News: NFL running backs seek to create separate union

[iceberg]

if they want better pay they can work on their jump shot.

nothing but paycheck!

 

[aikemirv]

So the answer is no. So all that typing he did was for a terrible point

The answer is yes
And really, it is not a yes or no answer, it is a relative answer with no proveable answer. If you think it is yes or no then you need some studying in economics.

 

[JeffAtl]

Give them shorter rookie contracts, that way if they are that good they will get there big contract earlier.

With a shorter rookie contracts, that first contract would be far less than they currently are; it would definitely be a double edged sword.

It's also doubtful that a team would invest a first round draft pick (or a large signing bonus) on an unproven rookie that they'd only have under contract for a couple of years.

 

[aikemirv]

With a shorter rookie contracts, that first contract would be far less than they currently are; it would definitely be a double edged sword.

It's also doubtful that a team would invest a first round draft pick (or a large signing bonus) on an unproven rookie that they'd only have under contract for a couple of years.

I think a shorter contract with a change in the franchise tag options would work well. So for example, I can opt for a 3 yr contract but in doing so I have to agree to a guaranteed 2-3 yr franchise tag at a bit lower (lets say top 7-8 average) than the current franchise amount (top 5 average)

 

[stilltheguru]

The answer is yes
And really, it is not a yes or no answer, it is a relative answer with no proveable answer. If you think it is yes or no then you need some studying in economics.

If you think it’s not yes or no you need to study economics. See how easy that is?

 

[aikemirv]

If you think it’s not yes or no you need to study economics. See how easy that is?

OK great, explain and quantify the opportunity cost of drafting Zeke Elliot over Jalen Ramsey.

 

[BaybeeJay]

I didn't like my compensation when I worked in retail. By these guy's "logic", I guess I should have created a union and demanded better pay...

Then again, it is 2019... You never know what will happen

Lol... what would be wrong with retail labor unionized? I guess higher wages for workers is a crazy idea.

Shorter rookie deals could ease some of this tension. I wonder if the owners will negotiate at all.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Would a separate union be able to negotiate for them any better than the current one? I have my doubts.

 

[Jeffkills]

We ought to start a collection plate for some of these guys...

Think about this: there are places all over the world where people's lives are entirely centered upon finding and procuring clean drinking water. …Meanwhile, while it seems all of society is entirely focused on solving these so-called 3'rd world "problems," nobody ever wants to even acknowledge the type suffering and financial devastation these NFL players are enduring each and every day by comparison; it’s really sad…..

Perhaps, someday, people in America might finally grow up, get a little perspective, and realize that a measly 30 million dollars doesn’t even cover HALF the cost of a 70 million dollar house these days!! Moreover, you can forget about some of these guys actually filling their 20 car garages to capacity with high-performance imported vehicles.... Yeah, let it sink in for a second.....

Hell, a guy in Zeke's position might not even have any more than 13 or 14 brand new luxury cars siting inside his garage right now - that's it!!

You want to talk about fair??

PAY THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is true. It would diminish the value of draft picks. I do know I would prefer the security of a 4 year contract over a 1 or 2 year contract though. But obviously many would want a 1 or 2 year. The easiest answer is eliminate the salary cap. But that's never going to happen

To me, this would actually be bad for the Players. Look at the league before the Salary Cap. Most Owners, rather then escalating salaries, elected to stay bad and just pocket the money. That's why you only saw a few teams who were really good, year in and year out. Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Dolphins etc. It was only when the Cap was implemented and the CBA was put into place with min and max salary allocations, that you saw players salaries go up, year after year, across the board. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the cap go away and the league return to it's former self. I know that it would mean the Cowboys and Jerry would have the most to spend and would spend it to win. That's Jerry and what's more, the league new that's who he was as well, back in the day. That's a lot of the reason why they adopted the cap and the NFLPA, they knew Jerry and the Cowboys were on their way up and that Jerry would turn this show into a real life NFL Shark Tank. The Owners didn't want that to happen because it would force their hands and it was easier to just pass a Cap and eventually the CBA. Little did they know, I suspect, that it would end up becoming the ordeal it is today,

At the end of the day, it's probably better for the players to have the Cap in place because it's really the only thing that protects their salary increases, IMO.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You first mentioned ENTERTAINMENT, and YOU brought in the CAP. Why the sudden change in venue?

Its clear you just want to argue. Lets move on.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I'm not really arguing that. What I am saying is that so long as the passing game is king in the NFL, and lets be honest here, it's not going away anytime soon, the RBs are going to take a backseat. You want to fix the situation, stop creating rules that provide such advantage to the Passing game and let the game revert back to the way it was originally designed. Allow backs to become more important to the game again and their value will go back up. Now, for every actions, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I mean, that's just Isaac Newton Physics right? If you do change the game and allow it to not be so heavily weighted towards the passing game, then you effect the value of other positions. The value of CBs goes down, the value of WRs goes down, the value of QBs probably goes down. Pick your poison I suppose. This is Football at it's highest level. The game has always been physically tough and careers have always been short. If anything, the game has gotten better in that regard, because of modern Medical Sciences and improved conditioning and nutrition. The game will change again, who knows, perhaps the cost of QBs will prove to be the catalyst for that change eventually but in any case, it will change again and RBs will eventually become more prominent in some form or fashion. At some point, their pay scale will come back but that day is not today. Take your pick, which positions do we want to effect here. It will always be something.

That's all I'm saying.

It's nontrivial and nonobvious how the value of players are effected by rule changes. The whole game and personnel strategy adjusts.

Tilting play advantage to the passing game tends to put more WRs on the field, making your top dogs less important, while the move to more nickel makes your RB more effective when he runs and a little less damaged when he does so.

Like elite WRs who can still produce in double coverage, a RB like Zeke that makes you pay attention to the run game in a passing league may now be the rare commodity that provides the strategic advantage.

I don't know if that will be the case, but it certainly may be.

What I'm inferring from our personnel decisions on Olawale, Pollard, and Austin is that we're going all in on building an offense complementary to Zeke. All complementary runners and speedy receiving threats (for their positions). That's the strategy to put defenses in a bind if they're trying to focus on stopping Zeke.

That complementary strategy would probably be a flop but for the extra attention Zeke demands.

 

[JoeKing]

Weakening the NFLPA, IMO.

 

[stilltheguru]

OK great, explain and quantify the opportunity cost of drafting Zeke Elliot over Jalen Ramsey.

Jalen Ramsey has nothing to do with Zekes value on the team in 2019

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's nontrivial and nonobvious how the value of players are effected by rule changes. The whole game and personnel strategy adjusts.

Tilting play advantage to the passing game tends to put more WRs on the field, making your top dogs less important, while the move to more nickel makes your RB more effective when he runs and a little less damaged when he does so.

Like elite WRs who can still produce in double coverage, a RB like Zeke that makes you pay attention to the run game in a passing league may now be the rare commodity that provides the strategic advantage.

I don't know if that will be the case, but it certainly may be.

What I'm inferring from our personnel decisions on Olawale, Pollard, and Austin is that we're going all in on building an offense complementary to Zeke. All complementary runners and speedy receiving threats (for their positions). That's the strategy to put defenses in a bind if they're trying to focus on stopping Zeke.

That complementary strategy would probably be a flop but for the extra attention Zeke demands.

That's possible, but it's not what I've seen come to pass, to date. Most teams seem to like a multiple back role. It's true that they aren't as dominant as a single back like Zeke but they are more flexible, you aren't as reliant which means there is no single point of failure and it's obviously advantageous from a Salary Cap stand point. No matter how dominating a back might be, they are never going to be as effective as a lights out QB and a game breaking WR. The game is not set up for that to be a reality anymore. Multiple WRs only means you are feeding the advantage but again, it takes longer to develop NFL WRs then it does NFL RBs. If one goes down, you need to have multiples because you can't go out on the street and sign one and you usually can't reach into the draft and just go get one. They need time so yeah, that's really a big part of why they are more expensive. Same with QBs.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think a shorter contract with a change in the franchise tag options would work well. So for example, I can opt for a 3 yr contract but in doing so I have to agree to a guaranteed 2-3 yr franchise tag at a bit lower (lets say top 7-8 average) than the current franchise amount (top 5 average)

I don't really see this as an option. I mean, the NFL knows who is and who is not a money RB. They don't always know which are going to become NFL quality RBs but they usually know the studs. Those guys will not be offered that option. They will be offered the 5 yr option only IMO. I mean, a back who is a later round pick and who shows out is already going to get an early increase in wages and the better he is, the bigger the increase. This really doesn't do anything for them at all. This really only effects the first round RBs. It actually hurts lower round RBs because most of those guys are looking at a new deal in 2 years or even the same year if they are undrafted players.

 

[aikemirv]

Jalen Ramsey has nothing to do with Zekes value on the team in 2019

Its a difficult concept to understand - don't strain yourself!

 

[Swanny]

To me, this would actually be bad for the Players. Look at the league before the Salary Cap. Most Owners, rather then escalating salaries, elected to stay bad and just pocket the money. That's why you only saw a few teams who were really good, year in and year out. Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers, Dolphins etc. It was only when the Cap was implemented and the CBA was put into place with min and max salary allocations, that you saw players salaries go up, year after year, across the board. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the cap go away and the league return to it's former self. I know that it would mean the Cowboys and Jerry would have the most to spend and would spend it to win. That's Jerry and what's more, the league new that's who he was as well, back in the day. That's a lot of the reason why they adopted the cap and the NFLPA, they knew Jerry and the Cowboys were on their way up and that Jerry would turn this show into a real life NFL Shark Tank. The Owners didn't want that to happen because it would force their hands and it was easier to just pass a Cap and eventually the CBA. Little did they know, I suspect, that it would end up becoming the ordeal it is today,

At the end of the day, it's probably better for the players to have the Cap in place because it's really the only thing that protects their salary increases, IMO.

Way different time today than it was then. Way different. The NFL will never lose the cap because the owners are making far too much money with that cap in place. It puts a limit on how much players can make and it gives every single team hope every off season.
The players would greatly benefit from no salary cap.
Fans would not benefit

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Way different time today than it was then. Way different. The NFL will never lose the cap because the owners are making far too much money with that cap in place. It puts a limit on how much players can make and it gives every single team hope every off season.
The players would greatly benefit from no salary cap.
Fans would not benefit

I think you give the owners way too much credit. If they weren't forced to spend the money, they wouldn't IMO.

 

[Swanny]

I think you give the owners way too much credit. If they weren't forced to spend the money, they wouldn't IMO.

I see what you're saying but what forces them to spend the money now? Only thing they are forced to do is NOT spend over the cap every season.