40 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

Tyreek Hill makes more than twice as much money as Travis Kelce, yet Kelce has always been the more important player.  I don’t feel bad for RBs at all.  It’s disingenuous for them to try to represent they’re being singled out.  LBs are becoming obsolete and losing jobs at a higher rate.

I think the LBs will come to the point of forming a group text and complaining on twitter together when guys like Fred Warner are going completely unsigned at the end of their rookie deal. And, it is possible for both groups to be mistreated.  But theyre not at the lows that RBs have hit yet.

And good TEs make bank. And Id say their salaries continue to rise as the years go on. RBs salaries have been shrinking. And now you have 3 top flight players all in the same offseason without a contract. Its pretty crazy.

2 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Remember that the important issues for the players in the last CBA were less drug testing for weed and less practices.

RB money did not come up AFAIK

Perhaps they didnt forsee it devolving to this point. Thats on them. But doesnt mean they dont have a legit gripe now. And they should try to get it fixed in the next one.

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I complained about Hoskins at first base last year... but he looks like a Gold Glover compared to Darick Hall.

🤦‍♂️

Yup. They really need to get Harper at first to see if he can play the position day today as well as just be able to be competent at first base. I don’t doubt over time he can be good at it but that might not be this year. Give yourself as many games as possible before the deadline to figure out if he can do it day to day and play it well enough. Because if he can’t, then you don’t wanna go get an outfielder. you wanna go get a first baseman or a third baseman and move bohm over the first. 

tbh the guy that solves all this problem is probably Cody Bellinger. Because he can play all three outfield positions and first base. He’s won a golden glove at both positions. The only downside is he’s a left-handed bat. However, he’s hitting 342 against lefties and 286 against righties so if he hits that way who cares  

 

12 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Perhaps they didnt forsee it devolving to this point. Thats on them. But doesnt mean they dont have a legit gripe now. And they should try to get it fixed in the next one.

Lets take a vote on special treatment for RBs...  vote fails. NEXT!

What they should do is make the franchise tag an actual franchise tag. You pay 30 million for your QB or your kicker if they are franchise worthy.

No more worrying about a DL/LB if he is a DL or LB for franchise. He just gets 30 million or UFA.

19 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Perhaps they didnt forsee it devolving to this point. Thats on them. But doesnt mean they dont have a legit gripe now. And they should try to get it fixed in the next one.

Fix what? Supply and demand? Marginal Value?

there is nothing to be fixed. RBs are commoditized. Too bad so sad

9 hours ago, NCiggles said:

In fairness, the women's team are winners and should get paid.  

They do get paid. Sports are an entertainment business and need to generate revenue to continue. If women's sports had the same size audience as men's sports, they would generate as much revenue and allow players to make more money. I doubt TV networks and sponsors are willing to pay significantly more to televise / advertise to a significantly smaller audience. 

In fairness, fairness is fair. It's like any other business. 

17 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Fix what? Supply and demand? Marginal Value?

there is nothing to be fixed. RBs are commoditized. Too bad so sad

How much do you want to watch football without RBs?

23 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

They do get paid. Sports are an entertainment business and need to generate revenue to continue. If women's sports had the same size audience as men's sports, they would generate as much revenue and allow players to make more money. I doubt TV networks and sponsors are willing to pay significantly more to televise / advertise to a significantly smaller audience. 

In fairness, fairness is fair. It's like any other business. 

One major issue is that fifa awards 10x the prize money for the mens and womens world cup, despite the fact that viewership isnt 10x more for the men. So you are really arguing for the women to get more money. 

24 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

How much do you want to watch football without RBs?

There will always be plenty of RBs

2 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

I agree. 

Its one of the most physicall tolling positions, and now one of the lowest paid. 

If you dont want to cash strap teams by somehow forcing them to pay more to RBs on 2nd contracts, then I think the compromise can be paying the more initially. Some kind of change to the rookie scale where specifically for a RB, their first contract is larger. 

Not really the lowest paid, just realistically paid.   The worse thing a team can do is become dependent on a "star” RB.  Lose that player to injury and the offense is knocked off kilter and RB is an injury prone position.  So successful teams platoon.  Doesn’t mean one back isn’t the "starter” but they split carries.  Let me put it this way. Are we more concerned about Sanders leaving or Seumalo.  Most of us would say Seumalo despite have two second round draft choices vying for his spot.  Meanwhile, the Eagles invested in two RBs that have an injury history to replace a RB with injury history. 

Won’t somebody please think about the Fullbacks!!

5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

There will always be plenty of RBs

Who is going to want to play that position when they could make so much more in a different position?

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Won’t somebody please think about the Fullbacks!!

That position basically disappeared.  Might happen to RB next. 

23 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

How much do you want to watch football without RBs?

That's a disingenuous statement. There will always be running backs. I agree with a previous poster, about the situation with Travis Kelce's salary and any of the high priced wide receivers. Kelce knows what he is.... his position does not command top dollar. Same with his brother. The situation is about market value and cost/benefit. With 50-60 million dollar QB's running around, decisions have to be made. The RB position is directly impacted and also is the only position where the number of touches is a battle of diminishing returns. It is unwise to invest a player getting 225-250 rushes per year. Teams are going to the new reality of the cap and will adjust. RB's just need to handle the new expectations.

6 minutes ago, aptosbird said:

That's a disingenuous statement. There will always be running backs. I agree with a previous poster, about the situation with Travis Kelce's salary and any of the high priced wide receivers. Kelce knows what he is.... his position does not command top dollar. Same with his brother. The situation is about market value and cost/benefit. With 50-60 million dollar QB's running around, decisions have to be made. The RB position is directly impacted and also is the only position where the number of touches is a battle of diminishing returns. It is unwise to invest a player getting 225-250 rushes per year. Teams are going to the new reality of the cap and will adjust. RB's just need to handle the new expectations.

It's not.  But comparing TEs and RBs is.

10 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

It's not.  But comparing TEs and RBs is.

Why isn't Travis Kelce in the top 5 paid pass catchers? I am talking market value by position. I am not quite sure what you are talking about.

26 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Won’t somebody please think about the Fullbacks!!

Weaver injury still makes me cringe. Can you believe he is only 40? 

Actually a cool story 

 

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

Who is going to want to play that position when they could make so much more in a different position?

except they can't.

Interestingly,   on the defense side, the position being devalued is linebacker.  Those 230 pound running backs / linebackers are the ones getting screwed. 

The running back has been devalued for a few years now.  That's why you find great athletes not playing RB,  but playing LB.   If you are an edge rusher at 238 like Nolan Smith,  you're not in a devalued position.  If you're a 231 ILB, that's a position that's often devalued. 

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

That position basically disappeared.  Might happen to RB next. 

TE/FB,  WR/RB

RBs should just ask the niners organization and players to **** and cry about it. Worked this offseason when they got that Qb rule installed  

5 hours ago, Random Reglar said:

except they can't.

Interestingly,   on the defense side, the position being devalued is linebacker.  Those 230 pound running backs / linebackers are the ones getting screwed. 

The running back has been devalued for a few years now.  That's why you find great athletes not playing RB,  but playing LB.   If you are an edge rusher at 238 like Nolan Smith,  you're not in a devalued position.  If you're a 231 ILB, that's a position that's often devalued. 

Sure they can

7 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

Who is going to want to play that position when they could make so much more in a different position?

Wait you mean supply impacts price?? Who knew

8 hours ago, jsb235 said:

One major issue is that fifa awards 10x the prize money for the mens and womens world cup, despite the fact that viewership isnt 10x more for the men. So you are really arguing for the women to get more money. 

It's 4 times more for the men. I don't know the viewership numbers and you have to remember that it's not a national sport, but a worldwide sport. If you can produce the numbers that prove how much revenue the women generate on their own and compare that to the revenue the men generate, we can have a valid discussion on what is fair or unfair. But demanding equal pay for something that has less consumer appeal is ignorant. That's like somebody with a silver mine demanding equal pay to someone with a gold mine that produces the same weight of product. 

I am by no means a "soccer" fan, but I have watched men's games and women's games and there is a night and day difference in the game play. 

 

I know this isn't soccer, but here's a comparison between the NBA and WNBA: https://www.wsn.com/nba/nba-vs-wnba/. We pretty much need the same information for other sports when talking about player salary fairness. 

10 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

It's 4 times more for the men.

No he's right, the total pot of prize money to be awarded for the 2018 men's world cup was ~$400M and for the 2019 women's world cup it was ~$40M. They just raised the total for this year's pot to well over $100M but originally it was to be around $60M. 

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/womens-world-cup-2023-prize-money-breakdown-team-player/rkh4a84u7tuwqw58q0fxtaj5#:~:text=In March this year%2C Gianni,the last Women's World Cup.