It’s been a tough offseason for running backs, with Dalvin Cook, Ezekiel Elliott and Leonard Fournette all released and Aaron Jones forced to take a pay cut. Joe Mixon may be next to move, and there was talk about the Titans moving Derrick Henry. It’s not a marquee position anymore.
Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs and Tony Pollard have all been locked down with the franchise tag, seemingly with little ability to land long-term deals. And Austin Ekeler wasn’t able to convince the Chargers to do much with his contract. He’s arguably a lot more valuable than teammates Keenan Allen and Mike Williams yet makes less than half as much as those guys. It’s crazy.
Why is Barkley making a lot less than Daniel Jones? And why is Henry making less than Ryan Tannehill? I think if you scan the crowds at those games, you’ll see more Barkley and Henry jerseys rather than Jones and Tannehill. With those teams, it’s the running backs that people are coming out to see.
I blame the current labor deal. As constructed, it doesn’t work for running backs.
The financial numbers are pretty bleak. The game is making more money than ever before, but essentially none of the new dollars are going to running backs.
Consider franchise tag amounts. In the last eight years, quarterbacks have risen from $18.5 million to $32.4 million, an increase of 75 percent. Pay at three other positions has risen by at least 50 percent – linebackers, wide receivers and safeties. Pay at other positions has risen from between 28 to 41 percent.
The salary cap as a whole has risen from $143.3 million to $224.8 million. The game is healthy.
But then there’s running back. Over the last eight years, the franchise tag amount has actually declined. The tag amount was $10.9 million in 2015. Now it’s $10.1 million.
Back in 2015, the franchise tag amounts for running backs and wide receivers were about the same. Now the running back amount is about half as much.
| FRANCHISE TAG AMOUNTS (in millions) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Position | 2015 | 2023 | Increase |
| QB | $18.54 | $32.42 | 75% |
| LB | $13.20 | $20.93 | 59% |
| WR | $12.82 | $19.74 | 54% |
| DE | $14.81 | $19.73 | 33% |
| DT | $14.81 | $18.94 | 28% |
| OL | $12.94 | $18.24 | 41% |
| CB | $13.08 | $18.14 | 39% |
| S | $9.62 | $14.46 | 50% |
| TE | $8.35 | $11.35 | 36% |
| RB | $10.95 | $10.09 | -8% |
| ST | $4.13 | $5.39 | 31% |
| Cap | $143.28 | $224.80 | 57% |
Some re-working of the labor agreement, I think, is in order. As written, drafted players are locked into four-year contracts. Teams aren’t even allowed to sign players to extensions until after three seasons. With running backs playing their best ball early in their careers and it being a position of high attrition, they’re not getting a good enough opportunity to hit the open market.
And in those rare cases where a back can run the gauntlet, still having some value after his rookie contract, teams can eliminate his bargaining position with the franchise tag (as with Barkley, Jacobs and Pollard).
At a minimum, I think the tag should be eliminated for running backs. I don’t think teams or competitive balance would be hurt at all if guys like Barkley and Jacobs were allowed to hit the open market. (The Giants and Raiders, if they lost those backs, would have ample opportunity to replace him with somebody along the lines of Dalvin Cook.)
And it would be reasonable, in my opinion, to shorten rookie contracts for running backs from four years to about two years. Careers are short, especially at that position, so it makes sense to give those guys more of an opportunity to maximize their value.
—Ian Allan