Labor Idea for Running Backs

[TaylorBanksCarsonVanPelt]

2 hours ago, gmenroc said:

Would much prefer the 21-13 game over the 35-31 game any day.  I also appreciate the toughness over the finesse given the choice.

I think though society is too impatient, and too prone to instant gratification for the trend to reverse.  Information/news/etc. is 24/7...scoring in a football game is taking the same approach.

 

I much preferred the games of the 70s-90s with real defenses and not this score fest today.  WRs, TEs and/or RBs today would scream like children if they had to bump and run down the field from scrimmage pre-mid 80s... where the defender could beat your ass all the way down the field until just before the ball gets there.  When guys caught passes back then they earned it.  No illegal contact.

[BlueInCanada]

On 8/15/2023 at 10:36 PM, Dragon said:

That's the argument, but the reality has been you need a HALL OF FAME QB or a top 10 all time defense if you're gonna undervalue the RB position. How many of those are actually available? Since 2013 there have only been 5 QBs to win Super Bowls and excluding the outliers of the 2017 Eagles, all 4 of them are going to Canton. And again... $10M+ is a drop in the bucket with the $300M salary cap there's gonna be in a few years especially if that $10M+ is putting up 1700 scrimmage and 11 TDs. It can be done and with the way gms are able to manipulate the salary cap, there's literally no excuse. 

But that's what I'm saying, good QBs and defenses win in the NFL today, RBs help but aren't needed. 

You don't need a face of the franchise RB anymore, you can get by with rentals and rookies. 

You said it yourself only 5(6) QBs have won the SB since '13, how many different RBs were in the SB and how many were 1000 yard rushers?  How many were paid 10+ million? 

You either need a QB to win games because you need to score and score quickly in the NFL or a defense to stop the other team from scoring in under a minute.

The rules and pace no longer benefit long sustained drives, especially if your defense isn't good, because the other team is going to go down and score in 45 seconds. Just look at the championship games last year each one was decided in the final 30 seconds because offenses can just score at will. 

I'm not saying RBs shouldn't get paid I'm just saying that in today's NFL it's better to have the majority of your cap space going towards your QB/pass catchers and defense, because they are going to win you games in the final seconds.  

RBs contracts are a by product of the game today. Maybe one day the NFL returns to the grind out style but only a select few teams in the NFL even make it work (49ers/Titans) and even then they are victims of their lack of big play ability. 

 

[BlueInCanada]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:21 PM, gmenroc said:

Would much prefer the 21-13 game over the 35-31 game any day.  I also appreciate the toughness over the finesse given the choice.

I think though society is too impatient, and too prone to instant gratification for the trend to reverse.  Information/news/etc. is 24/7...scoring in a football game is taking the same approach.

 

It's more that the offenses realized if you play a spread/west coast style, defenses have to play spread out and have to match speed vs speed.

Any defense can play 8 in the box and stuff the run, not many can put 5 DBs on the field and cover WR#1 in the slot or TEs like Kelcee or Kittle.  

Before if your team got the ball back with minutes left it was almost magic if your team even got out of it with a  field goal (which is why Eli made his money being able to do it)

Now if a team gets the ball back with 50 seconds it's almost a guarantee they can atleast get a FG attempt if not a score out of it, the good ones now a days. 

[gmenroc]

45 minutes ago, BlueInCanada said:

It's more that the offenses realized if you play a spread/west coast style, defenses have to play spread out and have to match speed vs speed.

Any defense can play 8 in the box and stuff the run, not many can put 5 DBs on the field and cover WR#1 in the slot or TEs like Kelcee or Kittle.  

Before if your team got the ball back with minutes left it was almost magic if your team even got out of it with a  field goal (which is why Eli made his money being able to do it)

Now if a team gets the ball back with 50 seconds it's almost a guarantee they can atleast get a FG attempt if not a score out of it, the good ones now a days. 

I just think the pendulum has swung too far in favor if offense.  Spread out is fine, but it's more the rules that have been put in place to (over)protect the passer, the pass interference that really doesn't impede the WR, etc. that have lead to more use of the spread offense. 

Might as well watch arena/indoor league some Sundays.

Again though, it's not gonna change so no use beating a dead horse

[BlueInCanada]

1 hour ago, gmenroc said:

I just think the pendulum has swung too far in favor if offense.  Spread out is fine, but it's more the rules that have been put in place to (over)protect the passer, the pass interference that really doesn't impede the WR, etc. that have lead to more use of the spread offense. 

Might as well watch arena/indoor league some Sundays.

Again though, it's not gonna change so no use beating a dead horse

Which is why when you have a great defense like the Eagles or the 49ers you can have more of a run game since you don't have to worry about scoring 40 points. 

I don't think the NFL has swung to heavy in favor of offences outside of the no touching of the QB it's just that scheme and play design wise current offenses are just more advanced than defenses. It evolved with the college game that started running nothing but shotgun/spread, which favors less physical and more slot/speed WRs which are easier to find and develop. Programs that couldn't recruit 5 star athletes needed to find a way to keep up with scoring teams and better defenses which lead into what we see in the NFL today. 

The NFL seen you don't need a true #1 WR or running game if you can spread out the defense and make quick easy reads for the QB, or if there's heavy coverage on the outside you can just audible into a quick run with 5 OL vs 4 Dline. 

Add to the fact that pre snap motion has been mastered by guys like Reid, Shanahan, etc it just makes it that much harder for defenses to keep up. 

[gmenroc]

35 minutes ago, BlueInCanada said:

Which is why when you have a great defense like the Eagles or the 49ers you can have more of a run game since you don't have to worry about scoring 40 points. 

I don't think the NFL has swung to heavy in favor of offences outside of the no touching of the QB it's just that scheme and play design wise current offenses are just more advanced than defenses. It evolved with the college game that started running nothing but shotgun/spread, which favors less physical and more slot/speed WRs which are easier to find and develop. Programs that couldn't recruit 5 star athletes needed to find a way to keep up with scoring teams and better defenses which lead into what we see in the NFL today. 

The NFL seen you don't need a true #1 WR or running game if you can spread out the defense and make quick easy reads for the QB, or if there's heavy coverage on the outside you can just audible into a quick run with 5 OL vs 4 Dline. 

Add to the fact that pre snap motion has been mastered by guys like Reid, Shanahan, etc it just makes it that much harder for defenses to keep up. 

Agree...but it's high time defenses catch up.  And there isn't really room to do so within the confines of the current rules.  Outside of Tampa Two, which is beatable by a talented TE or receiving RB in the middle...there hasn't really been a defensive breakthru in years.

Hybrid DE/LB and CB/S to hide coverages is about it...

[BlueInCanada]

23 minutes ago, gmenroc said:

Agree...but it's high time defenses catch up.  And there isn't really room to do so within the confines of the current rules.  Outside of Tampa Two, which is beatable by a talented TE or receiving RB in the middle...there hasn't really been a defensive breakthru in years.

Hybrid DE/LB and CB/S to hide coverages is about it...

I think modern defenses have gotten there.

The parity between good and average defenses have grown in the NFL against the average offense in the NFL.

If you don't have a decent Dline or corners to then you are going to have a hard time stopping these high flying passing games even against mundane QBs and WRs.

It's just how the game has evolved and it's because of the college game. 

More athletic QBs have really shaken things up too, before you never had to worry about a QB being able to move outside the pocket and make ridiculous on the move throws or take off like a greyhound. 

Now they are becoming the norm, even Jones is the prototypical spread QB who benefits from being in shotgun and moving outside of the pocket. 

 

[Dragon]

 

On 8/18/2023 at 3:10 PM, BlueInCanada said:

But that's what I'm saying, good QBs and defenses win in the NFL today, RBs help but aren't needed. 

You don't need a face of the franchise RB anymore, you can get by with rentals and rookies. 

You said it yourself only 5(6) QBs have won the SB since '13, how many different RBs were in the SB and how many were 1000 yard rushers?  How many were paid 10+ million? 

You either need a QB to win games because you need to score and score quickly in the NFL or a defense to stop the other team from scoring in under a minute.

The rules and pace no longer benefit long sustained drives, especially if your defense isn't good, because the other team is going to go down and score in 45 seconds. Just look at the championship games last year each one was decided in the final 30 seconds because offenses can just score at will. 

I'm not saying RBs shouldn't get paid I'm just saying that in today's NFL it's better to have the majority of your cap space going towards your QB/pass catchers and defense, because they are going to win you games in the final seconds.  

RBs contracts are a by product of the game today. Maybe one day the NFL returns to the grind out style but only a select few teams in the NFL even make it work (49ers/Titans) and even then they are victims of their lack of big play ability. 

 

I get your main point. You're not getting or you're just flat out ignoring what I'm saying, though. You keep saying "good" as if you can throw any 2nd or 3rd tier QB out onto the field and expect them to elevate everyone around them to a Super Bowl winner. There's smaller than a select few QBs that can do that and all of them in the last 10 years with the exception of Foles are at least borderline HoF QBs. So if you're specifically saying "you don't need to pay a RB to win as long as you have the greatest QB of all time, or his heir apparent" I agree with you, but that's not the argument. 

As far as your questions, there have been multiple cases with 1000+ yard rushers in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. I believe only 2 have been on the winning team... one of them beating another team with a 1000+ yard rusher (Pats-Falcons). Another case was Lynch for Seattle in 2013 and 2014 who WOULD HAVE won back to back had they actually ran the ball in for the GWTD instead of trying to make Russell Wilson the MVP, and Todd Gurley in 2018 lost to Brady's Pats after putting up nearly 1300 rushing yards... 1800+ in scrimmage yards. In that same time span you've had a bunch of others that have come just shy of 1000, but made up for it through receiving yards. The production has been there. It's just been overshadowed by those teams continuously running into the football GOAT. 

Asking about the $10M+ isn't a fair question as the salary cap has just gotten to the point where a RB can realistically be paid $10M+ over the last 3-5 years and with that all the sudden is this practice/theory of cheap rentals or running rookies into the ground and deliberately restricting their earning potential by keeping them under team control for their duration of their rookie contract and 2 franchise tags so that they cannot hit the open market while they're in their prime. The definition of legal loophole. And I know I've been going on for a minute, but we live in a world where Corey Davis, Cole Kmet and Evan Engram make more than Saquon, Josh Jacobs, Miles Sanders and Tony Pollard. That will never sit right with me and it's even worse in our case as we have every major position locked up with multi-year control except RB and Safety, but there's this Salary Cap excuse everyone keeps using as if Schoen couldn't manipulate the cap numbers the same way, if not better, than he did while negotiating DJ's contract. 

 

 

Now... the funny thing about saying QB/pass catchers and defense being better served getting the bulk of the salary cap money is that we were just having this exact same conversation about Beckham 5 years ago with similar terminology. "When was the last time a team paid a WR $xxM and won a Super Bowl?" was all we heard throughout all of sports media. Now it's commonplace and the argument has moved over to the RBs. 

[Iceman_NYG]

The argument here is Jones with scrubs for WRs - Hodgins was on the practice squad - was effective with a proper game plan. But if there is a case to be made for an RBs value - it has to be the Washington game when Saquon took over in the 4th qtr. Literally grinded out 1st down after 1st down and swallowed the clock to keep the ball away from the Commanders. THAT is the value of the RB - but those situations are few and far in between - its all about quick scoring now and drawing penalties. And Saquon being a receiving QB - like Ekeler or Tomlinson - is that much more valuable. The way he turned that lost play against Chicago into a positive 1st down was a thing of beauty. But yeah I agree - an Eric Gray and Brieda at 1-2 mill a year is almost the same to a GM than a single back for 13-14mill - purely because of the nature of the game and the play of the QB and WRs/TEs and the soft rules to protect the passing game.

[Dragon]

3 hours ago, Iceman_NYG said:

The argument here is Jones with scrubs for WRs - Hodgins was on the practice squad - was effective with a proper game plan. But if there is a case to be made for an RBs value - it has to be the Washington game when Saquon took over in the 4th qtr. Literally grinded out 1st down after 1st down and swallowed the clock to keep the ball away from the Commanders. THAT is the value of the RB - but those situations are few and far in between - its all about quick scoring now and drawing penalties. And Saquon being a receiving QB - like Ekeler or Tomlinson - is that much more valuable. The way he turned that lost play against Chicago into a positive 1st down was a thing of beauty. But yeah I agree - an Eric Gray and Brieda at 1-2 mill a year is almost the same to a GM than a single back for 13-14mill - purely because of the nature of the game and the play of the QB and WRs/TEs and the soft rules to protect the passing game.

Eric Gray needs to learn how to pick up a blitz and catch a punt without giving me a heart attack before I put any kind of faith in him.

[Mr. P]

Also Saquon caught more passes and had more targets than anyone else on the team.   And all indications from training camp reports point to that not changing all too much.  
 

hes not just some running back, hes the biggest part of our offensive gameplan. 

[BlueInCanada]

10 hours ago, Dragon said:

 

I get your main point. You're not getting or you're just flat out ignoring what I'm saying, though. You keep saying "good" as if you can throw any 2nd or 3rd tier QB out onto the field and expect them to elevate everyone around them to a Super Bowl winner. There's smaller than a select few QBs that can do that and all of them in the last 10 years with the exception of Foles are at least borderline HoF QBs. So if you're specifically saying "you don't need to pay a RB to win as long as you have the greatest QB of all time, or his heir apparent" I agree with you, but that's not the argument. 

As far as your questions, there have been multiple cases with 1000+ yard rushers in the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. I believe only 2 have been on the winning team... one of them beating another team with a 1000+ yard rusher (Pats-Falcons). Another case was Lynch for Seattle in 2013 and 2014 who WOULD HAVE won back to back had they actually ran the ball in for the GWTD instead of trying to make Russell Wilson the MVP, and Todd Gurley in 2018 lost to Brady's Pats after putting up nearly 1300 rushing yards... 1800+ in scrimmage yards. In that same time span you've had a bunch of others that have come just shy of 1000, but made up for it through receiving yards. The production has been there. It's just been overshadowed by those teams continuously running into the football GOAT. 

Asking about the $10M+ isn't a fair question as the salary cap has just gotten to the point where a RB can realistically be paid $10M+ over the last 3-5 years and with that all the sudden is this practice/theory of cheap rentals or running rookies into the ground and deliberately restricting their earning potential by keeping them under team control for their duration of their rookie contract and 2 franchise tags so that they cannot hit the open market while they're in their prime. The definition of legal loophole. And I know I've been going on for a minute, but we live in a world where Corey Davis, Cole Kmet and Evan Engram make more than Saquon, Josh Jacobs, Miles Sanders and Tony Pollard. That will never sit right with me and it's even worse in our case as we have every major position locked up with multi-year control except RB and Safety, but there's this Salary Cap excuse everyone keeps using as if Schoen couldn't manipulate the cap numbers the same way, if not better, than he did while negotiating DJ's contract. 

 

 

Now... the funny thing about saying QB/pass catchers and defense being better served getting the bulk of the salary cap money is that we were just having this exact same conversation about Beckham 5 years ago with similar terminology. "When was the last time a team paid a WR $xxM and won a Super Bowl?" was all we heard throughout all of sports media. Now it's commonplace and the argument has moved over to the RBs. 

That is the whole argument though, a good QB, pass catchers and defense are vastly more important to winning and even getting to the big show then having a top 5 RB.  

If you don't have an good combination of those three things then you can't keep up with modern NFL scoring. 

Which is why the RB position has been so devalued over the years, since outside of maybe three or four RBs in the NFL none of them bring that big play ability, or can be replaced with another typically cheaper RB in the league. 

And it's funny you mention Beckham because he was making 19 million that year he carried the Rams to the SB when he was traded.  

Do I think it sucks for RBs? Yeah you should get paid for what you produce on the field and it will clearly be a discussion for the NFLPA and the league to work out come negotiating time. 

But I also think it's just the current shift in the NFL landscape and has been onset the last five years or so, after CMC signed his contract and then got hurt for two years .

[Dragon]

9 hours ago, BlueInCanada said:

That is the whole argument though, a good QB, pass catchers and defense are vastly more important to winning and even getting to the big show then having a top 5 RB.  

If you don't have an good combination of those three things then you can't keep up with modern NFL scoring. 

Which is why the RB position has been so devalued over the years, since outside of maybe three or four RBs in the NFL none of them bring that big play ability, or can be replaced with another typically cheaper RB in the league. 

And it's funny you mention Beckham because he was making 19 million that year he carried the Rams to the SB when he was traded.  

Do I think it sucks for RBs? Yeah you should get paid for what you produce on the field and it will clearly be a discussion for the NFLPA and the league to work out come negotiating time. 

But I also think it's just the current shift in the NFL landscape and has been onset the last five years or so, after CMC signed his contract and then got hurt for two years .

Beckham... literally what I said. We, fans and sports media, were having the same discussion about NOT paying him, and now it's commonplace to pay the WR as that narrative was disproven. Hell... just a few years ago the narrative was draft a young QB and stack the team as much as possible to try and win a Super Bowl before you have to pay the QB so these media talking points aren't anything new. They just seem to shift from one targeted position to another. 

 

Dropping 5% of the cap on a RB that's worth it shouldn't be that big of a deal regardless of how much the QB, WRs and D are making. Ex... don't believe the bullshit... the most Saquon was realistically offered was $11.5M/year. As per Ryan Dunleavy, the numbers that were leaked, the $13-14M/year, had escalators/incentives that would NEVER be reached with guaranteed money totaling less than both the 2 franchise tags and the top rookie rb until the 11th hour when the AAV was lowered and the guarantees were increased to the equivalent of the 2 tags. The current deal takes up 4.49% of the $224.8M cap. Even if we hypothetically gave him $15M/year, that's still just 6.67% when we have Leonard Williams just sitting there with a $32M cap number in his final year and no realistic solution next to Dex, unless Jordan Riley somehow becomes the next Aaron Donald. Simple solution... extend Williams to lower his cap number for this year and pay Saquon so that he and DJ are tied to each other throught the duration of both their contracts since your QB isn't costing you $55-60M. The Free Agent WR market is weak next year, so our best bet is to extend Campbell or draft another WR high, neither if which should cost a ton and we're currently projected to have around $60M in cap space when it jumps to around $256M. 

 

All that being said... what's (hypothetically) $15M/year to that when we have most of our key positions covered and what seems like a surplus when it comes to cap space on the horizon? And I'm not advocating for $15M/year. I'm just using it as an arbitrary number since Saquon said he wasn't trying to reset the market... which would be $16M+. 

 

Seems like a no-brainer, but I'm just a fan that wants my team to succeed. 

[Nas]

On 8/20/2023 at 10:36 PM, Dragon said:

Beckham... literally what I said. We, fans and sports media, were having the same discussion about NOT paying him, and now it's commonplace to pay the WR as that narrative was disproven. Hell... just a few years ago the narrative was draft a young QB and stack the team as much as possible to try and win a Super Bowl before you have to pay the QB so these media talking points aren't anything new. They just seem to shift from one targeted position to another. 

 

Dropping 5% of the cap on a RB that's worth it shouldn't be that big of a deal regardless of how much the QB, WRs and D are making. Ex... don't believe the bullshit... the most Saquon was realistically offered was $11.5M/year. As per Ryan Dunleavy, the numbers that were leaked, the $13-14M/year, had escalators/incentives that would NEVER be reached with guaranteed money totaling less than both the 2 franchise tags and the top rookie rb until the 11th hour when the AAV was lowered and the guarantees were increased to the equivalent of the 2 tags. The current deal takes up 4.49% of the $224.8M cap. Even if we hypothetically gave him $15M/year, that's still just 6.67% when we have Leonard Williams just sitting there with a $32M cap number in his final year and no realistic solution next to Dex, unless Jordan Riley somehow becomes the next Aaron Donald. Simple solution... extend Williams to lower his cap number for this year and pay Saquon so that he and DJ are tied to each other throught the duration of both their contracts since your QB isn't costing you $55-60M. The Free Agent WR market is weak next year, so our best bet is to extend Campbell or draft another WR high, neither if which should cost a ton and we're currently projected to have around $60M in cap space when it jumps to around $256M. 

 

All that being said... what's (hypothetically) $15M/year to that when we have most of our key positions covered and what seems like a surplus when it comes to cap space on the horizon? And I'm not advocating for $15M/year. I'm just using it as an arbitrary number since Saquon said he wasn't trying to reset the market... which would be $16M+. 

 

Seems like a no-brainer, but I'm just a fan that wants my team to succeed. 

My profession encompasses finance, accounting, technology, and human capital.    One of the things that irk me is titles (i.e Chief Financial Officer) and people acting like we’re all the same… we’re NOT.   You can replace the title but you can never replace the function.   Barkley is far more than a running back and everyone knows it.    Pay your contributors.  THAT is the hallmark of a successful organization.

[Iceman_NYG]

On 8/20/2023 at 10:33 PM, BlueInCanada said:

That is the whole argument though, a good QB, pass catchers and defense are vastly more important to winning and even getting to the big show then having a top 5 RB.  

If you don't have an good combination of those three things then you can't keep up with modern NFL scoring. 

Which is why the RB position has been so devalued over the years, since outside of maybe three or four RBs in the NFL none of them bring that big play ability, or can be replaced with another typically cheaper RB in the league. 

And it's funny you mention Beckham because he was making 19 million that year he carried the Rams to the SB when he was traded.  

Do I think it sucks for RBs? Yeah you should get paid for what you produce on the field and it will clearly be a discussion for the NFLPA and the league to work out come negotiating time. 

But I also think it's just the current shift in the NFL landscape and has been onset the last five years or so, after CMC signed his contract and then got hurt for two years .

Was having a tear away 1st half too before he tore his ACL at half time.....

[Iceman_NYG]

On 8/20/2023 at 9:20 PM, Mr. P said:

Also Saquon caught more passes and had more targets than anyone else on the team.   And all indications from training camp reports point to that not changing all too much.  
 

hes not just some running back, hes the biggest part of our offensive gameplan. 

Agreed - HE is the guy the DCs are most worried about - and now maybe Waller too...

[gmenroc]

9 hours ago, Iceman_NYG said:

Agreed - HE is the guy the DCs are most worried about - and now maybe Waller too...

I think our ability to attack multiple levels of the defense is most worrisome for defenses.  Not saying the guys are restricted to the areas below...but,

Legitimate underneath stuff to Barkley, Campbell, Bellinger.

Midrange to Hodgins, Shepard.

Deep to Hyatt, Slayton

And that doesn't include Waller who can hit all 3 levels.

The quickest way to limit our offense is to pressure Jones and take away the deep ball, but id he has a 5 yard safety valve in Barkley or Campbell...or can escape for a 5 yard run...those pressures will stop and the long ball will open up.

I'm excited to see what we do when the games count.

[Virginia Giant]

Only way it’s going to get addressed is of these guys start fumbling in big situations or coming up short on third down in big situations. 

[BlueInCanada]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:07 PM, Virginia Giant said:

Only way it’s going to get addressed is of these guys start fumbling in big situations or coming up short on third down in big situations. 

But then you just shit canned your entire career and you get cut and never picked up again in the NFL.

Probably sued out the asshole too by the NFL for "messin wit the tegridy of the game!"

[BlueInCanada]

So the fact that the Colts never offered Taylor a single contract is pretty telling about how valued NFL RBs are lol 

I wonder if they made him and his agent go through the whole song and dance routine then tell him "oh by the way we're not offering you anything this year"

Or did they just pull the bandage off early and before Taylor and his agent sat down Irsay was like "you see I'm trying to fly this whale from the west coast to the east coast before it dies, so I'm gonna have to cut back on the spending for awhile"