OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: Super Bowl? Thats like a giant pot of chips or popcorn right?

[JTG]

Najee will be the next guy who makes 10m a year at RB. I guarantee it.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

You have a totally different mindset with defense and defending the run now. You don't see the massive NTs, the dominant run stuffing ILB/MLBs, the close to the line of scrimmage box Strong safeties from years past. No, instead you see more and more small players geared more to playing the pass, pass rushing with run stuffing an afterthought, is it last on the list.

98% of people, no matter how much effort, won't ever sniff C1 NFL minimums of $800k per year(?).

RB's can bitch and complain all day, but they're crying about C2's averaging $6M+, at least, for elite guys. Neither they, nor their "family", will ever want for "food on the table".

I get it. It's just they risk looking like complete assholes expecting sympathy complaining about lifetime earnings 99%+ of the population will never see.

Sure, they still make really good money, but they will be paying for that the rest of their lives.

And instead of receiving generational wealth (and some still do) they get discarded to the trash.

For example James Robinson a starting RB. Dude is 24 and already all used up. Yeah he has made 2.5 million before agent fees and taxes and if managed correctly will give him a comfortable life.

Then look at a complete nobody like Miles Boykin whos been in the league for the same amount of time but has made almost 6 million and counting, and will likely be able to add to that by bumming around as a wr 5 for another half decade.

One other difference is that Boykin will likely be able to walk upright when hes 60 as well.

 

[JTG]

I was just thinking to myself - on the Steelers 2000's defense, they had 1 HOFer. On the 2023-24 defense, it has 4 future HOFers. Cam, TJ, Pat P, and Minkah.

 

[DanielPlainview]

Highsmith's production dropped to 0 when Watt was out. He's good but not anywhere near elite. $17m a year might a little much but not egregious, I guess.

 

[JTG]

Highsmith's production dropped to 0 when Watt was out. He's good but not anywhere near elite. $17m a year might a little much but not egregious, I guess.

I've seen this said a lot, but he had 3.5 sacks without TJ in the lineup for 7 games, which he was seeing double teams because we didn't have backups. I don't think that's terrible.

They are paying him with TJ in the lineup, and when they both are playing, he's about as productive as we could expect. I thought 17m was high, but with the cap expected to explode, it's not hard to believe he got paid a bit more than expected. Everything I read pegged him around 14m.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I've seen this said a lot, but he had 3.5 sacks without TJ in the lineup for 7 games, which he was seeing double teams because we didn't have backups. I don't think that's terrible.

They are paying him with TJ in the lineup, and when they both are playing, he's about as productive as we could expect. I thought 17m was high, but with the cap expected to explode, it's not hard to believe he got paid a bit more than expected. Everything I read pegged him around 14m.

Ya I’m not worried about the cap. It’s going to jump like 30-35m next year.

It’s just going to keep jumping and they always work funny money into these deals, so I don’t sweat a deal unless it’s stupid.

 

[DanielPlainview]

I've seen this said a lot, but he had 3.5 sacks without TJ in the lineup for 7 games, which he was seeing double teams because we didn't have backups. I don't think that's terrible.

They are paying him with TJ in the lineup, and when they both are playing, he's about as productive as we could expect. I thought 17m was high, but with the cap expected to explode, it's not hard to believe he got paid a bit more than expected. Everything I read pegged him around 14m.

Yeah, it's fine. I've seen people, not necessarily here but elsewhere, acting like he's some great OLB/DE when he's just pretty good. It's obvious his production is largely due to TJ and it shouldn't have to be said. But it's the internet and idiots are everywhere.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Sure, they still make really good money, but they will be paying for that the rest of their lives.

And instead of receiving generational wealth (and some still do) they get discarded to the trash.

For example James Robinson a starting RB. Dude is 24 and already all used up. Yeah he has made 2.5 million before agent fees and taxes and if managed correctly will give him a comfortable life.

Then look at a complete nobody like Miles Boykin whos been in the league for the same amount of time but has made almost 6 million and counting, and will likely be able to add to that by bumming around as a wr 5 for another half decade.

One other difference is that Boykin will likely be able to walk upright when hes 60 as well.

So then choose a different position to excel at?

As I stated, people fail to account for economic principles when making choices. I had a passion for HR and this is the field I selected. I recognize that I'm probably not going to pull in $1M per year.
Do you hear me bitching and moaning that me and my peers aren't getting paid enough?

If I wanted to make that, I would have considered being an attorney, doctor or entrepreneur.
If money was important to Harris, perhaps he should have switched to being a LB or safety in college.

Najee will be the next guy who makes 10m a year at RB. I guarantee it.

You're right, because the Steelers/Tomlin will be stupid enough to give it to him.
It's bad enough to take a RB that high, but to double down and give him a C2 will be the first mistake of Khan's tenure.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

So then choose a different position to excel at?

As I stated, people fail to account for economic principles when making choices. I had a passion for HR and this is the field I selected. I recognize that I'm probably not going to pull in $1M per year.
Do you hear me bitching and moaning that me and my peers aren't getting paid enough?

If I wanted to make that, I would have considered being an attorney, doctor or entrepreneur.
If money was important to Harris, perhaps he should have switched to being a LB or safety in college.



You're right, because the Steelers/Tomlin will be stupid enough to give it to him.
It's bad enough to take a RB that high, but to double down and give him a C2 will be the first mistake of Khan's tenure.

Just pick a different position?

Seriously, its that easy huh?

So nobody plays RB?

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Just pick a different position?

Seriously, its that easy huh?

So nobody plays RB?

Mark Robinson (the guy everyone is high on at camp) used to be a RB.

And I didn't say it was easy. I am saying that career choices have consequences, so pick wisely or don't bitch

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

Mark Robinson (the guy everyone is high on at camp) used to be a RB.

And I didn't say it was easy. I am saying that career choices have consequences, so pick wisely or don't bitch

Jesus, tough talk

Mark Robinson HAD to switch to LB because he couldnt play RB.

Someone has to play Rb, so regardless someone will get screwed by the system.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Jesus, tough talk

Mark Robinson HAD to switch to LB because he couldnt play RB.

Someone has to play Rb, so regardless someone will get screwed by the system.

So what's your proposed alternative in the current landscape?

RB's should get more money for reasons and the caterwauling? GM's should just say "you know what, yea this is unfair. I'm going to pay RB's above market value because it's the morally right thing to do"

Someone has to be paid at the bottom. It's true in business and any professional sport. Next we'll have punters and kickers complaining they're not being paid enough too

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

So what's your proposed alternative in the current landscape?

RB's should get more money for reasons and the caterwauling? GM's should just say "you know what, yea this is unfair. I'm going to pay RB's above market value because it's the morally right thing to do"

Someone has to be paid at the bottom. It's true in business and any professional sport. Next we'll have punters and kickers complaining they're not being paid enough too

For RBs - bitch moan do whatever you want, your getting screwed.

For GMs - Do nothing, your job is to run a team, its not your problem.

For the players union - should be kicking around ideas for the next cba, not sure what that looks like but it should be a concern.

 

[Peat]

The only real way to ensure RBs get theirs that I can see is to restructure all contracts so that it's the guys producing and getting the snaps who get paid through heavy use of incentives, even if on rookie contracts.

I can't see the players union ever going for that.

 

[xlm34]

It’s really the franchise tag that kind of seems messed up. If guys like Barkley or Jacobs were actually allowed to hit the market in their primes, they would probably get paid. I can’t think of many times off the top of my head where the tag was actually beneficial for both sides.

 

[UnrealMachine]

So what's your proposed alternative in the current landscape?

RB's should get more money for reasons and the caterwauling? GM's should just say "you know what, yea this is unfair. I'm going to pay RB's above market value because it's the morally right thing to do"

Someone has to be paid at the bottom. It's true in business and any professional sport. Next we'll have punters and kickers complaining they're not being paid enough too

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your blind faith that the market can do no wrong. You are failing to take into account incurred risk and negative externalities - just to name a few. And the whole time you are looking down upon individuals who are advocating for themselves and others, economically. Add to that, there is also a thing called the NFL Players Association (union) and if the owners were found to be colluding on this the union can file a claim. Wouldn’t be the first time: NFLPA claims NFL team owners colluded to prevent teams from offering fully guaranteed contracts

 

[DanielPlainview]

Starting RBs make decent money. It's not the premium position it was 30+ years ago when 3 yards and a cloud of dust was still a popular mode of offense, so naturally the pay reflects that. There's really not much else to it; teams aren't going to pay a position above its general value in the game. Receivers are making bank today for the opposing reason that the passing game is now primary.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is your blind faith that the market can do no wrong. You are failing to take into account incurred risk and negative externalities - just to name a few. And the whole time you are looking down upon individuals who are advocating for themselves and others, economically. Add to that, there is also a thing called the NFL Players Association (union) and if the owners were found to be colluding on this the union can file a claim. Wouldn’t be the first time: NFLPA claims NFL team owners colluded to prevent teams from offering fully guaranteed contracts

I feel you're putting words in my mouth. In no way did I say the market can do no wrong. In fact, there is really no "free market" in the NFL. There are floors and caps to contend with. When you implement floors and ceilings in any market, something is going to get squeezed and something is going to get overvalued.

I stand by my assertion that GM's have (rightfully) come to the conclusion that RB's are put in meat grinders so it makes little sense to pay them big and for a long time.

No one is forcing these RB's to suit up. They can sit out if they want ala Bell. We see how that worked out for him.

What you didn't address is that there will always be a position group that is paid less than the median salary. If you want to yell at the cloud or the Bell Curve and distributional theory, have at it

 

[DanielPlainview]

There are just a lot of guys that can play RB well enough to not need to spend big on it. When arguably the most dominant body at the position (Derrick Henry) is making $13m a year and the Steelers second best pass rusher is making $17m, it's pretty obvious what is going on.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Starting RBs make decent money. It's not the premium position it was 30+ years ago when 3 yards and a cloud of dust was still a popular mode of offense, so naturally the pay reflects that. There's really not much else to it; teams aren't going to pay a position above its general value in the game. Receivers are making bank today for the opposing reason that the passing game is now primary.

Absolutely well said.
Rewind about 15 years ago and it was the WR's who were getting shorted in terms of pay. Maybe the next iteration/generation of the NFL, the pendulum will swing back to that and the RB will get big dollars

 

[Peat]

It’s really the franchise tag that kind of seems messed up. If guys like Barkley or Jacobs were actually allowed to hit the market in their primes, they would probably get paid. I can’t think of many times off the top of my head where the tag was actually beneficial for both sides.

Tbf, I don't think the franchise tag is meant to help players. It's meant to be the compromise the owners accepted in exchange for free agency, no? Instead of cost certainty on everyone, they only get it on the few guys they want it on most.

Which right now is running backs, which kind of seems to point at the big issue here, which is people don't want to pay running backs for all the known reasons about short primes, injury risks, and so on... which raises the question of whether they would get paid in the open market. It's not like teams are stepping in saying "hey, we'd like to trade for this guy and pay him if you don't", right? Dalvin Cook is still a free agent.

Which is why I talk about paying rookie RBs. That's most of their prime. The tag doesn't help them, but all the non-RBs on tags eventually got their long contracts. Why? They've got lots of prime left. RBs, not so much.

So I'm skeptical.

I would also point out that NY offered to pay Barkley and he said "nah", so that one is kind of on him. He gambled that they wouldn't be able to tag him because they'd use it on Daniel Jones and lost.

 

[UnrealMachine]

I feel you're putting words in my mouth. In no way did I say the market can do no wrong. In fact, there is really no "free market" in the NFL. There are floors and caps to contend with. When you implement floors and ceilings in any market, something is going to get squeezed and something is going to get overvalued.

I stand by my assertion that GM's have (rightfully) come to the conclusion that RB's are put in meat grinders so it makes little sense to pay them big and for a long time.

No one is forcing these RB's to suit up. They can sit out if they want ala Bell. We see how that worked out for him.

What you didn't address is that there will always be a position group that is paid less than the median salary. If you want to yell at the cloud or the Bell Curve and distributional theory, have at it

Fair enough. I hope that you will at least concede the point that the owners are using an exploitable loophole in the form of RBs having a limited shelf life while peaking in their early years (during a time in which their market value is artificially repressed) to manipulate the market. If you cannot see that then I would question your ability to find pitfalls (unintended consequences) in the applications of economic theory into real world scenarios.

 

[Pens1566]

Seems like the "Cautionary Tale of Leveon Bell" would be appropriate here.

 

[ChaosAgent]

Fair enough. I hope that you will at least concede the point that the owners are using an exploitable loophole in the form of RBs having a limited shelf life while peaking in their early years (during a time in which their market value is artificially repressed) to manipulate the market. If you cannot see that then I would question your ability to find pitfalls (unintended consequences) in the applications of economic theory into real world scenarios.

The double whammy to this is many of the best athletes are asked to play RB growing up. So their middle school/high school coaches are, in the end, hurting their future earning potential.

Being a RB sucks comparatively speaking. You feel bad for the guys slotted into it.

 

[Buddy Bizarre]

Fair enough. I hope that you will at least concede the point that the owners are using an exploitable loophole in the form of RBs having a limited shelf life while peaking in their early years (during a time in which their market value is artificially repressed) to manipulate the market. If you cannot see that then I would question your ability to find pitfalls (unintended consequences) in the applications of economic theory into real world scenarios.

"Exploitable loophole"? I mean this is what the NFLPA agreed to and by proxy, Najee Harris and all the other RB's. If they didn't like the terms and conditions of their union, they didn't have to sign a contract. Everyone knows the rules of the game when they sign up. It's not like they changed the conditions mid-stream.

And again, if it isn't RB's right now, then it's a different position group in a few years. There is a limited amount of pie to go around and if you play a position that isn't highly valued, you're not gonna get paid like others. Will Harris go to bat for a different position group that's getting squeezed? I very much doubt it.

I feel like you and others in this thread are making this into some sort of "morality stance" when it's really about economics