RB contract value and labor rights

I think there are a few things at play:

• Schemes like Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense and Mike Leach's Air Raid Offense leaking into the NFL consciousness market-corrected the value of RBs in the direction of WRs and TEs.
• In particular, I think the increased use of TEs as key parts of almost every offense is the real hinge point. If you're not using them in blocking schemes for RBs, the effectiveness of RBs will go down on a play-for-play comparison basis, all while increasing TE values.
• My crackpot theory is that fantasy football is somehow influencing front offices to pay players less because, at least anecdotally, the auction value for players seems to have gone down for RBs in terms of dollars-for-points vs. comparable WRs/TEs, particularly in PPR leagues.

But the big problem is the nature of the job. RBs, more than any other skill player position save for possibly TE, are more likely to getting repeated contact from multiple opposing linemen on an average play. That's going to lead to more wear and tear. Injuries = less playing time = less time carrying the ball = less value in the front office's view.

I'm genuinely unsure what fixes this save for major changes in the trends of coaching schemes, at least based on the current ruleset and safety procedures.

Fortunately, NFL prospects are starting to get paid in college.

I think this is a problem that will fix itself. High-level athletes will start picking different positions/sports. The talent drain will cause a drought, and teams will pay again.

Alternatively, we'll start seeing a lot more of what the 49ers are doing, which is to shuffle skills players around the field. RB could very well go the way of the FB, a position that was once essential to every offensive play.

On the other hand, these guys take a beating to produce a product we all love. They spend some of their best years in the college system, where they do seem to add a lot of win probability, being totally uncompensated. They get to the NFL only to have their potential earnings suppressed by the rookie wage scale, then get franchise tagged guaranteeing they'll be SOL with respect to a deal with big fully-guaranteed cash.

I feel you here. But I wonder if the finances work out like this in reality. A running back is probably going to command a much larger market for sponsorships, commercials, etc, than most other positions. The key advice for these guys might be to build your brand and make as much money off the field while you can.

There's a lot of data that shows running backs are only good through their first contract, particularly first round RBs, who get their 5th year option exercised. This means they're starting their 6th year on any new contract. Almost every single RB in that situation (there are always exceptions of course) falls off and under performs according to that new, high salary contract. I think owners have recognized the pattern and don't want to be stuck holding the bag for a regressing position player that can be "somewhat" easily replaced in the draft for pennies on the dollar. Idk what the long term fix could be. Maybe shorten rookie RB contracts to 3 years with no extension options, that way when they hit that 6 year mark, they're in the last year of their second contract. Or add a higher vet minimum for RBs that escalates with the salary cap every year (%). I do think the franchise tag is probably doing more harm for the situation than anything else currently. It's probably going to take several highly visible RBs sitting a season out together to force any kind of change from the league and owners, if that would even matter. I'd like to think their union would do more but they've been a joke for years. It's a shitty situation bc most of these guys are game changing athletes, and core members of their respective teams, and the game quality will suffer in the end if something isn't changed.

I think there are a few things that need to be done to address this, but my ideas are mostly focused around implementing player options to address them. The reason being is that I think it maintains a lot of what structure they have now without taking away too much from the players but also being fair to the teams in that they're paying players who have proven their performance. Maybe it's specific to certain positions, maybe not. What ideally you'd like to see from an approach like this is reaching similar contracts to now (though obviously such changes will result in contract changes and pay etc.) but if the players exceed the expectations for their rookie contracts, they have the option to get out earlier and negotiate for a better contract.

Basically, if it's a 4 year contract now, with a 5th year team option, then maybe instead it should be a 2 year contract now, with 2 additional years as a player option. Maybe each year on its own is an option, or the 2 years together is part of one option. It's a matter of compromising with the teams, because they have salary caps and things they need to plan around, so having options year to year might be too burdensome. This basically makes it so players don't lose what they are getting now, which is a 4 year contract, but means they can possibly get out of a contract they outperformed. Any players that perhaps under-performed or what have you, maybe injury or anything else, would face the same situations as they do now, which is the team might cut them if they accept their player options (if guarantees of salary aren't a factor). Naturally you can't have all positives, this move means players overall would either get paid more, which is not exactly possible in all cases with a hard salary cap (of course there's some room to play with between the floor and the ceiling), so teams will inevitably have to find some way to account for paying RBs or whoever else might be the beneficiary of this more, which to stay within salary cap limits means it probably comes at the cost of reducing some other contracts, but it also means teams are choosing to value some over others based on performance.

The other aspect is franchise tagging, which I think also could be addressed with player options. How can someone be a franchise player if a team doesn't really have to plan or consider a player beyond the current year in which they're franchise tagged? If a player is a franchise player, you'd naturally want them for years to come, so why is the franchise tagging system so short-term focused? Sure you could say it's meant to be temporary and contracts are meant to be signed, but as we see here, because it completely takes away negotiating power from the players, it is not always used in good faith to maintain a franchise player for years to come. Franchise tags should have player options, possibly they are guaranteed money or some other stipulations to them. Maybe its 1 year player option, or 2 years or something along those lines, but this makes the team consider the player for future years. Maybe the 2nd year also increases at a substantial rate, similar to how a player getting franchised tagged twice in a row has a higher cost.

This also has another impact which is that it removes some of the artificially low salary competition away from players who are seeking to negotiate contracts, because teams can't simply rely on just drafting rookies who can perform at a high level and riding them for 5 years on a rookie contract. Right now, even if you assume players like Saquon Barkley or such can still produce at a really high level, teams have no incentive to pay these players when other players who are performing well are forced to take lower pay. It is probably worth it to use a 1st round pick every 5 years or so to get one of these players even if you lose them after that, but is it worth it to do that if you aren't going to make a real effort to sign them after they opt out going into the 3rd year? The pool of players who prove they are the real deal who are forced to take low contracts lowers, making it easier for them to negotiate fair contracts.