Last night’s Zoom meeting among various veteran running backs

[MightyGiants]

Last night's Zoom meeting among various veteran running backs, coordinated by Chargers running back Austin Ekeler, ultimately went nowhere. Largely because there's nowhere to go.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement is what it is. The rules are the rules. And the current rules make it harder for the best running backs to get paid more than they currently receive.

One major problem flows from the fact that the NFL Players Association can't easily change the rules as to running backs. Any effort to get the NFL to make it easier for running backs to get paid will likely make it harder for others to get paid.

Per multiple sources, the issue of holding in via the embellishment/exaggeration/fabrications of injuries (suggested earlier this week in an interview by NFLPA president JC Tretter) was raised during Saturday night's call. As one source put it, the consensus was that this can't work for running backs, since it feeds into the narrative that they're prone to injury. (It also gives players lower on the depth chart a chance to prove that, dollar for dollar, they represent a better value than the "injured" players they are replacing.)

Much of the focus eventually went to agents, even though agents were excluded from the call. There was concern raised, we're told, about some agents creating false expectations for other running backs by dumping phony salaries into the back end of contracts. (For example, Alvin Kamara has a final-year compensation package of $25 million, which pushed the average artificially to $15 million. There's no way he'll get $25 million in the last year of his current deal.)

The next step, we're told, will be for the agents of this coalition of concerned running backs to get on a call of their own, in the hopes of coming up with better lines of communication and strategy for running backs who are or will be seeking new contracts. The goal is to get the agents, who are inherently in competition, to collaborate.

more

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/next-step-for-running-back-coalition-coordination-among-their-agents

[Philosophers]

more

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/next-step-for-running-back-coalition-coordination-among-their-agents

Only way RBs can fix this is not to get injured as badly and extend success into their 2nd contracts.  Right now neither is happening consistently.

[AZGiantFan]

more

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/next-step-for-running-back-coalition-coordination-among-their-agents

The part about how Kamara's aav being artificially elevated is a good one.  I cringe whenever I hear about McCaffrey money of $16 million, because, as I broke down in detail in another thread, it turned out to be more like $11 million actually paid because the Panthers pretty quickly realized that the 4 yr. $64 million contract was so absurd that they ate $25 million in dead money to get out.  As anyone who has ever done budgeting knows, the Actual is more important than the Expected.  And in the NFL where contracts get very complicated in an obfuscating way, it is even moreso true.

[Jclayton92]

The best solution I've heard to the RB problem is using the The performance-based pay pool which is part of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), compensates players, including rookies, based on their playing time and production in comparison to their base salary.

For instance on top of their salaries in 2020 these giants got extra from the pool.

Slayton $502,000
Love $463,000
Gates $436,000
Tomlinson $340,000

And last year I believe Holmes got paid more from the pool than in his actual contract.

So they should just use some of that 336 million they get every year for that pool to compensate RBs. Most years they don't even use most of it, so why not just give the remaining balance to the Rbs with the most touches, or any RB over 150 touches gets a base 2 million from the pool. They could do that without having to change a single thing and it could be fixed tomorrow. I mean most people don't even know the pool exists.

[Jclayton92]

Didn't want to create another Barkley thread or RB thread so I'm going to post this here.

A way too early look at Barkleys either future or replacement in 2024.

Option 1- For all we know Schoen could take the same approach Beane has in Buffalo by continuing to cycle in late round picks at RB in a committee ex Zach Miss, Devin Singletary, and Cook. So that would mean going with Gray and an additional draft pick or FA if Barkley isn't retained.

Option 2- Resign Barkley or a Free Agent RB and the 2024 FA class at RB and Wr are pretty loaded. Derrick Henry, Josh Jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Tony Pollard, Jonathan Taylor, and Barkley will all be free agents which will drive the RB market down even more than it already is.

Option 3- The Draft, here are a handful of backs that you should take a look at this upcoming college season.

Blake Corum the Michigan RB had 247 carries for 1463 yards and 18tds in 2022, his 96 rushing first downs/Touchdowns were 2nd most in the country and PFF had him graded 96.2 which was the highest grade they've ever given power 5 player at any position for a season.

Treyveon Henderson at Ohio St who had an elite freshman campaign but missed a few games in 2022, looks to bounce back as he might be the best receiving RB in college.

Both Ohio St and Michigan have starters and Backups at RB that are electric and all 4 will be drafted pretty high in 2024.

Frank Gore Jr at Southern Miss was only graded behind Corum and Bijan Robinson last season.

Trey Benson at Florida St, "baby Brandon Jacobs" Rahim Sanders at Arkansas, and Braelon Allen at Wisconsin round out the must sees.

I just don't see a way with all the talent coming out of college and the talent that will be free agents next year that the RB market ever recovers regardless of conference calls made without intervention from the NFLPA.

[DaveBrown74]

Didn't want to create another Barkley thread or RB thread so I'm going to post this here.

A way too early look at Barkleys either future or replacement in 2024.

Option 1- For all we know Schoen could take the same approach Beane has in Buffalo by continuing to cycle in late round picks at RB in a committee ex Zach Miss, Devin Singletary, and Cook. So that would mean going with Gray and an additional draft pick or FA if Barkley isn't retained.

Option 2- Resign Barkley or a Free Agent RB and the 2024 FA class at RB and Wr are pretty loaded. Derrick Henry, Josh Jacobs, Austin Ekeler, Tony Pollard, Jonathan Taylor, and Barkley will all be free agents which will drive the RB market down even more than it already is.

Option 3- The Draft, here are a handful of backs that you should take a look at this upcoming college season.

Blake Corum the Michigan RB had 247 carries for 1463 yards and 18tds in 2022, his 96 rushing first downs/Touchdowns were 2nd most in the country and PFF had him graded 96.2 which was the highest grade they've ever given power 5 player at any position for a season.

Treyveon Henderson at Ohio St who had an elite freshman campaign but missed a few games in 2022, looks to bounce back as he might be the best receiving RB in college.

Both Ohio St and Michigan have starters and Backups at RB that are electric and all 4 will be drafted pretty high in 2024.

Frank Gore Jr at Southern Miss was only graded behind Corum and Bijan Robinson last season.

Trey Benson at Florida St, "baby Brandon Jacobs" Rahim Sanders at Arkansas, and Braelon Allen at Wisconsin round out the must sees.

I just don't see a way with all the talent coming out of college and the talent that will be free agents next year that the RB market ever recovers regardless of conference calls made without intervention from the NFLPA.

Great write-up.

Personally, I am all about option 3. The Giants need to, at long last, start managing this position the way smart teams do in the modern NFL and use the draft to get younger, deeper, and cheaper at it. We do have Gray, which is a start, but even if he looks very good the Giants should be drafting at least one more back next year. I suspect Barkley (one way or another) won't be a Giant in 2024, and they'll have more of a committee type approach moving forward.

[Jclayton92]

Great write-up.

Personally, I am all about option 3. The Giants need to, at long last, start managing this position the way smart teams do in the modern NFL and use the draft to get younger, deeper, and cheaper at it. We do have Gray, which is a start, but even if he looks very good the Giants should be drafting at least one more back next year. I suspect Barkley (one way or another) won't be a Giant in 2024, and they'll have more of a committee type approach moving forward.

I agree with so much talent coming out every year it makes no sense to spend 10+ million when you can get it for a fraction.

[PSUBeirut]

I agree with so much talent coming out every year it makes no sense to spend 10+ million when you can get it for a fraction.

Agreed.  Points to another slight mis-step for Schoen- he should have drafted a RB to groom in the 2022 draft, with Barkley's contract coming up the following year.  There were certainly some good ones outside of the 2nd round to be had- and he had 8 picks in rounds 3+ to burn. 

I do think there will be some action in the future to make this right for the RB position in regards to compensation in relation to risk.  It's crazy how RB salaries are lagging down around kickers, long-snappers, etc.  Essentially the way the system is currently set up a team can, as you suggest, just draft new RBs to refresh the pool, pound their bodies through their peak years (usually much shorter than all other positions, because of this very pounding), and retain exclusive rights to the players.  Then, once the player can finally reach free agency, they're past their prime because of the very pounding they've been put through. 

[Ed Vette]

All this boils down to guaranteed money, which the teams don't want to be on the hook for and the Players who don't want to take the risk. They won't accept incentive based contracts. So they have no argument. They fear their own longevity.

[Jclayton92]

All this boils down to guaranteed money, which the teams don't want to be on the hook for and the Players who don't want to take the risk. They won't accept incentive based contracts. So they have no argument. They fear their own longevity.

100%

[MightyGiants]

The challenge is almost any sort of change that would help RBs cash in would lower their value in the draft.  I don't see any way of fixing this issue short of eliminating the rookie salary cap for all positions.

[DaveBrown74]

The challenge is almost any sort of change that would help RBs cash in would lower their value in the draft.  I don't see any way of fixing this issue short of eliminating the rookie salary cap for all positions.

Rich,

Despite the point you make about draft value declining, which I think is absolutely valid, I still think that slicing one year off RB rookie contracts would, on net, help RBs. Many of these guys don't get drafted until late day two or day three anyway, so any hit to their draft day status isn't that big of a deal at the margin. Lopping a full year of suppressed pay off their first contracts and allowing them to be a year younger when they pursue a real free-market contract will still help them substantially though, even if it knocks them down a bit in the draft. I don't view the two as offsetting forces.

[MightyGiants]

Rich,

Despite the point you make about draft value declining, which I think is absolutely valid, I still think that slicing one year off RB rookie contracts would, on net, help RBs. Many of these guys don't get drafted until late day two or day three anyway, so any hit to their draft day status isn't that big of a deal at the margin. Lopping a full year of suppressed pay off their first contracts and allowing them to be a year younger when they pursue a real free-market contract will still help them substantially though, even if it knocks them down a bit in the draft. I don't view the two as offsetting forces.

Jeff,

If you lop off a season, you are reducing their value to teams by 25%.  Plus assuming a team would still draft a RB in round one, what do you do with the 5th year option?  Also, what's to prevent a team from tagging a RB twice and keeping them for their first 5 seasons in the league?

[Jclayton92]

The player pool is the way to go but not just for RBs, it would have to be for Rbs, guards, centers, and run stuffing Dts. Like any position that hasn't elevated in value cap it up to help them.

[Painter]

All this boils down to guaranteed money, which the teams don't want to be on the hook for and the Players who don't want to take the risk. They won't accept incentive based contracts. So they have no argument. They fear their own longevity.

Exactly. No more than that needs to be said by any of us.

Instead of his leading the latest RB pity-party, Barkley would be wise to accept the sage advice offered by Carl Banks, a most wise and credible counsellor.

https://youtu.be/EH9K9fD61rk

Cheers!