OT: Jonathan Taylor requested Colts to trade him (Edit: RBs unhappy around the league)

[Family]

from a teams perspective, why would you invest high dollars in a running back? They are the easiest of the skill position players to replace... it just doesn't, or rarely if you prefer, happen anymore...

and if you need to put a qualifier of a 2000 yard season on Jonathan Taylor, come on Fam ... that's a HUGE if assumption on your part... but say he does, whats going to happen? as you said, age and use devalue a back... a 2000 yard season for a back means averaging 117 yards per game... based on his 5 ypc career average, that's 23.5 carries a game at 5 yards per clip... project that out and its 400 carries for Taylor... (and lets not forget no back has ever achieved the 2000 yard season twice in their career)...

But if he manages it, most likely the colts will tag him... in doing so, it will increase the overall cap values for the rb group under the cba, making it just that much easier for the next guy to earn a bit more...

Taylor did it two years ago.

If he has a year where he's perceived a difference maker like Barkley last year or him the year before, Taylor will command more than tag money.

 

[Ring 6]

Taylor did it two years ago.

If he has a year where he's perceived a difference maker like Barkley last year or him the year before, Taylor will command more than tag money.

Taylor never rushed for 2000 yards

 

[Pape]

Taylor did it two years ago.

If he has a year where he's perceived a difference maker like Barkley last year or him the year before, Taylor will command more than tag money.

He had 2000 yards from scrimmage, not 2000 yards rushing.

If life were fair, sure you'd be right... But the NFL isn't very fair, is it?

 

[Family]

Taylor never rushed for 2000 yards

Total yards.

 

[Family]

He had 2000 yards from scrimmage, not 2000 yards rushing.

If life were fair, sure you'd be right... But the NFL isn't very fair, is it?

So?

The NFL protects players at different positions. You can't touch a QB, and there are rules to protect receivers, and defenders.

The RB gets beaten up like no one else. There's no argument the position has a shorter life span than others.

Shouldn't the league do something to protect the earning power of this position, since data shows a RB ages quicker?

 

[Ring 6]

Total yards.

Hardly the same thing.

 

[Ring 6]

The NFL protects players at different positions. You can't touch a QB, and there are rules to protect receivers, and defenders.

The RB gets beaten up like no one else. There's no argument the position has a shorter life span than others.

Shouldn't the league do something to protect the earning power of this position, since data shows a RB ages quicker?

Huh? You are conflating safety rules with whether you pay more money to players you value less?
The league has no interest or need in “protecting the earning power” of one player over another.
If the NFLPA wants to start a go fund me for the poor guys who think it’s unfair that they are paid their value, I suppose they could.
Taking money away from other players because the RBs don’t like the nature of their job is silly.

 

[Pape]

The NFL protects players at different positions. You can't touch a QB, and there are rules to protect receivers, and defenders.

The RB gets beaten up like no one else. There's no argument the position has a shorter life span than others.

Shouldn't the league do something to protect the earning power of this position, since data shows a RB ages quicker?

should they? sure... do they? no. the league doesn't care about the earning power of running backs... or i hazard a guess, players in general.

 

[Family]

Huh? You are conflating safety rules with whether you pay more money to players you value less?
The league has no interest or need in “protecting the earning power” of one player over another.
If the NFLPA wants to start a go fund me for the poor guys who think it’s unfair that they are paid their value, I suppose they could.
Taking money away from other players because the RBs don’t like the nature of their job is silly.

should they? sure... do they? no. the league doesn't care about the earning power of running backs... or i hazard a guess, players in general.

The safety rules are instituted strictly because of the owner's money.

The RB's just aren't a powerful enough group.

 

[Ring 6]

The safety rules are instituted strictly because of the owner's money.

The RB's just aren't a powerful enough group.

You think the league has safety rules in order to make more money for the owners? Can you explain how you get to that?

RBs are part of a collective bargaining group known as the NFLPA.
Part of what the NFLPA has bargained for is a percentage of revenue to be paid to the players. You seem to be arguing that the RBs need to be more powerful to take money away from their peers that play other positions because the market has determined they have less value.
Should the punters complain because they make a lot less?

 

[Zuma]

You think the league has safety rules in order to make more money for the owners? Can you explain how you get to that?

RBs are part of a collective bargaining group known as the NFLPA.
Part of what the NFLPA has bargained for is a percentage of revenue to be paid to the players. You seem to be arguing that the RBs need to be more powerful to take money away from their peers that play other positions because the market has determined they have less value.
Should the punters complain because they make a lot less?

I was going to make a similar point about kickers who arguable are the most valuable player on the team after the QB. When would it end? You can’t make special pay scales for some positions….it’s all or none at all.

 

[sb1]

Time for the NFLRBA union? Lol

 

[crownontherocks]

 

[Pape]

ugh... talk about crappy timing...

 

[Ring 6]

I was going to make a similar point about kickers who arguable are the most valuable player on the team after the QB.

Wait, what?????

 

[crownontherocks]

 

[TommyD4207]

I see the Irsay to Mike Chappell pipeline is still working perfectly.

 

[Family]

I was going to make a similar point about kickers who arguable are the most valuable player on the team after the QB. When would it end? You can’t make special pay scales for some positions….it’s all or none at all.

The issue isn't unfair or low salary. Kickers can be at their peak during FA many times.

It's that many (maybe most) RB's are toast before they ever hit FA. And the ones who are not, don't seem to get paid because they are close to the end of their prime.

 

[sb1]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/07/13/marcus-allen-laments-running-backs-sadly-undervalued

Feels like there's one market for the classic big downhill running backs and another for dual threat backs like C-Mac and Ekeler. I bet James White in his prime would do well in this kind of market.

 

[Ring 6]

The issue isn't unfair or low salary. Kickers can be at their peak during FA many times.

It's that many (maybe most) RB's are toast before they ever hit FA. And the ones who are not, don't seem to get paid because they are close to the end of their prime.

Why is that an issue?

You are arguing that the player that is the most expendable should get more money, which must be taken from other players because it’s not fair to them that they are expendable.