Saquon Saves A Child From Hell
If I was a parent with a kid playing football right now I’d make sure that kid has skills to play positions other than running back. Diversify your portfolio, young men. Until this problem is fixed becoming a running back is absolutely foolish.
I touched on this a ways back in March, but the running back contract problem got renewed discourse when the contract deadline passed and Saquon/Josh Jacobs didn’t have new deals. The actual players started to chime in and give their thoughts on the matter. Austin Ekeler went off. Derrick Henry actually said words. Saquon eventually did sign his franchise tender but he’s headed for the same situation again next year. Runningbacks have a problem.
If you don’t really understand the concept of a systemic problem, the runningback problem is pretty much a perfect example. The problem, on paper: Runningbacks are not getting paid. They are not valued. So, why not?
-The rookie wage scale. I was in favor of this when it first came into the league because Sam Bradford making 40 million before playing a snap seemed absurd but I had no idea what kind of widespread effects it would have and I think it’s been a horrible development for players. RBs get rookie contracts, and the rookie contracts are 4 to 5 years long.
-The shelf life of RBs. Of course, as is well known now, RBs don’t have a long shelf life. They get hit pretty much every play they participate in. So by the end of their rookie contract, they are nearing the end of their productive years. For most positions, they mature through those rookie contract years. 25-29 is generally considered the prime for most positions. Not RBs. With all that damage they fall off a cliff, and so by the time they are up for that second contract, they have all kinds of red flags and are on the downside of production. What team is going to pay good money at that point?
-This incentivizes the teams to essentially run RBs into the ground while they are cheap. If you have a gifted RB like Saquon, you get him the ball as much as possible. You abuse the shit out of him and then discard him or franchise him when his payment is due.
-Of course, as teams discovered in the past decade, you can also get a fair amount of the production from a late-round running back who isn’t quite as good, or an RB committee. So that just further devalues the position if you can instead invest in other positions and throw bodies from the 6th round at the wall.
-RBs don’t control teams anymore. The old days used to have the bell-cow back you ran your entire team around and losing that back was devastating. Not anymore. Now teams have lots of dudes they can shove in there to play the role in more pass-happy offenses. Derrick Henry is arguably the only current FRANCHISE BACK we have, whose very presence can drag a team into the playoffs, and he’s fading too. Saquon never got the Giants anywhere until this season when Daniel Jones finally stopped being a dope. Josh Jacobs didn’t save the Raiders from hell. Christian McCaffrey never got the Panthers anywhere on his back despite his talent.
-Teams have no incentive to pay these guys after all this. Why would you pay for a position that breaks early and can be easily replaced (to a decent degree)? Having a top QB and WR is more valuable in today’s NFL. RBs are like pawns you can shove out there for cheap, and the good ones are still cheap and you can just franchise them into oblivion if you need to. They can’t hold out, look at what happened to Le’Veon Bell. They have no leverage. It is a good, smart business move to not pay any RB top dollar.
So what the hell can be done to fix this? I’ve seen a few ideas, like making the franchise tag apply to “skill positions” equally, so it counts towards WRs and RBs the same. But I think that might just devalue the other positions and make WRs cheaper. The rookie wage scale getting repealed would be great, but the NFL’s union is terrible and doesn’t have a chance at repealing something that owners are in favor of. Maybe they could make the rookie contracts shorter so that RBs have a chance to hit the market while still in their prime? They can’t do anything that only positively affects the contracts of one specific position because that’s not fair to other positions. Runningbacks are in a terrible place right now, and I feel bad for them. Teams still recognize that a good RB has value, but they know they can get away with abusing that ability in the window before they get paid. Bijan Robinson is probably going to be awesome in the Falcons running game and by the time he gets a chance to get paid for it he might be dead.
If I had a kid, or if I was still a kid and had a chance to develop my football skills, I’d try to be a punter. Not a ton of high-level competition, you can get paid a decent salary compared to the average American, very little contact compared to most positions, and the pressure isn’t nearly as high as it is for placekickers. Being a punter is a sweet gig.
Dalvin Cook still hasn’t landed anywhere either, afaik…
The Dalvin Cook situation is particularly interesting because it shows that the media doesn’t actually watch Dalvin Cook.
Dalvin Cook has always been paid lip service as a good, arguably top-tier running back, but has seldom gotten any actual, substantial praise. Kind of like Frank Gore in the day, you knew he was good, but one year AP was popping off, then it was CJ2K, then it was Jamaal Charles, then it was Shady. With Dalvin, he’s had to deal with CMC, Kamara, Zeke (during his heyday), King Henry, Nick Chubb, etc. He’s never REALLY gotten the kind of spotlight a guy of his talent should have gotten. He was even overshadowed by his own teammate now that Jefferson has become a force. But now that he’s gotten cut, nobody’s actually checked up on him to see why he was cut. They think he’s still this top-5 guy that they just kind of assumed he was, but never bothered to actually cover.
If you watched the Vikings last year (beyond the 4th quarter), you would have seen that Dalvin has definitely lost….something. He wasn’t as quick to the edge, wasn’t getting to the second level as well, wasn’t running with the same power. He’d pop off a couple of insane, game-changing runs, most notably against Buffalo and Indy. But he was getting stopped for little-to-negative gains much more than he ever had. He used to be incredibly elusive in the open-field, but was getting tackled form behind more than ever. Many stats will point to DC having his LEAST EFFICIENT season ever, and could be trending downward. But because that doesn’t quite show up in the box score, the media doesn’t know that it happened.
That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Cook had another top-5 rushing season or two in him. Whoever he signs with will be getting a potential rocket of a RB. It’s a travesty that he hasn’t been signed, but not entirely surprising given the topic.
I wouldn’t vote for eliminating the rookie wage scale, because I think it makes sense to not have to pay an arm & a leg for an unproven player. But most players aren’t “unproven” in years 4 or 5. Shorten that rookie contract to only 2-3 years, so everyone knows if they’re good and can big on their services. Maybe give a “home town discount” in terms of salary cap penalties if they sign with the team that drafted them, so fans don’t feel like they always lose a guy as soon as they get good, but you’re also not stuck with a player killing your cap if you pay them what they’ve earned? (I could also see an argument for QBs having a slightly longer 1st deal, since they often don’t play for a year or two)
I’m sure there are unintended consequences to a plan along these lines too, but it feels like moving in the direction of fairness. Too bad we’d likely hear the “if they players get this, they have to give up something” nonsense, instead of the owners realizing that fixing this problem would be good for everyone.
This is pretty much the only realistic solution. Possibly the only tweak would be to have several different position specific ranges for rookie contract terms (not just for RBs though they’d have the shortest term).
Off the top of my head the only unintended consequences are various manipulations by the teams (if a player has multiple skill sets getting them classified in a position with a longer term even if that won’t be their primary position; and fucking around with playing time in their rookie years to argue the clock should really start in their second year similar to what most baseball teams do).
Agree with this. If we revoke the rookie scale then we just go back to the old problem of teams being stuck in holes because they wasted a gajillion on players who never earned it. But shortening the deals still gives the RB time to cash in on that 2nd deal.
Other than that though, this problem will fix itself in the long term, either by becoming the accepted norm or there being a shortage of backs due to no one wanting to play that position for that kind of money.
To a certain extent, I think that teams shouldn’t be protected from their own stupidity I would also argue that more often than not, it’s just a way for teams to lowball talented young players. Getting rid of it will be difficult though, as teams as well veteran players benefit from it a lot
Depends on if you think whiffing on a top player is their stupidity or not then I guess. There are cases of clear reaches, but in cases where there’s a clear top guy, you take that guy, and he busts out? I don’t really blame the team for that. They did what they were supposed to.
Shorter rookie contracts are the most realistic solution. Given the average length of an NFL career (with RB’s having the shortest of them all), it’s imperative to let these guys hit the market while they’re still in their prime. It’d be the same amount of money; just allocated more fairly and efficiently. The owners can get themselves much happier locker rooms without having to spend an extra dime, it’s a no-brainer.
The only guys who might not like it are the veteran bottom-tier starter and backup QB’s who have the gift of longevity because of the position they play and benefit from the current system. Suddenly they may have to take a paycut.
I’ve always taken the long view on this one.. the cheapening of the RB position is gonna eventually impact the DL and LB positions too. I also don’t think this pass-happy state can last. Teams are eventually gonna load their defense with DB’s, and.. boom, here they come getting gashed on the ground. At that point even your average RB can get top dollar. I believe it’s cyclical.
That’s an interesting idea, I haven’t seen that before but it makes sense what you are saying, which would essentially be that as value for running backs drops, value for the DL should also and value for DB should rise, which should increase the value of the RB. That said, I think it unlikely we return to the days of yore and more likely an equilibrium will be reached somewhere between the current situation and the previous one. I also think that DL players have value as far as the passing game goes, as they can put pressure on the QB. A weak DLine means you have to choose between either not putting a lot of pressure on the QB, making it easier for him to pass, or remove a LB from coverage to add to the pressure on the QB, making it easier for him to find an open man.
I don’t view this as a problem. Everyone can spend the same amount of money, and most teams do spend up to near the cap. How they choose to allocate that money is going to be strategic in nature. If runningbacks are worth less than other positions, then they will pay them less. No one is going to war for the kickers, who make far less and are often disposed of quickly after a few bad games.
Ah, but a good kicker stays kicking for 10-20 years. Their situation can be a lot more stable. Running backs, even the very good ones, don’t have that kind of staying power, so they end up taking on the much more dangerous job for far less reward.
They’re exciting to watch, we should be trying to incentivize them.
Are they explicitly exciting to watch? The Niners have proven that with a good scheme and great line, you can plug in any old RB and they are fun to watch.
I don’t know if using the team that currently has Christian McCaffrey at RB should be described as plugging in any old RB. Clearly Shanahan knows the value of a good one even with a scheme that can benefit average ones.
When a RB goes down, he’s easily replaceable. When an O-lineman goes down, it hurts the run game AND the pass game. When it comes to a salary cap, you decide what positions get more money. And O-lineman are getting paid way more than they used to. It’s not just QB and WR.
It’s market economics, plain and simple. The demand for top tier running backs is low, due to the nfl becoming pass first, running qbs becoming a thing, etc. and the supply of adequate running backs is very high. It’s not an issue of the people in charge or anything like that. I’ve seen people say that there should be a cap floor or different rookie contracts for rbs, but that’s effectively the same as a government bailout of a failing company when looking at it in pure economical terms.
a punter feels like any of the non-catcher positions in baseball
namely, you dont play the position expecting to get hit, but when you do, its a doozy
I don’t particularly see the need for a “fix.” So long as the players as a whole are getting the revenue share they negotiated for (i.e. teams are actually paying the cap floor they are supposed to be), then how that money is divided up between players will ultimately be a combination of supply and demand, as well as how those positions work out. Guards, Centers, and run stuffing DTs also get the crap beaten out of them, but they are paid far less than tackles, edge rushers, etc. If your skill set is replaceable and doesn’t have a massive game changing impact, then yeah, you’re not going to get paid as much as the less replaceable guys who have more impact on the game.
As far as I see it, the only problem is the wage scale. A RB is being denied the opportunity to earn his worth because during his most valuable years, he is not able to be paid according to his value but instead forced to accept a lower value, which the league can do thanks to its monopsonistic power. By the time they can earn their fair value, their value has declined significantly. It’s fair they don’t get paid as much when they don’t offer as much to the team. What’s unfair is the earlier portion, where they are not paid according to their value. As a result, I suggest abolishing the rookie pay scale. If a team want to pay $40 million for a player who hasn’t played a snap, let them. If it works great, if not, that’s their problem.
RBs will get worse as more in hs and college players opt to play other, higher-paying positions. Eventually there will be few elite-level RBs.
Millionaires complaining to billionaires why even care anymore
Exactly. No one is forcing them to join the NFL. They can get a job being a bartender if they don’t like it. And don’t even pull that “it’s dangerous” BS… so is being a firefighter or being in the military and they don’t get paid NEAR as much as NFL players do.
Then they should be paid more, too. Not to put my budenovka on, but you should always advocate for better conditions for yourself and your colleagues. Whether you have a dangerous job or not, you should always be pushing to receive a greater share in the profits that YOUR work produces, greater protection from the mechanisms of your industry that will throw you under the bus without a second thought.
I don’t see how repealing the rookie scale fixes anything. You bring back old problems and RBs still don’t get paid for the million other reasons you listed.
Really the only way RBs get paid is getting rid of the salary cap and the day that happens we can start ticking the clock for the NFL’s demise.
No salary cap would kill the NFL? It’ll take a lot more than that. It won’t happen because owners have all the power.
Another idea is to have no rookie scale and no draft so that teams can bid on the top players. Part of the no-rookie-scale problem was that the team with the #1 pick would take a QB and they would say “last year’s #1 QB got this much money, so I deserve more” regardless of any talent difference. Let teams choose who to pursue and for how much. Also not going to happen because of owners 🙁
Why not make the RB’s rookie contract shorter? You said it yourself, RBs have a shorter shelf life. Fairness is allowing them the opportunity to earn while in their prime. If that prime comes before other positions then it stands to reason that shifting rookie contract length to account for that is the most equitable move.
Here’s how I would fix it:
1) provide rookies with the ability to “opt out” of their rookie contracts after year three.
2) If a player plays under a franchise tag, they cannot be franchised the following season.
3) If a player plays under the franchise tag, then for the next two years that player then has the ability to sign on for a single season at a contract that is 125% (and fully guaranteed) what he was paid under the franchise tag. Then in the following season, that player can again sign a 1 year contract that is 125% (and fully guaranteed) of what he received the prior year. This would force NFL teams to understand that if they franchise tag someone, then they have potentially put themselves on the hook for three years. So if an NFL team wants to franchise a 26 year old RB, they only get that season guaranteed, and if the RB falls off a cliff, he can opt in for two more seasons.
“look at what happened to Le’Veon Bell”
Dude made $28M with the Jets and basically didn’t have to do anything. I think he was fine with how things worked out for him after his holdout.
I don’t like getting rid of rookie contracts for exactly the reason you stated: it’s dumb AF for some guy who’s never played a snap in the NFL to get paid $40M. Realistically, in this day and age someone like Trevor Lawrence would probably be looking at $100M+ on draft day. It also prevents a bad team with cap issues from not being able to afford a high draft pick. Imagine if your team gets the #1 pick but they don’t have the cap space to sign the pick.
I wouldn’t mind modifying it, though. Something like baseball’s arbitration structure could work, where drafting gives the team the rights to a player for 4 or 5 years, but only a fixed contract for the first 3. After year 3, the team either offers the player a new contract, releases him, or they go to arbitration. If they go to arbitration, both sides in submit what they believe the player is worth and the arbiter chooses one of the 2 contracts.
Actually going to arbitration is fairly rare in baseball. The overwhelming majority of cases are resolved before arbitration because neither side wants to risk the other side winning the case.