Tell your advertisers that I watched through the end because you asked politely. I'm not into the food service that was offered in this video but they got my eyeballs and so will the next advertisers that you use this tactic with because you're honest and I prefer it 100x to the TH-cam automatically placed ads. Good work Brett! You made an advertisement worth watching.
They need to be paid on an incentive/production based format for their rookie years. It’s when they are the most productive. It makes sense that their rookie contracts are set up differently
Also true. I mean in general this is a rookie contract issue. If it means they get paid more off the bat with guarantees… is any other position arguing this? There just needs to be something that’s production based to take care of the day 2 and 3 guys. This is an nflpa issue - I don’t feel like any other position group would be upset about a change to help RB’s
@@eunit8899OR they can stand in solidarity with each other as workers to set better conditions for rookie backs that are the primary engine of the offense.
Excess Value is the name of the game (or in Baseball terms his WAR). Saquon Barkley's value is way more than Jakobi Myers's. Saquon's excess value over replacement is less. That's where the issue stems from.
@@marcellomoore9755 replacement level players i.e players who are worse than starter quality but are still backup level (3rd or 4th string in this case) at the running back position are more productive, ON AVERAGE than that of your replacement level receiver thanks to many factors. As well as recivers having longer careers and fewer injuries on average, this means that receivers who make a lot of money will likely make more than similarly, or in this case far more talented, runningbacks.
@@marcellomoore9755 a simple explanation. Imagine production and the value of that production rated on a scale of 1 to 10. He is saying you can draft a replacement RB late or pull a RB off the free agent heap and find one who will perform to a 5 or 6 where the average late round WR or FA scrap heap WR will perform to only a 3 or a 4. In such a case you should pay your star WR and replace your star RB with a late pick or cheap free agent. Very oversimplified, but that's what he's saying
The problem is that even with your proposed solution it still just makes more sense to replace RBs once the rookie deal is over. After all, the biggest factor that caused the RB market to crash was the lack of production from RBs on their second contracts.
I’ve also thought about taking quarterbacks into account. There’s 15 QBs with contract at or above the franchise tag. If a team were to use the tag on someone like Herbert who’s new average cap hit would be around 50 million, then they’d save 20m a season on the cap. That’s another starting caliber QB you could sign under the cap and you didn’t even need to blink twice about it. It would render the salary cap useless.
@@KevonDaDonZeke fucked over the Running Back market with his huge contract and that was the single straw for teams to pay RB’s high salary contracts unless you are a generational talent like Adrain Peterson or Barry Sanders.
The very nature and value of the position just always makes you last as a monetary priority. -Better to throw the ball to a receiver due to depth of target. -Your production falls off faster than any other position on the field. -Your success is largely predicated on how good your offensive line is. I honestly believe nothing short of short term deals totally excluded from the salary cap is going to do it.
@@damianpresha9833 Not relevant because you can compensate for QBs. Quick throws, screens, moving the pocket, chipping pass rushers to buy time, taking snaps from shotgun to create more distance, etc etc.
@@dabbingtoast7743 And a stout RUNNING GAME is a mediocre qb's best friend. Not just to keep defenses honest but those precious quick throws and screens you mentioned. And as a last line of defense for qb's as a blocker. If you are going to pay them pennies as a rb don't use them for anything else, because that's asking them to work off the clock.
@@borax3030 Nope. We’ve seen this time and time again. All you need is a passable running game because the threat of being able to run the ball, even at a mediocre level, is all you need to do to get defenses to bite on play action. The myth of needing an elite running game to help your offense is simply that. A myth.
@@borax3030 Not even stout. You just need the consistent *THREAT* of a running game. The Bills offense was humming well in previous years built on mostly pass scripts. But when they needed to run the impact was mostly not on their RBs but Josh Allen as a power runner. Even with Kyle Shanahan's schemes prior to having CMC, he just has RB depth of small guys who can hit the hole in outside zone. The rest of the offense with Deebo, Aiyuk, Kittle and Juzcy do the heavy lifting. Even with McVay's last SB run Cam Akers what whatever. But having Cooper Kupp, Odell and Higbee was their bread and butter.
In the last 5 years, of the 10 teams playing for the Super Bowl, I'd argue there's only 2 RBs who're really big parts of the offense: Joe Mixon (who was carried by the passing game) and Todd Gurley. 2 of those teams were led by the large investment in Sony Michel + the 1st in CEH that didnt matter. Otherwise it's the Eagles committee carried by Hurts + the OL and random dudes like RoJo, random 7th rounder Pacheco, Darrel Williams off the street, and Raheem Mostert bouncing off random practice squads to have a dominant playoff run. Why would you bother with RBs when the successful teams arent?
Dude you need to quit sponsoring this BS you seen one time in that stupid graph. You're not accounting for the obvious...which is the regular season. And if you recheck your facts probably alot of these teams had good RB production that got them there
You can go even further and still have much of a points. Patriots, last three rings: James White, LeGarrette Blount, Rex Burkhead. Pretty much one, two season wonders
Had a bad 1st impression of Factor, because they left out 1/3rd of my first order. Since then it’s been a solid product for the convenience it provides. Not sure if I’ll continue to use it once the discounts end, but currently appreciating it during a busy schedule. Tbh a lot of their menu is surprisingly tasty
How's the shipping cost? The last thing like it I tried looked reasonable until you found out that the price *doubled* when you included shipping (despite ordering quite a few meals), which ended up making it more expensive than just going to a restaurant.
@@pfeilspitze For 14-18 meals delivered to Texas, the shipping has been $11. If you're on the fence, I'd look at the site/app and punch in Brett's promo code. It breaks down costs, meals, calories, etc
Brett is incredible with the ads. He’s probably the only creator I see doing them where it’s enjoyable to watch the ad as well as the video lol. The one about seatgeek with third eye blind was incredible.
i like the honesty about the add read, im not even american and still watched it to support your content. Looking forward to the season and the content that you will bring with it, its much appreciated, even in europe ;) Keep doing your thing brother.
I’ve genuinely never been interested in those factor meal plans but the way you did it honestly piqued my interest and it’s quite simply a well done ad read, you’re a great spokesman
Yes, but they're obligated to by the CBA. Along with the salary cap, there's also a salary floor. As long as you own a team, you should spend money on a winning team rather than just waste it to piss RBs (and other players and fans) off. If you're in it for the fame, your name will be associated with a winner. If you're in it for money, the brand of your team will be bigger, so you can sell it for more money down the line.
What about the rookie issue? They'll still want to keep drafting rookies instead of capping. Taylor is upset on the last year of his rookie deal not his cap year.
@@ajkareem5685 Tell me you haven't actually watched this channel's content without actually saying it. Brett has done more content talking about line blocking techniques than literally any other YT or TV network I've ever seen. The man gives all the love for linemen.
I suspect this cap rule would mean QBs get franchised and bonus'd to shave cap rather than RBs, because teams could funnel them enough money to keep them happy w/o murdering their cap. QB contracts are insane, so foisting a big % of their money into "bonus" that doesn't count is more strongly incentivized.
Precisely. This becomes an incredibly powerful tool for teams to pay players without impacting their cap, which means they'll be incentivized to do it for the most expensive positions. You can only tag 1 player per year, so it's almost always gonna be QBs, OTs, DEs and WRs getting tagged and signed like this
That’s not necessarily a bad thing tho, since what’s really breaking the game of football isn’t rookie RBs giving 80% of the production of veteran RBs with 8% of the cap hit, it’s elite level rookie QBs giving 80% of the production of elite level veteran QBs with 8% of the cap hit. That’s basically the NFL equivalent of up down up down left right left right A B, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that every SB in the rookie wage scale era has been won by either: a QB on his rookie contract, Tom Brady taking less than market value, the Rams sabotaging their entire future by effing dem picks, or alien freak of nature Pat Mahomes.
I’m not necessarily advocating for or against any particular position - I haven’t given the issue/this proposal sufficient consideration to have an opinion yet - but I would just like to point out that adding a restriction which denies QBs eligibility for this sort of bonus structure would be trivial. Unlike most other positions, there is virtually no ambiguity when it comes to determining positional eligibility at QB (with the one possible exception of Taysom Hill).
Y'all should keep up with the Bootleg Podcast during the season. Week by week your favorite picks, worst losers and best winners, etc. I love the nerdy stuff. It gives me something to listen to while i'm at work where i'm still actually learning. There so much i've learned about the game of football from You the past years and now you can add E.J. to the mix. I'm only 18 and i have so much to learn. There's not many guys like you two on youtube, it is quite literally the perfect channel for me. Thank you Brett and Thank You E.J. Y'all are awesome! Keep up the great work.
In addition, I never knew how much detail truly went into playcalling, scouting, salary caps, etc. You have truly taught me everything that I know about football today. Thank you again!
Tyler Allgeier I just realized is the main beneficiary of Bijan's arrival. Without him, he'd be ground to a pulp 300 carries a year on 950,000$ a year over 4 years. With Bijan, hes gonna take the load, Tyler will be a GREAT change-up who doesn't eat 300 carries, and hits free agency as a peak player in 3 seasons. By then his blocking and receiving will be way past any draft pick. Rookie RBs even great ones aren't complete NFL backs. Maybe Bijan is close but most can't learn pro level blitz pickup, chip blocking, and route running in college.
The process of how this issue came to light always fascinated me. I remember through the early 90s the consensus was that a star running back was almost as valuable as a star quarterback. Teams had survived and won with above average guys like Otis Anderson with the Giants, but most of the time the back was a huge focal point of the offense and I think the Dolphins and Marino being unable to win a ring kind of reinforced that. Then the Shanahan zone scheme happened, and Terrell Davis went from being a 6th round pick to almost breaking the rushing record. And then Olandis Gary replaced him and ran for 1,000 yards in less than a full season, then Mike Anderson replaced him and almost hit 1,500 as a rookie, then Rueben Droughns ran for 1,200 yards before they drafted Clinton Portis and he was a sure 1,500 yards each year. And all that happened at the same time as Ditka's debacle of trading his whole draft for Ricky Williams. I feel like all of that happening at the same time built the narrative a lot more than even the proliferation of advanced stats has.
If I were a GM, here’s how I’d pay a top-tier RB contract. In this case, $52m over 3 years. I’d Use fully guaranteed salary up to the point where the team feels comfortable, along with vesting guarantees in later years. Next, I’d use an Option Bonus in year 2 to get the rest of the way there, along with void years to spread it out. The key is that there’s no real long-term guaranteed money at signing. Let’s say we’re the Raiders, and we want to work out a deal with Josh Jacobs. He wants McCaffrey money, so $16m AAV. We know from history that Jacobs probably only has 3 seasons of really high quality football left. Our contract extension will be three years, with 2 void years if we need to prorate the option bonuses. That takes him through his age 27 season. Assuming we have the cap space, the contract will look like this. Y1 | $14m total, $8m Full-GTD salary, $6m March roster bonus Y2 | $16m total, $8m Full-GTD salary, $8m Per-Game roster bonus. Also, an $4m option bonus is exercisable here in March. Doing so raises Jacobs cap number to $17 m and forces the Raiders to exercise the option or release Jacobs before free agency, as he’d have a non-exercise fee. Y3 | $18m total, $8m Injury-GTD salary vests to F-GTD if Jacobs is still on the roster for Week 1. This is coupled with $10 million in per-game bonuses. This forces the raiders to make a decision before the season. (Cap number is $19m w/ O.B.) Void 1 | $1m option bonus proration Void 2 | $1m option bonus proration Assuming they want Jacobs on the roster, year one is essentially fully guaranteed. The Raiders can get out of this contract after year one with $8 million in dead cap. If they keep him for a year two and pay him more, the dead cap number lowers to $3m going into year 3. If the Raiders keep him for year 3, injury protected salary vests into fully guaranteed salary in September. This gives the team time to see if he’s still worth keeping around, and if he’s not, they can let him go at $3m in dead money cost. In this scenario, Jacobs gets his money, and never exceeds 8% of the cap. Other than year three (when he’d already have earned $34 million over 2 years), there is constant leverage for Jacobs as The Raiders have to pay him or release him before free agency. This is only aided by the point that the dead money decreases as the contract goes on. This is 3 years/$52 million that includes $16 million fully guaranteed at signing. There is no signing bonus. This contract is good for the Raiders, and it’s good for Jacobs.
How are you going to feel when you're paying Josh Jacobs to stand on the sidelines in street clothes because he's injured? Because that's coming. You might feel okay about the 80% you get out of your RB on his rookie deal, but the contract for Jacobs will still sting.
That’s the risk teams take when handing out large contracts, which is why they usually don’t give them to running backs. This is something I came up with in 20 minutes. A real negotiation for a contract this large would take at least a day. Honestly, a real front office would probably play hardball and have way less tied up in injury protection. This contract was drafted with the idea of trying to be fair to running backs
@@VinceLyle2161you can't use injuries as an excuse for not giving a contract in football. Literally anyone can get killed at any moment. WRs, OL, basically every position group gets several season ending injuries every week. But for some reason RBs are viewed as the only ones to ever get hurt
@@dannyquilter8366 You just explained why I absolutely can use injuries as an excuse for not giving a contract, and even if you didn't, RBs look to get contracts at the moment their prime is almost up. Unless you think Josh Jacobs is going to be the next Emmitt Smith, his best production years are behind him.
An interesting proposal. The downside would be the OTHER benefit of free agency, the cap, and the franchise tag - competitive balance. The cap and the tag exist to punish teams that want to hang onto their good players beyond their rookie contracts. It's meant to hurt so teams are incentivized to let players get to real free agency and get their fair value which helps bad teams get good.
I never got the "moneyball" aspect to it. A premium RB makes sense financially. You can pay 49mil all up and get the Titans rushing attack, or you can pay 63mil and get the Texans rushing attack. I know what one i'd take 100 times out of 100
Well when you run primarily 4-5 wr sets, it kinda makes it easier to see if maybe you have a TE who can maybe be used as a short yardage back for the couple of times that its needed.
I'll be honest, Brett. And I know not everyone is gonna agree. I prefer this format for ads rather than the mid-video stuff. I usually skip that vigorously, but because you decided to do it in the end instead, I gave it all my full attention. Kudos to you, sir
I think the issue with your proposal is that the issue is this kind of cap change is that it makes so much more sense to give this non cap money to a qb potentially saving an extra 10 million in cap relative to using the tag on a running back. It is also worth noting that you may see a lot of "rushes for at least 1 yard" as a expected to be earned bonus. I think the heart of the problem is since running backs can produce so early in their relatively short nfl careers that teams will run talented backs into the ground with the intention of getting another back in the draft to do the same thing. One potential solution would be allowing players to get out of rookie contracts based on number of carries. If a player is in the top 20 in carries 1 of their first 3 years they can hit the market as a RFA if they so choose. This means that teams running a running back by committee or giving a wide receiver some caries can do this with no change but teams building around running backs will have to pay them before their careers are half way over. This has the added benefit of potentially encouraging load management for younger backs allowing them to have longer careers.
There are a lot of positions on a NFL team where even the star players at that position don’t make much money. I think that RBs feel entitled to large contracts just because they used to get them historically, but the game has changed. Their position doesn’t provide that much value anymore.
I love this idea. It clearly incentivizes teams to give their guys chances rather than how most incentives in sports work where the team will try to limit their numbers.
Making rb contract incentive based while being able to keep the cap lower for the position makes the most sense as long as theres rules put in place to protect the players i expect the nflpa to make some negotiations to do something after this seasons
I mean the actual solution is the PA growing some balls, and actually having a coordinated strike to fix some of the utter BS that is the NFL contract. Only sport with nonguaranteed contracts, stupid crap lack the franchise tag, its just a crappy contract that benefits no one but owners. Not fans, not players, not staff, not media, not GMs.
@@2639thebossThis. The NFLPA is a joke. They agreed to a 17 game season which IMMENSELY benefits the owners, and helps SOME players but at the expense of more injuries and wear and tear which will shorten careers. The fact that you can tag someone not once, but TWICE with no real recourse is absurd. How they have that is a joke. It literally lets team owners strong arm players and minimize their leverage. You can just extend a rookie contract and they have minimal guarantees and massive uncertainty because of the nature of the sport. Half of the contracts should be guaranteed, at minimum. Maybe 60-70%. I disagree with fully guaranteed contracts because NBA players are total divas and some will literally sit and do nothing and collect a check to get a trade. That shit shouldn’t be allowed either. You should have to play out the thing you agreed to play out. Not pout because you want to be somewhere else.
@@2639thebossJust to put it simply, if the franchise tag didn’t exist. Not a single one of these running backs up for extension wouldn’t have one. Because even if they might be washed by year 3-4, someone will be willing to pay for a top5 player in their position for two PRIME years. The franchise tag completely neutralizes all their leverage, and also severely diminishes their prospects because of the nature of the position beyond that. And teams can just fucking collude to do that.
@@2639thebossyou’d think the sport with the least guarantee that you’ll make it to the next play without getting hurt, wouldn’t have the least guaranteed money for its players.
If I may suggest, make the RB cap free - there's the incentive for a team to get the best one they can, and pay for the best too. How to measure a RB (so teams can't game it)? Percentage of touches behind the line of scrimage. eg. If 90% of a player's touches are behind the line of scrimage, then that player is 90% RB and 90% of that player's salary is cap free. If the player then passes the ball, it counts towards the cap (so teams can't game the cap by calling their Mahomes a RB and trying to not count his sallary towards the cap).
You hit the nail on the head I've been saying that the only way to make this work and to actually do right by the running backs is for there to be some kind of cap exemption in place so your suggestion is really good.
Except the back they took can also line up in the LoS and play receiver. So even if he doesn't get crazy touches as a running back, he can still add value as a potential receiver and create plays that way. If you have seen how RBs like CMC get to play in the passing game because they can line up in the LoS, they are more valuable than pass catching backs strictly from the back field.
I’m not a regular Factor consumer, but I was recently studying for the final level of a financial exam and the last 3 week push was something like 10 or 12 hours per day of uninterrupted studying. I was stressing about the exam, food, etc. My wife got me several Factor boxes as gifts and they absolutely saved me. Even just having nutritious ready-to-eat food and not having to worry about meal prepping or eating crap for a month leading up to my test was an enormous help. So yeah the food is pretty good and I’d say generally worth it for the convenience
It's a shame, but the real problem is that RB is an "easy" position to play in the NFL. Many rookies can do it very well, because there's more physical demand but less mental demand, so they can potentially adjust very fast, as opposed to offensive line or safety or QB. And that's just how it is - it's a saturated market with lots of competition and only a couple of spots per team, so smart RBs are going to diversify their skills. If they can run and catch and block and return kicks they're going to be more valuable, and they're eventually going to have to do that stuff because their position is inherently prone to competition. I do think the low-paid RB problem is at least somewhat self-correcting. If they're underpaid relative to production, teams should sign RBs who can catch and use them as h-backs and slot receivers. They should sign multiple good RBs to reduce wear and tear on the starters. Basically, if they're going to Moneyball this position, RBs should use that to their advantage to diversify their skillset to increase their value. Because if teams aren't going to pay a premium price for premium production, no amount of contract chicanery is going to matter in the end. If some enterprising team decides to carry 7 RBs and uses their incredible athleticism to make some kind of devastating quick passing game for the price of 2 receivers, other teams will see that and copy them. If that doesn't work, then RB just isn't a valuable position and will be paid as such. It used to be offensive linemen not getting enough money for their production, and teams realized they could win by having an incredible line that just mauled everyone. D linemen also didn't get enough money. Currently TEs and RBs are underpaid, and it's going to take some team dominating with a bunch of TE and RB production _(KC is a good bet)_ to get everyone to pay their RBs. This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but RB production has been overvalued since the beginning of the NFL. Most great RBs had a great line in front of them and took advantage. Obviously there are differences in RB quality - Walter Payton was a monster on bad Bears teams, Barry Sanders did a lot of his damage without much help, etc. - but you can get similar results with a better O line and weaker RB, and the O line will help the pass game, too. Teams didn't really understand the fungibility of RB production and overpaid for a long time. RB has been a glamor position when it really shouldn't have been. They're currently underpaid, and I'd be shocked if the teams _weren't_ colluding against them, but the market will correct.
I disagree about rbs being overpaid/overvalued. They were very valuable to the offenses of the time. Back then, the running game was mostly about overpowering the guy in front of you. So big fullbacks and big back would just bludgeon the defense into submission. They'd force gaps in the defense for the runner. Now, it's more about movement and schemes creating those gaps through misdirection and causing the defense to hesitate. Also, passing games were way less complex back then. It was rare to see teams using a single back three wide set on 2nd and 4, but it's so common now that a lot of teams have that as their base set. One thing is for sure though, I don't think we're every going back to the days of Jerome Bettis and Eddie George type runners carrying the ball 300 times a year.
Everything you said is false except for the collusion part. A glamor position, seriously?? It's one of the least glamorous positions along with center. As a running back you beat your body into submission until your "washed" and out of the league. It's definitely collusion to make the game seem "safer" to eventually eliminate certain positions all together. It'll literally be 7 on 7 in the next 10 - 20 years and most will except it because they don't really know the game.
And you act like rookie running backs literally just run the ball. Do you know how complex blitz pick up is for running back?? No matter how good your oline blocks if your rb doesn't know pass pro it'll get your qb rocked. We see it every week. They have to know fronts, protections, if that then situations on the fly, routes, formations packages, etc. And you better not get injured while taking contact every play
And your getting the running back position confused with wide receiver. That's the most expendable position in football. I don't even know how this running back thing is a debate
It's not correct to compare running back pay to other positions to say they are underpaid. It's like a pediatrician saying they are underpaid bc they make less than ortho surgeons. Even though they are both doctors.
I mean, it's all relative. RBs are underpaid compared to what they were making 25 years ago. So it's more like pediatricians used to make what ortho surgeons make, but now they make 1/5 that.
Hi Brett - Great video! Two crucial things that I think you are missing: The first is that, just because a RB is good in his first few years, that often fails to translate to later years, resulting in horrible long-term contracts. The teams that signed Gurley, Bell, and Zeke to long-term deals all certainly regret it; deals like Mixon’s and Cook’s also look pretty bad. In the NFL, you have to pay for the production you expect, not the production you got, which makes RB contracts much riskier than contracts to other positions. The question is not “Is Saquon valuable to the Giants?” but instead is “Will Saquon be valuable to the Giants over the next four years?” where the latter question is a lot riskier for RBs than for other position groups. The second point is that, on your proposal, I think that poorer owners would not like that. The ability to spend money that does not go against the cap will enable rich owners to retain their superstars at will while the cash-poor owners won’t be able to compete. Therefore, I think the suggested solution would not be approved by the cash-poor owners.
I agree with this 100%. I believe there was another salary cap problem that Brett suggested solving by making certain spending not count towards the cap but people pointed out the owners wouldn't go for it because it takes away their excuse for not spending more and more on the team (being the cap). Also I have to believe there could be a way to specify who counts as a running back either via just % carries or even % carries + catches behind the line of scrimmage or even # of hits taken (although if anything quarterbacks would out-qualify many running backs for those stats so that could be an issue).
I could see the cash poor owners not liking having to pay even more money than they already do, but honestly over the last 15 years the gap between the top and bottom of the owner pool has gotten noticeably large. Some of these teams are going to have to be sold or they will just get dusted over and over again. They just don’t have the cash to compete with the Walton family.
RB’s have been the highest payed player on EVERY team for about 85 of the 100 years the NFL has existed. The game has changed. Nobody else complained all those years, because the RB carried the load. They DONT now. 🤷🏼♂️
Bro your wrong. Even when running backs carried the team their salaries were on par with league average and in fact the top running backs still got paid less than the top wide receivers linebackers or quarterbacks.
@@TheChrismeg34 WHAT are you talking about? ALL teams and salaries are on the internet going back ALL the way. An example? 85 Bears, legendary all-time defense. Walter Payton? $650K/yr. Not ONE player on that defense making more than $350K/yr. So either I’m retarded and can’t read, or I’m not wrong. This isn’t an opinion. All you have to do is look.
Apparently every team should have a 5 headed monster of 2 great fullbacks and 3 great running backs that share the downs at a fair salary. Running backs take a massive beating and suffer permanent damage in most cases over the course of a very short career. If the star running back isn't a thing anymore, stop taking them high in the draft if you aren't going to pay them.
If the bonus from hitting the yardage total wouldn’t count against the cap, then they have no reason to stop them. The head coach’s job is to win games, not to fiddle with incentives, so they will do what is necessary to win. The owners and GMs aren’t calling the plays on the field
@@owenh4yeah, “just don’t involve him in the offense” is a terrible idea. First of all, we’ve already had these incentives, and it doesn’t happen. Free agents would be very, very unwilling to sign for incentives with a team that has intentionally avoided their players hitting it.
Great video, enjoyed hearing an actual solution rather than the problem like we’ve all heard recently. Also the ad roll at the end was a great idea and got a like and follow.
The easiest fix to the RB problem is do the rookie contracts differently than the rest. 1st rounders get 3 years plus 4th year option, 2nd rounders get 3 year option, 3rd through 5th round get 2 year contract and 6th rounders or later or UDFAs get one year contracts. You can also make a higher minimum for RBs and much higher vet minimum (and perhaps much lower vet minimum for those over age 28 to give older RBs a chance) Make the cost of replacing a RB high, make RBs not qualify for compensatory picks, things like that. The quicker contract means teams have to sign You could also have the league pay some kind of bonus to the position that doesn’t count against salary cap. There are tons of things you could do but NFL PA and league rules are made up by the uncreative lawyer types who maybe don’t have economics background or understand how changing incentive changes behavior.
This is such a good take. Why not make it 3 years instead of 4 or 5? Makes it a lot more bearable for a guy who isn’t a starter to try a different team while still being young and healthy. I think this would be a good change all around
@@nytro8027 Yeah the whole reason for rookie contracts was to avoid JaMarcus Russell situations and not discourage teams from drafting a player because of cap space. I think 2 years with a three year option would avoid those problems while being better for players. It would also reduce the value of rookie contracts which personally I would like.
One idea I heard to help the situation is to let franchise-tagged players force themselves a second franchise tag year. It's not a *great* long-term solution, but it would guarantee future money for these players in case of injury (or a team just losing interest), AND it would give GMs an incentive to sign them to *something* to avoid having to pay a franchise tag they don't want to.
Honestly I hate that this is even a conversation, its quite simple in the nfl you are given money off a salary cap,and your value is deemed by replaceability not value to the team. The amount you are paid is gonna change yearly at ebery position. Also stop acting like anyone is currently underpaud in the nfl, most of their skills have no value wothout how incredible the nfl does at advertising the product.
The problem is that the league thinks they can keep getting good runningbacks for cheap, but if they keep treating them like this, the amount of young talented kids playing that position will drop significantly.
Well, nothing says a team *has* to have a RB, just like most teams don't have a FB any more. The game might just move even more to QB runs and WR sweeps and such.
The Dallas Cowboys and I mean Jerry Jones gave Ezekial Elliot a $90 million contract. Once he got the contract, his seasons just turned mediocre at best for what he was getting paid. Look at Saquon Barkley, his 1st two years in the NFL he was injured pretty much before the season started. Miami drafts Achone and he weighs around 188 lbs????? I believe the owners should be looking at big brusing RB's that we used to know as fullbacks. These small fast RB's today are great but few make it all season. Owners are owners..they don't want to be Jerry Jones plugging in $90 million for an RB who ends up on his way to Palookaville.
After taxes (especially if they aren’t a first rounder) most of these guys will have to work later in life. You can get a lot of value out of 2nd and 3rd round RBs who aren’t making boatloads and will by no means be set for life off a rookie deal (which might be close to all they get). Even first rounders since they are usually later are unlikely to be that favorable of a position. They aren’t a kicker or QB. RBs shelf lives are the lowest in the league.
@@deadprecidents Even so, the money gives them options 99% of us don't have, and there's extra privilege because most of these guys stopped paying attention in school the moment their talent was recognized. Their short career gives them a big leg up on the rest of us.
Nice idea, but where is the reason to implement it as a RB holding out didn't really matter as an unknown rookie is just as productive as seen with Gordon/Ekeler, Bell/Connor,...
@@maskedman5657 OP is saying cheap and young running back by committee is a strategy that has been supported by analytics for decades, but teams were quite stubborn and used a featured back system for a long time.
I remember reading an article years ago about Gary Patterson’s defense at TCU. The article mentioned that several of his defensive stars, including edge rushers, were running backs in high school (the position where the stud usually plays at that level) who bulked up and learned the position. As far as earning potential in the NFL, Patterson was doing those kids a favor. Same goes for high school backs who converted to corner or receiver in college. Usually, it’s a moot point, since only a small fraction of college players even make an NFL roster, much less stay on long enough to earn free agent status. Nevertheless, I imagine the few who make it that far are glad they switched positions in college.
It’s about replaceability. If I can get the same production or close to it from anyone else is it really YOU doing the production or is it the O line and the offense? And you just happen to be there. These RBs are smelling themelsev too much
I wonder if adopting the salary cap rule change proposed here might actually lead to a perverse incentive for NFL teams to actually throttle the production of RBs in some cases. If "likely to earn" bonuses are immune from the cap, but "unlikely to earn" are not (even if only 50%), a team might pull an RB out of games late in the season if he's crossed the "likely to earn" threshold and is approaching the "unlikely to earn" threshold, so that they don't have to pay him the bonus.
They’re just paying other positions instead of RB. I don’t know why RBs feel entitled to massive contracts. TEs have been playing football for less money than even running backs since forever and you don’t hear TEs whining about it.
@@harrygarris6921 Well the proposal in this video would be having owners pay more money per season because some of the RB money wouldn't be counting against the salary cap. Edit: I misunderstood your comment lol my bad but the point still stands as to why owners wouldn't like this.
@@seda_11 yeah it just seems like unnecessarily catering to RBs because their feelings are hurt. Like I said there are other positions on a NFL team that play for even less than running backs and no one’s proposing we make a cap exception for them. Times change. Is it UNFAIR to newspaper journalists because the internet made most of their jobs redundant? Nah it’s just how it goes.
I was thinking about an idea that was essentially this, but I'm not privy to the business end of the NFL to word it in a coherent manner like you did. Bravo.
I’d say you’re lucky to have Brett Kollman-tier content to watch for free on YT. However you want to look at it, I guess. Brett’s grateful for his viewers I’m sure. But we should let him know he’s appreciated by us as well!
I'd be up to trying some of those meals but I don't think I've go out of my way for it. lol Anyways, love this vid and always appreciate your view/opinion on the RB situation. I really hope they do something for them when they give so much of their own health for the sport to be treated like trash so easily.
I really like Brett's idea, but I think owners and GMs will forever forth balk at the idea of long-term contracts for vet RBs no matter the price tag. I think it'd be cool to see short-term, high salary vet contracts (not exploitable rookie ones like Brett alluded to). 1-2 year contracts at $18-20m+, as long as they're still producing like stars and contributing to wins they keep re-upping and getting top money like stars at any other position. I know they deserve the security of long-term deals, but the reality of the modern NFL makes that too unrealistic for the foreseeable future. And I worry if they don't set a precedent for the top guys getting top dollar, we'll see the current RB blueprint be applied to other positions as the game changes over the years (tbh I think the seeds have already been planted for corners)
I believe that while this works out for the most part, the main part of the issue is what you tackled in the beginning, that good rookie RBs coming into the league are able to produce 80% of what top tier RBs can do for 5% of the pay. I think shortening the rookie contract of RBs seems like a solution to counter that part of the problem as well, since the first 5 years of a RB's career is usually when they're at their best. Shortening the rookie contract by a couple of years (make it 2 or 3 years for RBs) would allow them to be paid earlier when they're still at their physical peak. Also like the solution you proposed, and think these 2 combined would elevate RBs to where they need to be in the market. Great video!
Another idea is to just structure rookie contracts for backs. They're usually most productive and less injury prone in their rookie contracts. Pay the rookies more base salary. Add significant bonuses if they have more than 200 carries. More than 250, 300, 350, 400. Add incentive bonuses for rushing yards, yards from scrimmage, touchdowns. Make it so backs on rookie contracts aren't guaranteed a ton of money, but production pays them significantly
Why pay em when it’s a passing league. The league died with the tuck rule and when it decided brady would be the face of the league. Now every year you have some 60+ point super bowl that ends on a lame ass field goal or stupid ref call.
I know ever one is acting like these guys are being used or it’s slave labor while they are making 10x the medium US salary while being a 7th round rb who doesn’t play
All rookies should get paid with bonuses that are based on league wide bonuses that effect the next year’s cap hit that actually go away for veterans, but essentially make it so you’re paid off of performance and stop the rookie abuse and veteran abuse at once, and if you try to use multiple backs well you’re still stuck as a team because it wouldn’t be tiered like that, it would basically pay backs by the yard and by the catch, and even the touch. So you may pay a back back with 2000 yards and 400 touches less than than 3 RBs with a combed 2000 yards and 410 yards. This system should already be there to be quite Frank, why are JJ and chase being paid so little compared to their counterpart veterans that they are 100% better than 90% of. And if anyone tries to argue this system would suck, well that’s some bozo shit because it’s workable and it would make it so you didn’t have to overpay players later for previous production to make up for money they should have got, the answer has never been incentivizing new contracts, it’s to pay the players for what they do for the team. Saquon should’ve been make 16.5 mil from his production last year
This all started with Le'veon Bell. He gave RBs a bad reputation and other RBs followed suit. Holding their teams to ransom. Then when they do go to another team, they fail. Bell and Gordon to note. This is why teams realised they could get someone else for much cheaper.
@@maskedman5657 he held the team to ransom and refused to play. Then he flopped when he did get a big contract with another team. Melvin Gordon tried the same and failed. Zeke then refused to play but got his contract. They seem to be phasing him out with Pollard now. These RBs are refusing to play until they get what they want. So teams are learning they are better off without and this devaluating the RB position. So what are you even on about?
Brett I like your stuff, but this would be a bad idea. Cash rich franchises could abuse this, while smaller market teams would be punished. One of the best things about the NFL is that we're not dominated by teams in big cities on the coasts. The AFC is dominated by the Chiefs, Bills and Bengals right now, let's keep the parity between small and big market teams in the NFL.
@@maskedman5657Explain how they are wrong, TH-camrs especially always side with players to an obnoxious extent, when players want money it's just "getting their bags", but when owners want profit they are "greedy"
@@metalmythology6282 If you watched the video you can clearly hear Brett address both sides and can understand both sides. That's why he offered a solution. Clearly didn't watch it
@@maskedman5657 13 minutes in and I haven't actually heard Brett explain how the players are worth more of the salary cap and aren't as replaceable as they are paid. He just uncritically claims they are worth more, they actually just aren't because if they were worth more teams would step in and attempt to pay them, but even on the open market they get nothing
I have such mad respect for a content creator that presents reasonable and considered solutions to complex problems, instead of just emotionally charged rhetoric. God, I love this channel.
A funny part of these types of videos are all the opinionated comments that dont even respond to the points made in the actual video. It's literally as if the video never even happened for them.
First of all, thank you Brett for framing this not as "GMs are being mean to RBs" but actually acknowledging that, unfortunately, with the salary cap paying a top running back hurts your team building. We need to acknowledge the truth to fix it. That said, although I like your solution, my gut told me it wouldn't solve the problem. I didn't know why. Now after reading the comments, people figured it out for me. I still think the length of contracts is a problem. I like one suggestion that incentives are baked into rookie contacts too. I have my own likely flawed solution here. The comments can tell me what's wrong with it, together we can fix this! My solution involves another type of incentive, namely incentives that shorten the rookie contract. It could either be based on stats (yards, touches which would favor RBs but need different incentives between skill positions, OL, DB, etc) or on snaps played (which could probably not have to differ based on position). This could cut down rookie contracts to two or three years for immediate starters, and in a RB by committee case at least they aren't run into the ground before the contract is up. This also has the benefit of adding incentives to sign a mid level veteran to allow a rookie time to develop on the bench. In addition, many second contracts can become mid level contracts. I suspect this can grow the NFL middle class, although I could be terribly wrong about this. Admittedly, I don't know why GMs, owners, and QBs would agree to this. QBs would come off rookie contracts when they normally would get paid anyway, and GMs and owners lose some cost control and regular control mechanisms. But I do think it's good for the league, maybe that's enough. And maybe they get a little cost control on the second contract of some players. Also, Brett, if you read this, you're the best football analyst/film junkie out there. If ESPN ever offers you at Pat McAfee contract, it is 200% deserved and then some. My only wish is that you could be cloned so I could have a Kollmann video every week.
I wouldn't put QBs into the group who should hate this. NFL rules have become so QB-friendly that a defender will get flagged for bumping a QB 1 second after they've released the ball. QBs take comparatively far less punishment than RBs. That's why QBs get such big 2nd contracts in the first place; aside from the fact that it's the most important position on the field, they also have an exponentially longer career expectancy when compared to RBs
You know what. Because you actually went to the effort of actually not spamming your video and putting in the effort to improve the video, I’ll watch your add to help the channel.
I think the biggest problem (which could help general cap situations and be a net positive for the situation as a whole) with this proposal is the mechanism will be used on QBs more than any other position to get cap hits back into the mid 20s and low 30s for franchise QBs while paying them like mahomes money.
The Greatest Show On Turf was arguably only possible because the high level dual threat provided by Marshall Faulk. Having such a strong 50/50 offense is only possible with a top tier runningback. You can do it with a great receiver and offensive line setup and be good, but when you mix in a great runningback to exploit linebackers and in coverage and dbacks in open field tackling, then you can really hamstring the defense
Actually, there's a better solution: fix the rookie deals. That's the problem. While it makes sense to give 4-5 years rookie contracts to QBs that'll play for 20 years, it doesn't make sense for RBs, that retire with under 10 league years. We either pay specially RBs in their rookie years, or reduce the rookie contract time for RBs (I guess one - or even none, since their performance translate easily from college - is fair enough) or we set rookie contract duration according to avg retiring time by position. It doesn't make sense for a guy to be paid under 1M/year in the prime (and most) of his career while others start earning 8M and go up to 50M. It's right for them to feel cheated by the system. I also think it's good to remember money is not the problem here - cap is.
This plan still has the problem of rookies producing the same for cheaper. That can't be changed without decimating the draft value of rbs. What I think is needed is a salary floor for the rb position. A minimum amount that teams have to pay their rb room. That way they can load up on young guys, but at some point SOMEONE has to be payed a decent amount. And since they have to pay somebody a decent chunk anyway teams will have more reason to be active in the rb market when a high production guy becomes available.
A side effect of your franchise tag proposal would be that it incentivizes teams to wait and tag a star player rather than work out a long term deal early. I'm mostly thinking of QBs. For example, the Bengals might not want to work out a deal with Burrow now that will take up a large amount of cap space when they can wait until his rookie deal expires, franchise tag him, and then sign him to a deal that would not count nearly as much against the cap. Writing that out, I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing.
Guten Morgen, Deutschland. Genießen Sie beim frühstück etwas zum anschauen.
What about Australians having something to look at for dinner
I’m just chillin on vacation in Japan and this came out at perfect time for dinner
In Ireland, just in time for my breakfast too
Danke sehr!
From the states but am traveling in Ireland over the summer, is this what I’ve been missing the whole time?
Tell your advertisers that I watched through the end because you asked politely. I'm not into the food service that was offered in this video but they got my eyeballs and so will the next advertisers that you use this tactic with because you're honest and I prefer it 100x to the TH-cam automatically placed ads.
Good work Brett! You made an advertisement worth watching.
One of the first youtuber ads I’ve seen that actually made me want the product
Same
Same here - I swear! It's the first time in a long time that I tolerate an ad.
Well shoot, I just started the video and now I know I gotta stay for the add 😂
Absolutely no one cares, totally unnecessary comment.
I’ve always said a team is better off investing into the offensive line over a RB
The NFL has turned into a glorified 7-on-7 drill
Teams might as well bring back the run and shoot offense.
@@chrisuncleahmad666 Facts
I think most teams would. There are very very few great linemen though.
So basically you just want teams to just pass the ball every play?
@@maskedman5657 with a great line u can use anybody as running back and have a solid run AND pass game.
They need to be paid on an incentive/production based format for their rookie years. It’s when they are the most productive. It makes sense that their rookie contracts are set up differently
Yeah then teams would just give them less guarantees.
Also true. I mean in general this is a rookie contract issue. If it means they get paid more off the bat with guarantees… is any other position arguing this? There just needs to be something that’s production based to take care of the day 2 and 3 guys.
This is an nflpa issue - I don’t feel like any other position group would be upset about a change to help RB’s
I been saying this for a while
They need to realize their position has become devalued. It's unfortunate but thats it.
@@eunit8899OR they can stand in solidarity with each other as workers to set better conditions for rookie backs that are the primary engine of the offense.
Excess Value is the name of the game (or in Baseball terms his WAR). Saquon Barkley's value is way more than Jakobi Myers's. Saquon's excess value over replacement is less. That's where the issue stems from.
Can you elaborate?
@@marcellomoore9755 replacement level players i.e players who are worse than starter quality but are still backup level (3rd or 4th string in this case) at the running back position are more productive, ON AVERAGE than that of your replacement level receiver thanks to many factors. As well as recivers having longer careers and fewer injuries on average, this means that receivers who make a lot of money will likely make more than similarly, or in this case far more talented, runningbacks.
@@marcellomoore9755 a simple explanation. Imagine production and the value of that production rated on a scale of 1 to 10. He is saying you can draft a replacement RB late or pull a RB off the free agent heap and find one who will perform to a 5 or 6 where the average late round WR or FA scrap heap WR will perform to only a 3 or a 4. In such a case you should pay your star WR and replace your star RB with a late pick or cheap free agent. Very oversimplified, but that's what he's saying
Its because the value of replacement players (rookie rbs) are massively surpressed though
The problem is that even with your proposed solution it still just makes more sense to replace RBs once the rookie deal is over. After all, the biggest factor that caused the RB market to crash was the lack of production from RBs on their second contracts.
True but all the reason more for Rookie backs to fight for better contracts since there is no guarantee past that.
I’ve also thought about taking quarterbacks into account. There’s 15 QBs with contract at or above the franchise tag. If a team were to use the tag on someone like Herbert who’s new average cap hit would be around 50 million, then they’d save 20m a season on the cap. That’s another starting caliber QB you could sign under the cap and you didn’t even need to blink twice about it. It would render the salary cap useless.
Right it’s really all Gurley and Zeke fault mostly and kinda on CMC a little bit
@@KevonDaDonZeke fucked over the Running Back market with his huge contract and that was the single straw for teams to pay RB’s high salary contracts unless you are a generational talent like Adrain Peterson or Barry Sanders.
@@JuwanBuchananDerrick Henry is also a generational talent
5 AM, getting up for an early shift with my breakfast and the Film Room. Never change Brett.
When I see that kollmann YT notification I get so happy
@@crittoneida958weird...
@@j2398 weird that I dig his vids or that I have a notification setup for his vids?
Get your money bro!
Second shift, just woke up at noon. About to have breakfast before work. How’s lunch ?
As a European, I love Brett for his upload times
As an insomniac in Washington (where Brett filmed this!) I also appreciate Brett for his upload times
Same bro 😅
As a European, I love Brett because gives europeans a chance to understand football
As American, I put these on and if I fall asleep? It’s a perfect watch with my morning coffee. If I don’t, I consider it an early start on the day.
As an intelligent person, I don’t like Brett manipulating his audience into believing it’s a great idea to underpay athletes.
The very nature and value of the position just always makes you last as a monetary priority.
-Better to throw the ball to a receiver due to depth of target.
-Your production falls off faster than any other position on the field.
-Your success is largely predicated on how good your offensive line is.
I honestly believe nothing short of short term deals totally excluded from the salary cap is going to do it.
Can the QB be successful longterm with a poor offensive line ?
@@damianpresha9833 Not relevant because you can compensate for QBs. Quick throws, screens, moving the pocket, chipping pass rushers to buy time, taking snaps from shotgun to create more distance, etc etc.
@@dabbingtoast7743 And a stout RUNNING GAME is a mediocre qb's best friend. Not just to keep defenses honest but those precious quick throws and screens you mentioned. And as a last line of defense for qb's as a blocker. If you are going to pay them pennies as a rb don't use them for anything else, because that's asking them to work off the clock.
@@borax3030 Nope. We’ve seen this time and time again. All you need is a passable running game because the threat of being able to run the ball, even at a mediocre level, is all you need to do to get defenses to bite on play action. The myth of needing an elite running game to help your offense is simply that. A myth.
@@borax3030 Not even stout. You just need the consistent *THREAT* of a running game. The Bills offense was humming well in previous years built on mostly pass scripts. But when they needed to run the impact was mostly not on their RBs but Josh Allen as a power runner. Even with Kyle Shanahan's schemes prior to having CMC, he just has RB depth of small guys who can hit the hole in outside zone. The rest of the offense with Deebo, Aiyuk, Kittle and Juzcy do the heavy lifting. Even with McVay's last SB run Cam Akers what whatever. But having Cooper Kupp, Odell and Higbee was their bread and butter.
In the last 5 years, of the 10 teams playing for the Super Bowl, I'd argue there's only 2 RBs who're really big parts of the offense: Joe Mixon (who was carried by the passing game) and Todd Gurley. 2 of those teams were led by the large investment in Sony Michel + the 1st in CEH that didnt matter. Otherwise it's the Eagles committee carried by Hurts + the OL and random dudes like RoJo, random 7th rounder Pacheco, Darrel Williams off the street, and Raheem Mostert bouncing off random practice squads to have a dominant playoff run.
Why would you bother with RBs when the successful teams arent?
Dude you need to quit sponsoring this BS you seen one time in that stupid graph. You're not accounting for the obvious...which is the regular season. And if you recheck your facts probably alot of these teams had good RB production that got them there
You can go even further and still have much of a points. Patriots, last three rings: James White, LeGarrette Blount, Rex Burkhead. Pretty much one, two season wonders
@@maskedman5657 But was it production from elite, star RBs? Or was it production from generic RBs with a good line?
The successful teams don't want a lead back that's why but even they still run the football.
@@otaviofrnazario With Tom Brady at QB. How many of those are there?
Had a bad 1st impression of Factor, because they left out 1/3rd of my first order. Since then it’s been a solid product for the convenience it provides. Not sure if I’ll continue to use it once the discounts end, but currently appreciating it during a busy schedule. Tbh a lot of their menu is surprisingly tasty
Hell yeah, honest reviewing homie. Appreciate you
Thank you for the honesty!
How's the shipping cost? The last thing like it I tried looked reasonable until you found out that the price *doubled* when you included shipping (despite ordering quite a few meals), which ended up making it more expensive than just going to a restaurant.
Factor is amazing for me! I’m a Keto guy so a tasty Keto meal in two minutes is so nice.
@@pfeilspitze For 14-18 meals delivered to Texas, the shipping has been $11. If you're on the fence, I'd look at the site/app and punch in Brett's promo code. It breaks down costs, meals, calories, etc
Brett is incredible with the ads. He’s probably the only creator I see doing them where it’s enjoyable to watch the ad as well as the video lol. The one about seatgeek with third eye blind was incredible.
i like the honesty about the add read, im not even american and still watched it to support your content. Looking forward to the season and the content that you will bring with it, its much appreciated, even in europe ;) Keep doing your thing brother.
Same here :)
I’ve genuinely never been interested in those factor meal plans but the way you did it honestly piqued my interest and it’s quite simply a well done ad read, you’re a great spokesman
I don’t think NFL owners want to pay people more money
Yes, but they're obligated to by the CBA.
Along with the salary cap, there's also a salary floor.
As long as you own a team, you should spend money on a winning team rather than just waste it to piss RBs (and other players and fans) off.
If you're in it for the fame, your name will be associated with a winner.
If you're in it for money, the brand of your team will be bigger, so you can sell it for more money down the line.
@@andrasszabo1570what??
@@ajkareem5685 Do they speak English in What?
Dude that wasn’t problem here lmfao
brett uploading these videos at almost 2 am reminds me of me finishing an assignment 3 hours past the due date and then turning it in
It was timed.....you can time uploads
Icing on the cake is when you get a good grade. Feels good man. Feels good...
i don’t know why, but your pfp really compliments the energy of your comment
What about the rookie issue? They'll still want to keep drafting rookies instead of capping. Taylor is upset on the last year of his rookie deal not his cap year.
But in the same breath he has a future HOF guard blocking for him which be gives zero credit. Team game
@@ajkareem5685 Who says he gives him zero credit? Guards get paid. RBs don't.
@@ajkareem5685 Tf are you on about?
@@ajkareem5685 Tell me you haven't actually watched this channel's content without actually saying it.
Brett has done more content talking about line blocking techniques than literally any other YT or TV network I've ever seen. The man gives all the love for linemen.
@ajkareem5685 nelson has been spoken about at a high level since his rookie year
As a Brazilian, I've just come back from a party, it is almost 6am, but I'm here for Kollmann 's video
Thanks for putting the ad read at the end. Normally I skip through them, but I sat through it bc you were nice about the placement
I suspect this cap rule would mean QBs get franchised and bonus'd to shave cap rather than RBs, because teams could funnel them enough money to keep them happy w/o murdering their cap. QB contracts are insane, so foisting a big % of their money into "bonus" that doesn't count is more strongly incentivized.
Precisely. This becomes an incredibly powerful tool for teams to pay players without impacting their cap, which means they'll be incentivized to do it for the most expensive positions. You can only tag 1 player per year, so it's almost always gonna be QBs, OTs, DEs and WRs getting tagged and signed like this
That’s not necessarily a bad thing tho, since what’s really breaking the game of football isn’t rookie RBs giving 80% of the production of veteran RBs with 8% of the cap hit, it’s elite level rookie QBs giving 80% of the production of elite level veteran QBs with 8% of the cap hit. That’s basically the NFL equivalent of up down up down left right left right A B, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that every SB in the rookie wage scale era has been won by either: a QB on his rookie contract, Tom Brady taking less than market value, the Rams sabotaging their entire future by effing dem picks, or alien freak of nature Pat Mahomes.
I’m not necessarily advocating for or against any particular position - I haven’t given the issue/this proposal sufficient consideration to have an opinion yet - but I would just like to point out that adding a restriction which denies QBs eligibility for this sort of bonus structure would be trivial. Unlike most other positions, there is virtually no ambiguity when it comes to determining positional eligibility at QB (with the one possible exception of Taysom Hill).
Y'all should keep up with the Bootleg Podcast during the season. Week by week your favorite picks, worst losers and best winners, etc. I love the nerdy stuff. It gives me something to listen to while i'm at work where i'm still actually learning. There so much i've learned about the game of football from You the past years and now you can add E.J. to the mix. I'm only 18 and i have so much to learn. There's not many guys like you two on youtube, it is quite literally the perfect channel for me. Thank you Brett and Thank You E.J. Y'all are awesome! Keep up the great work.
In addition, I never knew how much detail truly went into playcalling, scouting, salary caps, etc. You have truly taught me everything that I know about football today. Thank you again!
Brett, you never fail to feed into my insomniac-induced impulses. Love ya brother!
Tyler Allgeier I just realized is the main beneficiary of Bijan's arrival. Without him, he'd be ground to a pulp 300 carries a year on 950,000$ a year over 4 years. With Bijan, hes gonna take the load, Tyler will be a GREAT change-up who doesn't eat 300 carries, and hits free agency as a peak player in 3 seasons. By then his blocking and receiving will be way past any draft pick. Rookie RBs even great ones aren't complete NFL backs. Maybe Bijan is close but most can't learn pro level blitz pickup, chip blocking, and route running in college.
Do we see the "kickerization" of the running back position? Where it is deemed not really difficult so that you can always get another one?
Factor is awesome. One of the few yt sponsors that’s actually any good. Thanks for moving the ad to the end. Actually got me to watch it.
The process of how this issue came to light always fascinated me. I remember through the early 90s the consensus was that a star running back was almost as valuable as a star quarterback. Teams had survived and won with above average guys like Otis Anderson with the Giants, but most of the time the back was a huge focal point of the offense and I think the Dolphins and Marino being unable to win a ring kind of reinforced that. Then the Shanahan zone scheme happened, and Terrell Davis went from being a 6th round pick to almost breaking the rushing record. And then Olandis Gary replaced him and ran for 1,000 yards in less than a full season, then Mike Anderson replaced him and almost hit 1,500 as a rookie, then Rueben Droughns ran for 1,200 yards before they drafted Clinton Portis and he was a sure 1,500 yards each year. And all that happened at the same time as Ditka's debacle of trading his whole draft for Ricky Williams. I feel like all of that happening at the same time built the narrative a lot more than even the proliferation of advanced stats has.
If I were a GM, here’s how I’d pay a top-tier RB contract. In this case, $52m over 3 years.
I’d Use fully guaranteed salary up to the point where the team feels comfortable, along with vesting guarantees in later years.
Next, I’d use an Option Bonus in year 2 to get the rest of the way there, along with void years to spread it out. The key is that there’s no real long-term guaranteed money at signing.
Let’s say we’re the Raiders, and we want to work out a deal with Josh Jacobs. He wants McCaffrey money, so $16m AAV.
We know from history that Jacobs probably only has 3 seasons of really high quality football left. Our contract extension will be three years, with 2 void years if we need to prorate the option bonuses. That takes him through his age 27 season.
Assuming we have the cap space, the contract will look like this.
Y1 | $14m total, $8m Full-GTD salary, $6m March roster bonus
Y2 | $16m total, $8m Full-GTD salary, $8m Per-Game roster bonus. Also, an $4m option bonus is exercisable here in March. Doing so raises Jacobs cap number to $17 m and forces the Raiders to exercise the option or release Jacobs before free agency, as he’d have a non-exercise fee.
Y3 | $18m total, $8m Injury-GTD salary vests to F-GTD if Jacobs is still on the roster for Week 1. This is coupled with $10 million in per-game bonuses. This forces the raiders to make a decision before the season. (Cap number is $19m w/ O.B.)
Void 1 | $1m option bonus proration
Void 2 | $1m option bonus proration
Assuming they want Jacobs on the roster, year one is essentially fully guaranteed. The Raiders can get out of this contract after year one with $8 million in dead cap. If they keep him for a year two and pay him more, the dead cap number lowers to $3m going into year 3.
If the Raiders keep him for year 3, injury protected salary vests into fully guaranteed salary in September. This gives the team time to see if he’s still worth keeping around, and if he’s not, they can let him go at $3m in dead money cost.
In this scenario, Jacobs gets his money, and never exceeds 8% of the cap. Other than year three (when he’d already have earned $34 million over 2 years), there is constant leverage for Jacobs as The Raiders have to pay him or release him before free agency. This is only aided by the point that the dead money decreases as the contract goes on.
This is 3 years/$52 million that includes $16 million fully guaranteed at signing. There is no signing bonus. This contract is good for the Raiders, and it’s good for Jacobs.
How are you going to feel when you're paying Josh Jacobs to stand on the sidelines in street clothes because he's injured? Because that's coming. You might feel okay about the 80% you get out of your RB on his rookie deal, but the contract for Jacobs will still sting.
That’s the risk teams take when handing out large contracts, which is why they usually don’t give them to running backs.
This is something I came up with in 20 minutes. A real negotiation for a contract this large would take at least a day.
Honestly, a real front office would probably play hardball and have way less tied up in injury protection. This contract was drafted with the idea of trying to be fair to running backs
@@VinceLyle2161you can't use injuries as an excuse for not giving a contract in football. Literally anyone can get killed at any moment. WRs, OL, basically every position group gets several season ending injuries every week. But for some reason RBs are viewed as the only ones to ever get hurt
@@dannyquilter8366 You just explained why I absolutely can use injuries as an excuse for not giving a contract, and even if you didn't, RBs look to get contracts at the moment their prime is almost up. Unless you think Josh Jacobs is going to be the next Emmitt Smith, his best production years are behind him.
lmao terrible idea
An interesting proposal. The downside would be the OTHER benefit of free agency, the cap, and the franchise tag - competitive balance. The cap and the tag exist to punish teams that want to hang onto their good players beyond their rookie contracts. It's meant to hurt so teams are incentivized to let players get to real free agency and get their fair value which helps bad teams get good.
I never got the "moneyball" aspect to it. A premium RB makes sense financially. You can pay 49mil all up and get the Titans rushing attack, or you can pay 63mil and get the Texans rushing attack.
I know what one i'd take 100 times out of 100
Well when you run primarily 4-5 wr sets, it kinda makes it easier to see if maybe you have a TE who can maybe be used as a short yardage back for the couple of times that its needed.
God I love when Brett brings up the nuances of contracts
Watched through the whole in video ad. Thanks for making high quality content and keeping a serious flow during a serious topic.
Lol and I thought I would be bored waiting for my 6am flight
I'll be honest, Brett. And I know not everyone is gonna agree. I prefer this format for ads rather than the mid-video stuff. I usually skip that vigorously, but because you decided to do it in the end instead, I gave it all my full attention. Kudos to you, sir
I think the issue with your proposal is that the issue is this kind of cap change is that it makes so much more sense to give this non cap money to a qb potentially saving an extra 10 million in cap relative to using the tag on a running back. It is also worth noting that you may see a lot of "rushes for at least 1 yard" as a expected to be earned bonus.
I think the heart of the problem is since running backs can produce so early in their relatively short nfl careers that teams will run talented backs into the ground with the intention of getting another back in the draft to do the same thing.
One potential solution would be allowing players to get out of rookie contracts based on number of carries. If a player is in the top 20 in carries 1 of their first 3 years they can hit the market as a RFA if they so choose. This means that teams running a running back by committee or giving a wide receiver some caries can do this with no change but teams building around running backs will have to pay them before their careers are half way over. This has the added benefit of potentially encouraging load management for younger backs allowing them to have longer careers.
The way you introduced the add at the end of the video made we watch the entire ad. Thank you for not shoving it in our face.
There are a lot of positions on a NFL team where even the star players at that position don’t make much money. I think that RBs feel entitled to large contracts just because they used to get them historically, but the game has changed. Their position doesn’t provide that much value anymore.
Their position provides a lot of value just that they are easier to replace
Loved this breakdown. I also appreciate you saving the ad til the end! Amazing ad read too. Has me interested in Factor fr
I love this idea. It clearly incentivizes teams to give their guys chances rather than how most incentives in sports work where the team will try to limit their numbers.
As someone who absolutely fucking hates ads, thank you for caring about my viewing experience. I appreciate it more than I can put into words.
Making rb contract incentive based while being able to keep the cap lower for the position makes the most sense as long as theres rules put in place to protect the players i expect the nflpa to make some negotiations to do something after this seasons
I mean the actual solution is the PA growing some balls, and actually having a coordinated strike to fix some of the utter BS that is the NFL contract. Only sport with nonguaranteed contracts, stupid crap lack the franchise tag, its just a crappy contract that benefits no one but owners.
Not fans, not players, not staff, not media, not GMs.
@@2639thebossThis. The NFLPA is a joke. They agreed to a 17 game season which IMMENSELY benefits the owners, and helps SOME players but at the expense of more injuries and wear and tear which will shorten careers. The fact that you can tag someone not once, but TWICE with no real recourse is absurd. How they have that is a joke. It literally lets team owners strong arm players and minimize their leverage. You can just extend a rookie contract and they have minimal guarantees and massive uncertainty because of the nature of the sport. Half of the contracts should be guaranteed, at minimum. Maybe 60-70%. I disagree with fully guaranteed contracts because NBA players are total divas and some will literally sit and do nothing and collect a check to get a trade. That shit shouldn’t be allowed either. You should have to play out the thing you agreed to play out. Not pout because you want to be somewhere else.
@@2639thebossJust to put it simply, if the franchise tag didn’t exist. Not a single one of these running backs up for extension wouldn’t have one. Because even if they might be washed by year 3-4, someone will be willing to pay for a top5 player in their position for two PRIME years. The franchise tag completely neutralizes all their leverage, and also severely diminishes their prospects because of the nature of the position beyond that. And teams can just fucking collude to do that.
@@2639thebossyou’d think the sport with the least guarantee that you’ll make it to the next play without getting hurt, wouldn’t have the least guaranteed money for its players.
If I may suggest, make the RB cap free - there's the incentive for a team to get the best one they can, and pay for the best too.
How to measure a RB (so teams can't game it)? Percentage of touches behind the line of scrimage. eg. If 90% of a player's touches are behind the line of scrimage, then that player is 90% RB and 90% of that player's salary is cap free. If the player then passes the ball, it counts towards the cap (so teams can't game the cap by calling their Mahomes a RB and trying to not count his sallary towards the cap).
As an overnight worker your upload time is amazing hope to see more
You hit the nail on the head I've been saying that the only way to make this work and to actually do right by the running backs is for there to be some kind of cap exemption in place so your suggestion is really good.
Its crazy that Algier was a top 10 back and Atlanta still takes a back in the first round.
Not that crazy when you realize Atlanta isn't a well run organization
They took a TE like 4 overall and didn't even use him last year. They're a joke franchise
Except the back they took can also line up in the LoS and play receiver. So even if he doesn't get crazy touches as a running back, he can still add value as a potential receiver and create plays that way. If you have seen how RBs like CMC get to play in the passing game because they can line up in the LoS, they are more valuable than pass catching backs strictly from the back field.
Yeah them not using KP right is killing me
It is crazy, but we have our freeman/Coleman duo back in spades
I’m not a regular Factor consumer, but I was recently studying for the final level of a financial exam and the last 3 week push was something like 10 or 12 hours per day of uninterrupted studying. I was stressing about the exam, food, etc. My wife got me several Factor boxes as gifts and they absolutely saved me. Even just having nutritious ready-to-eat food and not having to worry about meal prepping or eating crap for a month leading up to my test was an enormous help. So yeah the food is pretty good and I’d say generally worth it for the convenience
It's definitely a service that is built for exactly that scenario!
It's a shame, but the real problem is that RB is an "easy" position to play in the NFL. Many rookies can do it very well, because there's more physical demand but less mental demand, so they can potentially adjust very fast, as opposed to offensive line or safety or QB. And that's just how it is - it's a saturated market with lots of competition and only a couple of spots per team, so smart RBs are going to diversify their skills. If they can run and catch and block and return kicks they're going to be more valuable, and they're eventually going to have to do that stuff because their position is inherently prone to competition.
I do think the low-paid RB problem is at least somewhat self-correcting. If they're underpaid relative to production, teams should sign RBs who can catch and use them as h-backs and slot receivers. They should sign multiple good RBs to reduce wear and tear on the starters. Basically, if they're going to Moneyball this position, RBs should use that to their advantage to diversify their skillset to increase their value. Because if teams aren't going to pay a premium price for premium production, no amount of contract chicanery is going to matter in the end. If some enterprising team decides to carry 7 RBs and uses their incredible athleticism to make some kind of devastating quick passing game for the price of 2 receivers, other teams will see that and copy them. If that doesn't work, then RB just isn't a valuable position and will be paid as such.
It used to be offensive linemen not getting enough money for their production, and teams realized they could win by having an incredible line that just mauled everyone. D linemen also didn't get enough money. Currently TEs and RBs are underpaid, and it's going to take some team dominating with a bunch of TE and RB production _(KC is a good bet)_ to get everyone to pay their RBs.
This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but RB production has been overvalued since the beginning of the NFL. Most great RBs had a great line in front of them and took advantage. Obviously there are differences in RB quality - Walter Payton was a monster on bad Bears teams, Barry Sanders did a lot of his damage without much help, etc. - but you can get similar results with a better O line and weaker RB, and the O line will help the pass game, too. Teams didn't really understand the fungibility of RB production and overpaid for a long time. RB has been a glamor position when it really shouldn't have been. They're currently underpaid, and I'd be shocked if the teams _weren't_ colluding against them, but the market will correct.
I can't like this comment enough.
I disagree about rbs being overpaid/overvalued. They were very valuable to the offenses of the time. Back then, the running game was mostly about overpowering the guy in front of you. So big fullbacks and big back would just bludgeon the defense into submission. They'd force gaps in the defense for the runner. Now, it's more about movement and schemes creating those gaps through misdirection and causing the defense to hesitate. Also, passing games were way less complex back then. It was rare to see teams using a single back three wide set on 2nd and 4, but it's so common now that a lot of teams have that as their base set.
One thing is for sure though, I don't think we're every going back to the days of Jerome Bettis and Eddie George type runners carrying the ball 300 times a year.
Everything you said is false except for the collusion part. A glamor position, seriously?? It's one of the least glamorous positions along with center. As a running back you beat your body into submission until your "washed" and out of the league. It's definitely collusion to make the game seem "safer" to eventually eliminate certain positions all together. It'll literally be 7 on 7 in the next 10 - 20 years and most will except it because they don't really know the game.
And you act like rookie running backs literally just run the ball. Do you know how complex blitz pick up is for running back?? No matter how good your oline blocks if your rb doesn't know pass pro it'll get your qb rocked. We see it every week. They have to know fronts, protections, if that then situations on the fly, routes, formations packages, etc. And you better not get injured while taking contact every play
And your getting the running back position confused with wide receiver. That's the most expendable position in football. I don't even know how this running back thing is a debate
Of course I’ll watch the ad at the end for Brett!
It's not correct to compare running back pay to other positions to say they are underpaid.
It's like a pediatrician saying they are underpaid bc they make less than ortho surgeons. Even though they are both doctors.
Yeah I agree running backs aren’t underpaid, they are paid exactly what the market agrees they are worth
I mean, it's all relative. RBs are underpaid compared to what they were making 25 years ago. So it's more like pediatricians used to make what ortho surgeons make, but now they make 1/5 that.
@@seanwilliams7655 if there service are no longer what they were once worth I don’t see how that’s a problem
Never gonna feel bad for someone making millions while our service men make 500000 a year
Hi Brett - Great video! Two crucial things that I think you are missing:
The first is that, just because a RB is good in his first few years, that often fails to translate to later years, resulting in horrible long-term contracts. The teams that signed Gurley, Bell, and Zeke to long-term deals all certainly regret it; deals like Mixon’s and Cook’s also look pretty bad. In the NFL, you have to pay for the production you expect, not the production you got, which makes RB contracts much riskier than contracts to other positions. The question is not “Is Saquon valuable to the Giants?” but instead is “Will Saquon be valuable to the Giants over the next four years?” where the latter question is a lot riskier for RBs than for other position groups.
The second point is that, on your proposal, I think that poorer owners would not like that. The ability to spend money that does not go against the cap will enable rich owners to retain their superstars at will while the cash-poor owners won’t be able to compete. Therefore, I think the suggested solution would not be approved by the cash-poor owners.
I agree with this 100%. I believe there was another salary cap problem that Brett suggested solving by making certain spending not count towards the cap but people pointed out the owners wouldn't go for it because it takes away their excuse for not spending more and more on the team (being the cap). Also I have to believe there could be a way to specify who counts as a running back either via just % carries or even % carries + catches behind the line of scrimmage or even # of hits taken (although if anything quarterbacks would out-qualify many running backs for those stats so that could be an issue).
I could see the cash poor owners not liking having to pay even more money than they already do, but honestly over the last 15 years the gap between the top and bottom of the owner pool has gotten noticeably large. Some of these teams are going to have to be sold or they will just get dusted over and over again. They just don’t have the cash to compete with the Walton family.
Anyone else Remember Jay Ajayi ? Dude was a top 3 running back for one season then just kinda dipped
RB’s have been the highest payed player on EVERY team for about 85 of the 100 years the NFL has existed. The game has changed. Nobody else complained all those years, because the RB carried the load. They DONT now. 🤷🏼♂️
Bro your wrong. Even when running backs carried the team their salaries were on par with league average and in fact the top running backs still got paid less than the top wide receivers linebackers or quarterbacks.
@@TheChrismeg34 WHAT are you talking about? ALL teams and salaries are on the internet going back ALL the way. An example? 85 Bears, legendary all-time defense. Walter Payton? $650K/yr. Not ONE player on that defense making more than $350K/yr.
So either I’m retarded and can’t read, or I’m not wrong. This isn’t an opinion. All you have to do is look.
Apparently every team should have a 5 headed monster of 2 great fullbacks and 3 great running backs that share the downs at a fair salary. Running backs take a massive beating and suffer permanent damage in most cases over the course of a very short career. If the star running back isn't a thing anymore, stop taking them high in the draft if you aren't going to pay them.
Yup and once that said running gets close to his yardage goal the team will start not calling plays for him lol
If the bonus from hitting the yardage total wouldn’t count against the cap, then they have no reason to stop them. The head coach’s job is to win games, not to fiddle with incentives, so they will do what is necessary to win. The owners and GMs aren’t calling the plays on the field
@@owenh4yeah, “just don’t involve him in the offense” is a terrible idea. First of all, we’ve already had these incentives, and it doesn’t happen.
Free agents would be very, very unwilling to sign for incentives with a team that has intentionally avoided their players hitting it.
Great video, enjoyed hearing an actual solution rather than the problem like we’ve all heard recently. Also the ad roll at the end was a great idea and got a like and follow.
The day i worry about a millionaire making another million or not will be the day i join them.
The easiest fix to the RB problem is do the rookie contracts differently than the rest.
1st rounders get 3 years plus 4th year option, 2nd rounders get 3 year option, 3rd through 5th round get 2 year contract and 6th rounders or later or UDFAs get one year contracts.
You can also make a higher minimum for RBs and much higher vet minimum (and perhaps much lower vet minimum for those over age 28 to give older RBs a chance) Make the cost of replacing a RB high, make RBs not qualify for compensatory picks, things like that.
The quicker contract means teams have to sign
You could also have the league pay some kind of bonus to the position that doesn’t count against salary cap.
There are tons of things you could do but NFL PA and league rules are made up by the uncreative lawyer types who maybe don’t have economics background or understand how changing incentive changes behavior.
I do think rookie contracts should just be shorter across the board tbh
This is such a good take. Why not make it 3 years instead of 4 or 5? Makes it a lot more bearable for a guy who isn’t a starter to try a different team while still being young and healthy. I think this would be a good change all around
@@nytro8027 Yeah the whole reason for rookie contracts was to avoid JaMarcus Russell situations and not discourage teams from drafting a player because of cap space.
I think 2 years with a three year option would avoid those problems while being better for players. It would also reduce the value of rookie contracts which personally I would like.
It should be 2 years with higher pay for RB’s
One idea I heard to help the situation is to let franchise-tagged players force themselves a second franchise tag year. It's not a *great* long-term solution, but it would guarantee future money for these players in case of injury (or a team just losing interest), AND it would give GMs an incentive to sign them to *something* to avoid having to pay a franchise tag they don't want to.
Oh, I like it! More nuanced than just raising the tag amount or similar, and has a way out of it for the team too.
Honestly I hate that this is even a conversation, its quite simple in the nfl you are given money off a salary cap,and your value is deemed by replaceability not value to the team. The amount you are paid is gonna change yearly at ebery position. Also stop acting like anyone is currently underpaud in the nfl, most of their skills have no value wothout how incredible the nfl does at advertising the product.
Well said. A more honest statement would be "relatively" underpaid.
I watched your ad read because of your deal. You actually made me sit through the ad read. 🤯👏
The problem is that the league thinks they can keep getting good runningbacks for cheap, but if they keep treating them like this, the amount of young talented kids playing that position will drop significantly.
The NFL basically wants everyone to throw the ball 70 times a game
It’s arena football
Well, nothing says a team *has* to have a RB, just like most teams don't have a FB any more. The game might just move even more to QB runs and WR sweeps and such.
not really
The Dallas Cowboys and I mean Jerry Jones gave Ezekial Elliot a $90 million contract. Once he got the contract, his seasons just turned mediocre at best for what he was getting paid. Look at Saquon Barkley, his 1st two years in the NFL he was injured pretty much before the season started. Miami drafts Achone and he weighs around 188 lbs????? I believe the owners should be looking at big brusing RB's that we used to know as fullbacks. These small fast RB's today are great but few make it all season. Owners are owners..they don't want to be Jerry Jones plugging in $90 million for an RB who ends up on his way to Palookaville.
Im gonna say it. Its impossible for me to feel bad for dudes making more money per year than most of us will in 30 years.
After taxes (especially if they aren’t a first rounder) most of these guys will have to work later in life. You can get a lot of value out of 2nd and 3rd round RBs who aren’t making boatloads and will by no means be set for life off a rookie deal (which might be close to all they get). Even first rounders since they are usually later are unlikely to be that favorable of a position. They aren’t a kicker or QB. RBs shelf lives are the lowest in the league.
Truth.
@@deadprecidents Even so, the money gives them options 99% of us don't have, and there's extra privilege because most of these guys stopped paying attention in school the moment their talent was recognized. Their short career gives them a big leg up on the rest of us.
@@deadprecidents 3rd round rookie deal RBs will still make more in 5 years than most people do in a lifetime.
Just say you hate the free market and move on.
Love all of this. Excellent work Brett
Nice idea, but where is the reason to implement it as a RB holding out didn't really matter as an unknown rookie is just as productive as seen with Gordon/Ekeler, Bell/Connor,...
yup, the fact is rb primes start pretty much the moment they enter the nfl. by year 6 their production typically falls off hard
Thanks for coming up with another solution for this problem.
PFF had it right for years ahead of this. Teams finally caught up
How? By literally turning football into a 7-on-7 drill?
PFF had what right exactly?
@@maskedman5657 OP is saying cheap and young running back by committee is a strategy that has been supported by analytics for decades, but teams were quite stubborn and used a featured back system for a long time.
@@chrisuncleahmad666that was the rule committee that did that, pff just noticed
@@maskedman5657 the value of RB when it comes to contracts and draft value vs other positions
I remember reading an article years ago about Gary Patterson’s defense at TCU.
The article mentioned that several of his defensive stars, including edge rushers, were running backs in high school (the position where the stud usually plays at that level) who bulked up and learned the position.
As far as earning potential in the NFL, Patterson was doing those kids a favor.
Same goes for high school backs who converted to corner or receiver in college.
Usually, it’s a moot point, since only a small fraction of college players even make an NFL roster, much less stay on long enough to earn free agent status.
Nevertheless, I imagine the few who make it that far are glad they switched positions in college.
It’s about replaceability. If I can get the same production or close to it from anyone else is it really YOU doing the production or is it the O line and the offense? And you just happen to be there. These RBs are smelling themelsev too much
Word.
I wonder if adopting the salary cap rule change proposed here might actually lead to a perverse incentive for NFL teams to actually throttle the production of RBs in some cases. If "likely to earn" bonuses are immune from the cap, but "unlikely to earn" are not (even if only 50%), a team might pull an RB out of games late in the season if he's crossed the "likely to earn" threshold and is approaching the "unlikely to earn" threshold, so that they don't have to pay him the bonus.
12:06 A win for everybody.. except the owners, who are plenty happy with being to underpay players due to a broken system.
They’re just paying other positions instead of RB. I don’t know why RBs feel entitled to massive contracts. TEs have been playing football for less money than even running backs since forever and you don’t hear TEs whining about it.
@@harrygarris6921 Well the proposal in this video would be having owners pay more money per season because some of the RB money wouldn't be counting against the salary cap.
Edit: I misunderstood your comment lol my bad but the point still stands as to why owners wouldn't like this.
@@seda_11 yeah it just seems like unnecessarily catering to RBs because their feelings are hurt. Like I said there are other positions on a NFL team that play for even less than running backs and no one’s proposing we make a cap exception for them. Times change. Is it UNFAIR to newspaper journalists because the internet made most of their jobs redundant? Nah it’s just how it goes.
I was thinking about an idea that was essentially this, but I'm not privy to the business end of the NFL to word it in a coherent manner like you did. Bravo.
Brett you’re really lucky I’m still awake at 4:50 AM.
I’d say you’re lucky to have Brett Kollman-tier content to watch for free on YT. However you want to look at it, I guess. Brett’s grateful for his viewers I’m sure. But we should let him know he’s appreciated by us as well!
You can thank Bumziekiel Leliot for this being a completely dead issue
It’s crazy how someone can carry their team, but will get treated with disgrace and disrespect because of their position
That’s Roger Goodell’s NFL: a sport where apparently only QB’s matter
There aren’t any good NFL teams being carried by a RB though lol. The titans are probably the best example, and they barely qualify as a playoff team.
@@Zlittlepenguin And Derrick Henry is a very unique RB who plays the bellcow back role in this modern pass happy NFL.
@chrisuncleahmad it's called a CBA dawg
@@Zlittlepenguin the NFL has become flag football. Just throw on every play.
Thanks Brett for not putting that ad in the middle of the vid, would’ve been a mess
I'd be up to trying some of those meals but I don't think I've go out of my way for it. lol Anyways, love this vid and always appreciate your view/opinion on the RB situation. I really hope they do something for them when they give so much of their own health for the sport to be treated like trash so easily.
RB is a tough business. I really do feel for these guys.
Don't let most casual NFL fans here you say that. They just wanna spill you some BS about how RBs are just not worth paying
I really like Brett's idea, but I think owners and GMs will forever forth balk at the idea of long-term contracts for vet RBs no matter the price tag. I think it'd be cool to see short-term, high salary vet contracts (not exploitable rookie ones like Brett alluded to). 1-2 year contracts at $18-20m+, as long as they're still producing like stars and contributing to wins they keep re-upping and getting top money like stars at any other position. I know they deserve the security of long-term deals, but the reality of the modern NFL makes that too unrealistic for the foreseeable future. And I worry if they don't set a precedent for the top guys getting top dollar, we'll see the current RB blueprint be applied to other positions as the game changes over the years (tbh I think the seeds have already been planted for corners)
I believe that while this works out for the most part, the main part of the issue is what you tackled in the beginning, that good rookie RBs coming into the league are able to produce 80% of what top tier RBs can do for 5% of the pay. I think shortening the rookie contract of RBs seems like a solution to counter that part of the problem as well, since the first 5 years of a RB's career is usually when they're at their best. Shortening the rookie contract by a couple of years (make it 2 or 3 years for RBs) would allow them to be paid earlier when they're still at their physical peak. Also like the solution you proposed, and think these 2 combined would elevate RBs to where they need to be in the market. Great video!
did you not see why he said giving shorter contracts is a bad idea?
The NFL has turned into a glorified 7-on-7 drill
At this rate, teams might as well bring back the run and shoot offense.
Another idea is to just structure rookie contracts for backs. They're usually most productive and less injury prone in their rookie contracts. Pay the rookies more base salary. Add significant bonuses if they have more than 200 carries. More than 250, 300, 350, 400. Add incentive bonuses for rushing yards, yards from scrimmage, touchdowns. Make it so backs on rookie contracts aren't guaranteed a ton of money, but production pays them significantly
Why pay em when it’s a passing league. The league died with the tuck rule and when it decided brady would be the face of the league.
Now every year you have some 60+ point super bowl that ends on a lame ass field goal or stupid ref call.
Awwwwwww, the poor little multi-millionaires.
Edit: had to tune the world's smallest violin.
I fixed it for you;
Edit: Had to hold the worlds smallest penis to go pee.
I know ever one is acting like these guys are being used or it’s slave labor while they are making 10x the medium US salary while being a 7th round rb who doesn’t play
Yeah, the players who have the highest likelihood of CTE of any pro athlete. Does that put it into perspective?
All rookies should get paid with bonuses that are based on league wide bonuses that effect the next year’s cap hit that actually go away for veterans, but essentially make it so you’re paid off of performance and stop the rookie abuse and veteran abuse at once, and if you try to use multiple backs well you’re still stuck as a team because it wouldn’t be tiered like that, it would basically pay backs by the yard and by the catch, and even the touch. So you may pay a back back with 2000 yards and 400 touches less than than 3 RBs with a combed 2000 yards and 410 yards.
This system should already be there to be quite Frank, why are JJ and chase being paid so little compared to their counterpart veterans that they are 100% better than 90% of.
And if anyone tries to argue this system would suck, well that’s some bozo shit because it’s workable and it would make it so you didn’t have to overpay players later for previous production to make up for money they should have got, the answer has never been incentivizing new contracts, it’s to pay the players for what they do for the team. Saquon should’ve been make 16.5 mil from his production last year
This all started with Le'veon Bell. He gave RBs a bad reputation and other RBs followed suit. Holding their teams to ransom. Then when they do go to another team, they fail. Bell and Gordon to note. This is why teams realised they could get someone else for much cheaper.
How did this start with Leveon? He wanted to compensated more for his production what are you talking about?
@@maskedman5657Bell turned down 14mil a year from the Steelers and now regrets it.
@@koolkitties8552 And apparently you forgot about all the rumors about how much he was actually guaranteed
@@maskedman5657 he held the team to ransom and refused to play. Then he flopped when he did get a big contract with another team. Melvin Gordon tried the same and failed. Zeke then refused to play but got his contract. They seem to be phasing him out with Pollard now. These RBs are refusing to play until they get what they want. So teams are learning they are better off without and this devaluating the RB position. So what are you even on about?
@@mistert4533 I don't know what you are on about. Because I clearly explained it
Brett I like your stuff, but this would be a bad idea. Cash rich franchises could abuse this, while smaller market teams would be punished. One of the best things about the NFL is that we're not dominated by teams in big cities on the coasts. The AFC is dominated by the Chiefs, Bills and Bengals right now, let's keep the parity between small and big market teams in the NFL.
It's funny how when players screw owners - NBA, it's not an issue. But when owners screw players, it comes big deal. In the end it's all business
That is the ignorant thing I've ever heard
@@maskedman5657 which part ? NBA or NFL ?
@@maskedman5657Explain how they are wrong, TH-camrs especially always side with players to an obnoxious extent, when players want money it's just "getting their bags", but when owners want profit they are "greedy"
@@metalmythology6282 If you watched the video you can clearly hear Brett address both sides and can understand both sides. That's why he offered a solution. Clearly didn't watch it
@@maskedman5657 13 minutes in and I haven't actually heard Brett explain how the players are worth more of the salary cap and aren't as replaceable as they are paid. He just uncritically claims they are worth more, they actually just aren't because if they were worth more teams would step in and attempt to pay them, but even on the open market they get nothing
I have such mad respect for a content creator that presents reasonable and considered solutions to complex problems, instead of just emotionally charged rhetoric. God, I love this channel.
Wouldnt it still make sense to just hire the new cheap guy
A funny part of these types of videos are all the opinionated comments that dont even respond to the points made in the actual video. It's literally as if the video never even happened for them.
First of all, thank you Brett for framing this not as "GMs are being mean to RBs" but actually acknowledging that, unfortunately, with the salary cap paying a top running back hurts your team building. We need to acknowledge the truth to fix it.
That said, although I like your solution, my gut told me it wouldn't solve the problem. I didn't know why. Now after reading the comments, people figured it out for me. I still think the length of contracts is a problem. I like one suggestion that incentives are baked into rookie contacts too.
I have my own likely flawed solution here. The comments can tell me what's wrong with it, together we can fix this!
My solution involves another type of incentive, namely incentives that shorten the rookie contract. It could either be based on stats (yards, touches which would favor RBs but need different incentives between skill positions, OL, DB, etc) or on snaps played (which could probably not have to differ based on position). This could cut down rookie contracts to two or three years for immediate starters, and in a RB by committee case at least they aren't run into the ground before the contract is up. This also has the benefit of adding incentives to sign a mid level veteran to allow a rookie time to develop on the bench. In addition, many second contracts can become mid level contracts. I suspect this can grow the NFL middle class, although I could be terribly wrong about this.
Admittedly, I don't know why GMs, owners, and QBs would agree to this. QBs would come off rookie contracts when they normally would get paid anyway, and GMs and owners lose some cost control and regular control mechanisms. But I do think it's good for the league, maybe that's enough. And maybe they get a little cost control on the second contract of some players.
Also, Brett, if you read this, you're the best football analyst/film junkie out there. If ESPN ever offers you at Pat McAfee contract, it is 200% deserved and then some. My only wish is that you could be cloned so I could have a Kollmann video every week.
I wouldn't put QBs into the group who should hate this. NFL rules have become so QB-friendly that a defender will get flagged for bumping a QB 1 second after they've released the ball. QBs take comparatively far less punishment than RBs. That's why QBs get such big 2nd contracts in the first place; aside from the fact that it's the most important position on the field, they also have an exponentially longer career expectancy when compared to RBs
Loved the add read deal!! You are crushing it!!
You know what. Because you actually went to the effort of actually not spamming your video and putting in the effort to improve the video, I’ll watch your add to help the channel.
this is the only ad read i’ve ever voluntarily watched on youtube because you asked nicely so congratulations i guess lol
I think the biggest problem (which could help general cap situations and be a net positive for the situation as a whole) with this proposal is the mechanism will be used on QBs more than any other position to get cap hits back into the mid 20s and low 30s for franchise QBs while paying them like mahomes money.
The Greatest Show On Turf was arguably only possible because the high level dual threat provided by Marshall Faulk. Having such a strong 50/50 offense is only possible with a top tier runningback. You can do it with a great receiver and offensive line setup and be good, but when you mix in a great runningback to exploit linebackers and in coverage and dbacks in open field tackling, then you can really hamstring the defense
Actually, there's a better solution: fix the rookie deals. That's the problem.
While it makes sense to give 4-5 years rookie contracts to QBs that'll play for 20 years, it doesn't make sense for RBs, that retire with under 10 league years. We either pay specially RBs in their rookie years, or reduce the rookie contract time for RBs (I guess one - or even none, since their performance translate easily from college - is fair enough) or we set rookie contract duration according to avg retiring time by position.
It doesn't make sense for a guy to be paid under 1M/year in the prime (and most) of his career while others start earning 8M and go up to 50M. It's right for them to feel cheated by the system.
I also think it's good to remember money is not the problem here - cap is.
This plan still has the problem of rookies producing the same for cheaper.
That can't be changed without decimating the draft value of rbs.
What I think is needed is a salary floor for the rb position. A minimum amount that teams have to pay their rb room.
That way they can load up on young guys, but at some point SOMEONE has to be payed a decent amount.
And since they have to pay somebody a decent chunk anyway teams will have more reason to be active in the rb market when a high production guy becomes available.
Brett, I live in Israel which is 7 hours ahead of EST, thank you for giving me something to watch on a Saturday late breakfast
A side effect of your franchise tag proposal would be that it incentivizes teams to wait and tag a star player rather than work out a long term deal early. I'm mostly thinking of QBs. For example, the Bengals might not want to work out a deal with Burrow now that will take up a large amount of cap space when they can wait until his rookie deal expires, franchise tag him, and then sign him to a deal that would not count nearly as much against the cap. Writing that out, I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing.