1 hour ago, SkippyX said:

Saquon will have made 48+ million in 6 years at RB before endorsements and licensing, etc.

It cracks me up when people like Mina Kimes think RBs need some kind of financial help.

Its a QB league. QBs get paid 3 to 4 times what RBs do because that's how you win.

30 year old top 10 TEs get paid more than 30 year old star RBs because you can play TE until 35 or so and you are worn down at RB.

Play a different position if it makes you sad. The NFL is not hiding the financial realities of playing RB.

I get it that RBs don't last long, those guys take more punishment than any other position group, but the problem I have is the idea expressed by many that the running game isn't important anymore.

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that the Eagles won the 2017 SB with  6.1 YPR and they lost the 2022 SB with a 3.6 YPR. 

There comes a point in most games where as John Madden would say is time to give the defense  "a big dose of the running game", you have to do that with strong runners, not finesse runners, Howie hasn't figure that out yet.

Howie needs to take advantage of the stupidity of GMs around the league passing on strong runners until the mid to late rounds and get them in the 2nd through 4th rounds, otherwise he's just another stupid GM.

Concerning the longevity of RB, if I were an agent, I'd sign have my RBs sign their first contract as short as possible, say 3 years, this way they can prove their worth in their mid 20's. 

3 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Yeah, but if Jerry really loves a guy, he is going to keep them around. He kept Jason Garrett around for a while before he became the head coach. And then kept him probably longer than he should have. I tend to believe if Jerry Jones truly believes in so many and loves them even if people think he’s crazy, he is going to keep that guy around and do what he wants. He didn’t do that with Moore. He let him leave.

Kinda hard not to keep your son in law though.

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Talking about football has also gotten way worse... and declining just as quickly.

Yes, the empowerment the casual feels when they win their fantasy match up is quite hilarious.  I stopped going to bars for games on occasion in 2014 for this reason.  Rather sit on my couch drinking discounted beers lol

43 minutes ago, mattwill said:

 

Understand this, Satan's most powerful weapon in his arsenal is the lie, he's the father of it, if he can get you to believe his lies he got your soul in his back pocket.

I think his biggest and most powerful lie is the millions and billion of years.  My advice, do some research on "The Age of the Earth", there's a lot of information out there.    

2 hours ago, paco said:

Ok, I’ll bite.  What has fantasy football done to impact the game on the field?

Rules changes favoring the track meet the game has become have crept into the game since the fantasy explosion.  The money fantasy football brings in is absolutely ridiculous, the views it garners are crazy.  It's not a stretch to assume the NFL is milking this cash cow to the max?

2 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

I think he’s projecting his own subjective experience. Fantasy has ruined football for him because he’s now too focused on box scores than enjoying the game

Played once, way back in probably 2012.  Was not fun and has nothing to do with my opinion.  It brings a lot of attention to the sport for sure and the NFL has exploded in popularity since fantasy became popular.  At the end of the day the NFL makes business decisions on how to cater to what is now the majority of the viewers/cash cows.  Which is the casual/unknowledgable fan.  Which is a completely objective opinion and more than likely true.

34 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Kinda hard not to keep your son in law though.

I’m pretty sure Jason Garrett isn’t Jerry jones son in law. Googling it it the only son in law I’ve seen talked about is shy Anderson. Jason Garrett’s father was a long time scout with the cowboys but i don’t think that’s the reason why jones would just think highly of Jason and keep him around for as long as he did as HC

1 hour ago, EagleVA said:

Concerning the longevity of RB, if I were an agent, I'd sign have my RBs sign their first contract as short as possible, say 3 years, this way they can prove their worth in their mid 20's. 

The player would still be a restricted free agent with just 3 accrued seasons. That's why most draft picks sign 4 year deals.

9 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

It’s up to him, but when he doesn’t perform as well as the guys who do, that is a statement in itself. Football is a meritocracy

Since he's middle of the pack in the NFL, doesn't that also mean that he performs better than a bunch of them as well?

6 hours ago, brkmsn said:

The player would still be a restricted free agent with just 3 accrued seasons. That's why most draft picks sign 4 year deals.

I think the CBA mandates... 4 years for all draft picks (with a 1 year team option for 1st rounders), and then they allow UDFAs to sign whatever they wish, and most teams want a 3 year deal, because it keeps the players locked in for a maximum number of years with minimum risk, and if they pan out, they are Restricted FAs at the end of the contract (as you point out).

 

Perhaps the goal of the NFLPA should be to push for 2 or 3 years of service to be the mark of when UFA begins for players... and change the rule regarding draft pick contracts... OR, instead of a straight 4 years before UFA, what about a player option at the end of year 2 or 3, whenever they might hit a certain benchmark for snaps that would free them from their rookie deal sooner allowing them to test free agency when they are still very much in their prime?

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think the CBA mandates... 4 years for all draft picks (with a 1 year team option for 1st rounders), and then they allow UDFAs to sign whatever they wish, and most teams want a 3 year deal, because it keeps the players locked in for a maximum number of years with minimum risk, and if they pan out, they are Restricted FAs at the end of the contract (as you point out).

 

Perhaps the goal of the NFLPA should be to push for 2 or 3 years of service to be the mark of when UFA begins for players... and change the rule regarding draft pick contracts... OR, instead of a straight 4 years before UFA, what about a player option at the end of year 2 or 3, whenever they might hit a certain benchmark for snaps that would free them from their rookie deal sooner allowing them to test free agency when they are still very much in their prime?

 

8 hours ago, EagleVA said:

Understand this, Satan's most powerful weapon in his arsenal is the lie, he's the father of it, if he can get you to believe his lies he got your soul in his back pocket.

I think his biggest and most powerful lie is the millions and billion of years.  My advice, do some research on "The Age of the Earth", there's a lot of information out there.    

It makes me sad that people actually think this

8 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Played once, way back in probably 2012.  Was not fun and has nothing to do with my opinion.  It brings a lot of attention to the sport for sure and the NFL has exploded in popularity since fantasy became popular.  At the end of the day the NFL makes business decisions on how to cater to what is now the majority of the viewers/cash cows.  Which is the casual/unknowledgable fan.  Which is a completely objective opinion and more than likely true.

Gambling has pushed it even further

48 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I think the CBA mandates... 4 years for all draft picks (with a 1 year team option for 1st rounders), and then they allow UDFAs to sign whatever they wish, and most teams want a 3 year deal, because it keeps the players locked in for a maximum number of years with minimum risk, and if they pan out, they are Restricted FAs at the end of the contract (as you point out).

 

Perhaps the goal of the NFLPA should be to push for 2 or 3 years of service to be the mark of when UFA begins for players... and change the rule regarding draft pick contracts... OR, instead of a straight 4 years before UFA, what about a player option at the end of year 2 or 3, whenever they might hit a certain benchmark for snaps that would free them from their rookie deal sooner allowing them to test free agency when they are still very much in their prime?

I think the big, underlying problem is not that RBs are out of their prime after their rookie deals come to an end --- it's that teams have access to a never-ending crop of talented RBs that will be on rookie contracts. It's a simple supply and demand situation. Why use a significant amount of a team salary cap on a position where there is always a cheap alternative? Even if players became UFAs sooner, teams would still use the same approach. In fact, that would probably make RBs slip even further down draft boards.

This is the fault of the Players' Union and their lack of foresight. RBs just need to accept that they are about as "valuable" as kickers. I would love to see a redesign of the cap based on incentives, but the union would never support merit based pay. 

8 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Rules changes favoring the track meet the game has become have crept into the game since the fantasy explosion.  The money fantasy football brings in is absolutely ridiculous, the views it garners are crazy.  It's not a stretch to assume the NFL is milking this cash cow to the max?

That was already happening prior to fantasy blowing up.  The goal is to increase viewership and the casual fan wants to see lots of scoring and passing is more exciting than run dominant games.  Less than 1 in 5 play fantasy, and we can assume that the 80% are said casual viewers.

 

But you are correct, the NFL will do anything to get every last drop.  So if fantasy brings in money, they will definitely do stuff like make stats more available and what not.  

45 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

I think the big, underlying problem is not that RBs are out of their prime after their rookie deals come to an end --- it's that teams have access to a never-ending crop of talented RBs that will be on rookie contracts. It's a simple supply and demand situation. Why use a significant amount of a team salary cap on a position where there is always a cheap alternative? Even if players became UFAs sooner, teams would still use the same approach. In fact, that would probably make RBs slip even further down draft boards.

This is the fault of the Players' Union and their lack of foresight. RBs just need to accept that they are about as "valuable" as kickers. I would love to see a redesign of the cap based on incentives, but the union would never support merit based pay. 

This is also true of WR talent.

The NFL is moving away from being a running league to a passing league.  A good RB with get you 4.5 yards per carry.  Throwing the ball gets you 7.1 yards per attempt, even if you're a middle-tier passer.  Cousins, Brissett, and Fields were 15th through 17th (mid-tier) and 7.1 yards is what they put up passing.  Joe Burrow was 10th last season at 7.4 yards per attempt. 

A top 10 RB gets 5.0 yards per carry.  A top 10 WR gets about 15 yards per catch at a 60% catch rate for 9 yards per target.

I'm not an analytics junkie but it's pretty easy to see why QBs and WRs are a premium position and RBs are not.  

9 hours ago, EagleVA said:

Understand this, Satan's most powerful weapon in his arsenal is the lie, he's the father of it, if he can get you to believe his lies he got your soul in his back pocket.

I think his biggest and most powerful lie is the millions and billion of years.  My advice, do some research on "The Age of the Earth", there's a lot of information out there.    

Maybe they were in the garden for millions of years before the apple. Both sides can be right and back to football 

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Since he's middle of the pack in the NFL, doesn't that also mean that he performs better than a bunch of them as well?

The fact he’s in the nfl, the fact he started in college, the fact that he’s a professional athlete in the first place says he’s succeeded in some context at his job, yes. 

But there’s relativity to where he is and what is expected of him. Was he given that contract to strive to be middle of the pack when he was at one point the highest paid player in the history of football? His profession is one of competition, and we know he is in the minority in his mindset. There’s no question it has an impact

1 hour ago, brkmsn said:

I think the big, underlying problem is not that RBs are out of their prime after their rookie deals come to an end --- it's that teams have access to a never-ending crop of talented RBs that will be on rookie contracts. It's a simple supply and demand situation. Why use a significant amount of a team salary cap on a position where there is always a cheap alternative? Even if players became UFAs sooner, teams would still use the same approach. In fact, that would probably make RBs slip even further down draft boards.

This is the fault of the Players' Union and their lack of foresight. RBs just need to accept that they are about as "valuable" as kickers. I would love to see a redesign of the cap based on incentives, but the union would never support merit based pay. 

There is that, but there's also that RB's effectiveness starts to fall off after about year 4.

12 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

The fact he’s in the nfl, the fact he started in college, the fact that he’s a professional athlete in the first place says he’s succeeded in some context at his job, yes. 

But there’s relativity to where he is and what is expected of him. Was he given that contract to strive to be middle of the pack when he was at one point the highest paid player in the history of football? His profession is one of competition, and we know he is in the minority in his mindset. There’s no question it has an impact

He was middle of the pack, at best, when he got that contract.  You can't bring in a 0.250 hitter, and expect that he's going to become a 0.300 just because you paid him like one.  Lots of QBs get dramatically overpaid.  Their contract is normally based on when their contract expires far more than it is based on where they rank in the hierarchy of QB talent in the league.  He got that contract, because he was a free agent (which says something about how he was viewed by his own team) AND the fact that he just so happened to be in need of a contract.  But... I don't believe he was actually the highest paid QB, but the first to get a fully guaranteed contract.  He had the highest per year average for a moment, but I don't believe he ever had the highest cap number, nor did he ever get the most cash in a given year.  And then his average salary was immediately surpassed, by the next overpaid QB, because that's the NFL economy, not because they are worth that.  Same as the RBs get undervalued, because that's the NFL economy as well.  There aren't enough elite QBs, so teams pay the mediocre QBs like they are elite, because they are scared of not being able to find a suitable replacement.  

 

That said, who really cares about Kirk Cousins?  He's not our QB, nor a QB in our division any more.  Why should we care what he does on his off time?

 

Every hour, a RB is beaten or abused...

They suffer alone and terrified...

Waiting for someone to help...

Please call the number on the screen. With a gift of just $18 a month, you'll rescue RB's from their abusers. Provide medical care, food, shelter and love. Call in the next 30 mins, and we'll send a picture of a RB in shoulder pads with a beautiful tote bag, for free. 

This is your chance to say, "I won't sit by, as a RB suffers."

11 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

 

That's why you don't pay for past performance.   His contract was stupid from the moment they drew it up.  They would have been much smarter to rip up his deal with Detroit the moment they got the trade done and they wouldn't have been negotiating coming off the euphoria of a Super Bowl victory (which is, after all, why they traded for him... it was SB or bust).  So, given that, make the new deal that you knew you had to make with him immediately, and then you can be negotiating out of a position of clarity.

Oh well...  they got themselves into this mess by pushing all their chips in to the center of the table.  They got a SB victory out of it, and now they are going to have to pay for it.  I don't feel bad for them.

The problem with the Rams is that they did not win a SB by 'getting Stafford'. They got into a slightly better position to win by getting him.

The free OBJ out by the curb in Cleveland and the Von Miller trade got them their SB.

So no, the trade was not smart because they won with Stafford. The could have won with Goff if they added OBJ and Von Miller.

Add OBJ and Miller to the 2018 team and they probably win the SB too.

 

Spending rent money on lottery tickets is not a smart move. If enough people do it then one person who wins is still not smart, just lucky.

I had a dream the other night that brought a scenario that could happen with a sports team one day and I wanted to see where people stand on this scenario.

I had a dream that a star player for a team I rooted for(in the dream it wasn't the Eagles or a real player it was just a team without an identity... dreams are weird like that) was accused of doing something really bad. And the team suspended the player immediately pending an investigation causing the player to miss several games. Then eventually the team found out the accuser was a kook who made the whole thing up. But the player was pissed off that the team didn't give the player the benefit of the doubt because they've always been a model citizen and never got into any trouble. And the player said they can never play another game for the organization again because they betrayed the player's trust, and the player demanded to be traded. And in my dream it was a big debate around town on if the player was doing the right thing or not. And some people were like the player needs to suck it up and get back to playing and not let down his teammates and accept the apology that the team made a mistake. And other people were like nah if I was the player I would feel betrayed too, especially since they deprived him of playing during the investigation, they damaged his career and prevented him from playing the game he loved.

If this happened in real life to one of the Philly teams, would you take the side of the player on that or not?