest at their position.
This whole tag bias on running backs just doesn’t exist. It’s a fallacy.
Only 2 guys in last 5 years which means the majority of the value of the current cap value is based on running back contracts who WERENT tagged.
So I’m speaking in fact that doesn’t line up with your opinion
There isn’t an issue. The cap works the same for all positions.
Id like to see an example using real facts to illustrate your opinion.
Id personally like to see the franchise tag process changed but not for a specific position, for all eligible.

 

[Merlin]

chicken or the egg?

Eggs were undoubtedly around before chickens.

More "Silly questions from Australia" for $500 Alex!

 

[Kupped]

You keep repeating false statements
Only 2 running backs received the franchise tag in the last 5 years, and both signed monster deals that paid them highest at their position.
This whole tag bias on running backs just doesn’t exist. It’s a fallacy.
Only 2 guys in last 5 years which means the majority of the value of the current cap value is based on running back contracts who WERENT tagged.
So I’m speaking in fact that doesn’t line up with your opinion
There isn’t an issue. The cap works the same for all positions.
Id like to see an example using real facts to illustrate your opinion.
Id personally like to see the franchise tag process changed but not for a specific position, for all eligible.

I can't give you an illustration of how it does work because we currently have the system we have. It's impossible for me to give you an example of it working, because the market created by the cap and franchise tag is what we're working with.

I also pointed out another reason the tag value is low.. we're just not seeing as many elite backs today.. so that top tier isn't deep enough with elite contracts to bring the value up. I bolded your part with that because I'm agreeing with that being a factor with the low franchise number.

Anyway, I get it, you disagree and think I'm factually wrong. Okay.

I just don't see it the same way.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Only 2 running backs received the franchise tag in the last 5 years, and both signed monster deals that paid them highest at their position.

But 3 were tagged this year. It's unusual. And we know these players won't be getting monster deals.

Pollard is easy to understand and he got a good deal.

Barkley and Jacobs were cynical money cutting measures that screwed both players.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you actually do it.

Then you mix in that fucktard isray alienating his best player on the team. These owners are fucked in the head.

.

 

[dieterbrock]

But 3 were tagged this year. It's unusual. And we know these players won't be getting monster deals.

Pollard is easy to understand and he got a good deal.

Barkley and Jacobs were cynical money cutting measures that screwed both players.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you actually do it.

Then you mix in that fucktard isray alienating his best player on the team. These owners are fucked in the head.

.

That's the rub, this year is so far the exception and not the rule.
I agree that Barkley got screwed, but not Jacobs. He mailed it in in 2021 so they declined his 5th year option, by tagging him it's essentially getting the 5th year option back
So while Barkley gets the short end of the stick because his team is paying the QB 45 mill, I imagine the other 2 RB's who were 1st round picks would gladly change places with him. Both Rashad Penny and Sony Michel are playing for league minimum while Barkley has to survive on a paltry 11 mill...
Meanwhile, Nick Chubb who was drafted in the 2nd round that year was able to sign a pretty hefty extension, somewhat quietly in fact.
There's a disparity in pay among RB's, no doubt about that, but it's surely not due to franchise tags, 5th year options or owners who dont want to pay.
Its simple economics, the salary cap is the pie and the RB position's slice is worth sacrificing in order to make sure the QB's slice is as large as it can be

 

[nighttrain]

Eggs were undoubtedly around before chickens.

More "Silly questions from Australia" for $500 Alex!

Naw, GOD made chickens, man and everything, then the dumb fool gave men free will, ouch.
train