Amen!

[Cobra Mgr]

First time I've seen any article pointing out how unfair the NFL is to RB's financially.

[pgjocki]

Fair is an interesting word. From an owners perspective and most GM's you should absolutely draft a RB with zero interest or intention of signing them to an extension. They have a short career and the smart teams will never overpay for this position.

The players will never win because their is always a younger player willing to make less money to take the open roster slot.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

The players will never win because their is always a younger player willing to make less money to take the open roster slot.

I don't think its that directly. I think it has more to do with the fact that player's have a wider range of perspective than in other leagues. What concerns Russell WIlson isn't the same as what concerns LaVeon Bell, which isn't what concerns Zach Martin, which what concerns Luke Kuechly, which isn't the same as what concerns a long snapper, which isn't what concerns a placekicker, which isn't what concerns the 6th round rookie hoping to make the kick coverage team.

Some are looking at a 3 year window to make 6 figures before going to the next stage in their life. While an o-lineman can look forward to playing into their late 30's. While a starting QB can expect an 8 figure signing bonus.

So a large percentage of the NFLPA isn't willing to lose a season because they don't have a year to spare. The owners know that and just bide their time knowing any unity will shatter as soon as the first paycheck is missed.

Two other factors....the owners will always have leverage. Because if the NFL never played another game, they would still have income. Because they didn't need the NFL to make money. They had money, then got into the NFL. Whatever made them their billions beforehand is unaffected. So they can always holdout longer until their greed over lost revenue overwhelms their greed for a bigger piece of the players share of the profits.

Also, the news networks are in cahoots with the owners. They willingly enter contracts made to castrate the NFLPA for fear of losing their seat at the NFL broadcast table. And they spin news about labor disputes in the owner's favor. This causes the union to lose the PR battle. And the rank and file who haven't kept up with the minutia of labor talks push the panic button.

[Reed]

Sorry, I do not feel sorry for Ezekiel. 16 million dollar signing bonus and 25 million dollars guaranteed. Hey, a novel idea but if you do not like your job, get a different one. I have switched jobs a few times in my life.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Reed

Sorry, I do not feel sorry for Ezekiel. 16 million dollar signing bonus and 25 million dollars guaranteed. Hey, a novel idea but if you do not like your job, get a different one. I have switched jobs a few times in my life.

It's not about not liking his job. It's about not ever being allowed to make what he's worth. Zeke will give his best years during the time his salary was never truly negotiated and he had zero leverage.

[damientheomen3]

Not sure if the NFLPA has any voice in rule changes and more subtle ways the league can influence the game the way they want (like how situations are officiated), but if they do then they're partially to blame for the state of running backs as things have swung too far in favor of the pass. Teams completed 65% of their passes last season, and I believe ProFootballFocus said that number becomes nearly 67% when factoring out throwaways. Teams averaged 7.4 yards per pass attempt (6.4 per attempt when you factor in sack yardage), against 4.4 yards per rush (without factoring out kneeldowns).

It's becoming less valuable to run the ball, so why pay a running back that can't contribute in the passing game? And I don't mean catching screens and flat routes, which PFF says has less value than short passes to WRs, I mean lining up at receiver and being able to run a diverse route tree, a la Alvin Kamara.

The analytics community has been pushing the narrative all offseason that running backs aren't valuable from a teambuilding standpoint. They point to how much is dependent on factors like the quality of the offensive line and the defensive front on a given play, as well as the fact that the output just isn't as much as for a great passing team. Using Zeke as an example, PFF has consistently rated him in the 20s or 30s among running backs because he runs behind a great run-blocking line and falls forward. He doesn't make guys miss at the rate of other players, and he isn't all that valuable a pass catcher (plus, they seem to way overvalue the negative impact of RB fumbles, at least in my opinion).

It sucks to say it, because running backs take more abuse than all players besides maybe linemen, they depend on really electrifying athleticism and they have a short shelf life. But at the end of the day, when there are 50+ players in the league talented enough to run well behind a good o-line, the value of those individual players drop. The Chargers didn't miss a beat for the four games they had Austin Ekeler and Justin Jackson running for them rather than Melvin Gordon. The Rams' ground game was just as productive with CJ Anderson, who had been released twice in a month, as it was with Todd Gurley. I'd be all for a structure that allows running backs to make more early in their careers than other players in the next CBA, although that might precipitate the issue and result in fewer teams drafting running backs, or result in them going later so the team pays them less/has less guaranteed money to worry about.

[Cobra Mgr]

Less running is not the reason why the current CBA is unfair to RB's.

Let's say you are drafted in the 1st round. You have no say on where you go. You have no say on how long the contract is. You have no say on how much money you get. So you are 21-22, signed for 4 yrs. You play at an all-Pro level those 4 yrs. So now you get to cash in, right?

Wrong.

CBA says the NFL can exercise an option on a 5th year. You have no say so on the matter unless you quit. So you play your 5th year, now you are 25-26, in your prime, & free to shop your talents elsewhere, correct?

Wrong.

Your team can now put the franchise tag on you. Again, no leverage except not playing. Next season, are you finally free?

Nope.

Your team has the right to tag you for a 2nd time. Keep in mind, if you play just on the tag contract, you are risking an injury that will make you damaged goods to any other team. And you have no guarantees beyond that season.

But let's say you stay healthy & still maintain a Pro Bowl level (Even though that is rare for a RB at now 28). Now you can shop your self. Only RB's that are still at the top echelon rarely are above 28. Most GM's will see your decline as imminent. Certainly you aren't going to be worth top dollar past 30, let alone for the length of a 5 year contract. So most likely you're going to have to sign with a team that is looking for a bargain. With a roster cut in your future as soon as they get a hint at a lost step.

A healthy Pro Bowl RB will have handled the ball 2100 times minimum before he is ever able to truly be a free agent and have where he works in the NFL for how much he can get to be in his control. And when that happens, his value will have been minimized with his best monetary value having been sacrificed to a team that gave him the bare minimum they could get away with. That's not fair.

I will never criticize a RB for using every avenue he can to get his worth while he can.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Less running is not the reason why the current CBA is unfair to RB's.

Let's say you are drafted in the 1st round. You have no say on where you go. You have no say on how long the contract is. You have no say on how much money you get. So you are 21-22, signed for 4 yrs. You play at an all-Pro level those 4 yrs. So now you get to cash in, right?

Wrong.

CBA says the NFL can exercise an option on a 5th year. You have no say so on the matter unless you quit. So you play your 5th year, now you are 25-26, in your prime, & free to shop your talents elsewhere, correct?

Wrong.

Your team can now put the franchise tag on you. Again, no leverage except not playing. Next season, are you finally free?

Nope.

Your team has the right to tag you for a 2nd time. Keep in mind, if you play just on the tag contract, you are risking an injury that will make you damaged goods to any other team. And you have no guarantees beyond that season.

But let's say you stay healthy & still maintain a Pro Bowl level (Even though that is rare for a RB at now 28). Now you can shop your self. Only RB's that are still at the top echelon rarely are above 28. Most GM's will see your decline as imminent. Certainly you aren't going to be worth top dollar past 30, let alone for the length of a 5 year contract. So most likely you're going to have to sign with a team that is looking for a bargain. With a roster cut in your future as soon as they get a hint at a lost step.

A healthy Pro Bowl RB will have handled the ball 2100 times minimum before he is ever able to truly be a free agent and have where he works in the NFL for how much he can get to be in his control. And when that happens, his value will have been minimized with his best monetary value having been sacrificed to a team that gave him the bare minimum they could get away with. That's not fair.

I will never criticize a RB for using every avenue he can to get his worth while he can.

I'm fully aware of the process that many teams take with their star running backs nowadays. I was 100% on LeVeon Bell's side in his contract dispute; he led the NFL in touches by a wide margin in 2017 despite missing two games. Clearly Pittsburgh would have run him even more into the ground in 2018 before just discarding him.

My post was more about outlining all the factors that make the 'rookie contract, tag em twice if they're good' path the optimal one for teams rather than teams signing RBs to big extensions like the Rams with Gurley. Also, at the end of my post, I stated I'd be for a different pay structure for rookie RB contracts, but that would probably exacerbate the devaluing of the position most likely if teams would be forced to pay them more than other positions in a similar draft slot.

All things told, I wanna see Zeke get paid. I want the Cowboys to give him $20 million a year, I want Dak to get $35 million a year, and then we can watch as this current Cowboys iteration crumbles into mediocrity as they pay their stars too much and lose out on depth. It'll make me feel just a bit better about my Jets.

[dsvitak]

They signed their contracts, they need to honor their contracts.

Can I help this discussion along in any other way??

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

They signed their contracts, they need to honor their contracts.

Can I help this discussion along in any other way??

Does this apply to both sides or just the players? Because if you want to hold the owners accountable and stop letting them sign a guy to a 5 year $100 million contract only to cut him in year 3 then let's have that discussion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

Does this apply to both sides or just the players? Because if you want to hold the owners accountable and stop letting them sign a guy to a 5 year $100 million contract only to cut him in year 3 then let's have that discussion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Fans who complain about the players never have an answer for that. But for some reason the players are the only ones who ever take any heat for it. Cut day happened this weekend and no one mentioned the 100's of contracts that were cancelled before Sept 1.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It's not about not liking his job. It's about not ever being allowed to make what he's worth. Zeke will give his best years during the time his salary was never truly negotiated and he had zero leverage.

As you probably already know, I'm a huge Cowboys fan. I can tell you right now Zeke has plenty of leverage.

Zeke, unlike most RBs not named Barkley is in a unique situation. He is an elite back and the Cowboys are not going to be in the conversation for Super Bowl come season's end without him. He knows this. Jerry knows this, and that's why he's holding out now.

That said, if Zeke plays out his rookie contract he'll earn about 35 million for 5 years. Not bad for a running back rookie contract. If they franchise tag him twice he'll earn close to 60 million. Again, not bad at all. If they sign him to an extension it's only going to be worth 10-15 million more.

[Ragnar]

Another thing in regards to honoring contracts. No player is forced to sign a contract that does not guarantee every penny of every year. Contracts in the NFL are structured to benefit both sides.

An NFL contract is worth its guaranteed money. Both sides know this at signing. If the NFL were forced to fully guarantee the entire contract then the contract would be smaller and reflect the guaranteed portion only. Because that is really all the team wants to pay the player. If the team feels the player is worth keeping beyond that, they'll keep him. If not, they dump him. That's why I said it benefits both sides. The part about honoring the contract works both ways is crap. Dez signed a contract knowing full well what could happen. He cut himself.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

I
All things told, I wanna see Zeke get paid. I want the Cowboys to give him $20 million a year, I want Dak to get $35 million a year, and then we can watch as this current Cowboys iteration crumbles into mediocrity as they pay their stars too much and lose out on depth. It'll make me feel just a bit better about my Jets.

I'd like to see the Cowboys go about 10 weeks without Elliott. The main reason Elliott is needed so badly is because of Dak. Because if Dak can't win consistently without Elliott, there is no reason to pay him big money.

That said, the Cowboys are going to absolutely destroy the Jets this year. I'm thinking some really big number to some small number, like 41-9 with like 8 sacks.

Has anyone seen Jachai Polite?

[thehef]

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but guaranteed contracts were mentioned, so... We often hear how the NFL is unfair to players because of the lack of guaranteed money compared to the NBA and MLB. But the thing is, guaranteed contracts DO happen in the NFL from time to time (beyond the typical first few years guaranteed). Usually it's with quarterbacks... But if anyone has a problem with the dearth of guaranteed contracts, the issue isn't with the CBA or owners. It's with the players and agents: You want more guaranteed contracts? Start negotiating for them...

Now this of course would likely mean less signing bonus money. But perhaps the problem lies not with the frequency of guaranteed years, but with how the contracts are reported. Take, for example, this made up headline:

"Smith Signs 6-Year, $110 Million Deal With Miami"

The deal will be reported as Smith making $15m each year, with a $20m signing bonus... and only the first two years guaranteed. How it actually should be reported is that Smith signed a two-year, $30m deal that included a $15m signing bonus (and thus is actually making $22.5m per year), and that the team holds options for years 3-thru-6.

Not a bad deal, but relatively short-term, with the team holding all the cards after the first two years. If Smith later doesn't like the deal, he shouldn't have signed it. If he'd've preferred a longer guarantee, he should've negotiated it (perhaps giving up some up-front money for longer-term security).

I don't blame owners one bit for guaranteeing as little money as possible. If a player doesn't like a deal that he signed, he has the recourse of holding out, i.e., not honoring the contract he signed. However, if an owner doesn't like a deal he signed (how many times do we see a player in one sport or another excel in his "contract year" and then coast once he gets his money?), the owner has very little recourse. The owner's version of holding out would be to cut or sideline a player and then refuse to pay a player according to the terms of his contract. And that just doesn't happen.

IOW, a player says, "I'm worth more than the deal I signed so I will hold out." But an owner can't say, "You're worth less than the deal I signed so I won't pay you." Owners are stuck with the bad contracts they sign. Players are not.

[Reed]

How often does a player offer to renegotiate a contract for lower pay after a poor year. Here’s looking at you Albert Pujols. The owners and players at the major league levels of the major sports are all making plenty of money. If you want to look at a lack of leverage, look at baseball and the other sports prior to Curt Flood.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

As you probably already know, I'm a huge Cowboys fan. I can tell you right now Zeke has plenty of leverage.

Zeke, unlike most RBs not named Barkley is in a unique situation. He is an elite back and the Cowboys are not going to be in the conversation for Super Bowl come season's end without him. He knows this. Jerry knows this, and that's why he's holding out now.

That said, if Zeke plays out his rookie contract he'll earn about 35 million for 5 years. Not bad for a running back rookie contract. If they franchise tag him twice he'll earn close to 60 million. Again, not bad at all. If they sign him to an extension it's only going to be worth 10-15 million more.

That's not much leverage. That's perceived leverage. Zeke's option is to play for something or sit for nothing. He is hoping JJ makes the choice to give him a raise & extension. But Zeke can't shop himself anywhere. He can't force JJ's hand. All Elliot did was serve into JJ's end of the court. It is up to JJ whether to play the match or not.

Any person that tells me they would be ok w/being forced to take a smaller amount even though they knew they could get more is lying to me.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Another thing in regards to honoring contracts. No player is forced to sign a contract that does not guarantee every penny of every year. Contracts in the NFL are structured to benefit both sides.

An NFL contract is worth its guaranteed money. Both sides know this at signing. If the NFL were forced to fully guarantee the entire contract then the contract would be smaller and reflect the guaranteed portion only. Because that is really all the team wants to pay the player. If the team feels the player is worth keeping beyond that, they'll keep him. If not, they dump him. That's why I said it benefits both sides. The part about honoring the contract works both ways is crap. Dez signed a contract knowing full well what could happen. He cut himself.

They aren't forced. They can sign those contracts or they can go work in a cubicle.

Somehow, the other major leagues can operate under truly fully guaranteed contracts but the NFL finds it too hard. And a good percentage of the public are gullible enough to fall for that. Or lack the empathy to recognize it as bull.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by thehef

Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but guaranteed contracts were mentioned, so........

Your whole scenario encompasses the free agent. It does not address the rookie. Elliot & Gordon are in a contracts they couldn't negotiate. Their draft slot dictated their salary. The CBA dictated their initial length. The team dictates whether it is 4 years or 7. Amount or longevity has never been in their hands.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That's not much leverage. That's perceived leverage. Zeke's option is to play for something or sit for nothing. He is hoping JJ makes the choice to give him a raise & extension. But Zeke can't shop himself anywhere. He can't force JJ's hand. All Elliot did was serve into JJ's end of the court. It is up to JJ whether to play the match or not.

Any person that tells me they would be ok w/being forced to take a smaller amount even though they knew they could get more is lying to me.

If things swing too far the other way you have situations like in the NBA where superstars can hold franchises hostage because they want to leave or only go somewhere specific. While I'll always be on the players' side in those disputes, I'd hate to see the NFL reach that level on a wide scale.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I'd like to see the Cowboys go about 10 weeks without Elliott. The main reason Elliott is needed so badly is because of Dak. Because if Dak can't win consistently without Elliott, there is no reason to pay him big money.

That said, the Cowboys are going to absolutely destroy the Jets this year. I'm thinking some really big number to some small number, like 41-9 with like 8 sacks.

Has anyone seen Jachai Polite?

Jachai Polite would be on Seattle's practice squad right about now.


The Cowboys may very well dominate the Jets' offensive line. They'll have back the many defensive linemen that are suspended by the game, after all.