[ramsman34]

Ask a QB or do the experiment yourself to "see" how much the QB actually sees the rush from the right hand side. Sure, it's more likely if he is looking at routes to the right. But, when he drops it is down the midline and his body is actually parallel to the right sideline. Common sense says he should see the rush from that side. But, If he "looks" at a left side corner route he would "see" the rush from the LT's side and not the right - and vice versa. What I am saying is, that in shotgun, during the drop (there really isn't a drop-he is already at depth) and BEFORE the targeting and pivot, he doesn't really have a blind spot. I don't really see what the argument is. It is more a comparison of under-center drop back/play-action drops VS shotgun as it applies to blindspots for me. And, how this applies to LT value to RT value would depend on right or left handed QB and how often the team does old school and P/A drops vs shotgun.

[ramsman34]

yeah, hard for me to agree with this, a right-handed qb's peripheral vision can help with right side pressure, not so much when it comes to left side pressure, instead a qb needs complete faith in his left tackle, and i think it's a pretty clear when watching game footage:

I think that game footage completely proves my point. Watch his head relative to the route thrown relative to where the pressure should be in the blind spot. NOTE: Raiders go NO pressure on Goff anyway, lol. When Goff looks and throws left, he loses sight of the rush from the right on the hitch/pivot/throw - same for when he looks right.

We will continue to respectfully agree to disagree. And I would love to watch a game either live or on TV with you and/or go through and all-22 with you. Would be pretty damn epic methinks.

[ramsman34]

I watched those high lights while listening to Moving The Chains on SiriusXM and this tool of a Rams fan who gets on their show all the time, Eddy in NY. My God that dude drives me insane. Hates Goff. Would rather have Wentz. BC Goff is too skinny/slight (and Eddie who has missed more games due to injury Goff or Wentz??). And, Goff doesn't have "the eye of the tiger" - whatever the fuck that is besides a Survivor song in a rocky movie. And, doesn't want to pay him $35 million. Well who DO you want to pay or do you want an unproven rookie to replace Goff. Guys/fans/media like that frustrate the hell out of me. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT WHEN WATCHING GOFF???????

[aeneas1]

This part of your post should be quoted by agents representing right tackles.

it's interesting, currently the highest paid right tackle is trent brown who the raiders just signed for a whopping $16.5 million per year making him the highest paid offensive lineman in the nfl, in fact he'll make an incredible 30% more than the next highest paid right tackle in 2019.

what's interesting is that brown is a 7th rounder on his 3rd team, a guy who the pats paid the league minimum to for one year of service last season, a guy that the niners traded to the pats after 3 seasons.

so why did a guy like brown earn such a big paycheck from the raiders? the obvious answer is that the raiders are morons and doing stuff like making a right tackle the league's highest paid olineman is nothing new for them, but i think it has more to do with the pats moving him to left tackle last year and winning the super bowl, he ended up getting big left tackle money even tho the raiders say they're going to return him to rt.

anyway, it will be interesting to see how much leverage right tackle agents can squeeze out of brown's huge payday.

[ramsman34]

Doesn't the franchise tag treat OT's the same as far as that dollar amount? Or, is there a difference btx RT and LT on the tag?

[/zn/]

Doesn't the franchise tag treat OT's the same as far as that dollar amount? Or, is there a difference btx RT and LT on the tag?

The way the franchise tag works, all OL get the same amount regardless of position. What that means in effect is that (for the most part) no one franchises OL, except for left OT.

Last I looked, right tackle is the 2nd lowest paid non-special teams position (lowest is fullback). I assume that's because the pool of college tackles capable of playing in the NFL includes a much smaller percentage of guys who can be good starting LOTs. In contrast, every single NFL-capable college tackle can play ROT. As a result ROTs are just easier to find than a lot of other positions.

My argument against Tucker's thing is that just saying ROTs should be equal in pay and ability to LOTs is not going to suddenly mean there will be more good LOT-quality players available. That's like saying every team should have 2 starting caliber qbs. Okay, but, saying that will not mean that there will suddenly be an increase in the number of qualified qbs. I doubt the league could come up with 64 starting caliber qbs. Same with LOT. There's not going to suddenly be 64 guys who qualify when there wasn't that many before.

Anyway, on the tag. From a year ago:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agen ... s-in-2019/

Left tackles are the only offensive linemen that typically receive franchise tags. The franchise player system doesn't account for the salary differences at the three main offensive line positions (center, guard and tackle). A guard or center hasn't been franchised since the Patriots and Panthers used their designations on Logan Mankins and Ryan Kalil respectively in 2011.

[AvengerRam]

Last I looked, right tackle is the 2nd lowest paid non-special teams position (lowest is fullback).

Don't know where you got that but, according to this, you're way off:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/

[/zn/]

Don't know where you got that but, according to this, you're way off:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/

That averages in back-ups and draft picks. It's basically everyone on all rosters. For example, if you averaged every qb on every roster, Rodgers and Wilson would be in the same overall calculation as Bortles and Brandon Allen. The number you get from doing that would be misleading. In fact look at the avg. qb money spotrac calculates: 5.1 M. No way is that a meaningful number IF what you are looking for the avg. amount starters get (cause many starters have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th contracts.)

I was talking about starters and 2nd contracts. (For example, no way the avg. money for starting LOTs is just 8 M).

(BTW, Trent Brown raised the avg. for ROTs this year but that's because they had to pay him LOT money even though he's playing ROT. )

Here's one source, which is from 2014

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-hig ... ons-2014-9



Another way to do it is to avg. the top 10 at a position. I did both ROT and LOT. Looking at the average annual amount per contract (using the info at Over.the.cap).

The avg. top 10 for ROT is (rounded) 9.58. This is just a little misleading because Brown (in special circumstances) jumped 3.75 M above the next closest guy.

The avg. top 10 for LOT is 13.74 M.

Another possibility is to compare RB and ROT, since RBs are notoriously paid less than a lot of other positions. The avg. top 10 for RBs is 10.12 M.

...

[AvengerRam]

I was talking about starters and 2nd contracts.

Okay. That's not what you said, but we can go with that if you'd like.

Here's one source, which is from 2014

https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-hig ... ons-2014-9

That chart, as well as the other methods you suggest are highly flawed.

First, looking at the top 10 paid players by position does not equate to the average salary for the position (starters or otherwise).

More importantly, its pretty arbitrary to divide OTs into LT and RT, while not doing the same for other positions that have two starters (WR, OG, DE, OLB, CB). I think it would be a more fair comparison, for example, to rank LTs against teams' highest paid starting OG, and RTs against the lesser paid starting OGs on each team (not going to be necessarily a distinction between right and left side).

Otherwise, imagine a team pays its OL as follows:

LT: $14M
LG: $10M
C: $5M
RG: $6M
RT: $7M

Grouping OGs together, the average for the "position" is $8M, which is higher than the RT ($7M). However, the RT is actually higher paid than one of the starting OGs, and the average for OTs is higher than OGs collectively.

Ultimately, the point Tucker is making that I agree with is that the RT is becoming a more key position in football. I'd expect that, as a result, the price of starting RTs will go up. That does not mean it will ever equal LTs, but the number will likely continue to rise.

[/zn/]

You can't talk about rookies or players on rookie contracts and try to get from that some sense of how the league values a position. That is because rookie contracts are slotted not by position but by where the player was taken. You average those contracts in and it distorts everything...IF the quesion is, how does the money show which positions the league values over others. I thought that did not need to be explained---I thought that was self-evident. Guess not. So I will explain what I mean without assuming it.

IF someone says, what does the money tell us about how a position is valued, you don't do averages for every player and throw in rookie contracts and UDFA deals with that, because that would give a false picture. Kupp isn't being paid what he is being paid because he's a receiver...he got what 3rd round picks at his slot were going to get. When he signs a 2nd contract, THEN you can talk about Kupp and what receiver money means. Hav, on the other hand, got what right tackles were getting (before Trent Brown) on 2nd contracts.

I didn't say looking at top 10 equates to average. Top 10 was just a quick and handy way to do some numbers. If you want to do the average, fine--do all the starters for 32 teams and break it down by position and then average out all the contracts. I'll wait till you do that. In lieu of that, the top 10 IS going to give some strong indications of how positions are getting paid on 2nd contracts, which in turn is an indicator of position value.

And right now ROTs are not paid like most other positions. They are at the very least, among the lowest paid positions.

The top 10 avg. for LOG and ROG are as follows: LOG 9.7 M, ROG 10.29.

It is not arbitrary to distinguish between LOT and ROT---the league does it in every single way imaginable. Who they draft where (ROTs are seldom drafted high in round 1), how much they pay, the kinds of bodies they put at the different spots (Hav could not play LOT), how they define their roles, and so on. In fact that's precisely what Tucker is complaining about--he says the league DOES act like the positions are different, but he thinks they SHOULDN'T. (I don't agree with him on that particular thing, but that's beside the point for the time being.)