Jonathan Taylor demands trade

[Solar7]

We have had good RBs. David Johnson was a good RB. Kenyan Drake was a good RB. James Conner is a good RB. Heck, Andre Ellington was a pretty good RB. This is the argument for not spending money on giving RBs big contracts.

Of course, Keim gave big contract extensions to David Johnson and James Conner because he's an idiot.

David Johnson was good for one year. The rest of those guys on the list are the definition of pedestrian.

Sure, okay as part of a committee, but we relied on all of them at some point or another to be "the guy" and they weren't ready for the moment.

 

[daves]

Standing pat, RB’s will revolt

How, exactly, would they do that? The CBA doesn't provide a lot of options.

Supply and demand dictates market value. It's not what it once was, but it is what it is.

 

[oaken1]

It is what it is... some people rack up student debt to get a 40k teaching job....others, major in gender studies, communications, or basket weaving and cant get any job at all.... then there are the Neoroscience guys and plastic surgeons that make bank.
Microsoft has made a gazillion dollars. But their customer service reps who carry a big part of the companies success dont earn jack... nor the janitors or HR generalists.

You want a long pro career with a couple huge contracts....then dont be a runningback...... sure, all that glory and punani is hard to pass up in high school and college...but it has a price.

 

[PACardsFan]

How, exactly, would they do that? The CBA doesn't provide a lot of options.

Supply and demand dictates market value. It's not what it once was, but it is what it is.

Exactly. It is what it is. Unless the popularity of football dwindles, there will be no changes. But, it’s funny how important it is to have a running game in order to pull safeties closer to the LOS to free up passing lanes. And almost every team wants to ramp up their run game once the cold weather kicks in. If I’m an agent for a RB, I would want a good portion of his pay be based on exceeding incentives.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The NFL pays lip service to the past, lives in the present and envisages the future, and 3, 4 yards and a pile of dust isn't what they see.

While you’re right, all it takes is a few tweaks of the rules to open up gaps for dynamic runners and the balance of pass-run shifts. All games can be manipulated if you want to do so.

 

[kerouac9]

How, exactly, would they do that? The CBA doesn't provide a lot of options.

Supply and demand dictates market value. It's not what it once was, but it is what it is.

The rights for these guys are effectively controlled for the first 4-6 years of their careers. That’s not an open market or supply and demand.

 

[Solar7]

You want a long pro career with a couple huge contracts....then dont be a runningback...... sure, all that glory and punani is hard to pass up in high school and college...but it has a price.

As if there's really a choice depending on your build.

Let's take our own James Conner as an example, when he was drafted. At 6'1 he has the height to be a receiver, but at 233 and running a 4.65, the man's not shifting to WR. Nor is he putting on the bulk to be a lineman. Maybe a linebacker?

If you're 5'7 and 200 lbs you can still make it into the NFL as a running back (using MJD as an example), but good luck making it as a receiver. Rondale Moore is 20 lbs lighter than that and is closer to being out of the NFL than he is ever playing a true RB role.

You can't just really pick what you want to do. Coaches put you where they're gonna put you. I played free safety and WR for my limited football time and came out of it as a senior at 125 lbs at 6'0.

I can tell you this much, I'd rather play RB and make NFL money for 5 years than go to college, get in debt, and come out to work in marketing.

 

[oaken1]

As if there's really a choice depending on your build.

Let's take our own James Conner as an example, when he was drafted. At 6'1 he has the height to be a receiver, but at 233 and running a 4.65, the man's not shifting to WR. Nor is he putting on the bulk to be a lineman. Maybe a linebacker?

If you're 5'7 and 200 lbs you can still make it into the NFL as a running back (using MJD as an example), but good luck making it as a receiver. Rondale Moore is 20 lbs lighter than that and is closer to being out of the NFL than he is ever playing a true RB role.

You can't just really pick what you want to do. Coaches put you where they're gonna put you. I played free safety and WR for my limited football time and came out of it as a senior at 125 lbs at 6'0.

I can tell you this much, I'd rather play RB and make NFL money for 5 years than go to college, get in debt, and come out to work in marketing.

Agree for the most part. But the position just is what it is and pays what it pays.

I remember when i started college i looked into being a park ranger... but a Bachelors degree for minimum wage just wasnt worth it to me...even with the free cabin and green truck. But, to some guys it is...the lifestyle is worth less money.

 

[daves]

The rights for these guys are effectively controlled for the first 4-6 years of their careers. That’s not an open market or supply and demand.

For draftees, the first contract value is essentially based on draft position. Draft position is based on perceived value, supply, and demand - and that market says that not many RBs are worth drafting high, hence they don't make as much as other positions.

After the first contract, some RBs will be franchise or transition tagged. Their contracts will be determined by the top contracts of other RBs - and those contracts are determined by the market.

RBs getting second and subsequent contracts are values entirely by the market.

So, perhaps you can explain your point.

 

[Stout]

I don’t know about rb’s bring easily replaceable as people on the Cards forum continually denounce our rb’s. Why haven’t we gotten a couple of good ones, then?

This. No, we shouldn't trade for JT or invest big in RBs, but we need some good young ones desperately. Our RB room is sad.

 

[JohnnyCakes]

last thing this team needs is a vet runningback with injuries when we still dont have a quarterback for at least half the year nor an offensive line/receivers/defense

 

[Stout]

last thing this team needs is a vet runningback with injuries when we still dont have a quarterback for at least half the year nor an offensive line/receivers/defense

Yeah, we already have our quota filled

 

[Chopper0080]

the issue isn't the player, his injuries or anything else. It is the position he plays and the associated long-term contract he wants. If I could guarantee a happy Jonathan Taylor on his contract this year, and two franchise tag years, I would likely give up a mid rounder for him.

The Steelers gave out the blueprint on this with how they handled and utilized LeVeon Bell. Get a back in round 2/3, utilize him to the max, franchise him twice, and then let someone else sign him.

 

[Chopper0080]

last thing this team needs is a vet runningback with injuries when we still dont have a quarterback for at least half the year nor an offensive line/receivers/defense

A. He is 24...so vet is kinda funny even if accurate.

B. Most RBs miss some time, so he is not more "injury prone" than any other back.

C. Taylor would be a great add for this team if there wasn't a demand for a new contract. The new contract is the only issue with Taylor because a smart team shouldn't give it to him.

 

[kerouac9]

For draftees, the first contract value is essentially based on draft position. Draft position is based on perceived value, supply, and demand - and that market says that not many RBs are worth drafting high, hence they don't make as much as other positions.

After the first contract, some RBs will be franchise or transition tagged. Their contracts will be determined by the top contracts of other RBs - and those contracts are determined by the market.

RBs getting second and subsequent contracts are values entirely by the market.

So, perhaps you can explain your point.

True supply and demand coming out of college would be a bidding system for the "best" players. The player's comp on a rookie contract is artificially constrained by the rookie pool, which new players to the NFL did not collectively bargain as part of the NFLPA, because they didn't belong to it at the time.

Then, the NFL mandates that contracts are for four years (with a fifth year option), which is fine for a wideout or offensive lineman who are still on the upswing of their peak and likely have their best years ahead of them on their second contract. Running backs come into the NFL very near their peak, which is when their compensation is constrained by a structural factor, not supply and demand.

There's no rational market where Christian Kirk should be paid 2x more than Saquon Barkley, but here we are.

 

[daves]

True supply and demand coming out of college would be a bidding system for the "best" players. The player's comp on a rookie contract is artificially constrained by the rookie pool, which new players to the NFL did not collectively bargain as part of the NFLPA, because they didn't belong to it at the time.

Then, the NFL mandates that contracts are for four years (with a fifth year option), which is fine for a wideout or offensive lineman who are still on the upswing of their peak and likely have their best years ahead of them on their second contract. Running backs come into the NFL very near their peak, which is when their compensation is constrained by a structural factor, not supply and demand.

You make a good point that RBs are uniquely screwed by the rookie contract structure of the CBA, thus RBs on rookie contracts are a bargain for teams, then get screwed on second contracts since we all know their best years are usually behind them after 4-5 years.

If RBs provide so much value vs. their cap hit, teams should covet them in the draft like QBs. Yet aside from a couple outliers most years, they don't.

The couple of standout RBs on rookie contracts each season have a tough time ever receiving compensation commensurate with their value, unlike say QBs who are just coming into their prime by the time their rookie contracts are ending.

Not sure what could be done about it in the CBA - mandating higher rookie salaries or shorter first contacts for RBs would push them even farther down draft boards, and make it tougher for the non-superstars to catch on with a team at all.

So maybe it just comes back to supply and demand at a position that's been devalued by rule changes over the years.

The top 3 RBs last year helped their teams to losing records, and the top 7 had one playoff win among them (Barkley).

On the other hand, the top 7 WRs and 13 of the top 16 were on teams with winning records or playoff teams, and Kirk, while surely overpaid, was one of them.

(I suspect the increasing supply of good WRs will eventually cool off the market for that position.)

 

[kerouac9]

Not sure what could be done about it in the CBA - mandating higher rookie salaries or shorter first contacts for RBs would push them even farther down draft boards, and make it tougher for the non-superstars to catch on with a team at all.

So maybe it just comes back to supply and demand at a position that's been devalued by rule changes over the years.

I like the idea of grouping all the non-QB skill position players together for fifth-year option and franchise tag purposes. That's what happens with OL right now. It also helps TEs (probably), which might get them more support in a zero-sum salary cap world.

 

[lobo]

the issue isn't the player, his injuries or anything else. It is the position he plays and the associated long-term contract he wants. If I could guarantee a happy Jonathan Taylor on his contract this year, and two franchise tag years, I would likely give up a mid rounder for him.

The Steelers gave out the blueprint on this with how they handled and utilized LeVeon Bell. Get a back in round 2/3, utilize him to the max, franchise him twice, and then let someone else sign him.

I think we are in the same church but a different pew. If, I repeat if, the goal is to stay competitive this year and show some real improvement over last year, I see nothing wrong in a very similar version to the old Packers offensive plan. We have what looks like a pretty decent O Line, a solid RB why not run to stay competitive as we build a real team that emphasizes a balanced pass/run game? They have an OC in place who can do that. And if they are considering a FB this year, don't be shocked if that is where they are headed.....I've been wrong in the past!!

 

[kerouac9]

I think we are in the same church but a different pew. If, I repeat if, the goal is to stay competitive this year and show some real improvement over last year, I see nothing wrong in a very similar version to the old Packers offensive plan. We have what looks like a pretty decent O Line, a solid RB why not run to stay competitive as we build a real team that emphasizes a balanced pass/run game? They have an OC in place who can do that. And if they are considering a FB this year, don't be shocked if that is where they are headed.....I've been wrong in the past!!

Because our defense is going to allow 30 points per game.

Running the ball sounds way good until its 0-17 midway through the second quarter.

 

[JohnnyCakes]

A. He is 24...so vet is kinda funny even if accurate.

B. Most RBs miss some time, so he is not more "injury prone" than any other back.

C. Taylor would be a great add for this team if there wasn't a demand for a new contract. The new contract is the only issue with Taylor because a smart team shouldn't give it to him.

Chopper

lol I had to look that up-- only 3 years in the league! I stand corrected!!

For some reason I seem to think he's been around for 6-7 years.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Because our defense is going to allow 30 points per game.

Running the ball sounds way good until its 0-17 midway through the second quarter.

Ideally the Cards can run the ball effectively enough to control the clock and keep the Cardinals subpar defense off the field as much as possible.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Ideally the Cards can run the ball effectively enough to control the clock and keep the Cardinals subpar defense off the field as much as possible.

Ideally we would be competitive in every game, win a couple/few towards the end of the season and still have a bottom 5 pick in tow.

 

[Chopper0080]

Chopper

lol I had to look that up-- only 3 years in the league! I stand corrected!!

For some reason I seem to think he's been around for 6-7 years.

3 years qualifies as a vet tho so you weren't wrong.

 

[Chopper0080]

Because our defense is going to allow 30 points per game.

Running the ball sounds way good until its 0-17 midway through the second quarter.

Unfortunately, I expect to see a lot of running the ball when down by double digits this year, similar to the Wilks year.

 

[kerouac9]

Unfortunately, I expect to see a lot of running the ball when down by double digits this year, similar to the Wilks year.

Heard Petzing in the Pasche Pod yesterday and, especially after listening to The Playcallers, there’s little to suggest he’s some sort of wunderkind.