The RB issue league wide.
|
|
I generally don't weigh on these things unless I have an angle that I don't think anyone is mentioning. So I'm not going to repeat too much of the obvious stuff, and I'm going to focus on aspects I think are overlooked.
And I don't think they're overlooked on accident. Given the portrayals and pictures used by NFL dot com they are making the RBs out to look like they're pouting. So I don't trust them to deliver unbiased news. Regardless ...
Ther obvious issue is that the meat of a RB's career happens between year 2 and 5 if they are true top end backs. By 28 they're usually completely cooked. I drop them from my dynasty rosters then. Are there exceptions? Derrick Henry? Maybe Mccafrey? Adrian Peterson? Sure.
So the obvious answer to me is to remove one year needed for free agency. They hit when they likely still have 3 top tier years left.
What about TEs? Sure, if you want to do that there as well go for it ... But Josh Jacobs was 30+% of his teams offense and was named most valuable non QB. Saquon accounted for about 25%. Both had 300+ touches.
That gets me to the franchise tag.
This is an issue we are not hearing about.
The franchise tag, unless I am grossly misinformed, is a composite of the top players at the position. Right?
The problem?
For every other position this formula is being re written every year by free agent movement. But in the RB position, no one is resetting the market. The guys at the top of the market (McCaffrey, Henry, Kamara, Chubb, Jones) were signed years ago. For QB and WR that market resets every year. There are less top tier RB classes, so it may not reset as often ... but there hasn't been a new "top contract" in 3 years ... we were set for one with Saquon and Jacobs hitting the market, but the better business plan is to franchise them.
If everything goes perfect for Saquon and Jacobs, they will be hit with a 12 million franchise next year, and the RB market will not have changed.
If the market isn't being rewritten by new contracts, the franchise tag means less and less. If the franchise tag was 15 million, we'd likely have seen long term deals.
As it is the 10.9 doesn't put them in the top 25 of WRs (Gallup, Lazard, Corey Davis all make more) ... franchise tag a WR and you're ponying up 24 million.
Teams are just franchising guys twice if they need to and letting them walk, because that's the best business plan.
So the question I am asking here, is knowing that business runs like business ... is there any reason to expect the RB franchise tag to go up? I mean, Kamara will get cut, Jones took a pay cut, Chubb and Henry are going to be done soon. these guys aren't getting more contracts.
It's conceivable that the franchise tag GOES DOWN rather than up in the coming years.
Case in point ... if Ezekiel Elliot (15 million avg) and Dalvin Cook (12.6) avg arent cut this number would be higher. If I remember correctly, wasn't Leveon Bell's franchise number higher? Just looked it up, his second tag (when he sat) was 14.5 million. Meaning the original was 12.
If the top players aren't resetting the market at a position, then the franchise tag becomes a means of collective devaluation, as no teams have a need to EVER reset the market ... in fact, teams collectively have an incentive to make sure no one resets the market ... using the ever decreasing franchise tag, which will ensure no 26 year old RB gets a big contract after the 2 franchise tags ... so no one can reset the market.
This does not have to be collusion. It just so happens that it's in the best interest of every team to never let a top RB hit the open market.
When this kind of thing happens, the NFLPA has to step in on behalf of the players.
If I missed something about this math, let me know.
Anyway, excited for camp. Can't wait to read what y'all that attend see.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2023 07:53AM by alyoshamucci.
And I don't think they're overlooked on accident. Given the portrayals and pictures used by NFL dot com they are making the RBs out to look like they're pouting. So I don't trust them to deliver unbiased news. Regardless ...
Ther obvious issue is that the meat of a RB's career happens between year 2 and 5 if they are true top end backs. By 28 they're usually completely cooked. I drop them from my dynasty rosters then. Are there exceptions? Derrick Henry? Maybe Mccafrey? Adrian Peterson? Sure.
So the obvious answer to me is to remove one year needed for free agency. They hit when they likely still have 3 top tier years left.
What about TEs? Sure, if you want to do that there as well go for it ... But Josh Jacobs was 30+% of his teams offense and was named most valuable non QB. Saquon accounted for about 25%. Both had 300+ touches.
That gets me to the franchise tag.
This is an issue we are not hearing about.
The franchise tag, unless I am grossly misinformed, is a composite of the top players at the position. Right?
The problem?
For every other position this formula is being re written every year by free agent movement. But in the RB position, no one is resetting the market. The guys at the top of the market (McCaffrey, Henry, Kamara, Chubb, Jones) were signed years ago. For QB and WR that market resets every year. There are less top tier RB classes, so it may not reset as often ... but there hasn't been a new "top contract" in 3 years ... we were set for one with Saquon and Jacobs hitting the market, but the better business plan is to franchise them.
If everything goes perfect for Saquon and Jacobs, they will be hit with a 12 million franchise next year, and the RB market will not have changed.
If the market isn't being rewritten by new contracts, the franchise tag means less and less. If the franchise tag was 15 million, we'd likely have seen long term deals.
As it is the 10.9 doesn't put them in the top 25 of WRs (Gallup, Lazard, Corey Davis all make more) ... franchise tag a WR and you're ponying up 24 million.
Teams are just franchising guys twice if they need to and letting them walk, because that's the best business plan.
So the question I am asking here, is knowing that business runs like business ... is there any reason to expect the RB franchise tag to go up? I mean, Kamara will get cut, Jones took a pay cut, Chubb and Henry are going to be done soon. these guys aren't getting more contracts.
It's conceivable that the franchise tag GOES DOWN rather than up in the coming years.
Case in point ... if Ezekiel Elliot (15 million avg) and Dalvin Cook (12.6) avg arent cut this number would be higher. If I remember correctly, wasn't Leveon Bell's franchise number higher? Just looked it up, his second tag (when he sat) was 14.5 million. Meaning the original was 12.
If the top players aren't resetting the market at a position, then the franchise tag becomes a means of collective devaluation, as no teams have a need to EVER reset the market ... in fact, teams collectively have an incentive to make sure no one resets the market ... using the ever decreasing franchise tag, which will ensure no 26 year old RB gets a big contract after the 2 franchise tags ... so no one can reset the market.
This does not have to be collusion. It just so happens that it's in the best interest of every team to never let a top RB hit the open market.
When this kind of thing happens, the NFLPA has to step in on behalf of the players.
If I missed something about this math, let me know.
Anyway, excited for camp. Can't wait to read what y'all that attend see.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2023 07:53AM by alyoshamucci.
