Originally Posted by Mecca:
I have already seen people saying the NFL needs to fix this or they are gonna have a future problem where no one wants to play RB because they know they don't get paid, so top athletes coming up from high school will avoid that position.
Originally Posted by wazu:
Yeah, the whining on social media by the poor RBs has been pretty insufferable this week. Poor, downtrodden millionaire athletes being checked by the laws of supply and demand. Very sad.
Why would someone downvote this. He's absolutely right [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
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.
Yep. His production didn't match his salary and the Bengals were (surprisingly) smart enough to see this and actually act. This is the first time in their history that they've successfully restructured a contract. There's been talk before but each time, the player declined and was cut. He'll still be the primary runner but they're shifting to more of a RBBC.
For anyone interested, here's an article about the possible ripple effects of this contract restructure.
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]
