2023 NFL Off season News

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Barkley, Jacobs & Pollard did not sign new contracts & will have to play on their franchise tag offers.

Question: Should RB's break from the NFLPA & form their own separate union?

My view may not be mainstream, but I believe that outside of a VERY few exceptional runners (Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, etc.), that a decent NCAA running back can do well, even be All Pro, behind an excellent front line.

Conversely, a BAD O-line makes it nearly impossible to accrue big numbers for even a very good runner.

So..save your money, beef up the line, and cycle in average to decent RB's. Your team will be better for it.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Barkley, Jacobs & Pollard did not sign new contracts & will have to play on their franchise tag offers.

Question: Should RB's break from the NFLPA & form their own separate union?

The problem the RBs have is not something a union can easily fix. You can't force a team to sign you to a second contract. RBs aren't being wronged. There is no travesty of justice that needs fixing. They're being replaced because their shelf life has or is expiring. Just like any other position when the time comes. For them it's sooner.

Zeke Elliott didn't help matters. Dude played 3 years, got a huge extension and was washed up at age 23. He was not the same player after the extension.

I've heard some ideas on how to help RBs out. But only marginally. Still better than nothing. And their current union can work on that.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

My view may not be mainstream, but I believe that outside of a VERY few exceptional runners (Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, etc.), that a decent NCAA running back can do well, even be All Pro, behind an excellent front line.

Conversely, a BAD O-line makes it nearly impossible to accrue big numbers for even a very good runner.

So..save your money, beef up the line, and cycle in average to decent RB's. Your team will be better for it.

I thought that view was mainstream. You're not doing crap without a decent OL And just about any decent back can get a lot of yards with a good offensive line. I'd say that's the general rule. But sometimes a RB comes around that is much better than the rest, and has a good OL blocking for him. Do you pay?

Side notes.

I thought Barkley had more leverage than the other backs. Especially when you consider that the Giants aren't doing anything without him.

Tony Pollard was quick to sign his tag. He was a 4th round pick. He'll make twice as much this year than he did in all 4 rookie years.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

The problem the RBs have is not something a union can easily fix. You can't force a team to sign you to a second contract. RBs aren't being wronged. There is no travesty of justice that needs fixing. They're being replaced because their shelf life has or is expiring. Just like any other position when the time comes. For them it's sooner.

Zeke Elliott didn't help matters. Dude played 3 years, got a huge extension and was washed up at age 23. He was not the same player after the extension.

I've heard some ideas on how to help RBs out. But only marginally. Still better than nothing. And their current union can work on that.

You don't get the problem. The problem isn't that teams aren't being forced to sign RB's to high contracts. The problem is RB's never have any leverage to try & attain a high contract. A RB essentially never has his NFL employment in his hands. His only choice is to either play or not.

[Cobra Mgr]

Reports Saquon signed a 1 yr contract.

[Cobra Mgr]

Aaron Hernandez's bro, DJ, accused of plotting to shoot up schools.

[Déjà Bru]

Mind you, these are just the ones who have been caught. Is your confidence in the league's integrity feeling a bit shaky yet?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Mind you, these are just the ones who have been caught. Is your confidence in the league's integrity feeling a bit shaky yet?

My belief in the integrity of the NFL was shook after the Seahawks/Steelers SBXL when Hasselbeck got called for an illegal block after throwing an INT.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You don't get the problem. The problem isn't that teams aren't being forced to sign RB's to high contracts. The problem is RB's never have any leverage to try & attain a high contract. A RB essentially never has his NFL employment in his hands. His only choice is to either play or not.

A player's value to the team is their leverage. I guess you're suggesting they take the factory workers route? Pay us more or we'll go on strike. How would that work with all players being paid differently?

Someone suggested they edit the franchise tag. Either just for RBs or just in general. That sounds good, but I don't think that works.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Mind you, these are just the ones who have been caught. Is your confidence in the league's integrity feeling a bit shaky yet?

I'd worry more about the refs than I would the players. They have the means to decide close games. Literally any contact with the QB can be called roughing the passer. There's no standard for that foul anymore.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

A player's value to the team is their leverage.

No they have no leverage because they cannot go elsewhere. The Giants were bidding against themselves for Barkley. And RB's do not have the leverage of time. There wasn't any negotiation.

I guess you're suggesting they take the factory workers route? Pay us more or we'll go on strike. How would that work with all players being paid differently?

I don't know what would work. I know doing nothing will not work. It is like when I figured out my ex-wife had a mental illness & she refused to believe me or get help. Everyone told me it was wrong to confront her. I said well then tell me the right way. And all I got was crickets. So I said don't tell me I'm wrong when you can't tell me how to be right. If any course I take is going to lead to divorce, then let me at least have the satisfaction of knowing I tried to do SOMETHING.

And that is my point about striking & splitting from the NFLPA. It might not be the solution. But I don't see anyone out there stepping up w/a sure fire winner. When it comes to labor negotiations, the owners will always have the upper hand in the NFL. They have time on their side. They have income outside of the NFL. And they have a lack of unity w/in the union. 1800-2000 members are not going to risk their livelihood for the needs of about 125.

So all I can say to star RB's is stop playing for the team & start playing for yourself. Don't play thru the pain. Sit out some practices when you aren't 100%. Don't participate in team promotions. Slide. Run out of bounds. Sit out some drives, Give yourself time to recuperate. Don't play Thursday night unless it is after a bye. Preserve your body longer so that what you are not getting now you can make up for by lasting a couple years extra when you are finally free from the 7 year sentence you serve once your drafted.

If no one wants to stand up for you, why would you stand out for them?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'd worry more about the refs than I would the players. They have the means to decide close games. Literally any contact with the QB can be called roughing the passer. There's no standard for that foul anymore.

True. There are probably all sorts of angles to this yet to be discovered. The root of the problem remains having legalized sports betting in general. It has opened up a Pandora's Box of potential corruption along with the mountains of cash it generates for the leagues.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

No they have no leverage because they cannot go elsewhere. The Giants were bidding against themselves for Barkley. And RB's do not have the leverage of time. There wasn't any negotiation.

I think had Barkley not been injured as much, it would have gone much better. Like with Zeke and Henry.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I don't know what would work. I know doing nothing will not work. It is like when I figured out my ex-wife had a mental illness & she refused to believe me or get help. Everyone told me it was wrong to confront her. I said well then tell me the right way. And all I got was crickets. So I said don't tell me I'm wrong when you can't tell me how to be right. If any course I take is going to lead to divorce, then let me at least have the satisfaction of knowing I tried to do SOMETHING.

And that is my point about striking & splitting from the NFLPA. It might not be the solution. But I don't see anyone out there stepping up w/a sure fire winner. When it comes to labor negotiations, the owners will always have the upper hand in the NFL. They have time on their side. They have income outside of the NFL. And they have a lack of unity w/in the union. 1800-2000 members are not going to risk their livelihood for the needs of about 125.

There are people out there coming up with possible solutions. One I heard was franchise tag +50%. Or something similar to how they edited the 5th year option.

Another idea was changing their rookie contracts to 2 or 3 years with no 5th year option. This one would probably get most of the good RBs a second contract.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I think had Barkley not been injured as much, it would have gone much better. Like with Zeke and Henry.

If he had been healthy they would have said he had too many carries & was due to breakdown.

There are people out there coming up with possible solutions. One I heard was franchise tag +50%. Or something similar to how they edited the 5th year option.

Another idea was changing their rookie contracts to 2 or 3 years with no 5th year option. This one would probably get most of the good RBs a second contract.

Ideas are not solutions. There are a ton of ideas that will "fix" the problem. But what is the impetus for the owners to agree to it? Note: The owners ain't complaining. I haven't heard one owner or the Comiss say it was too bad RB's can't choose where to play & for how much while in the prime of their careers.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

My view may not be mainstream, but I believe that outside of a VERY few exceptional runners (Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, etc.), that a decent NCAA running back can do well, even be All Pro, behind an excellent front line.

Conversely, a BAD O-line makes it nearly impossible to accrue big numbers for even a very good runner.

So..save your money, beef up the line, and cycle in average to decent RB's. Your team will be better for it.

On the analytics side, this is more or less the prevailing logic. PFF has found that 'average' quality run blocking accounts for roughly 3.0 yards per carry before contact, with above average blocking reaching 4+; iirc the average yards after contact for running backs is somewhere from 1.0 to 1.5. So for the most part the offensive line plays a much larger part in a successful run play, and pretty much only Derrick Henry has consistently outproduced what an average run blocking offensive line can get you (iirc Tennessee had one of the worst run blocking lines this past season with around 1.0 ypc before contact, but Henry was once again stellar with over 3.0 ypc after contact himself).

Between that and the fact that so many players have the talent level to give you 'average' RB production I definitely get why teams are hesitant to give the position big money. Still, thinking about things from a more human point of view, it ****ing sucks that the guys who are putting their bodies on the line some of the most are the ones that are getting shafted the most in terms of pay, as well as in terms of the way the league is structured in that most backs are already often no more than 90% of their best by the time they're in position to command bigger money.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Ideas are not solutions. There are a ton of ideas that will "fix" the problem. But what is the impetus for the owners to agree to it? Note: The owners ain't complaining. I haven't heard one owner or the Comiss say it was too bad RB's can't choose where to play & for how much while in the prime of their careers.

The owners weren't asking for the 5th year option to be jacked up either, yet that's what happened. That's how unions work. They ask for something, then give something back in return.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

The owners weren't asking for the 5th year option to be jacked up either, yet that's what happened. That's how unions work. They ask for something, then give something back in return.

That's not how unions work. It is how negotiations work. Which we aren't seeing w/RB's. The 5th yr actually "works". If we could actually call an employee still beholden to the employer after he has finished his contract "working". It just doesn't work for RB's. The position itself is the outlier.

I laughed to day when the Giants signed their LT to more $ than they did Barkley. If that doesn't tell everyone the system is screwing over RB's I don't know what will. It is an outright lie these runners are getting what they are valued at. No, they are getting what owners feel like giving them.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That's not how unions work. It is how negotiations work. Which we aren't seeing w/RB's. The 5th yr actually "works". If we could actually call an employee still beholden to the employer after he has finished his contract "working". It just doesn't work for RB's. The position itself is the outlier.

I laughed to day when the Giants signed their LT to more $ than they did Barkley. If that doesn't tell everyone the system is screwing over RB's I don't know what will. It is an outright lie these runners are getting what they are valued at. No, they are getting what owners feel like giving them.

You just asked, what's in it for the owners? I just told you. They would get something in return.

The NFL is not like my toll collecting job where everyone is paid the same. It's talent based, value to the team based. We have to figure out unique ways to get them more money by making them valuable. IMO A shorter rookie deal would do that. But that's just one idea.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You just asked, what's in it for the owners? I just told you. They would get something in return.

The NFL is not like my toll collecting job where everyone is paid the same. It's talent based, value to the team based. We have to figure out unique ways to get them more money by making them valuable. IMO A shorter rookie deal would do that. But that's just one idea.

There is nothing the rank & file of the union would be willing to give up in order to get the owners to give up the cost certainty they have now w/RB's.

And we don't have to figure out how to make them more valuable. They are already valuable. Barkley's value is not the problem. You are drinking the kool-aid. I have said this repeatedly: The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable.

Do you really think the Giants value their LT more than they do their RB? Do you really think their LT sells more jerseys than their RB? Do you really think the Giants PR Dept gets more interview requests for their LT than their RB? Do you really think Vegas thinks the Giants LT absence will have more affect on the outcome of a Giants game than their RB?

Once more, the problem ain't value. The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable. They feared their LT would be able to eventually leave while still at the top of his game & demand a much bigger number down the road. So they acted. There are no such fears w/runners. Owners have them under their thumb for 7 years. And if they do last that long, they don't worry about the 8th cause they figure they already got more value than what they paid for,

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

There is nothing the rank & file of the union would be willing to give up in order to get the owners to give up the cost certainty they have now w/RB's.

And we don't have to figure out how to make them more valuable. They are already valuable. Barkley's value is not the problem. You are drinking the kool-aid. I have said this repeatedly: The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable.

Do you really think the Giants value their LT more than they do their RB? Do you really think their LT sells more jerseys than their RB? Do you really think the Giants PR Dept gets more interview requests for their LT than their RB? Do you really think Vegas thinks the Giants LT absence will have more affect on the outcome of a Giants game than their RB?

Once more, the problem ain't value. The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable. They feared their LT would be able to eventually leave while still at the top of his game & demand a much bigger number down the road. So they acted. There are no such fears w/runners. Owners have them under their thumb for 7 years. And if they do last that long, they don't worry about the 8th cause they figure they already got more value than what they paid for,

Right, their best years are their rookie contract. Even without the tags, what kind of long term contract are teams giving a 26-27 year old RB? One of the options I mentioned addresses this. Somewhat.