OT: NFL Franchise Player Values

by AZranger on Feb 3, 2007 2:40 PM CST

From John Clayton's blog:

Franchise players: The league and the NFLPA officially agreed on the franchise numbers for 2007. Here they are:
Quarterbacks -- $12.615 million
Running backs -- $6.999 million
Safeties -- $4.49 million
Tight ends -- $4.371 million
Wide receivers -- $7.613 million
Cornerbacks -- $7.79 million
Defensive ends -- $8.644 million
Defensive tackles -- $6.775 million
Linebackers -- $7.206 million
Offensive linemen -- $9.556 million
Kickers -- $2.078 million

Since they are a reflection of the values placed on the upper echelon of each position by teams - seems odd to me that top running backs are paid less (and thus, deemed less valuable) than top cornerbacks and wide receivers. Offensive linemen don't surprise me. Defensive ends & linebackers more valued than running backs? I don't know enough about NFL salaries to debate the specifics, but find this very interesting.

Would like to see the same breakdown for baseball, by position.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

RB careers can be rather short

and so there aren't a lot of guys that get the giant contracts necessary to inflate the franchise tag. Its the average of the salary of the 5 highest paid players at each position.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 3, 2007 2:43 PM CST reply actions

But

since it's only the top 5 - it doesn't matter that there's isn't a lot of quality depth. Between Tomlinson, Alexander, Barber, James, Lewis, McCalister, Bush (bonus $ count?) etc - enough guys that have been around long enough to run the average up. Not counting LJ, Gore, Jackson and other younger RB's that haven't made big $ yet.

I'm surprised the top 5 RB's aren't considered more valuable than the top 5 WR's or CB's.

by AZranger on Feb 3, 2007 2:59 PM CST up reply actions

Signing Bonus money doesn't count

Its base salary only. That constrains all the numbers.

I can't find the 2006 numbers (probably because all the incentives aren't finished yet), but Tomlinson's base salary was only 540K. The top 5 were:
Edgerrin James - 8.081MM
Shaun Alexander - 6.323MM
Ahman Green - 4375MM
Curtis Martin - 3.683MM
Jamal Lewis - 3.582MM

It appears that RBs are routinely given more money in the form of signing bonuses. QB is the only other position that only has one player on the field. Having 2 CBs, 5 OL, 3-4LBs, etc means more players to potentially have high base salaries.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 3, 2007 3:33 PM CST up reply actions

Thank you

appreciate the research

by AZranger on Feb 3, 2007 3:40 PM CST up reply actions

Baseball Comparison - 2006

Here's the franchise tags for 2006 MLB players.

SP    $16,293,997
C    $10,321,773
1B    $14,320,000
2B    $6,014,301
3B    $14,024,079
SS    $11,525,385
LF    $13,776,807
CF    $12,579,226
RF    $13,440,000
RP    $9,500,000

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 3, 2007 3:15 PM CST reply actions

Shows pretty clearly

that power/SLG is paid for - there's a premium for corner production, even over the "premium" middle of the diamond positions.

by AZranger on Feb 3, 2007 3:35 PM CST up reply actions

Interestingly

To put together a team with 5 Franchise SPs, and an NL lineup of batters, plus a closer would cost ~187 million dollars. That's roughly the amount the Yankees spent last year on their opening day roster.

And yet somehow Andy Phillips, Melky Cabrera, Miguel Cairo, and Bubba Crosby combined for over 1000 ABs.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 3, 2007 4:44 PM CST up reply actions

this shows how

overrated runningbacks are. Has a team ever won a Super Bowl on the wings of a running back? No. It is always either a defense or QB that wins Super Bowls. Not Tomlinsons.

"I freakin' love Derosa... What a beast..... what a beastly laugh.." -miles

by dstar442005 on Feb 3, 2007 7:35 PM CST reply actions

Terrel Davis

was pretty dominant in 97. But I guess you could say it was the offensive line and their zone blocking scheme.

by AZranger on Feb 3, 2007 8:53 PM CST up reply actions

that's a silly standard

No team has ever won a Super Bowl with only a great QB or only a great Defense or only a great Anything. In that sense, you can complain about how every position is overrated. For a team to win the Super Bowl, they have to have a lot of really good players no matter what positions they play.

------------
:) - Obligatory smiley showing I don't mean whatever mean
spiritedness is likely contained in the preceding post

by jtts on Feb 3, 2007 9:34 PM CST up reply actions