- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The NFL running back conundrum
Posted on 8/31/23 at 12:21 pm to Oilfieldbiology
Posted on 8/31/23 at 12:21 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Maybe so, but I’d be willing to bet that franchises would be willing to suffer the loss of the talented running back as opposed to paying for 3-5 unproductive years.
They just don’t have to right now.
Again, that's the whole point. The NFL doesn't have to. They don't have to offer free agency to great running backs when they can legally slow-play them with the franchise tag. My point is to look at all the guys getting the franchise tag at running back. They only put that on players they value and choose not to lose.
This isn't a value issue as it is getting discussed in this thread. It's a monopoly by the owners to set an unfair value.
3
Posted on 8/31/23 at 12:21 pm to VeniceBeachMouton
quote:
Does it make sense that qb’s make that much more than running backs?
It is a QB league, so without a doubt it does.
Posted on 8/31/23 at 12:39 pm to bamameister
quote:
No he doesn't. That offense is mediocre with or without him. Modern running games are almost entirely dependent on scheme and OL play and have very little to do with the skill of the runner himself. It's why the Titans can go 6-3 and run for 140 a game when Derrick Henry misses 9 games. It's why Carolina can go 1-5 before trading McCaffrey and 6-5 after trading him. It's why the Rams can sign CJ Anderson off the street after Todd Gurley gets hurt and not miss a beat.
Didn’t Cooper Rush go 4-1 or 5-1 when Dak got hurt?
Also Teddy Bridgewater went 5-0 when Brees was injured
Posted on 8/31/23 at 12:48 pm to bamameister
quote:
They don't have to offer free agency to great running backs when they can legally slow-play them with the franchise tag. My point is to look at all the guys getting the franchise tag at running back. They only put that on players they value and choose not to lose.
Change the value system for franchise tags for RBs so they automatically become Top 3 in salary for that position or do away with it entirely.
Side note: The players and others in the NFLPA need to make sure that DeMaurice Smith is nowhere near the negotiating table for the next CBA, he has fricked over so many players.
Posted on 8/31/23 at 1:08 pm to bamameister
quote:
This isn't a value issue as it is getting discussed in this thread. It's a monopoly by the owners to set an unfair value.
Yep, if RBs had no value like described ITT then they wouldn't all be getting franchise tagged. Why pay them the $11 or $12M if they are all replaceable.
The problem with RBs is the rookie contract + franchise tag option will essentially put them out of the league by the time they can hit the open market. They really should just abolish the franchise tag option for RBs
Posted on 8/31/23 at 2:02 pm to bad93ex
quote:
Side note: The players and others in the NFLPA need to make sure that DeMaurice Smith is nowhere near the negotiating table for the next CBA, he has fricked over so many players.
IMO, this is the real reason the emails were leaked. Owners wanted to drum up sympathy for De Smith because they work him over at the negotiating table, and they knew that the media would kill the NFLPA if they replaced a black man in 2021. Gruden was just collateral damage.
Posted on 8/31/23 at 2:33 pm to VADawg
So the owners are simply following a system that was agreed to by the players. Yet, somehow they are being painted in a bad light?
If the players want to end the franchise tag or anything else then they can simply strike. But we all know they won’t because the vast majority are probably financially overextended (like most Americans) so missing paychecks isn’t a real option in the real world.
And the bigger issue is that people just can’t see past next week. Take a guy like Jahmyr Gibbs - a rookie. He was smart enough to realize that his value in making money from football is by catching the ball, not running. And that’s what he worked on and made his reputation off for the NFL. A guy like Jonathan Taylor not so much. Which is why Taylor is being slow played and Gibbs will probably get a nice 2nd contract.
If the players want to end the franchise tag or anything else then they can simply strike. But we all know they won’t because the vast majority are probably financially overextended (like most Americans) so missing paychecks isn’t a real option in the real world.
And the bigger issue is that people just can’t see past next week. Take a guy like Jahmyr Gibbs - a rookie. He was smart enough to realize that his value in making money from football is by catching the ball, not running. And that’s what he worked on and made his reputation off for the NFL. A guy like Jonathan Taylor not so much. Which is why Taylor is being slow played and Gibbs will probably get a nice 2nd contract.
Posted on 8/31/23 at 2:43 pm to Coach Buzzcut
quote:
RBs get screwed because of the CBA. If there was a free market they wouldn’t get screwed during their prime years in the NFL
What?
Posted on 8/31/23 at 2:49 pm to bamameister
quote:
Then why are they getting the franchise tag so often?
Because it's a 1-year deal.
What they don't want is a 4-year deal when the RB is washed in year 1 or 2 of the deal, like so many we've seen the past 10 years.
quote:
The reason is Josh Jacobs matters to the Raiders offense.
For a year or 2, MAYBE 3 more if he has extreme luck.
quote:
The truth is the franchise tag is ruining the running back position. The owners are conspiring to keep the position as low-paying as possible and then these NFL teams are squeezing another year or 2 beyond the rookie contract out of the position with the franchise tag.
That's not a conspiracy. That's acting intelligently in terms of your cap. Nobody wants another Todd Gurley or Lev Bell situation.
Posted on 8/31/23 at 2:50 pm to bamameister
quote:
. Without the franchise tag, the owners couldn't slow play the position.
Sure they could. They would just offer them one year deals like Jacobs and Barkley ended up with
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News