If Josh Jacobs played any position other than the one he plays, he would've had a case this offseason to become that position's highest-paid player in the NFL. He led the league in rushing yards in 2022, a brilliant retort to the Las Vegas Raiders' decision to decline his (roughly $8 million) 2023 option in May 2022. You'd think a player who performed at that level in a contract year would get his reward.
But Jacobs plays running back, and to this point his only "reward" for his 2022 performance is a $10.09 million franchise tag for 2023.
Jacobs and the New York Giants' Saquon Barkley are front and center in the NFL news cycle for the next 1½ weeks. July 17 is the deadline for franchise-tagged players to sign long-term deals with their teams. If they don't sign by then, Jacobs and Barkley can't discuss long-term extensions with the Raiders and Giants, respectively, until after the 2023 regular season ends. Normally, teams' negotiations with franchise-tagged players pick up again in the days before that July deadline, and we expect that to happen with Jacobs and Barkley. But restarting talks does not guarantee reaching a deal, and it's entirely possible Jacobs and Barkley will have to decide whether they're willing to accept the one-year franchise tender or sit out training camp and regular-season games in protest.
Dallas Cowboys running back Tony Pollard is also franchised, but unlike Jacobs and Barkley, he has signed his franchise tender and seems OK with playing out the season at that number. Pollard is coming off a major season-ending injury and doesn't have the same track record that Jacobs and Barkley do as their teams' No. 1 backs. We aren't lumping him in with the other two here.
The Raiders and Giants can't fine Jacobs and Barkley for missing camp if they don't sign their franchise tenders, so if they don't get new deals by the July 17 deadline, you certainly shouldn't expect to see them for the start of camp in a few weeks. Sitting out the season is the threat they can make for leverage purposes, but the fact is it wouldn't do them very much good -- they'd simply be back in the same position a year from now.
What happens next? We called around the league to executives and agents to get a sense of what kind of solution there might be to this problem. We came up with several possibilities, ranging from reasonable to nuclear, and we laid them out here to give you some idea of how these situations might (or might not) be resolved. And then we suggested the most likely outcome for each of the talented running backs.
Option 1: A fair market deal
Obviously, this sounds nice and is the path to most likely making everybody happy. The problem is defining "fair market" in the case of the NFL running back.
Again, given Jacobs' 2022 performance (1,653 rushing yards) and Barkley's vital role in the Giants' offense (27.7% of New York's scrimmage yards), each of these guys could make an in-a-vacuum case to be the highest-paid player at his position. Unfortunately, the top end of the running back market hasn't moved since the Panthers signed Christian McCaffrey for just over $16 million a year in spring 2020. Later that same year, Alvin Kamara got $15 million per year from the Saints, while Derrick Henry, Joe Mixon and Dalvin Cook all got somewhere between $12 million and $12.5 million annually on their own extensions. All of those deals were four-year contracts.
One year later, Nick Chubb signed a three-year extension with the Browns that averaged $12.2 million per year, and Aaron Jones got a four-year deal from the Packers that averaged $12 million. And the running back market, clearly stagnant even two years ago, has absolutely bottomed out since then. This year's top free agent backs -- Miles Sanders and David Montgomery -- got deals that averaged in the neighborhood of $6 million per year, and Jones had to take a pay cut to avoid being released.
You can see the problem. Even if the Raiders and the Giants want to reward Jacobs and Barkley, the market clearly tells them they don't have to do so. A $10.091 million franchise tag is a pretty good number for a running back, as Giants GM Joe Schoen indicated at the owners meetings in March. In fact, only six backs in the league average more per season than $10.091 million.
Most of the people in our informal survey pointed to the Chubb deal from 2021 as the best road map. Take that three-year structure, add some money to it because it's two years later and guarantee the first two years against injury. Say the deal is three years, $38 million with something like $24-26 million paid out in the first two years. It might not be the deal of these guys' dreams, but it would be somewhat face-saving at this point, especially if it comes with a guarantee number that ranks up near the $25.5 million that the Titans gave Henry.
The Raiders and Giants likely won't want to go overboard on guarantees, given the leaguewide injury rate at the running back position and the sense that RB production is easily replaceable at cheaper cost. (The Chiefs just won the Super Bowl with seventh-round rookie Isiah Pacheco as their lead runner.) Barkley's injury history justifiably gives the Giants pause, and the Raiders' new administration wasn't sold enough on Jacobs last year to pick up his fifth-year option.
But there are factors other than cold economics to consider, and it's possible one or both of these teams will be willing to stretch a little bit outside of their comfort zones because of the roles Jacobs and Barkley occupy in their respective locker rooms. It's possible the owners could exert pressure on the front offices to get deals done. If that's the case, Jacobs and Barkley could end up doing a little bit better than expected on guarantees, or maybe get language in the deal that prohibits the teams from franchising them again when the deal expires. There are a few potential mechanisms that could help get a deal done around that basic Chubb-style structure if the sides can reach some level of agreement on the top-line numbers. But what if they can't?
Marcus Spears explains why Saquon Barkley is crucial to the Giants' offense progressing next season.
Option 2: The two-year solution
In this case, the respective teams would do what one front-office executive described as "buying out" the player's two franchised seasons. This involves giving the player a two-year deal that's fully guaranteed and pays a bit more than the player would have made if he had been franchised two years in a row. In the case of Jacobs or Barkley, that probably means something along the lines of $25 million to $26 million over two seasons.
The teams might be loath to do this because, in this market, even two years feels like a lot to commit to a running back. If 2023 goes poorly, you're on the hook for something like $13 million guaranteed for the player in 2024, and nobody wants that. But again, there's some value in keeping your best players happy. The Giants are trying to build off a surprisingly successful 2022 season and show they weren't a fluke. In Las Vegas, Josh McDaniels' head-coaching career likely can't afford too many more losing seasons. A two-year commitment could be a small price to pay to get your star running back to camp on time.
Players and agents also don't tend to like two-year deals because they give the teams the upper hand. If you play well in the first year of the contract, the team has you for Year 2 at a relative bargain price. If you play poorly in the first year of the deal, the team can cut you and move on. But because of the nature of the current running back market, these concerns may not carry as much weight in these cases. Getting the second year guaranteed addresses the second concern. As for the first: What's the real upside for a running back? The second-year bird in the hand is more appealing than the idea of hitting the open RB market, where right now there's no windfall awaiting you no matter how well you play in your contract year.
Option 3: Do nothing
This one was extremely popular among the front-office personnel we talked to for this story. More than one executive insisted they would just franchise both guys this year and, if they play well and stay healthy, franchise them again next year.
The collective bargaining agreement requires that a second franchise tag be 120% of the previous year's salary, so tagging Jacobs or Barkley (or Pollard) again next year would cost $12.11 million. That means you'd be paying them each $22.2 million total over the next two years. (These numbers are the reason that you have to offer a two-year cash flow of at least $24 million or so on a long-term deal if you want the player to even consider it.)
This makes sense from a cold business perspective. But it's worth noting that none of the executives we spoke to work for the Raiders or Giants, which means it's easy for them to take the cold business perspective without fear of the consequences that could potentially come with unhappy star players. If Jacobs and Barkley have hope of getting something done with their teams in the next 10 days, it lies in the non-economic calculus. Their teams have to be in the frame of mind that it's important to make them happy, regardless of a market designed to limit their value.
Option 4: Rescind the tags and sign someone cheaper
This is the aforementioned "nuclear" option, and it's important to note that neither team appears to even be considering it. Until a franchise player signs his franchise tender (which neither Jacobs nor Barkley has done), the team has the right to rescind the tag, making the player an unrestricted free agent.
It would be a power move by the teams at this stage of the offseason, when money and cap space have dried up and being free agents probably wouldn't be as lucrative for Jacobs and Barkley as it might have been in March. And with guys such as Cook, Ezekiel Elliott, Kareem Hunt and Leonard Fournette still kicking around in free agency, the Raiders or Giants could probably solve their running back problems with still-productive big-name guys whose contract demands aren't as high as those of Jacobs and Barkley.
You don't see this often. The most famous recent case of a rescinded franchise tag was Josh Norman in 2016, when the Panthers rescinded his franchise tag and he signed a long-term deal with Washington. But that happened in April, not July or August.
So yes, this is farfetched. And again, I want to stress that we have no indication that it has even crossed the minds of either the Raiders or Giants. But it is allowed, so it's worth a little mention. I'll say this: If it happened -- if the Raiders, say, rescinded Jacobs' franchise tag and signed, say, Cook for less than $10.09 million -- that would be the strongest indication yet that the running back market is at its nadir.
What's going to happen?
As mentioned above, I expect the Raiders to reengage with Jacobs and the Giants to reengage with Barkley prior to the July 17 deadline. (The Cowboys likely will check in with Pollard's representatives, but I don't know that I would anticipate any real progress toward a deal there. Again, his situation is different.)
Of the two, I'd rate Barkley the more likely to get a long-term deal done. Team owner John Mara has been clear about his desire for Barkley to be a Giant for his entire career, and the front office knows ownership would like a deal to get done. My very hesitant prediction is that the two sides come together on a contract that looks something like our outlined Option 1 before the deadline passes. The Giants probably will give a little bit on guarantees to a point where Barkley and his agent can claim a "win" on something specific, such as structure or cash flow.
I haven't heard as much on the Jacobs situation, which could indicate that he's less likely to get his deal. Obviously, a lot can change, and if one of these guys signs before the deadline, he'll establish a framework the other one can use. Barkley getting a deal could make it more likely that Jacobs gets one, too. But McDaniels has engaged in a lot of roster turnover since he got to Vegas, indicating that he didn't love what was in place before he got there. I would not be at all surprised to see the Raiders go with Option 3 on Jacobs and do nothing.