Don’t think Jets (coaches) wanted it. Rogers must have leaned on Woody. Jets have their own show.
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/robert-saleh-we-dont-want-to-be-on-hard-knocks
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/robert-saleh-we-dont-want-to-be-on-hard-knocks
That's what I thought. So the NFL probably said, "I don't care, you're doing it anyway, Woody".
I think it just came down to what would bring the highest ratings. Jets obviously will. So they said "You're doing it".
I’m trying to figure out what point you’re making. Is it that leaning on someone to do something against their will isn’t the same thing as forcing someone to do something against their will? Fine, would you like me to edit my post.
No. I'm simply pointing out that maybe it wasn't Rogers or anyone leaning on Woody. That he was just forced to do it. That's all. I have no clue.
Maybe back page Woody doesn’t mind and doesn’t care what others want
View: https://twitter.com/jetswhispers/status/1667269873871867904?s=46&t=WNUE08imv33kOt1BO6WMzQ
View: https://twitter.com/jetswhispers/status/1667269873871867904?s=46&t=WNUE08imv33kOt1BO6WMzQ
I never watch this show (not for any reason, just don’t care enough about non pats teams) but I think I’ll watch this just to hate on Rodgers.
View: https://twitter.com/jayt23/status/1681032905844293633?s=46&t=xxvZTMezWkaSiYKGpP6ffg
I have no clue if this means anything. But of course seeing guys like Rap do the “eyes” emoji to it etc.
I have no clue if this means anything. But of course seeing guys like Rap do the “eyes” emoji to it etc.
It's part of all the RBs in the league being mad that Jacobs and Saquon didn't get new deals. Big Twitter discourse on the value of RBs as always.
They need to make RB rookie contracts 2 years. There is really no other solution that is fair to the RBs. Because if nothing changes, they won't get paid because by the time they reach free agency, they are past their prime.
Yup. The franchise tag absolutely kills them. It’s a vicious cycle for RBs. They can be franchised beyond their prime and the franchise tag $ amount is being suppressed by a cold market.
A RB like Saquon, Jacobs, etc. is going to make less $ on a franchise tag than a TE like Evan Engram. I’m going to be very curious to see how the Stevenson discussions go.
Well, I mean, SOME position is going to be at the bottom, right? Kind of by definition? (and then however much they get paid - less than everyone else - won't be "fair" to that position) What's so bad about it being running backs, as compared to another position?
Because it's a somewhat new development. Look at this tweet that shows the change in value of franchise tags for several positions since 2015. The running back position has gone down while the other skilled offensive positions have shot up. (ETA I'm pretty sure I saw this tweet on sosh originally)
That's because teams just don't value RBs as much as they used to. Again, SOME position is going to be at the bottom. By definition. So whatever dollars they're getting is going to seem "unfair". Why is it unfair that it's RBs at the bottom? Someone's gotta be.
The amount being paid to RBs on the franchise tag has gone down since 2015.
Your point is poor and ignores the context for some odd reason.
RBs have been making the lowest amount on the franchise tag since 2015. That isn't news. In 2015, you could have said, "Well, someone's gotta be last."
But they aren't just last anymore. RB amounts have gone *down* since 2015 while QBs have almost doubled and WRs are up like 68%. That is big news and a massive widening between the positions. Which proves that something is wrong with the rules around RBs. Because the position is still very valuable. It's just that by age 27, RBs are washed. (on average)
Well, what it shows is that teams REALLY don't value them as they used to. The money is going SOMEWHERE - just not to RBs. Clearly the position doesn't have as much value as you may think - at least people who run NFL teams don't see the position as having anywhere near the same value as you think they ought.
But it's not like NFL teams are just pocketing the money. It's just going to other positions that NFL teams value much more.
It seems the NFL teams disagree with you about RBs being "very valuable". There's not a lot of high-end draft capital used on them and they're not paid very well.
Interesting discussion here: https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2022/7/13/23206891/where-was-the-average-nfl-offensive-starter-drafted-by-position
Here's what they say about RB position:
"In some ways, the RB position is kind of the opposite of the QB position. We've seen a collapse in the number of 1st rounder starting as time goes on....The explanation seems pretty similar, too - The same caliber of RB prospect is largely just getting picked lower now than he was 10-15 years ago....
But teams are still spending plenty of picks on the position. In fact, '17-'21 saw 10 more RBs drafted than '07-'11. This next table shows the progression through the rounds, and you can see the point where 17-21 and 12-16 catch up with 07-11....By round 3 to round 4, the number of RBs off the board are pretty similar. It's just that teams have stopped spending higher picks, especially 1s, on the RB position." (see post to see the tables he refers to)
So it's not that teams aren't drafting RBs...it's that they're not drafting them in the first round anymore, and that's where the real money is for draft picks.
As far as free agency goes, look here: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/
You find the first RB way down the list (#27). Miles Sanders, with a 4 year, 25.5m contract. But ahead of him you've got:
- 2 QB (#1, #5)
- 3 OT (#2, #4, #7, #18, #22)
- 3 DT (#3, #9, #17)
- 2 LB (#6, #14)
- 2 OG (#12, #21)
- 1 S (#8)
- 3 CB (#10, #16, #20)
- 3 DE (#11, #13, #23)
- 5 WR (#14, #19, #24, #25, #26)
And after Sanders, you have to go another 22 spots to get to the next RB (David Montgomery). So it's just not a position they value highly in free agency either. And of course all that impacts franchise tag numbers, so it makes sense that they'd really be down at the bottom.
Here's what they say about RB position:
"In some ways, the RB position is kind of the opposite of the QB position. We've seen a collapse in the number of 1st rounder starting as time goes on....The explanation seems pretty similar, too - The same caliber of RB prospect is largely just getting picked lower now than he was 10-15 years ago....
But teams are still spending plenty of picks on the position. In fact, '17-'21 saw 10 more RBs drafted than '07-'11. This next table shows the progression through the rounds, and you can see the point where 17-21 and 12-16 catch up with 07-11....By round 3 to round 4, the number of RBs off the board are pretty similar. It's just that teams have stopped spending higher picks, especially 1s, on the RB position." (see post to see the tables he refers to)
So it's not that teams aren't drafting RBs...it's that they're not drafting them in the first round anymore, and that's where the real money is for draft picks.
As far as free agency goes, look here: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/
You find the first RB way down the list (#27). Miles Sanders, with a 4 year, 25.5m contract. But ahead of him you've got:
- 2 QB (#1, #5)
- 3 OT (#2, #4, #7, #18, #22)
- 3 DT (#3, #9, #17)
- 2 LB (#6, #14)
- 2 OG (#12, #21)
- 1 S (#8)
- 3 CB (#10, #16, #20)
- 3 DE (#11, #13, #23)
- 5 WR (#14, #19, #24, #25, #26)
And after Sanders, you have to go another 22 spots to get to the next RB (David Montgomery). So it's just not a position they value highly in free agency either. And of course all that impacts franchise tag numbers, so it makes sense that they'd really be down at the bottom.
This would be a really smart solution, which means the NFLPA will never insist upon it.
That said, I can't help but wonder if RBs would still have trouble getting paid even under your proposed system.
I find this new-ish treatment of RBs where you draft guys low, run the best guys into the ground, then let them go when it's time for them to get paid, particularly inhumane. I guess it's because I still think of RB as a skill position and think all the time about Jerome Bettis talking about how broken his body was after each game. Mamas, don't let your kids play RB.
The problem with making RB rookie contracts only 2 years is that it would further discourage teams from drafting RBs high. They'll all be 5th-7th rounders. And I still doubt they'd get paid in free agency.
They'd probably get paid more in FA, because there's less wear and tear on them. Huge difference signing a RB at age 24-25 vs age 27-28, for example.
But you might be right - it might have the adverse effect from what was intended - maybe teams won't want to draft these guys higher because it means that now they're gonna have to shell out a ton of money for them soon. Now they can draft them in the first round, get their ages 23-27 seasons out of them while on their rookie deal, and then let them go, let someone else pay enormous dollars for their ages 28-31 seasons.
Right, it will probably help in their first free agent contract, but on the whole it might hurt. Instead of getting drafted higher with a 4 year contract, they get drafted lower with a 2 year contract. It will help the elite RBs, but will probably hurt the majority of the rest of the RBs in terms of career earnings.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that's how it WOULD work, but it's a distinct possibility. Sometimes "solutions" end up being worse than the problem they're trying to fix. I think it's a creative idea but it may backfire if implemented.
Couldn’t you just make it a player option where they sign for four but have the choice to leave after two? That way they could either go to free agency after two years to get paid, or choose to stick out all four, presumably, because they are not as elite or desirable on the open market.
One other factor is that teams tend to use more RBs. Those of us who play Fantasy Football (I know nobidy cares but it helps this point) have sometimes suffered with having a RB1 from a team but watching him share carries or basically fade in one game or another. There are exceptions (such as Derrick Henry when healthy) or the case of a RB being a great pass catcher. This eliminates most of the league's RBs from getting that huge contract, teams do not see them making such a difference I guess.
Agreed but I’m still not sure teams would want to draft RBs high if they had the player option. Not sure why that would motivate teams.
I think teams have finally all come around to recognize that the position is pretty much interchangeable with a few rare exceptions. Belichick was ahead of this curve way back when but was also wise enough to recognize Corey Dillon was one of the exceptions at the time only to revert back to his interchangeable philosophy post-Dillon. The role of the RB is still valuable but you no longer have to invest top dollar to fill the role.
I wonder if the solution here isn't some kind of percentage based cap for certain positions, ie RB contracts only hit the cap at 75% of their value or something like that. I don't think the trend of disincentivizing running back extensions is good for the sport, it's bad for marketing star power and I think legitimately unfair from a player health perspective that one position has an outsized portion of players getting run into the ground while cheap. Some position has to be last in terms of value, yes, and there is a level of interchangeability to running backs, but I think it does illuminate an issue when you have players like Barkley and Jacobs who were virtually their teams' entire offenses struggling to get "fair" deals.
It wouldn't work, who is drafting a RB high if you get him for 2 years instead of the 4-5 you get for other positions? Also how do you categorize a RB?
I don’t understand why RBs deserve preferential treatment. Why should a RB have special consideration over say a DT?
What’s Debo Samuel in this scenario? What if his team played him at WR 51% of the time and RB 49?
I think this kind of nails it. Running backs are a dime a dozen for the most part. For the rare exceptions, as good as they are, they still don't have much value beyond 5-6 years. I don't agree with the star power / good of the game arguments.
Plus guys re-position in the run up to the draft all the time. If you played any RB at all in college you would be incentivized to re-categorize. I mean, the loss of maybe going a little later in the draft as a WR or TE or something is more than worth the ability to hit FA (or get tagged) 2-3 years earlier
Yes, this is like saying that Centers in basketball should get special accommodations because the sport has changed over time. If RBs want to earn a ton of money in their career, they should learn how to block and catch passes. If middle linebackers want to get paid, they have to focus on covering tight ends, etc.
I’ve always thought the franchise tag should require a more significant offer on the part of the team than a one year deal. What if instead of 1yr guaranteed at the franchise number the player was given the option of taking 1 year at the franchise number or 3 years fully guaranteed at that number annually? This would make teams less likely to use the tag on more borderline cases and gives players an option to lock in more guaranteed money. It probably benefits RBs relative to other positions since teams might be less willing to extend 3 year guaranteed to RBs than other positions (e.g. more reach FA which should help lift salaries) but it wouldn’t be an explicit change to benefit a specific position.
Jets might waive Mims.
If they do, that might be an interesting pickup. The guy has worlds of talent, I think. 6'3", 207 lbs, excellent size and strength. Runs a 4.38 40 time. I know he hasn't clicked with the Jets but I'd absolutely be interested in taking a flyer on him.
If they do, that might be an interesting pickup. The guy has worlds of talent, I think. 6'3", 207 lbs, excellent size and strength. Runs a 4.38 40 time. I know he hasn't clicked with the Jets but I'd absolutely be interested in taking a flyer on him.
Mims looks likely headed to the Lions
View: https://twitter.com/Connor_J_Hughes/status/1681839545942147073?s=20
Other tweets say its not quite done, but looks close
View: https://twitter.com/Connor_J_Hughes/status/1681839545942147073?s=20
Other tweets say its not quite done, but looks close
With regards to the Runningback Discussion:
I don't think it's quite that simple. Like, different roles in each sport have different longevity curves, but I can't think of another example at least in the four major sports where one position's age/relevancy curve related to value is so sharp and short as runningbacks and it creates a unique inefficiency as that knowledge is now common, and it has suppressed draft value, contract value, and team building value. Runningbacks at their peak provide massive value at well below value salary but the curve falls off super quickly and they can't logically cash in on that like pretty much every position can.
Runningbacks have an issue that the things that have the most value to teams, that they'd hypothetically pay the most for on a perpetual open market, are things that severely limit how long the runningback can play. Yeah, a RB whose primary job is a third down back can have a very long career, but third down backs don't generally get paid very well. Darren Sproles was a 3-4m a year guy and he lasted 14 years because he never took more than a hundred carries in a year. Dalvin Cook has five hundred more rushing attempts in his six year career - only one of which he played more than 14 games in - than Darren Sproles has over 14 years. That's 500 times being slammed to the ground by a 300+ lineman or being hit by a 250 pound LB flying around the field.
In terms of WeightedAV, Dalvin Cook is the 8th most valuable player from his draft class behind Patrick Mahomes, T.J. Watt, Alvin Kamara, Myles Garrett, Ryan Ramczyk, Christian McCaffrey, and Deshaun Watson. All the non-RBs in that group are slated to make 17m plus in the upcoming years - even the lineman. Alvin Karmara, Dalvin Cook, and Christian McCaffrey all made very solid money but nowhere near what other players producing similar value will make unless they beat the longevity odds - and given how those three have missed notable time, I wouldn't expect that to happen). Four of the Top 10 players in that class are RBs (you need to go down to #35 to get to the first DT - Dalvin Tomlinson - who got a 4/57 deal in Free Agency).
RBs have a "choice"* in that they can provide maximum value to their team, get hit 200-400 times a year by the biggest, strongest players in the sport, and rapidly decline before they reap the true rewards of a big contract or be one part of a platoon and play longer but earn a small fractional amount of cash. The difference, to me, between an RB and a DT is that an RBs job by team design, game necessity, is designed to grind them into a useless pulp more quickly than DT. I don't know if there is a clear solution to this to be honest - like saying a team needs to pay RBs differently despite obvious quick declines in productivity isn't realistic, but it is deeply inequitable and it totally makes sense why RBs are upset about this because the system is actively disadvantaging their position group specifically because if you are really good, the team is going to run you out there for a ton of carries and destroy your future value. It sucks. I am guessing we'll see a lot of college runningbacks either leave college as early as possible to maximize their chance of getting to free agency with tread on the tires or outright change their position.
*Not really, a rookie runningback is going to have no business telling a team they should load manage his carries and throw him a ton out of the backfield to lengthen his career
I don't think it's quite that simple. Like, different roles in each sport have different longevity curves, but I can't think of another example at least in the four major sports where one position's age/relevancy curve related to value is so sharp and short as runningbacks and it creates a unique inefficiency as that knowledge is now common, and it has suppressed draft value, contract value, and team building value. Runningbacks at their peak provide massive value at well below value salary but the curve falls off super quickly and they can't logically cash in on that like pretty much every position can.
Runningbacks have an issue that the things that have the most value to teams, that they'd hypothetically pay the most for on a perpetual open market, are things that severely limit how long the runningback can play. Yeah, a RB whose primary job is a third down back can have a very long career, but third down backs don't generally get paid very well. Darren Sproles was a 3-4m a year guy and he lasted 14 years because he never took more than a hundred carries in a year. Dalvin Cook has five hundred more rushing attempts in his six year career - only one of which he played more than 14 games in - than Darren Sproles has over 14 years. That's 500 times being slammed to the ground by a 300+ lineman or being hit by a 250 pound LB flying around the field.
In terms of WeightedAV, Dalvin Cook is the 8th most valuable player from his draft class behind Patrick Mahomes, T.J. Watt, Alvin Kamara, Myles Garrett, Ryan Ramczyk, Christian McCaffrey, and Deshaun Watson. All the non-RBs in that group are slated to make 17m plus in the upcoming years - even the lineman. Alvin Karmara, Dalvin Cook, and Christian McCaffrey all made very solid money but nowhere near what other players producing similar value will make unless they beat the longevity odds - and given how those three have missed notable time, I wouldn't expect that to happen). Four of the Top 10 players in that class are RBs (you need to go down to #35 to get to the first DT - Dalvin Tomlinson - who got a 4/57 deal in Free Agency).
RBs have a "choice"* in that they can provide maximum value to their team, get hit 200-400 times a year by the biggest, strongest players in the sport, and rapidly decline before they reap the true rewards of a big contract or be one part of a platoon and play longer but earn a small fractional amount of cash. The difference, to me, between an RB and a DT is that an RBs job by team design, game necessity, is designed to grind them into a useless pulp more quickly than DT. I don't know if there is a clear solution to this to be honest - like saying a team needs to pay RBs differently despite obvious quick declines in productivity isn't realistic, but it is deeply inequitable and it totally makes sense why RBs are upset about this because the system is actively disadvantaging their position group specifically because if you are really good, the team is going to run you out there for a ton of carries and destroy your future value. It sucks. I am guessing we'll see a lot of college runningbacks either leave college as early as possible to maximize their chance of getting to free agency with tread on the tires or outright change their position.
*Not really, a rookie runningback is going to have no business telling a team they should load manage his carries and throw him a ton out of the backfield to lengthen his career
Good points.
I think the smartest, best-advised and most-athletic kids will consider changing positions. But I think a lot of kids will not think about this or will assume the risk of a shorter career rather than risk not making the NFL at all at another position.