2023 NFL Off season News

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I think if one position group went on strike, it would cause a serious disruption in the league's season. That's leverage.

They have almost no leverage.

The Chiefs won the SB with a 7th round pick as their lead rusher.

The Rams before got almost nothing from Cam Akers.

If they broke away, there would be lots of late round picks and UFAs ready to step in and play.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

They have almost no leverage.

The Chiefs won the SB with a 7th round pick as their lead rusher.

The Rams before got almost nothing from Cam Akers.

If they broke away, there would be lots of late round picks and UFAs ready to step in and play.

All you are describing is scabs & the result on the game would be the same as when there were scab refs & the replacement players in 87. The XFL quality play wouldn't be sustainable for a whole season & owners would be forced to negotiate.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

All you are describing is scabs & the result on the game would be the same as when there were scab refs & the replacement players in 87. The XFL quality play wouldn't be sustainable for a whole season & owners would be forced to negotiate.

The last two SB winners have used 'scabs'

The three players in question play for teams who went 9-7-1 (Barkley) 6-11 (Jacobs) and 12-5 and lost in the divisional game (Pollard)
And Zeke Elliot is currently 27 and cannot find work.


The position is simply not as relevant in modern offenses and teams and cobble together backfields from scraps and late round picks and UFAs.

We will see if Atlanta is mildly stupid or really stupid for taking Robinson so high.

[Marinersfan51]

The reason RBs are in a bad spot and would need their own union is the same reason it wouldn't work. They are mostly replaceable. If running backs were to strike separate from the rest of the union they would either replace them with UDFAs that were comfortable with being scabs or just line receivers up in the backfield. Deebo Samuel wouldn't be part of the RB union, would he quit carrying the ball? Would Lamar Jackson quit rushing in solidarity for a splinter union?

Teams quit paying running backs because they figured out how to get 90% of the production out of cheap, replaceable, interchangeable backs. If the current RBs went on strike, the owners would just toss them out and move on. Of the top 10 rushers from 2017, none of them currently have an NFL contract, of the top 30 Derrick Henry and Alvin Kamara are the only ones under contract. Why would the owners even bother to negotiate with a group that will be irrelevant to them by 2028?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

The last two SB winners have used 'scabs'

The three players in question play for teams who went 9-7-1 (Barkley) 6-11 (Jacobs) and 12-5 and lost in the divisional game (Pollard)
And Zeke Elliot is currently 27 and cannot find work.


The position is simply not as relevant in modern offenses and teams and cobble together backfields from scraps and late round picks and UFAs.

We will see if Atlanta is mildly stupid or really stupid for taking Robinson so high.

They were union players. Not scabs

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

The reason RBs are in a bad spot and would need their own union is the same reason it wouldn't work. They are mostly replaceable. If running backs were to strike separate from the rest of the union they would either replace them with UDFAs that were comfortable with being scabs or just line receivers up in the backfield. Deebo Samuel wouldn't be part of the RB union, would he quit carrying the ball? Would Lamar Jackson quit rushing in solidarity for a splinter union?

Teams quit paying running backs because they figured out how to get 90% of the production out of cheap, replaceable, interchangeable backs. If the current RBs went on strike, the owners would just toss them out and move on. Of the top 10 rushers from 2017, none of them currently have an NFL contract, of the top 30 Derrick Henry and Alvin Kamara are the only ones under contract. Why would the owners even bother to negotiate with a group that will be irrelevant to them by 2028?

You think the NFL would look just the same if the top 130 rb's were suddenly out of the picture?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I've expressed up here before the reasons the NFLPA is impotent. The short version is the needs of the membership are too diverse. The NFL RB has considerations that don't coincide w/the rank & file. The current union can't get enough of the players to sit out for the needs of just one position. Therefore, the position is better off, IMO, striking out on their own. Yes, there are risks. Getting the union started in the 1st place was a risk. But now the RB's I think need to exit the NFLPA & start out on their own. Their needs are not being met. In fact, More positions ought to start their own factions. Cause being under one umbrella is probably the owners biggest advantage.

That’s nice. Wildcat strikes are considered actionable offenses in the USA. Running backs are not going to be able to decertify and recertify all by themselves, although I’m sure the NFL would help them out all the way on the first half. Breaking up the union because one position is getting the short shrift is a terrible idea.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

The last two SB winners have used 'scabs'

The three players in question play for teams who went 9-7-1 (Barkley) 6-11 (Jacobs) and 12-5 and lost in the divisional game (Pollard)
And Zeke Elliot is currently 27 and cannot find work.


The position is simply not as relevant in modern offenses and teams and cobble together backfields from scraps and late round picks and UFAs.

We will see if Atlanta is mildly stupid or really stupid for taking Robinson so high.

Since when has any team used scabs since the 1980s?

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

You think the NFL would look just the same if the top 130 rb's were suddenly out of the picture?

It wouldn't be the same, but it would be significantly closer than it would be if any other position group was removed. Teams have consistently said they would rather have RB #45 at $2M than RB #10 at $10M.

The handful of recognizable stars like Henry, McCaffrey, and Barkley would be missed, but most of those guys have missed a ton of time over the last few seasons anyways. Teams would look around for the non-union guys who can plug the hole well enough to get by and roll with that. Think about a guy like James Robinson who came out of nowhere as an undrafted player, rushed for 1,000 yards, then tore his ACL and is currently unemployed. He will probably kick around for a couple more years, but he was effectively done by the time he was 24. Or Thomas Rawls who had basically the same arc (he didn't make it to 1,000 yards before he got hurt. There are dozens of quality college running backs that would jump at the chance to play in the NFL even as scabs and probably enough of them could play well enough to break a union pretty quickly.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

That’s nice. Wildcat strikes are considered actionable offenses in the USA. Running backs are not going to be able to decertify and recertify all by themselves, although I’m sure the NFL would help them out all the way on the first half. Breaking up the union because one position is getting the short shrift is a terrible idea.

Really? The NFL would rather negotiate w/one group than multiple ones. Let's not forget what came out of the Snyder report the last week, Gumbel's "leash" comment on Upshaw or the lawsuit about NFL pensions & CTE. The owners & NFLPA aren't always enemies. They have a chummy relationship until their CBA is up for negotiation and the war hawks start flappin' their wings. Imagine if RB's broke off. Then QB's will want to. Then other positions will want something. The owners don't want that. Imagine practicing w/o WR's? Imagine games w/USFL QB's? The last thing the NFL wants is the union breaking into smaller groups.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

It wouldn't be the same, but it would be significantly closer than it would be if any other position group was removed. Teams have consistently said they would rather have RB #45 at $2M than RB #10 at $10M.

The handful of recognizable stars like Henry, McCaffrey, and Barkley would be missed, but most of those guys have missed a ton of time over the last few seasons anyways. Teams would look around for the non-union guys who can plug the hole well enough to get by and roll with that. Think about a guy like James Robinson who came out of nowhere as an undrafted player, rushed for 1,000 yards, then tore his ACL and is currently unemployed. He will probably kick around for a couple more years, but he was effectively done by the time he was 24. Or Thomas Rawls who had basically the same arc (he didn't make it to 1,000 yards before he got hurt. There are dozens of quality college running backs that would jump at the chance to play in the NFL even as scabs and probably enough of them could play well enough to break a union pretty quickly.

Dozens? These dozens who, mind you, never joined the union? When there are 3 to 4 on 32 teams during the regular season? You're forgetting, all the players in camp are part of the NFLPA. So in my hypothetical scenario, not only are the 130 or so who make a roster are in this "RB union", but also the ones who got cut are in it as well. So we are talking scab 6th & 7th stringers, assigned in pass blocking schemes protecting multi million dollar arms vs top notch defenders?

I seriously doubt there are any RB's unable to make a current NFL roster who could smell 1000 yds and allow an NFL offense to function as normal.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Dozens? These dozens who, mind you, never joined the union? When there are 3 to 4 on 32 teams during the regular season? You're forgetting, all the players in camp are part of the NFLPA. So in my hypothetical scenario, not only are the 130 or so who make a roster are in this "RB union", but also the ones who got cut are in it as well. So we are talking scab 6th & 7th stringers, assigned in pass blocking schemes protecting multi million dollar arms vs top notch defenders?

I seriously doubt there are any RB's unable to make a current NFL roster who could smell 1000 yds and allow an NFL offense to function as normal.

Would all of those camp guys who unlikely to make rosters join this new union knowing a strike is imminent? If I'm a UDFA who got a <$10K signing bonus and is getting <$1,000 a week in the preseason with no guarantees of future earnings, then I wouldn't hesitate to cross the picket line for those $40K a week game checks.

Teams would adapt their schemes to the personnel, if they are worried about pass pro, then have a TE line up in the backfield. The league would go on as long as the whole union isn't striking. There are also plenty of guys who were considered essentially replacement players who have turned out to be productive, Raheem Mostert, Jeff Wilson Jr, Arian Foster, and LeGarette Blount were all UDFAs who were cut in some cases several times before they got playing time and were productive.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

Would all of those camp guys who unlikely to make rosters join this new union knowing a strike is imminent? If I'm a UDFA who got a <$10K signing bonus and is getting <$1,000 a week in the preseason with no guarantees of future earnings, then I wouldn't hesitate to cross the picket line for those $40K a week game checks.

Teams would adapt their schemes to the personnel, if they are worried about pass pro, then have a TE line up in the backfield. The league would go on as long as the whole union isn't striking. There are also plenty of guys who were considered essentially replacement players who have turned out to be productive, Raheem Mostert, Jeff Wilson Jr, Arian Foster, and LeGarette Blount were all UDFAs who were cut in some cases several times before they got playing time and were productive.

The only player I ever heard of who never joined the union was LaVarr Arrington. So the likelihood is strong that anyone who steps into a NFL camp would be a union member. Only those without a job would be a potential scab.

And part of the scheme of NFL offenses is to not telegraph whether you are going to run or pass. So TE's in the backfield would be a dead giveaway. That puts QB's more at risk to face pass rushers with their ears pinned back. Not to mention the fact that the 141st best RB, @ best, is lined up in the backfield.

Let's also keep in mind I'm not suggesting the NFL machine would come to a standstill. I'm saying the product will be disrupted. Gameplans will have to be devised w/o the threat of a run game. If they are not sure when the RB';s come back, do you still practice defending the run to keep sharp? How do offenses adjust that use RPO's? D is not going to T off on Jackson or Hurts now that they know the RB isn't a threat? Play action disappear from the playbook?

I'm sorry but I can't see how the RB's wouldn't gain some leverage if they struck out on their own.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Since when has any team used scabs since the 1980s?

I was actually not familiar with the term. I thought it meant something like 'scrub'

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Really? The NFL would rather negotiate w/one group than multiple ones. Let's not forget what came out of the Snyder report the last week, Gumbel's "leash" comment on Upshaw or the lawsuit about NFL pensions & CTE. The owners & NFLPA aren't always enemies. They have a chummy relationship until their CBA is up for negotiation and the war hawks start flappin' their wings. Imagine if RB's broke off. Then QB's will want to. Then other positions will want something. The owners don't want that. Imagine practicing w/o WR's? Imagine games w/USFL QB's? The last thing the NFL wants is the union breaking into smaller groups.

lmfao are you kidding right now? This is pure insanity and this is just plain not something I can talk to you about without violating the politics rule here. I’ll just leave it at that you’re, wrong, insanely wrong on a level where either you simply don’t understand what a skilled workers’ union does or you dislike them in some weirdo FOX News way.

Argue with someone else. I’m done.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I was actually not familiar with the term. I thought it meant something like 'scrub'

It’s very, very much not and to be fair to you, too, you’re not the one who was throwing the term around like candy. My aunt was a schoolteacher and was in a union all her life, my dad was in a union that was busted illegally in the early 80s, and I was recently involved in a sitcom about union workers (we didn’t get picked up but I guess there’s still a chance, although probably not with the way Netflix is trying to starve out the WGA). This anti-union crap is semi-personal to me and I’m not going to have it.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

The only player I ever heard of who never joined the union was LaVarr Arrington. So the likelihood is strong that anyone who steps into a NFL camp would be a union member. Only those without a job would be a potential scab.

If RBs were to leave the NFLPA, then they would be forming their own union and would need everyone on board. I can see why the star backs would want this since they are getting screwed in the current situation, but what is the reason the end of bench or practice squad guys would want it? They aren't in a worse situation then a depth lineman or corner all those guys are on small contracts with little job security. Why wouldn't a fringe RB just want to stay in the NFLPA? Would it just be because they think they could be the next Josh Jacobs and don't want to get burned then?

Union bargaining involves give and take. They probably aren't going to be able to get special higher minimums just for running backs and increase the top of the market pay. Why would the NFLPA be behind this since any gains for the backs would likely come out of the rest of the players shares? The only way I can see this operating anything like you are proposing is if all NFLPA member running backs are forced into this new union and running backs are no longer allowed in the NFLPA. Since the rest of the NFLPA isn't striking, it would sound a whole lot more appealing to a fringe player to just stay in the NFLPA and have a better shot at getting a roster spot and making the $750K minimum than go on strike and risk losing out on your NFL shot and having your career end making nothing.

It sucks for guys like Barkley, Pollard, and Jacobs that the system the NFLPA built works against them, but it is the result of the concessions the stars made with the franchise tag. Quarterbacks could make a whole lot more if they got rid of the franchise tag, but the union decided that they weren't going to fight on that point since it is largely suppressing the players who are already the highest earners and the money is still ultimately going to union members.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

lmfao are you kidding right now? This is pure insanity and this is just plain not something I can talk to you about without violating the politics rule here. I’ll just leave it at that you’re, wrong, insanely wrong on a level where either you simply don’t understand what a skilled workers’ union does or you dislike them in some weirdo FOX News way.

Argue with someone else. I’m done.

Lol. Didn't think I was arguing. Thought we were having an adult discussion. The last thing I am is anti-union. I am very pro worker. And I want the RB's to get a fairer deal. Cause the current one keeps them from cashing in on their marketability when it is at their highest. And I think the NFL owners laugh like Mr Burns every time they get a player to sign a non guaranteed contract.

So yo, you do you m'man. But you don't know me, You obviously don't agree w/me. But you don't know me.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Marinersfan51

If RBs were to leave the NFLPA, then they would be forming their own union and would need everyone on board. I can see why the star backs would want this since they are getting screwed in the current situation, but what is the reason the end of bench or practice squad guys would want it?

This is a valid argument that I have considered. The only retort I would have is you don't know if you don't try. Again, as I have posted before, one of the weakness of the NFLPA is that there is too much a gap between the haves & have nots. So the interests of the stars is not the same of the RB trying to show he is useful on ST. So for that reason, I acknowledge trying to separate might not work.

But I still feel the only way RB's are going to be able to get what they are worth is to strike out on their own. Cause the NFLPA hasn't addressed their situation & the owners certainly aren't seeking to better their situation. The only way to gain leverage is to unionize on their own. RB is the worst position in team sports. You are never in control of your career. Robert Smith was ahead of the curve. I would not let my kid play RB.

[Cobra Mgr]

Viking driving 140 mph for a "dog emergency".