POLL: Is Ekeler Right to Organize RB's For More $? - Ekeler Discussion

[dmac_bolt]

I give up.... You just don't get it. No comprehension skills what so ever.

Im sorry

[Topcat]

the reality is that the game has changed and RB's burn out fast (Zeke in Dallas). my suggestion to the RB's would be this: less bitching and more ideas.

1. Propose some type of modification to the franchise tag for RB's or a general change to the tag, since I don't think it is fair to single out the RB position.
2. Propose some changes to the passing rules to make defenses able to defend better, which would bring back the value of the running game.

this reminds me of "occupy wall street" - when people were protesting against rich people. Ok, so do you want to change the tax laws for rich people? what is your idea?

Interesting idea there, North...maybe the NFL could index the F-tag for each position by statistics based on longevity...maybe RB's could get a 10% increase based on them being the lowest longevity...then wideouts as 2nd lowest might get an 8% increase, then TE's get a 6% bump, etc. (see chart below). Of course, this would need to be agreed to by the players and owners in a new CBA...now, if BellyEkkie STILL whines about getting underpaid even after THIS, then we've got a problem...

image.png

[Topcat]

I think Kapernick, if he ever gets signed, and hopefully it is the Raiders after Grappaloaf flames out, should take his protest on the field. When the ball is snapped to him, he should take a knee every time to remind us of his dedication to peaceful protest.

TG

LOL...not bad, Heat...Kaeppie's career has already taken a knee anyway...when the NFL offered him a tryout, then Kaeppie switched the location at the last minute, we all know he was just playing games...

[gzubeck]

Interesting idea there, North...maybe the NFL could index the F-tag for each position by statistics based on longevity...maybe RB's could get a 10% increase based on them being the lowest longevity...then wideouts as 2nd lowest might get an 8% increase, then TE's get a 6% bump, etc. (see chart below). Of course, this would need to be agreed to by the players and owners in a new CBA...now, if BellyEkkie STILL whines about getting underpaid even after THIS, then we've got a problem...

image.png

Nope. I wanna see a top ten NFL RB bonus pool where even a lowly rookie could make an extra $6 mil if he takes the top spot. I wanna see RBs motivated to run over LBs and DBs and smile while doing it.

[DerwinBosa]

If Ekeler continues to bitch and whine about his - and other running backs' - salaries, and then goes out and has a career year, it's all good. If he stinks up the joint, well, that hurts everybody, especially him. He's frustrated, but it's not like he can't pay the bills. It's just the reality of the NFL when it comes to RBs today. He's certainly not being screwed over by the Charger organization (and I am the LAST person on earth who would defend the Charger organization) while every other team is paying their #1 RB top-tier money.

Maybe not now, but his future is uncertain, considering all of the injuries, some we don't even know about, that will linger for the rest of his life. I can't say I would do anything differently if I were the Chargers' front office right now, but I do understand where Ekeler is coming from. He's worked his ass off in a high-contact sport and wants to earn as much as he can before his playing days are over. I don't blame him at all. It's an unfortunate reality for him to face that a lesser player at a different position (Daniel Jones comes to mind) can make so much more than he does.

Keep in mind I wanted to replace Ekeler this offseason. Nothing personal against him. I have just wanted a Nick Chubb-type back as the primary ball-carrier in this offense.

[dmac_bolt]

Interesting idea there, North...maybe the NFL could index the F-tag for each position by statistics based on longevity...maybe RB's could get a 10% increase based on them being the lowest longevity...then wideouts as 2nd lowest might get an 8% increase, then TE's get a 6% bump, etc. (see chart below). Of course, this would need to be agreed to by the players and owners in a new CBA...now, if BellyEkkie STILL whines about getting underpaid even after THIS, then we've got a problem...

image.png

I doubt any of these ideas ever float to the pages of a CBA, as you note. There’s 45 or so players on every team making less than the top RB, most are making a small fraction of what he makes. Doubt they’ll embrace the longevity sympathy but who knows.

[Heatmiser]

Sounds like the zoom went nowhere. Kinda what I figured would happen. It's probably good for them to get together and blow off steam, but these are a bunch of early 20 year olds. Other than griping about the unfairness (which I see) there is little chance they organize and do something. Ekeler has the smarts and the drive to do it, but I wonder about the rest of them.

TG

[eaterfan]

I was going to come here to say that the RB position just doesn't have value and it's tough for them. It's hard to argue they "deserve" more money in a capped league. Why did the OP make this personal about Ekeler? Dude has given it all for his team and often behind terrible OLs?

Also, the NFL isn't a free market. They pick where you'll play, how much you'll get paid, and how long it will be until you can even start looking for a new job in the industry. And there's a salary cap. There are definitely market forces at play, but it's not a free market. So maybe it's okay to have a little sympathy for the backs.

I don't see anything changing for the backs. And I don't see this level of sympathy for place kickers or punters. I think it has to do with the fact that RBs used to be a much more important part of NFL teams so there's more nostalgia for them.

While limiting the franchise tag will help some, it's effects will be limited.

If you want to increase their pay relative to the rest of the players, you have to change the rules to make running more efficient relative to passing. Until that happens nothing will change. Baseball this off-season wanted to increase the running game and speed up pace of play. They made bases a little bigger, limited pick off attempts, and instituted a play clock. They just liked that aesthetic better. It worked.

Football could change some rules to emphasize the run have if they want to. I like watching passing better, so I'm against these, but they would probably work. Here are some of my suggestions:

1. Get rid of the illegal contact penalty. Would reduce the efficiency of passing and relatively increase efficiency of running.

2. Get rid of targeting penalty. This would close off the middle of the field like it used to be. Same raining as rule one, but obviously won't happen due to concussions.

3. Make a first down 9 yards if it's exclusively made on hand offs, or pitches (ie non QB runs), 10 yards if it's a mix of runs and passes, and 12 yards of it's exclusively passing yards. It would certainly be a little more complicated but I think spectators can handle it. While it doesn't increase the efficiency of running or decrease the efficiency of passing, it does increase the efficiency relative to a successful run and decrease the pass relative to success.

I didn't want to see the run emphasized, but unless they change the rules, it's unlikely to happen. They've continuously changed the rules to increase passing and this is the obvious result.

[TTThunder]

He is a good receiver, maybe he should consider converting to WR?

Go Bolts!!!

[Air Coryell]

Owners are not colluding to underpay RB's. The modern passing game has reduced their value. What hasn't changed, is that some players will always bitch about what they are getting paid. Too bad EK wants to be in that group.

[Topcat]

I doubt any of these ideas ever float to the pages of a CBA, as you note. There’s 45 or so players on every team making less than the top RB, most are making a small fraction of what he makes. Doubt they’ll embrace the longevity sympathy but who knows.

Alas, my efforts to help poor BellyEkkie may not be viable...oh well, I guess he'll just have to live with his current $24 mil, plus $1.7 mil in incentives...poor dude...

[Topcat]

I was going to come here to say that the RB position just doesn't have value and it's tough for them. It's hard to argue they "deserve" more money in a capped league. Why did the OP make this personal about Ekeler? Dude has given it all for his team and often behind terrible OLs?

Also, the NFL isn't a free market. They pick where you'll play, how much you'll get paid, and how long it will be until you can even start looking for a new job in the industry. And there's a salary cap. There are definitely market forces at play, but it's not a free market. So maybe it's okay to have a little sympathy for the backs.

I don't see anything changing for the backs. And I don't see this level of sympathy for place kickers or punters. I think it has to do with the fact that RBs used to be a much more important part of NFL teams so there's more nostalgia for them.

While limiting the franchise tag will help some, it's effects will be limited.

If you want to increase their pay relative to the rest of the players, you have to change the rules to make running more efficient relative to passing. Until that happens nothing will change. Baseball this off-season wanted to increase the running game and speed up pace of play. They made bases a little bigger, limited pick off attempts, and instituted a play clock. They just liked that aesthetic better. It worked.

Football could change some rules to emphasize the run have if they want to. I like watching passing better, so I'm against these, but they would probably work. Here are some of my suggestions:

1. Get rid of the illegal contact penalty. Would reduce the efficiency of passing and relatively increase efficiency of running.

2. Get rid of targeting penalty. This would close off the middle of the field like it used to be. Same raining as rule one, but obviously won't happen due to concussions.

3. Make a first down 9 yards if it's exclusively made on hand offs, or pitches (ie non QB runs), 10 yards if it's a mix of runs and passes, and 12 yards of it's exclusively passing yards. It would certainly be a little more complicated but I think spectators can handle it. While it doesn't increase the efficiency of running or decrease the efficiency of passing, it does increase the efficiency relative to a successful run and decrease the pass relative to success.

I didn't want to see the run emphasized, but unless they change the rules, it's unlikely to happen. They've continuously changed the rules to increase passing and this is the obvious result.

In order to assist RB's like Ekkie in achieving additional longevity for their careers, I suggest they begin wearing a padded cap like this one:

image.png