Originally Posted by O.city:
Absolutely, but atleast with those guys there's a chance to get some value for your money.
Chubb’s doing OK on his second contract.
Funny that the Brownies were smart enough to opt for a 3-year deal for Chubb then turned around and gave Watson that abomination of a contract. [Reply]
Details: — Joe Mixon took a $4.39M pay cut this year and a $4.67M pay cut next year. — The 2023 base is $5.51M and he can make an extra $2M per year in incentives. — This opens up the possibility of him sticking around next year, too. https://t.co/FUHy7Zpw6h
Details: — Joe Mixon took a $4.39M pay cut this year and a $4.67M pay cut next year. — The 2023 base is $5.51M and he can make an extra $2M per year in incentives. — This opens up the possibility of him sticking around next year, too. https://t.co/FUHy7Zpw6h
Was glad to see this. Seems like he's lost a step or two, so not great for the Bengals, but I do still need him to grind out some production for my dynasty team. [Reply]
The running back "problem" is essentially that not one of them is worth a second contract.
The worst thing you could do if you were the NFL is to give players at that position special treatment. Then you end up with Middle LBs and long snappers bitching. RB's are still drafted high, at hell teams are franchising the good ones, but they just don't have the durability to get the 2nd Contract money. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
The running back "problem" is essentially that not one of them is worth a second contract.
The worst thing you could do if you were the NFL is to give players at that position special treatment. Then you end up with Middle LBs and long snappers bitching. RB's are still drafted high, at hell teams are franchising the good ones, but they just don't have the durability to get the 2nd Contract money.
Counterpoint: they play a position that is invaluable to the game of football and we want talented athletes to continue to play it in the HS and college ranks. It’s not like a ****ing fullback. And who gives a shit what kickers, punters, and long snappers (the only lower paid tags by position) think.
They got hosed in the 2011 change to rookie contracts.
NFLPA should push to exempt RBs from franchise tags. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hoover:
The running back "problem" is essentially that not one of them is worth a second contract.
The worst thing you could do if you were the NFL is to give players at that position special treatment. Then you end up with Middle LBs and long snappers bitching. RB's are still drafted high, at hell teams are franchising the good ones, but they just don't have the durability to get the 2nd Contract money.
The difference is RBs suffer wear and tear that is specific to their position and largely dependent upon the team's playcalling.
Teams are incentivized to chew RBs up and spit them out through overuse and that's not true with middle LBs and long snappers.
I think there's a real fairness-based case to be made in terms of exempting them from the franchise tag and I'd be in favor of it. That said, I doubt it'll ever develop traction. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The difference is RBs suffer wear and tear that is specific to their position and largely dependent upon the team's playcalling.
Teams are incentivized to chew RBs up and spit them out through overuse and that's not true with middle LBs and long snappers.
I think there's a real fairness-based case to be made in terms of exempting them from the franchise tag and I'd be in favor of it. That said, I doubt it'll ever develop traction.
It seems to me that RBs should be wanting the franchise tag at this point. 1 year, $10M guaranteed? The best non-franchise player RB contract handed out this year was for Miles Sanders and it was like 4 years for $25M, $13M guaranteed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
It seems to me that RBs should be wanting the franchise tag at this point. 1 year, $10M guaranteed? The best non-franchise player RB contract handed out this year was for Miles Sanders and it was like 4 years for $25M, $13M guaranteed.
But that’s largely because the best RBs were the ones who were tagged and thus didn’t get to hit the open market.
The gap between Saquon and Sanders is huge. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
But that’s largely because the best RBs were the ones who were tagged and thus didn’t get to hit the open market.
The gap between Saquon and Sanders is huge.
Guess we'll see. They are the same age. Sanders YPC is 5.0. Saquon's is 4.5. They are both outstanding receiving threats although Sanders wasn't used that way the last few years in the Eagle offense. Sanders was over 1200 yards on the ground last year, Saquon 1300.
I think perception is Saquon is better and I tend to agree, but how much more is a team going to pay him when they can get Miles Sanders for the deal they got him on? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The difference is RBs suffer wear and tear that is specific to their position and largely dependent upon the team's playcalling.
Teams are incentivized to chew RBs up and spit them out through overuse and that's not true with middle LBs and long snappers.
I think there's a real fairness-based case to be made in terms of exempting them from the franchise tag and I'd be in favor of it. That said, I doubt it'll ever develop traction.
You'd have to throw it in there that their rookie contract is higher to make it matter, since most are worn out by the end of that contract. [Reply]