Last night’s Zoom meeting among various veteran running backs

[DaveBrown74]

If you lop off a season, you are reducing their value to teams by 25%.

Maybe, but the whole point is to free them up faster. So many RBs make next to nothing from their rookie contracts anyway, so I really don't think the two factors are equally offsetting when we're talking about all RBs entering the league.

Plus assuming a team would still draft a RB in round one, what do you do with the 5th year option? 

You could consider removing that as well, although if you're correct about their draft status taking such a hit, I don't think that will come up that often, so it doesn't strike me as a big issue in this discussion either way. Very few RBs get drafted in the first round now, with the current 4 year rookie contract rule. Bottom line, even if you leave the 5th year (in this case 4th year) option there that's still one less year of artificially low pay for top-end backs.

Also, what's to prevent a team from tagging a RB twice and keeping them for their first 5 seasons in the league?

Again, like with the above, assuming there are no changes with the tag rules, you'd still have one less year of synthetically low pay for top-end backs worth tagging. So it's not like it's not addressing the issue at all.


Seems to me overall that this suggestion may not 100% "fix" the problem, but it would probably alleviate it to some degree, and I think it's reasonable given rookie RBs are usually further up the curve in year one than any other position. With some positions the first 1-2 years of the rookie contract the player isn't even starter material, let alone very good.

[zephirus]

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.

Is that legal?  If the teams did this (in an organized manner), that's called collusion and the union is quick to cry foul if/when that occurs.  This is akin to a union within a union, and frankly if the NFLPA is doing it's job, it should not allow it.  Their responsibility is to all players and it's a zero-sum game.  Fullback has been dying for years and they've never stepped in and tried to reverse the trend.

[AZGiantFan]

I disagree with the notion that pay is artificially suppressed uniquely for running backs.  There is nothing artificial about it, IMO..  It is the natural operation of the nature of the position and the players' decision that getting rid of the franchise tag was not worth enough to give up other things in the negotiations.  And as I've stated elsewhere, I find it ironic that Saquon has become the face of the 'unfairness' of the system to RBs when that same system enriched him disproportionately relative to other running backs and other very high draft picks by virtue of his draft position.

[MightyGiants]

I disagree with the notion that pay is artificially suppressed uniquely for running backs.  There is nothing artificial about it, IMO..  It is the natural operation of the nature of the position and the players' decision that getting rid of the franchise tag was not worth enough to give up other things in the negotiations.  And as I've stated elsewhere, I find it ironic that Saquon has become the face of the 'unfairness' of the system to RBs when that same system enriched him disproportionately relative to other running backs and other very high draft picks by virtue of his draft position.

I think those are fair points.  Ultimately the first veteran contract is paying for future performance, not what they did in the past.

[DaveBrown74]

I disagree with the notion that pay is artificially suppressed uniquely for running backs.  There is nothing artificial about it, IMO..  It is the natural operation of the nature of the position and the players' decision that getting rid of the franchise tag was not worth enough to give up other things in the negotiations.  And as I've stated elsewhere, I find it ironic that Saquon has become the face of the 'unfairness' of the system to RBs when that same system enriched him disproportionately relative to other running backs and other very high draft picks by virtue of his draft position.

I neither said nor suggested the artificially low suppression of pay (vis-à-vis rookie contracts) was unique to RBs. What is unique to RBs is their extremely short shelf life, as I have noted. Additionally, they generally have the flattest learning curve of any position entering the league, so teams get a lot more out of them (relative to their peak abilities) in year one than they do other positions. For the above reasons, I can see an argument to have their rookie contract be shorter than other positions.

Separately, I do agree on the point about the irony of Saquon being the poster child for unfairness with the RB position. He made out like a bandit on his rookie contract with the Giants. The Giants are the ones who got hosed there, not him.

[AZGiantFan]

I neither said nor suggested the artificially low suppression of pay (vis-à-vis rookie contracts) was unique to RBs. What is unique to RBs is their extremely short shelf life, as I have noted.

Well, I said unique because no other position is holding zoom calls, I didn't mean to suggest you had said that - sorry.  But I maintain that the suppression of their pay is not artificial - it is organic , for the reasons you just gave.  Artificial would be if the owners were colluding or doing something improper, IMO.  Artificial would be making up special rules for RBs.

[GMenRF]

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.

In summary, Saquon's agent dropped the ball on the contract negotiations