I just want to point out that last offseason, ALLLLL the talk was about how the RB position is de-valued and that the Lions were idiots for paying 6m/year to David Montgomery and drafting Gibbs in the first round. Yet here we are a year later, with the Lions one quarter away from the Super Bowl, and the Vikings, Packers and Bears all signed running backs, all for money more than both Montgomery and Gibbs made. WTF! Where are all those fans telling us how stupid that strategy was now?
2 Likes
In fairness, this could very well be a one-year spike due to 1) the significantly raised salary cap, 2) the dearth of quality options in the draft (honestly, worst draft since 2014), and 3) an unusually talented FA class. This has happened before.
That doesn’t take away from what Brad did of course, especially if he saw it coming (and I think he did to an extent, though he couldn’t have known the cap would go up so much). Anyway I’m very much happy with where we are.
People thought 6m was a lot for Montgomery? Thats cheap in todays NFL. Now a first round RB is a different story.
1 Like
Right now it appears 2023 was a “down year” and we are simply getting back to business as usual. Having the top backs on franchise tags probably played a part in that. In fact, those teams might have been part of feeding the narrative to try to get the value of their particular player DOWN in the negotiation.
There has been some nice deals for rbs… but still nothing like many other positions.
A slightly above average Jonah Jackson for instance still getting way more than these star running backs.
1 Like
Apparently, running backs are discussing creating their own union, which, personally, I think they absolutely should. Their careers are so short, yet their talents so difference making, the minimum salary for the position should be much much higher IMO. It really is a unique situation.
2 Likes
It is, and always will be, an issue of supply and demand. There is simply too much of the former.
with extremely rare exceptions, the RB is only as good s the line in front of him. Kevin jones was awesome…but he played behind one of the worst offensive lines in the history of the game. Barry was able to succeed in really adverse situations (extremely rare).
RB on our team are worth the investment because that is how we take advantage of our awesome OL.
Holmes will replace JJ, for sure. He has repeatedly referenced OL/trenches as part of our identity. he’s not just going to let that go away.
1 Like
I think the situation at the position is unique though, given the higher rate of injuries–especially career-ending injuries–and the fact that even the healthy elite RBs often never get a chance at a big FA deal, the way every other position’s elite players do.
I think you’re correct in that teams feel like they can find production without paying out huge long-term contracts, especially when many (if not most) RBs won’t even make it through that contract. But that’s what makes it so shitty for those players, and why their contracts should be structured differently.
I don’t know exactly what that looks like, but there should be a way for the top guys at the position to make money commensurate with the value they bring to their teams. Maybe that’s some kind of incentive structure based on snaps/performance, or higher minimum salaries, or both. Or here’s a simple solution: make some portion of RB contracts or bonuses not count against the cap, so teams can still pay for top RBs without locking themselves into long-term contracts with huge injury risk. But something should change, because in the current system, RBs get screwed.
I get it, but to me that’s just the nature of the beast. Momma don’t let your babies to grow up to be RBs.
If you’re gonna have special, position-specific rules re: the roster, well, who’s gonna fight for the kickers, punters and long snappers? I know that’s not apples to apples - RBs touch the ball much more often - but it could be argued they’re every bit as important. In fact I think a lot of coaches - like Belichick - would do just that.
Safeties churn through rosters for mediocre pay, where’s the concern for them?
iOL have finally started getting paid this offseason, but as Jason at OTC says:
Market forces have dictated what these guys are worth, and the only way to stop it is to manipulate the market… and I’m not a fan of that (that’s probably the economist in me coming out). It’s not like they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into.
1 Like
LOL yes! That is the nature of the beast! And the beast is screwing guys who play RB, which is why many think it should change–and I agree with 'em! Not just for the specific guys getting screwed, but because I still want to see elite RBs play in the NFL, and IMO, it’s bad for the game if a position this important becomes something no elite athlete coming up wants to play.
FWIW, I agree with you in principle, but it’s hard to argue that NFL compensation is the invisible hand of the market at work when it’s dictated by a collectively bargained salary cap. The NFL’s “free market” is governed by the CBA, which really just represents the fairest compensation rules that teams and owners were willing to agree to. What those “fairest rules” look like can and do change as the game evolves.
For instance, nobody’s crying that fullbacks don’t get paid enough, because the game has changed. Nobody uses them! But RB is just as important a position as ever. They still play tons of snaps, still have a huge impact on offenses, still have the same high risk of injuries they always had. Yet for most of the salary cap era, star RBs still got paid like stars at other positions. Now, they don’t. What’s changed? Did teams just realize for the first time that RB is a high-risk position? Are there no true RB stars anymore? No and no! What changed is the rookie wage scale.
When the NFLPA agreed to cap rookie salaries, it effectively changed the big payday for top players from Year 1 in the league to Year 4. It worked out great for almost everybody. Total compensation wouldn’t change, but more of it would now go to vets who’d proven their worth, versus unproven rookies who hadn’t done squat. The new system meant that elite rookies would almost always outperform their rookie deals, but they’d make it up later when they hit FA. It was a smart bargain. Teams get much lower risk. Players who prove their worth get much bigger FA deals. Everybody wins! Except… RBs.
When you combine the high risk of the position with a system that pays rookies relative peanuts regardless of performance, you have a perfect storm. Elite RBs get stuck with lower rookie salaries that make sense for every other position, but they never get the opportunity to make up for it on the back end like everybody else. The result: they get screwed! Hence the discussions about forming a separate union. Whether they actually do it, or whether the threat makes the NFLPA take their concerns seriously when the next CBA negotiations come around, I hope they can change the status quo.
Get your tinfoil hats out gang….
The owners, being a bunch of old rich fellas realized the RB’s may make some noise due to getting stiffed on contracts. They weren’t about to deal with thag extra union headache so they got together and said “ok let’s toss a few milllion extra at em this cycle” just to break previous precedence.
Now next FA it will be a drop on RB contracts.
You heard it here first. Don’t wait till the 60 minutes comes out in 7-8 years after Jones gets nailed on his lawsuit then has a cock tail of vodka and dementia and starts talking about it to an undercover journalist.
1 Like
And mid-tier vets cut because a rookie is cheaper.
I agree that the cap is definitely anti-free market, but I also think it keeps the league from turning to shit like MLB, soccer and college football, where teams just buy championships. So perhaps it’s hypocritical of me, but I’m willing to make some command economy concessions for sports leagues specifically. Any competition, really, to keep it from becoming non-competitive.
But within that capped wage structure the free market is definitely in effect. Maybe even more so than the country at large, but that’s a whole different conversation. But to me RB, FB, P, K, all positions really, are all costs appropriately driven by supply and demand.
Honestly I think it all started with the late century Broncos. They went from Terrell Davis to Olandis Gary to Clinton Portis to Mike Anderson to Reuben Droughns and all of them were amongst the league leaders in rushing. This was the first thing that opened the league’s eyes to the ability to plug and play at the position, and that was well before the cap on rookie salaries (though that certainly exacerbated the problem).
And while the running game is every bit as important as its always been, running backs aren’t since almost all of them split time now. Look at the carry leaders now compared to the carry leaders in the 80s and 90s. Used to be every team had a bell cow back. Nowadays? Almost no one.
So the game has changed some for running backs. I agree that it sucks to see them get screwed in ways they didn’t used to, but I also think there’s a lot of nuance involved. It’s not enough to say since they get hit a lot, they should get paid more. LOTS of players get hit a lot, not just RBs, and never see anything for it. And if you start trying to place a “level of importance” on every position, well I think you’re opening up a Pandora’s box that could frankly really hurt the league.
1 Like
Right on. Plus, the way the RB position is, if you want a guy, you want that 5-year deal rookie when he’s young.
These are totally fair points. To be clear, while I personally think RBs (and all NFL players) should make even more given the damage they take to their long-term health, I’m not really advocating a “level of importance” formula. Just saying the rookie wage scale, and the current CBA, explicitly trades big paydays in Year 1 for big paydays in Year 4. And since the average career of an NFL RB is around 3 years, that’s kind of a shit sandwich if you happen to be an elite back.
I don’t really have a specific solution to offer, but clearly, the current CBA is not serving RBs well, and I understand why they’re advocating for change.
2 Likes
It will be interesting to see what happens to the rookie wage scale now that college has the NIL. Mid-rounders could start to be better paid in college than they are in the pros, especially at flashy positions like RB. Eventually a player will sue the NCAA so he can stay in college for LONGER than 4 years, and that’s when the NFL will have to get involved.
1 Like
Totally agree. I don’t know if you listen to the College Football Enquirer podcast, but Dan Wetzel has been saying the same thing. Once you start defaulting to the courts making all these calls, it’s only a matter of time before some 30 year old sues for the right to make money as a college player–and probably wins!
Yep. The NFL probably needs to get proactive about this and try and work out a deal with the schools/conferences. They should be working it out with the NCAA - every competition should have some form of governing body - but the children have all the power and the league will have to go through them.
1 Like
Prior to the foot injury
To me it seems like there’s plenty of blame to go round. The big conferences are greedy AF, but part of the reason they’re giving the finger to the NCAA is that the NCAA has totally abdicated their responsibility to provide any real plan for navigating the financial changes to the sport. I can understand to a point–the NCAA knows that a successful lawsuit could bankrupt them, and they’re hesitant to impose rules that the courts will likely invalidate.
But yeah, they’re all a bunch of children. Another hammer that Wetzel keeps banging is that college football desperately needs an actual advocate for college football, some body that’s looking out for the good of the game overall. Instead, it’s just naked self-interest from colleges and conferences. We’re about to let the courts decide the rules governing the sport, without the NCAA or anyone else even bothering to try.
1 Like