Jonathan Taylor requests trade

[PDay8810]

It's a passing League....

Yes it is and running the football matters

 

[Mebert]

How about Matthew Stafford? Rams leading rusher in the Super Bowl had 21 yards, a 3rd rounder coming back early from injury.

If you're going to invalidate any of Brady's or Mahomes' teams, then championship discussions get really thin.

Not invalidating those teams, just pointing out when your 2 examples you have include 2 of the greatest QBs of all time you are not focusing standard use cases.

Stafford/Rams won because of that defense. All that offense needed was a qb better than Goff. Not unlike Dilfer championship. Bengals learned the same lesson Chiefs did when they faced the Bucs, can't skimp on the oline.

No matter how you look at it, run per game and yards per carry are up. Average passing yards are down. Running backs are used and valuable. They do absolutely breakdown before their first extensions, but they are doing that because of usage. Showing they're valuable, but short shelf lives.

 

[fightinfunbags]

"400% raise" is a mentally ill way to portray it.

Kamara got 15 per. McCaffrey got 16.

JT is not the receiving threat they are either, he had one outstanding year and a really good year, followed by a year of injuries, he isn't worth the same as those two. I personally would sign him to 4 yrs, about 12 mill per.

But the way contracts in sports usually goes, next guy up sets the new market when they’re in the top tier. The Kamara and McCaffrey deals aren’t recent. I think 18 is high but in giving up 18 he should get years guaranteed for settling for an AAV of 15-16

 

[shopson67]

You would follow it just fine with a more capable brain.

What are you paying for if not "importance to the offense?"

You pay the going rate for RBs, not the going rate for LTs, or WRs, or QBs. The prime for those other positions lasts longer typically than RBs, so the earning power is greater as the players are expected to be healthy longer and more often.

Not difficult to understand really. If recently tagged players at or near your level (Jacobs, Barkley) aren't getting offers above $13M per, don't expect $18M. No RB has gotten more than $12M per in the past 3 years.

 

[shopson67]

But the way contracts in sports usually goes, next guy up sets the new market when they’re in the top tier. The Kamara and McCaffrey deals aren’t recent. I think 18 is high but in giving up 18 he should get years guaranteed for settling for an AAV of 15-16

The next guy sets the market when there is scarcity and demand (notably with QBs). #1 WRs have jumped as a result too. Elite RBs are nice, but the drop off to a day 3 guy isn't as severe, so that scarcity just isn't there.

 

[shopson67]

Yes it is and running the football matters

Of course it does. However, the drop off from the "elite" RBs to the day 3 picks and committees isn't great enough to drive the upper echelon salaries.

 

[fightinfunbags]

The next guy sets the market when there is scarcity and demand (notably with QBs). #1 WRs have jumped as a result too. Elite RBs are nice, but the drop off to a day 3 guy isn't as severe, so that scarcity just isn't there.

Sure it is. The value of the NFL RB is still there. The league has decided not to pay those guys anymore. That’s what this is all about.

 

[eaglesnut]

You pay the going rate for RBs, not the going rate for LTs, or WRs, or QBs. The prime for those other positions lasts longer typically than RBs, so the earning power is greater as the players are expected to be healthy longer and more often.

Not difficult to understand really. If recently tagged players at or near your level (Jacobs, Barkley) aren't getting offers above $13M per, don't expect $18M. No RB has gotten more than $12M per in the past 3 years.

It's page 9. You aren't saying anything new. Just the same song and dance that's caused the current problems.

If Jonathan Taylor means more to an offense than Christian Kirk than he's worth more money.

*Not to bash Kirk, the Jags had their own reasons to overpay for him and the Jags are developing a nice offense there.

The Colts are worse without him. The league is worse if the best players aren't playing.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Trading him now means relying on cast-offs and/or late draft picks this season when they are trying to introduce a raw rookie QB. What are they going to get in return?

They very well might have been interested in extending him, but then he asks for $18M per. A 400% raise is probably not what they were looking to pay. Certainly seems like they were discussing extension until $18M was introduced.

What does Kevin Costner Say in Draft Day.
No. Now come back to earth (or something like that)

 

[DJ]

The Colts are worse without him. The league is worse if the best players aren't playing.

Make no mistake....he will be playing. No chance he sits out ad misses checks.

LOL.

 

[eaglesnut]

Make no mistake....he will be playing. No chance he sits out ad misses checks.

LOL.

No camp... no reason to play through injury...

That's a combo for less excitement for the fans of the league.

 

[shopson67]

It's page 9. You aren't saying anything new. Just the same song and dance that's caused the current problems.

If Jonathan Taylor means more to an offense than Christian Kirk than he's worth more money.

*Not to bash Kirk, the Jags had their own reasons to overpay for him and the Jags are developing a nice offense there.

The Colts are worse without him. The league is worse if the best players aren't playing.

Jags likely overpaid Kirk to get him, but WR simply get more than RBs in today's NFL. The drop off from upper tier to replacement level is steeper.

 

[eaglesnut]

Jags likely overpaid Kirk to get him, but WR simply get more than RBs in today's NFL. The drop off from upper tier to replacement level is steeper.

Weasel word nonsense from you. What you mean by "simply" is actually

1) An organized tactic to negotiate in bad faith with runningbacks
2) And use them up while not paying them
3) Because they are not free to let the market set their value
4) Instead they are trapped in a contract that doesn't pay them what they are worth to a franchise
5) And the franchise will use them up by the time they can seek fair payment

If you ignore the reasons for anything you can always claim "drrrr that's just the way it is drrrrr"

 

[shopson67]

Weasel word nonsense from you. What you mean by "simply" is actually

1) An organized tactic to negotiate in bad faith with runningbacks
2) And use them up while not paying them
3) Because they are not free to let the market set their value
4) Instead they are trapped in a contract that doesn't pay them what they are worth to a franchise
5) And the franchise will use them up by the time they can seek fair payment

If you ignore the reasons for anything you can always claim "drrrr that's just the way it is drrrrr"

As I've said before, the NFLPA is nutless. They likely can't get the franchise tag system canned (which is just another way to hold FAs hostage longer), let alone get rookie contracts shortened (and that would only benefit those that outperform those contracts, which is not a large percentage). Not having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.

 

[PDay8810]

Not having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.

Oh no...now you've said too much

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Not having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.

It's one of the things that makes football a better sport for fans IMO.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

The PA is useless and the FT is unfortunately, too one sided in the owner's favor. My idea will never happen but the best solution for the players is that all rookie contracts are 3 years with only 1 FT year and if an extension isn't in place, they are UFAs. It still gives teams a 4 year control but also gives a 26 yr old a chance to get a decent payday before he's used up. The actual star RBs like Henry, Saquon, Jacobs would be paid like CMC. The one hit wonders and backups would still be run of the mill 6-7th rounders as they are. Before y'all say it, I know, impossible and dumb but what the fuck. Just putting it out there. Cheers everybody.

 

[BigFin]

Not having fully guaranteed contracts is still pitiful in this day and age.

Too many injuries for that

 

[fightinfunbags]

Too many injuries for that

If they wanted to, they could do guaranteed contracts and allow for injury to remove money due from the cap total. But that costs a lot of money so they’ll never do it. It would also create a haves vs have nots situation we see in baseball where big market teams can buy their way out of mistakes the front office makes.

 

[fastforward]

If they wanted to, they could do guaranteed contracts and allow for injury to remove money due from the cap total. But that costs a lot of money so they’ll never do it. It would also create a haves vs have nots situation we see in baseball where big market teams can buy their way out of mistakes the front office makes.

Teams would create dubious injury concerns for bust players and move them to IR...and we as fans would support our team making such a business decision. It would encourage even bigger risks, which would create even bigger busts.