More attractive in the first round?
Hear me out, while I think we can all agree picking Barkley at 2 was polarizing to say the least, I didnt realize that the 5th year option was determined by the position they play, not their draft slot. This came up in the Chase Young thread that he would get over 17 million on his 5th year option while Barkley, drafted in the same slot, got 7.
Now I know the value of the RB position is at an all time low. I myself used the rationale of "of Barkley is Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk, you take him at 2." Barkley has been productive, but not on that level. But in this draft, Bijan Robinson was taken in the top 10 Gibbs not long after that. Both are playmakers with the ability to break runs and catch the ball. Both of them will cost minimum dollars on the 5th year option and if they continue to be playmakers, both will give their team a top notch weapon for more than half the price of a stud wideout.
People say "don't take a running back in the 1st". I am still of the mind that the top 5 is too high for a back, but if you aren't crazy about anybody still on your board and there aren't attractive trade down options, and you have a RB you really like, does it make sense to possibly overdraft him a bit for that 5th year option?
Again, I didnt realize how the 5th worked before looking into this. Jordan Love and the Packers had to agree to a one year extension because picking up his 5th option would have cost 19 million gtd. If a running back produced like Barkley had minus his injury year and a half, it would be a bargain for the type of production he and Bijan could bring their teams.
Not sure, who they would have drafted.....I guess trading back for a boatload of picks would have been better.....and outside of Josh Allen.....Barkley is far better than those west coast QBs everyone wanted.
Anyway, you still need to populate all the premium positions, and you missed the chance to fill one of them for four years at a below-market price.
Were Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold bad picks? In hindsight, sure. At the time, they were high-payoff gambles. I doubt the Browns and Jets considered them sure things. But the reward for guessing right on a QB is enormous - especially during his rookie contract. On a running back? Not so much.
Of course, it's never a good idea to reach. Just saying there are far more important considerations than the low fifth-year option for a running back
Anyway, you still need to populate all the premium positions, and you missed the chance to fill one of them for four years at a below-market price.
Were Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold bad picks? In hindsight, sure. At the time, they were high-payoff gambles. I doubt the Browns and Jets considered them sure things. But the reward for guessing right on a QB is enormous - especially during his rookie contract. On a running back? Not so much.
Of course, it's never a good idea to reach. Just saying there are far more important considerations than the low fifth-year option for a running back
Exactly. First round picks are cost controlled players. You need your RB to be one of the best RBs in the league just to break even. Premium picks for premium positions. You get a top edge rusher or QB or WR on a rookie deal and it is a homerun. Barkley was always paid like a top RB all the years we had him. He was hurt for a good chunk of it. For those questioning it, look at it this way. If you were pissed off with tbe Golladay contract, why? It is because he was paid way more than what he produced. When you sign guys in FA that is what happens, they are almost always overpaid when we are talking about the top end talent. To offset that, you need production that far exceeds their pay. That has to come from your rookie contracts and maybe one or two players on 1 year deals like guys that were in the wrong system/environment or coming off an injury, something like that. I think Paris Campbell can be one of those guys this year. This is especially important when you have your QB signed to a big contract. Everyone has tunnel vision when trying to justify paying Barkley or any top RB. It is way more complicated than that and needs to be looked at through a systemic lens.
But, if you are a team like Philly who was top 10 last year despite making the Super Bowl, I thought Bijan Robinson could have made sense. 5 years of cost controlled and you can run him into the ground. You’d also have the option to franchise him another year. If your team is in a win now window, I think it makes sense.
It’s the expensive second deal which has hurt teams.
Anyway, you still need to populate all the premium positions, and you missed the chance to fill one of them for four years at a below-market price.
Were Baker Mayfield and Sam Darnold bad picks? In hindsight, sure. At the time, they were high-payoff gambles. I doubt the Browns and Jets considered them sure things. But the reward for guessing right on a QB is enormous - especially during his rookie contract. On a running back? Not so much.
Of course, it's never a good idea to reach. Just saying there are far more important considerations than the low fifth-year option for a running back
I dont know if its an over pay the first 5 years BBB. I mean, you can rattle off a good number of backs who were high contributors for 5 years before they fell off. Chris Johnson, Zeke, Barkley, heck even a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks like LeSean McCoy who will get you about 1k yards and 7-10 TDs per year.
I do agree that the investment isnt the best, but as someone else pointed out, as a contender, sometimes the player outweighs the position.
It was just a thought. Like if Banks were gone, along with all the other corners, we had nobody looking to trade up and Gibbs were there at 25, I would think that lower 5th year might be a selling point.
For perspective, Micah Parsons isn't even the top 40 paid among edge rushers, is making less than Lorenzo Carter and 24m/yr less than TJ Watt. So you could basically sign Dexter Lawrence and have Micah Parsons on a rookie deal for the cost of a comparable player.
This isn't even taking into account the uncertainty of the draft, injury risk at the position and the difficult position you will find yourself in when negotiating that 2nd deal in the event that you do hit.
I'm not a maximalist, I think it does make sense for a small percentage of teams. A team that is chasing a short super window with a loaded roster on a tee for that RB to perform immediately would make sense - in the middle to back end of Round 1 though.
If you look at Saquon, whose talent is unquestioned, as an example he played basically two full seasons out of his 5 seasons in the NFL. If you prorate his salary based on the number games he was actually able to play over five years, it would be above the current Franchise tag number for running backs. This essentially stands for the proposition that a first round running back salary is inflated based on just how available they are going to be over the course of their rookie contract and therefore not a good value.
First round draft slots are better values when applied to positions that are high value positions and are going to command salaries in the upper teens, twenties and above. Those are high value propositions.
Take for Example Dexter Lawrence who is commanding a $20+ million price tag -- for the production received by the Giants he has been playing on a contract that averaged below $3 million for the first 4 years, and with his extended contract lowered his cap hit in the fifth year to $6 mill. Now that's value.
I do agree that the investment isnt the best, but as someone else pointed out, as a contender, sometimes the player outweighs the position.
It was just a thought. Like if Banks were gone, along with all the other corners, we had nobody looking to trade up and Gibbs were there at 25, I would think that lower 5th year might be a selling point.
Even when a RB hits on his rookie contract, the first round picks (especially in the top half of round one) are slotted in with cap numbers that place them much closer to the top of the pay scale for their position, which means those teams are paying basically retail rate for those RBs. Compare that to more expensive positions, where the rookie contract (based on draft slot, not position) represents a massive bargain vs. prevailing retail rate for a legitimate starter-level NFL player.
That's why using a premium pick on a RB is an overpay - because it not only represents very little bargain opportunity on that player, but also because it represents an even larger opportunity cost by not using that premium pick at a premium position.
Add to that the heightened injury risk of RBs (most injured position in football), and the lower marginal value vs. replacement, and it's really hard to achieve enough favorable value out of a first round RB to have it represent an advantage vs. other positions in terms of overall roster construction. The recent devaluation of the RB position only makes the relative value of a first round RB even worse - I wouldn't want to rely on Atlanta and Detroit to help disprove the point.
Anyone still actually arguing in favor of taking a RB high in the first round is either desperate to see Gettleman's legacy repaired, or just doesn't understand basic economics. And for the "heck even 2nd and 3rd round RBs can get you 1k yards and 7+ TDs" is exactly why you shouldn't spend a high first on a RB, and that's including the fact that you don't get (or need) a 5th year option on those day two RBs in order for them to deliver a positive return.
Quote:
I dont know if its an over pay the first 5 years BBB. I mean, you can rattle off a good number of backs who were high contributors for 5 years before they fell off. Chris Johnson, Zeke, Barkley, heck even a bunch of 2nd and 3rd round picks like LeSean McCoy who will get you about 1k yards and 7-10 TDs per year.
I do agree that the investment isnt the best, but as someone else pointed out, as a contender, sometimes the player outweighs the position.
It was just a thought. Like if Banks were gone, along with all the other corners, we had nobody looking to trade up and Gibbs were there at 25, I would think that lower 5th year might be a selling point.
Even when a RB hits on his rookie contract, the first round picks (especially in the top half of round one) are slotted in with cap numbers that place them much closer to the top of the pay scale for their position, which means those teams are paying basically retail rate for those RBs. Compare that to more expensive positions, where the rookie contract (based on draft slot, not position) represents a massive bargain vs. prevailing retail rate for a legitimate starter-level NFL player.
That's why using a premium pick on a RB is an overpay - because it not only represents very little bargain opportunity on that player, but also because it represents an even larger opportunity cost by not using that premium pick at a premium position.
Add to that the heightened injury risk of RBs (most injured position in football), and the lower marginal value vs. replacement, and it's really hard to achieve enough favorable value out of a first round RB to have it represent an advantage vs. other positions in terms of overall roster construction. The recent devaluation of the RB position only makes the relative value of a first round RB even worse - I wouldn't want to rely on Atlanta and Detroit to help disprove the point.
Anyone still actually arguing in favor of taking a RB high in the first round is either desperate to see Gettleman's legacy repaired, or just doesn't understand basic economics. And for the "heck even 2nd and 3rd round RBs can get you 1k yards and 7+ TDs" is exactly why you shouldn't spend a high first on a RB, and that's including the fact that you don't get (or need) a 5th year option on those day two RBs in order for them to deliver a positive return.
Really good post. Drafting a RB high is just not good business anymore. Even if Barkley didn’t miss a significant number of games his first few years in the league he still wasn’t a good value at #2.
The traditionalist football fan in me loved the pick back then, but the “feature back” that totes the rock 20-25 a game and catches a few passes along the way is a dinosaur in todays NFL. The defensive players are bigger and stronger. I mean you have DE’s running sub 4.5 40’s now. A dude like that smashing your knees sideways is dangerous as hell.
If the goal is to build a team that can contend every year you invest in the lines, grab a splashy WR or CB here or there and do your best to lock down the QB position.