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 RU-vid 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
Yep. If you can’t run AND catch then they don’t want you 🤷🏻♂️ i think if we fast forward 50 years, offensive tackles are gonna look more like Micah parsons than Tyron smith. Rushers will get faster on the edge and the tackle position will need to evolve just like QB has already evolved, and RB is currently evolving
Do y’all not watch the NFL? That transition already happened lmao pay them RBs no excuse!! It’s so funny how y’all defend billionaire owners, it’s such a slave master mindset
@@Shiftyyy_ It has nothing do do with slave masters lmao. It has to do with worth. RBs are easy to replace and dont provide that much value. Its like that with any place of work. Its why people working at Walmart arent getting paid the same as people working at NASA. Almost anyone can do what the walmart worker can do even if they are great at it.
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'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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Up and coming running backs should pivot from that position. Understand that they are the fresh meat that owners want to use and abuse before they get injured and get cut. At this point the future running backs have leverage not the current stars.
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.
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.
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
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.
Brett Kollman: the NFL RU-vidr who understands the game better than many, many people employed by NFL teams as scouts, coaches, & GMs. You’re on to BIG things, Brett. You’re a YT 🐐
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
Most running back most productive seasons are under a rookie contract. So their production is high but their contract isn't. Then they have a hard time getting a team to sign them for a second contract because a average running backs career is 5 seasons.
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.
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.
Moneyball isn't the problem, it's creampuff rules for passers and receivers. Running backs have always had short contracts, it's just that you didn't have QBs and WRs playing into their late 30's.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@tomfabian1754yeah but when Chubb goes down they still get good production it’s mostly in that offensive line don’t get me wrong Chubb is top 3 but there’s at least 25 rbs in the league you can put back there that give you great production invest in the line it lasts longer not the rb
@@ryanyoung6399 Actually, it's not just the line it was having Hunt as a back-up. Chibb gets all those yards with far less carries. The Browns have actually done Chubb a favor and pro-longed the life expectancy of his eliteness. And they will do it again with Watson as the QB passing more. I don't expect Chubb's usage rate to increase without a known backup like Hunt. The Browns will pass more and be more successful doing it with RPOs as well as play-action which will force safeties and linebackers to stay at home and not fill the box. Chubb will still be elite and worth the money. And "No" not any running back can run with his power + speed + elusiveness. The Browns have an excellent line, yes, but it's not the hits he avoids at the line, it's the hits he avoids at the second level. Avoiding hits and keeping usage rates down is the name of the game at running back.
Making RB contracts higher won't get past the NFLPA, because most players aren't RBs and would make less money. Same reason the franchise tag will never go away.
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.
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
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
The problem with incentives is that: 1. They often don't control much of their production. If there are a few injuries on the oline, it could be out of their control. 2. Though lots of RB injuries are due to strength and conditioning, some are just random. Having 30-50% of the contract coming from big, random, incentives seems like a stressful way to get paid.
Hi! Im a football expert! First off I want to start by saying there is value at every position in football. RBs are less valued because they are dependent on the offensive scheme, the offensive line. In a passing league like we have today they are often used in short passes which is a lot of the time just a simple wide open read by the QB. Those plays take no skill from a RB. RBs produce less overall offensive yards than the passing game. A QBs best friend is the run game it’s true, but that is often to only keep defenses on their toes. A well coached back at the college level can hit a hole for 4 yards if there is a gap. Pay your lineman and see results. Salary cap. There is only so much money to go around. Receivers absolutely deserve every penny they get by beating coverage, they also block on runs don’t forget! You MUST pay your QB, that is the person relaying the offensive playbook and calling audibles at the line. The linemen need to be paid because they are the main piece of a football team. If you don’t have a good line, you aren’t a good team. RBs have short careers. You can’t hope to get a big return from your investment by dishing out millions for 4 solid RBs. TEs have the same issue. They are not underpaid. They are simply not as valuable. Most second string backs that get their opportunities absolutely thrive. There is immense depth in the RB position and tons of guys are starving for money. You must pay RBs less money to save space for key positions. Take a young college RB on a 2 year deal and replace them over and over is the best route by far. These guys will be hungry and wanting to keep their roster spot which will cause them to produce because the fact is they are replaceable. Thanks! I’m open for debate!
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 think the only problem with your solution is that if a rb gets injured and is out say 2-4 weeks that can effectively eliminate any chance of them reaching their bonus milestones which is a huge deal when that’s like half of their contract
I won't pretend I have a solution, but rookie deals need to change how they work. A rookie doesn't have much incentive to actually play good other than that they'll get a better contract years down the line. This problem is super magnified with running backs because typically the better they play, the faster they'll age meaning if they play bad they won't get a contract, and if they play good their days are numbered
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.
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!
its funny to me how when something involving the Colts pops up its all "Irsay bad👹👹👹" but when Saquon had a year left on his contract last year there wasnt this crazy uproar about an extension like there is for JT rn
At a fundamental level, the problem stems from the rookie RB price being surpressed by the rookie wage scale. For this to be fixed, there needs to be a way of detatching RBs from this but this probably won't happen. However, I am not convinced that your solution will work the way you intended. The obvious flaw is that any team with a top 5 or so QB will no longer negotiate a contract with them openly - they will pin the salary of the player to the franchise tag and then use this "free" bonus structure to make up the difference (or even double it, why not?). This will have the "benefit" of making it less likely that teams will tag RBs (and solve the problem for teams that do) but will also mean that teams with top 5 QBs will have massive cap advantages on top of the actual on field advantages. There is a very simple change that will at least mean RBs (and TEs who suffer from this as well) will be unlikely to be tagged. As opposed to the current situation where the cap is 110% of last salary or top 5 at the position, simply add another minimum, top 25 contracts at any position. It is "supposed" to be so the team can guarantee to keep its marquee player. The marquee player should probably be one of the top 25 in the league.
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)
The problem with this solution is that, as you pointed out, RBs in their 8th year when they'd be getting these deal are already past their prime and beginning to decline, so would be less likely to earn those bonuses. The problem isn't free agent contracts. The problem is the rookie contract. Rookies who produce are underpaid for their production. Their labor is exploited due to the fact that rookie production is unpredictable. There should be a league fund that pays bonuses to rookies for production outside the salary cap. Exciting rookies benefit the whole league, because they drive up excitement in ways that veterans don't. Pay rookies from a league fund so the player gets fair compensation for their production without the team taking on the risk.
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
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.
Players on their Rookie deal can negotiate incentive deals based on rushing yards or attempts that are not subject to the salary cap. If a RB wants 100k per rush he can negotiate that as a side deal and sit out if he doesn't get it, regular contract aside. RB gets paid for performance. No increase to the cap. Team ends up paying maybe 5% more to players.
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.
There are lot of guys with RB bodies. The talent pool is just way bigger than it is for other positions. A great back can fill seats and steal a game, here and there, but without a great line, you're not going to win a championship with a great back. If you have a good/great line, you don't need a great back to win a championship. You mainly need the all-around. Something like a not-likely-to-be-earned cap exemption would put money in their pockets. There's just too much parity in the league for one running back to carry a team all the way to the Super Bowl.
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.
Imo the best rule for the NFL is to have a designated Runner tag for running backs so their contracts don’t count against the salary cap like how in the MLS they have 3 Designated Player spots for international superstars to come over
@@maskedman5657Explain how they are wrong, RU-vidrs 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
Unsurprisingly, it was the Patriots that started this trend after Corey Dillon and Laurence Maroney around 2009. There's a massive list of backs they used by drafting them in the mid-rounds, getting them undrafted and acquiring them through the last waves of free agency and waivers. BenJarvis Green-Ellis was an undrafted free agent that hit 1k for them. Third round picks like Damien Harris and Stevan Ridely have been 1k rushers as well. None of them made it to a second contract with the team. The way the NFL is trending, having a competent quarterback that is productive and wins games consistently will only make investments in the offensive line and receiver markets more robust.
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?
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.
The rookie wage scale is what fucked over the position. Limiting rookies to salaries based off when they're drafted, and since most teams feel as though drafting one in the first is a wasted pick the salary naturally will be smaller because most are drafted in later rounds. They also have to negotiate the removal of the franchise tag in the CBA. It often times is used to take advantage of player instead of its original point for it being a way for teams to keep exclusive negotiating with a player in a contract dispute...
Honestly, the NFL could make all of this fair and comparable for everyone. Base salary for everyone, bonus pay for production, media appearances, playoff appearances, and so on. Yes, it would be difficult to sell to the players, but it could work.
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!
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.
The big problem is the fact that the difference in impact between an elite RB and an average RB is much smaller than the gap between the elite and the average at other positions. There just isn't really a way to rectify that short of changing the entire offensive philosophy via rule changes to favor the run more, something the NFL absolutely will not do. A proposal like this is would definitely help mitigate some of the negative effects of that fact on the RBs, but there's only so much that can be done to arbitrarily increase the pay of RBs when the market factors are so stacked against them.
$13.50-$11 per meal is the same as me going to subway or chipotle. Maybe if they spent less money on advertising on every side bar and mid roll ad on every channel then they could afford to not charge $2 per 100 calories. These meals are dog treat sized but they cost the same as Doordashing a double steak double wrapped burrito from chipolte with guac. Or you could go grocery shopping once a week and buy like 4-5 Dirty moore microwave meals for the price of 1 of these dog treats. If youre a rich person trying to loose weight and you just want to eat factor meals then its perfect for you.
I don't understand why RBs are getting screwed while absolute tools (in a bad way) that have WR or QB by their name are getting just an insane amount of money for being subpar at their jobs.
you can expand on this idea and apply it to society as a whole. You arent paid based on how much you produce, you are paid the minimum that the employer can pay before you are replaceable. unfortunately i dont feel bad for the RBs being paid less because thats the same situation the rest of us are in. We may produce more for society, but you have guys who just carry a ball on tv getting paid 100x what we do. I also think it's been made clear that outside of a few exceptional players, RBs are not worth big contracts. Their skills are just not that unique or rare compared to the other positions you compared them too.
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.