- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,693
- Liked Posts:
- 1,221
Maybe the NFL should institute a socialist, soccer mom wage scale where every player gets the same amount of money for each game they play...moron.
cubby chubby
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 20, 2016
- Posts:
- 1,117
- Liked Posts:
- 496
Socialism is the future. Not sure where the soccer mom reference comes from but I like them very much.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,693
- Liked Posts:
- 1,221
If your a fan of socialism then you should look for another sport to be a fan of. The NFL has a hard cap, if you want RB's to make more money, some position has to make less. Maybe you should start a movement where all the rich white owners have to put 10 mil in a RB compensation pool each year. That way it doesn't effect the cap and everybody WINS.
- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 41,375
- Liked Posts:
- 23,655
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
Still very different than a seperate union. And even within current guidelines, it sets a nonviable precedent.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,872
- Liked Posts:
- 26,846
What if I said that running backs are the most easily replaced position on the whole offense.
Would you people agree with that?
I'm trying to decide, but I think it might be true.
Would you people agree with that?
I'm trying to decide, but I think it might be true.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,872
- Liked Posts:
- 26,846
Maybe you should learn what socialism means.
And maybe learn how democratic socialism is different.
Oh and look into how a regulated economy doesn't equal socialism.
And as long as you are learning, take a look at post-scarcity economics.
Chris Sojka
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 25, 2012
- Posts:
- 6,685
- Liked Posts:
- 2,620
Anyone who knows football would agree
- Joined:
- Aug 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,220
- Liked Posts:
- 2,669
- Location:
- Fort Myers, FL
Good points in this thread. Clearly something should change. I have an idea but am still working out details so incentives are appropriate for all involved.
It starts with adjusting how the very few top QBs take such massive cap $$ it kills their team, while there's too much pressure to force high draft pick QBs into playing often before they're ready, while on shitty rosters. It's killing the already small pool of QB talent, while preventing the other 770 "top 25" starters in the league from getting theirs when Aaron Rodgers and Russel Wilson get paid an assload.
RBs need a change to their pay scale & schedule also, but differently since there's many of them avail on the cheap + their shortened max tread life.
Can't change the fact that good drafting should reward teams while missing should punish. Might be as simple as QBs get less, RBs get more. How is the tricky part.
Things to ponder...
It starts with adjusting how the very few top QBs take such massive cap $$ it kills their team, while there's too much pressure to force high draft pick QBs into playing often before they're ready, while on shitty rosters. It's killing the already small pool of QB talent, while preventing the other 770 "top 25" starters in the league from getting theirs when Aaron Rodgers and Russel Wilson get paid an assload.
RBs need a change to their pay scale & schedule also, but differently since there's many of them avail on the cheap + their shortened max tread life.
Can't change the fact that good drafting should reward teams while missing should punish. Might be as simple as QBs get less, RBs get more. How is the tricky part.
Things to ponder...
legendxofxlink
Whistle Dixie
- Joined:
- Apr 25, 2014
- Posts:
- 10,507
- Liked Posts:
- 11,929
- Location:
- Tennessee
My favorite teams
You’re going to have a lot more super athletic“kids” pull a Jalen Hurd and force a change in position in college. Prolonging their careers as elite athletes AND making more money.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 14,959
- Liked Posts:
- 16,593
Tandem running backs and less rushing attempts have killed the value of the position... but may cause longer careers with less wear and tear.
The past 3 years, there has been 1 running back each season to hit the 300 carry mark.
in 2010 there were 7. 6 the year before that.
Back in 05 and 06, there were 10 backs per year that carried 300 plus times.
This was an inevitable result of skewing the rules towards the passing game. QBs are hitting unheard of numbers and the RBs are getting a lesser role.
The only real question is will the RBs enjoy longer careers with less wear and tear. Guess we will have to wait a few years and see.
The past 3 years, there has been 1 running back each season to hit the 300 carry mark.
in 2010 there were 7. 6 the year before that.
Back in 05 and 06, there were 10 backs per year that carried 300 plus times.
This was an inevitable result of skewing the rules towards the passing game. QBs are hitting unheard of numbers and the RBs are getting a lesser role.
The only real question is will the RBs enjoy longer careers with less wear and tear. Guess we will have to wait a few years and see.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 1,693
- Liked Posts:
- 1,221
Your ARE a modern day socialist, you try to spin the actual meaning of socialism because no one in their right might would admit they are a socialist according to it's true definition.
Depending on ones beliefs, Marx or Morrison was the first to coin the definition or term socialism, social democracy or the such. Below is the definition per Webster and dates back to the late 1800's:
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
In theory socialism could work but not in a country run by corrupt politicians of all parties. The definition at it's core is stated above and my use of it was in proper context. How you chose to believe it's meaning is really your choice. I'm sure you have read the manifesto by Marx and the writings of Morrison, Bevan...etc. Like the forefathers of our country, Marx was unable to envision what this world would look like 150 years later. At least the founders of this country attempted to put stop gaps in place to prevent full control by one belief. Marx had too much faith in mankind, the belief in a government controlled by the people to administer the peoples will does not work. Look no further then the country you live in.
Bort
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 1,886
- Liked Posts:
- 2,529
One of my favorite things is when someone says something totally reasonable but meant it to be sarcasm.
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,478
- Liked Posts:
- 8,153
Oh God...here comes the message board economists....lol.
- Joined:
- Apr 19, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,478
- Liked Posts:
- 8,153
Still very different than a seperate union. And even within current guidelines, it sets a nonviable precedent.
Judging by this, outside of special teams, most positions have similar injury rates.
- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 41,375
- Liked Posts:
- 23,655
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
It doesn't address general wearing out but there are also backs that play for over10 years so it will be difficult for RBs if they go for it.
It's a familiar story . Plyers can chose an alternate position or profession. NFL is about supply and demand and it's difficult to argue that starters aren't getting paid enough including RBs.
Last edited:
cubby chubby
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Apr 20, 2016
- Posts:
- 1,117
- Liked Posts:
- 496
Easy for you to say. Try feeding your family on less than $10MM/year.
- Joined:
- Jun 19, 2011
- Posts:
- 32,872
- Liked Posts:
- 26,846
A union is not the government dumbass
