Report: Barkley turned down $19 m from Giants

[lazydave841]

I said one shouldn't have to which I stand by lol

I feel like you all need to hear it from a former NFL player because everyone's bias towards Barkley is blinding you all from reality here. Barkley already made a bad decision. We'll see how much worse he makes it.

Is this the only opinion out there? Isn't the opinion of current RBs more relevant than of one who hasn't suited up in nearly 30 seasons? A guy who could have been asked to provide this opinion to the local newspaper?

"Great, ol Otis says its a mistake! It must be!"

If this was Jonathan Taylor I'd have the same opinion. Lamar had a similar situation and he's a RB playing QB. For better for worse, stick to your guns.

 

[PS4814]

It’s not so much as it’s a passing league. It’s more that rookie contacts for players are set a much lower that what the market value is. For most players (who have successful NFL careers) that’s not a huge deal because they will make up for it when they sign their big contracts when the become a free agent after 4-5 years in the league. But many Running Backs are already past their prime by then.

These Running Backs need to be talking to their union reps about the issue. Seems the problem is the collective bargaining agreement.

To add on it's a double whammy for the RB position thanks to the "Franchise Tag" being able to be applied multiple years in a row. As has been said before for a RB that's 4 years on the rookie contract (5 if drafted in round 1), 2 years on franchise tag and then out of the league. The NFLPA needs to grow a spine (which they never well) if they have any hope of addressing these issues during the next CBA.

 

[Obliviax]

To add on it's a double whammy for the RB position thanks to the "Franchise Tag" being able to be applied multiple years in a row. As has been said before for a RB that's 4 years on the rookie contract (5 if drafted in round 1), 2 years on franchise tag and then out of the league. The NFLPA needs to grow a spine (which they never well) if they have any hope of addressing these issues during the next CBA.

Apparently, the RBs had a zoom call yesterday to discuss the issue. The franchise tag simply allows the NFL team to pay the tagged player the average of the top five players at his position. So this has allowed the NFL to deflate the RB position over others especially given your point about the shelf life of typical RBs and rookie contracts. The Giants have SB locked down for seven years with the rookie contract plus two franchise tags. The lowest tag price is RB at $10m. The next is TE at a little over $11m. the next lowest is safety at over $14m. It then jumps to $18m for the 4th lowest-paid position.

Look for the NFLPA to get involved on behalf of the RBs. There could also be charges of collusion. But the tag logic is clearly not working as a good compromise between players and owners as it is currently constructed.

Position	Non-exclusive tag value	Transition tag value
Quarterback	$32.416 million	$29.504 million
Running back	$10.091 million	$8.429 million
Wide receiver	$19.743 million	$17.991 million
Tight end	$11.345 million	$9.716 million
Offensive line	$18.244 million	$16.66 million
Defensive end	$19.727 million	$17.452 million
Defensive tackle	$18.937 million	$16.068 million
Linebacker	$20.926 million	$17.478 million
Cornerback	$18.14 million	$15.791 million
Safety	$14.46 million	$11.867 million
Kicker/punter	$5.393 million	$4.869 million

 

[LandoComando]

Is this the only opinion out there? Isn't the opinion of current RBs more relevant than of one who hasn't suited up in nearly 30 seasons? A guy who could have been asked to provide this opinion to the local newspaper?

"Great, ol Otis says its a mistake! It must be!"

If this was Jonathan Taylor I'd have the same opinion. Lamar had a similar situation and he's a RB playing QB. For better for worse, stick to your guns.

No, current players want him to do what them deem is best for their future contracts not what is best for Barkley himself.

I'll concede that you might have the same opinion--most of the others wouldn't.

And sticking to your guns only works when you have leverage. Barkley has none right now as the deadline for a long term deal passed. There's no leverage at all.

 

[LandoComando]

Apparently, the RBs had a zoom call yesterday to discuss the issue. The franchise tag simply allows the NFL team to pay the tagged player the average of the top five players at his position. So this has allowed the NFL to deflate the RB position over others especially given your point about the shelf life of typical RBs and rookie contracts. The Giants have SB locked down for seven years with the rookie contract plus two franchise tags. The lowest tag price is RB at $10m. The next is TE at a little over $11m. the next lowest is safety at over $14m. It then jumps to $18m for the 4th lowest-paid position.

Look for the NFLPA to get involved on behalf of the RBs. There could also be charges of collusion. But the tag logic is clearly not working as a good compromise between players and owners as it is currently constructed.

Position	Non-exclusive tag value	Transition tag value
Quarterback	$32.416 million	$29.504 million
Running back	$10.091 million	$8.429 million
Wide receiver	$19.743 million	$17.991 million
Tight end	$11.345 million	$9.716 million
Offensive line	$18.244 million	$16.66 million
Defensive end	$19.727 million	$17.452 million
Defensive tackle	$18.937 million	$16.068 million
Linebacker	$20.926 million	$17.478 million
Cornerback	$18.14 million	$15.791 million
Safety	$14.46 million	$11.867 million
Kicker/punter	$5.393 million	$4.869 million

How is it potentially collusion? Collusion is one team making a move to benefit another team without helping their own. The tag is benefitting their team.

I just don't understand what people think the NFLPA is going to do to specifically help RBs. Owners aren't giving ground on a binding CBA that runs through 2030.

 

[Obliviax]

How is it potentially collusion? Collusion is one team making a move to benefit another team without helping their own. The tag is benefitting their team.

I just don't understand what people think the NFLPA is going to do to specifically help RBs. Owners aren't giving ground on a binding CBA that runs through 2030.

Your definition of collusion is incorrect. collusion, in this case, is teams working together to create an outcome instead of competing in the open market. In the world of lawyers, you only have to have enough evidence to create the suggestion that there was collusion. If you do that, you can embarrass the NFL which is the last thing the NFL wants. Lastly, collusion doesn't have to be written or overt, it can be covert.

My point here is that if the players can show that teams worked together, on purpose or inadvertently, to keep RB salaries below market price, they'll have a great argument to get raises. For example, the Giants probably overpaid for the QB based on the Browns overpaying for Watson. Watson reset the rate for QB's league-wide. And if the result was teams saying, "OK, we had to overpay for QB but we can reign in our costs for RB because the league's franchise rule allows us to take advantage of a position that has temporarily been undervalued" you'd have collusion. Evidence of this is that no premier RBs have hit free agency due to teams controlling them for seven years but every other position has. And those free-agent signings are the ones that reset the rates for those positions.

Kaepernick won just such a case.

Colin Kaepernick and the N.F.L. Settle Collusion Case (Published 2019)

The league said it reached a confidentiality agreement that barred it, Mr. Kaepernick and Eric Reid from discussing the terms of the settlement.

www.nytimes.com

 

[LandoComando]

Your definition of collusion is incorrect. collusion, in this case, is teams working together to create an outcome instead of competing in the open market. In the world of lawyers, you only have to have enough evidence to create the suggestion that there was collusion. If you do that, you can embarrass the NFL which is the last thing the NFL wants. Lastly, collusion doesn't have to be written or overt, it can be covert.

My point here is that if the players can show that teams worked together, on purpose or inadvertently, to keep RB salaries below market price, they'll have a great argument to get raises. For example, the Giants probably overpaid for the QB based on the Browns overpaying for Watson. Watson reset the rate for QB's league-wide. And if the result was teams saying, "OK, we had to overpay for QB but we can reign in our costs for RB because the league's franchise rule allows us to take advantage of a position that has temporarily been undervalued" you'd have collusion. Evidence of this is that no premier RBs have hit free agency due to teams controlling them for seven years but every other position has. And those free-agent signings are the ones that reset the rates for those positions.

Kaepernick won just such a case.

Colin Kaepernick and the N.F.L. Settle Collusion Case (Published 2019)

The league said it reached a confidentiality agreement that barred it, Mr. Kaepernick and Eric Reid from discussing the terms of the settlement.

www.nytimes.com

I live in "the world of lawyers". People can sue for anything they want but this isn't collusion by legal definition.
With Kaepernick, the argument was teams weren't signing him a detriment to themselves to help others. That's not even close to this.
How is this working together when other running backs got paid? Watson's contract is literally being flat out ignored by teams. It has nothing to do with anyone's contract.
I understand why everyone is mad about this situation but there isn't a solution or anything close to collusion.

 

[Obliviax]

I live in "the world of lawyers". People can sue for anything they want but this isn't collusion by legal definition.
With Kaepernick, the argument was teams weren't signing him a detriment to themselves to help others. That's not even close to this.
How is this working together when other running backs got paid? Watson's contract is literally being flat out ignored by teams. It has nothing to do with anyone's contract.
I understand why everyone is mad about this situation but there isn't a solution or anything close to collusion.

Me too. Law is much more than what is in the books. Law is about intimidation and risk. Law is rarely finalized in front of a jury. as such, it is much more about bluster, positioning, PR and personal risk.

read up on Colin K's collusion lawsuit against the NFL and how me made millions from it. Lamar Jackson's lawyers successfully threatened to bring collusion lawsuits against the Ravens and other owners. I mean, who wouldn't make an offer for Lamar (who is not named the Chiefs, Bills or Bengals)?

You don't have to go to court and win a lawsuit to use the charges of collusion to win. You only need to get the other side worried about the PR and risk. Few lawyers understand this because they've never worked in the real world. They've been lawyers, or training to be lawyers since they were 18.

Here's a look at how collusion happens among NFL owners

In recent years, the word "collusion" has come up in various contexts.

www.nbcsports.com

 

[LandoComando]

Me too. Law is much more than what is in the books. Law is about intimidation and risk. Law is rarely finalized in front of a jury. as such, it is much more about bluster, positioning, PR and personal risk.

read up on Colin K's collusion lawsuit against the NFL and how me made millions from it. Lamar Jackson's lawyers successfully threatened to bring collusion lawsuits against the Ravens and other owners. I mean, who wouldn't make an offer for Larar (who is not named the Chiefs, Bills or Bengals)?

You don't have to go to court and win a lawsuit to use the charges of collusion to win. You only need to get the other side worried about the PR and risk.

Here's a look at how collusion happens among NFL owners

In recent years, the word "collusion" has come up in various contexts.

www.nbcsports.com

Who wouldn't have offered Lamar? Any team with a solidified starter or a high pick to take a QB. There's money and giving up a ton of draft picks involved. He wasn't a free agent. He was restricted.

This isn't just about is Lamar better than your QB. It's about is an oft-injured QB, that is a runner first in the minds of many, worth the money and draft picks to acquire him. Do we think Denver has regret over their deal for Wilson?

Quick run down
Jets (wanted Rodgers), Dolphins (aren't going to pay Tua and Lamar), Bills (Allen)
Browns (Watson), Steelers (first rd pick in 2022), Bengals (Burrow)
Colts (first rd 2023), Jaguars (Lawrences), Texans (first rd 2023)
Chargers (Herbert), Broncos (Wilson's contract plus don't have the picks), Chiefs (Mahomes)
Eagles (Hurts), Giants (all in on Jones--first rd pick), Dallas (Dak's contract)
Packers (Love--first rd pick), Bears (Fields--first rd pick), Vikings (Cousins contract)
Panthers (2023 first rd pick)
49ers (Purdy & Lance first rd pick), Arizona (Kyler's contract), Rams (Stafford's contract)

Let's use the Giants--why would they give up the draft picks when they can keep Jones who just won a playoff game much cheaper and have the draft picks to improve the team?

So that leaves NE, Vegas, Tennessee, Washington, Tampa, Atlanta, New Orleans and Seattle in the running.

NE is giving Jones a chance under an actual OC, Tennessee went with Tannehill and believes Levis is the future, Seattle clearly believes in Geno Smith. Washington, Atlanta, New Orleans and Tampa aren't going to win right now regardless of who is under center and they can't afford to give up the picks. Maybe Atlanta.

Basically, the argument is Atlanta and Vegas should have gone all in on Lamar. It's not just 3 teams as you're claiming. If the Cards could find someone to take Kyler's horrible contract they would have but no one is that stupid. They can't afford both of them for example.

For example, there's no way the Steelers who just spent a first rounder on Pickett was going to make a run at Lamar given their cap situation. Steelers have too much money tied up in other guys to make that work.