Has the RB position become devalued? (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Why are running backs paid like kickers, punters?

By Chris Wesseling

Around the League Writer

By sundown of free agency's opening day, Gregg Rosenthal was moved to paraphrase Waylon & Willie: Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be running backs.

The brutal hits and short careers were traditionally mitigated by Heisman Trophies, No. 1 draft slots, universal acclaim and money to the ceiling.

Now all but the cream of the tailback crop get shunned, slighted and ultimately signed to contracts on par with kickers and punters.

The six signed running backs from Around The League's original Top 101 free agents list will average $2.89 million annually under their new contracts. The NFL's six highest-paid punters will average $2.91 million in base salary for the 2014 season, per Spotrac.com.

How bleak is the running back landscape?

The best opportunity afforded the 2011 rushing champion is battling Darren McFadden for playing time in Oakland.

The only active player with six consecutive 1,000-yard rushing seasons has attracted nary a nibble on the trade market.

The workhorse back who carried the Patriots' offense down the stretch last season will find himself fortunate to caddy for Le'Veon Bell if his Friday visit with the Steelers goes well.

Premier college prospects are entering a league that has dramatically devalued running backs since the dawn of the 21st century.

Over the past eight NFL Drafts, there have been as many running backs selected in the top five picks as there were in 2005 alone.

Last year's draft class was the first since 1964 not to include a first-round running back. Don't be surprised if the position is shut out of the first round again in May.

So why are running backs being devalued in both free agency and the draft?

It starts with the influx of spread offenses at the college level and continues with the NFL's ever-growing trend toward the pass and away from the run.

"You've got three schools who predominantly run a pro style offense," Jerome Bettis recently told USA Today. "Georgia, LSU, Alabama. After that it's a crapshoot to get a ... premiere running back."

Colleges are not producing stud runners because the emphasis is now on dual-threat quarterbacks operating out of the spread.

"I think it's a result of what's happening in college football," Steelers general manager Kevin Colbert recently surmised. "The running backs, for the most part in a lot of offenses ... are not emphasized as much, so you don't get to see as much production or dominance."

By the time running backs reach the NFL, they are already limited to specific offensive sets, making it easier for teams like the Patriots to utilize a handful of backs -- each with a customized role.

When teams finally break down and pull the trigger on a high-profile prospect, they're too often left holding the bag with an underwhelming Trent Richardson or Mark Ingram while watching two second-rounders, a third-rounder and a sixth-rounder lead the end-of-season rushing list.

It's hard to blame NFL teams for refusing to throw big money at a multi-chambered backfield even if the superpower Seahawks and 49ers operate the run-heaviest offenses in the league.

The latest "Around The League Podcast" offers a full recap of the NFL Annual Meeting in Orlando, then proposes player moves that won't happen (but probably should).

 

[Faust]

Has the RB position become devalued in the NFL?

 

[Faust]

NFL draft: Teams are willing to wait longer to pick running backs

 

[Godsbrother]

I'll state the obvious: The NFL is a pass-first and RBBC league now.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

RBBC = Rarely Big Bucks Committed

 

[Bronco Billy]

Interesting topic, but a bit misleading. Listed below are the cap hits in 2014 for the top 20 RBs, the top 5 Ks & Ps ( http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/cap-hit/running-back/limit-25/'>Source ) :

So the data is a bit misleading. I used cap hit since it factors signing bonuses, incentives, etc that all add into the compensation comparison. The top P & K in the league are paid like the 14th best RB and the averages shake out like described above because teams rarely carry more than one K or P, and thus their salaries are less subject to variability whereas teams carry multiple RBs, some of whom are only special teamers except under dire circumstances, thus lower the average because of the much wider variability.

That said, bell cow RBs are becoming more and more rare, and those are the guys who make the big money - rightfully so. But when running a RBBC to have RBs compensate for each other's weaknesses, teams have to spend a much larger portion of their cap space because the multiple players who make substantial contributions at RB add up to more than the K/P. Then we look at the law of supply and demand, and there are a lot of RBs right now who have similar skill sets can be paired in a RBBC with another lacking RB to give a team an effective running game - so with a larger talent pool of similarly skilled individuals the RBBC RBs have to take lesser compensation to maintain a job. Plus the younger guys who make rookie wage scale salaries can adequately replace the RBBC vet, which puts downward pressure on RB wages. The NFL is no different than any other business - the employees with the most valuable and unique skill sets get paid the most, the general labor pool gets paid less - they are much more replacable and thus expendable.

Look at this year's and last year's crop of rookies - see any over-the-top stud bell cows in the bunch?

Sorry about the formatting - maybe one of the mods can improve it?

[SIZE=medium]1[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Adrian Peterson at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$14,400,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Chris Johnson at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$10,000,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]LeSean McCoy at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$9,700,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]4[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Ray Rice at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$8,750,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]5[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Arian Foster at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$8,500,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]6[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Matt Forte at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$7,900,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]7[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Marshawn Lynch at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$7,000,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]8[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Frank Gore at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$6,450,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]9[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]DeAngelo Williams at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$6,000,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]10[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]C.J. Spiller at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$5,966,916 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]11[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Jamaal Charles at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$5,233,333 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]12[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Jonathan Stewart at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,585,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]13[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Reggie Bush at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,500,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]14[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Steven Jackson at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,166,666 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]15[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Toby Gerhart at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,000,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]16[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Fred Jackson at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,850,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]17[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Ryan Mathews at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,612,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]18[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Shonn Greene at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,233,333 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]19[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]BenJarvus Green-Ellis at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,000,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]20[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Ben Tate at Running Back[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$2,406,250[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]1[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Josh Scobee at Kicker[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,187,500 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Matt Prater at Kicker[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,812,500 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Stephen Gostkowski at Kicker[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,800,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]4[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Nick Folk at Kicker[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,600,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]5[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Mason Crosby at Kicker[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,400,000[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]1[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Mike Scifres at Punter[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$4,035,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Dustin Colquitt at Punter[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,800,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Brandon Fields at Punter[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,586,116 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]4[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Michael Koenen at Punter[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]$3,250,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]5[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Britton Colquitt at Punter[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]$3,250,000 [/SIZE]

 

[Da Guru]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

 

[mr roboto]

Outside of CJ.5K, that list at the top reflects production relatively well (Charles is definitely low).

 

[Spike]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

Williams? How about Jonathan Stewart?!

 

[jmo87usc]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

That's immediately what came to my mind. Stewart as well! I'm not sure how they worked the contracts, but I imagine they get stuck with major cap hits if they are released. And no one wants them in trade with those salaries. But you also never hear news about them trying to rework the contract in Carolina's favor. Maybe the agents know they have them by the balls? Crazy.

 

[msommer]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

That's immediately what came to my mind. Stewart as well! I'm not sure how they worked the contracts, but I imagine they get stuck with major cap hits if they are released. And no one wants them in trade with those salaries. But you also never hear news about them trying to rework the contract in Carolina's favor. Maybe the agents know they have them by the balls? Crazy.

DeAngelo reworked his contract last year ....

 

[Sweet Love]

I'll also add, whether you like it or not, every year (at least a couple of times) we witness a kicker go something like 5-5 in a 15-13 victory. Right now, GMs have realized that the kicker is too important of a position to be thought of as an afterthought, so the kicker compensation has jumped disproportionately in recent years as compared to other positions...frankly, it is why they are tinkering with rules to DEVALUE the position.

Conversely, with the rules that limit the DBs and it becoming a passing league, the value of the single bell-cow RB has diminished. We all know these facts, but it is the two occurring at the same time that are resulting in the RBs not getting paid in this round of FA.

One other factor that Bronco Billy pointed out, is that the top end RBs get paid waaay more than the top end Kickers...while the top end kickers don't make a ton, starting kicker #32 in the league this year (if not a rookie), will make fair coin, therefore creating a much smaller chasm in the pay rates of kickers versus running backs. In simple terms, starting RBs will make between $14.5 million and $500k, while starting kickers will make between $4 million and $500k.

 

[lod01]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay criminally underutilize Deangelo Williams top dollar .and his 4.8 ypc career average.

Fixed.

 

[John 14:6]

Why are RB paid like kickers and punters? I think there's a 75% chance it's due to subconscious racism...

 

[Riffraff]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

That's immediately what came to my mind. Stewart as well! I'm not sure how they worked the contracts, but I imagine they get stuck with major cap hits if they are released. And no one wants them in trade with those salaries. But you also never hear news about them trying to rework the contract in Carolina's favor. Maybe the agents know they have them by the balls? Crazy.

DeAngelo reworked his contract last year ....

And Stewart had his contract lowered just a month ago.

 

[CR69]

Why are RB paid like kickers and punters? I think there's a 75% chance it's due to subconscious racism...

The race card? Really? What about WRs and CBs, most of whom are black? How do you explain that?

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Why are RB paid like kickers and punters? I think there's a 75% chance it's due to subconscious racism...

The race card? Really? What about WRs and CBs, most of whom are black? How do you explain that?

Relax, he was just mocking another thread on page one of the SP.

 

[jmo87usc]

It is amazing the Panthers continue to pay Deangelo Williams top dollar.

That's immediately what came to my mind. Stewart as well! I'm not sure how they worked the contracts, but I imagine they get stuck with major cap hits if they are released. And no one wants them in trade with those salaries. But you also never hear news about them trying to rework the contract in Carolina's favor. Maybe the agents know they have them by the balls? Crazy.

DeAngelo reworked his contract last year ....

And Stewart had his contract lowered just a month ago.

I stand corrected on both. Thanks to both for clarifying.

 

[Tool]

The premise of this guy's aritcle is completetly cherry picking #'s. Top free agent signings have nothing to do with highest overall.

The six signed running backs from Around The League's original Top 101 free agents list will average $2.89 million annually under their new contracts. The NFL's six highest-paid punters will average $2.91 million in base salary for the 2014 season, per Spotrac.com.

 

[FUBAR]

Supply and demand. Simple as that.

 

[CR69]

Why are RB paid like kickers and punters? I think there's a 75% chance it's due to subconscious racism...

The race card? Really? What about WRs and CBs, most of whom are black? How do you explain that?

Relax, he was just mocking another thread on page one of the SP.

It's sad, I've read part of that thread and still missed the joke. Carry on...

 

[Faust]

Why the Big-Money Back Is a Vanishing Breed

 

[Faust]

The Devaluation of the NFL Running Back

 

[Faust]

How long can Peterson remain the exception to the devaluing of RBs?

 

[Faust]

Jim Brown doesn’t see many great runners in today’s NFLPosted by Michael David Smith on April 4, 2014, 2:00 PM EDT

As Jim Brown surveys the landscape of running backs in the modern NFL, he’s not particularly impressed.

Brown told the Northeast Ohio Media Group that the reason not many running backs are getting the ball 20 times a game — as he did during his Hall of Fame career with the Browns — is that there just aren’t very many great running backs in the NFL right now.

“Who are the running backs who aren’t getting the ball today who should be?” Brown said. “Adrian Peterson isn’t running by committee. Nobody is going to tell me Marshawn Lynch can’t run. He’s strong as an ox. I don’t have the answers, but it doesn’t bother me. I don’t measure things by the average, which I know writers would have to look at things the way they have to, but I don’t have to. I’m looking at the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. . . . As we sit here, I can’t name seven great runners. Can you?”

For the handful of runners who truly are great, however, Brown thinks it’s a shame when their teams don’t recognize their greatness and get them the ball as often as possible.

“I could never understand why they did that to Barry Sanders in Detroit,” Brown said. “I know that’s one of the reasons why he retired, because they took him out on third down and let someone else catch the ball. I thought they must be out of their mind because Barry is such a threat.”

How would Brown fare in today’s NFL?

“I believe if I were playing the game today, I would still get the ball as much as I did all those years ago,” Brown said.

The game has changed and running backs have been devalued since Brown retired half a century ago. But Jim Brown would be a great player in any era.

 

[KellysHeroes]

i said it before, one thing the NFL didn't consider (or care) when they began changing the rules around was how it would effect the RBs and their paydays. Grant it, in turn of the RBs losing their paydays the TE's are gaining theirs... but its still a little sickening that once 2nd most important offensive position is now an after thought. Think about the great teams of yester year,most of us can name the QB and RB on those teams because both positions were so important and went hand in hand. Now its the QB, his WRs and then oh yeah the guy that ran the ball every now and then.

If I was highly atheletic HS player and the coach wanted my to play RB the answer would be "no sir". Move me to WR or even LB because theirs more money / opp there.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

i said it before, one thing the NFL didn't consider (or care) when they began changing the rules around was how it would effect the RBs and their paydays. Grant it, in turn of the RBs losing their paydays the TE's are gaining theirs... but its still a little sickening that once 2nd most important offensive position is now an after thought. Think about the great teams of yester year,most of us can name the QB and RB on those teams because both positions were so important and went hand in hand. Now its the QB, his WRs and then oh yeah the guy that ran the ball every now and then.

If I was highly atheletic HS player and the coach wanted my to play RB the answer would be "no sir". Move me to WR or even LB because theirs more money / opp there.

Could you please say that out loud for the rest of the team to hear? Thank you for coming out, now go have a seat. Leave your helmet and pads, you won't be needing them.

 

[Bri]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

 

[Biabreakable]

From the Jim Brown article above-

I'm looking at the exceptions to the rule, not the rule . . . As we sit here today I can't name seven great (current) runners. Can you?

I think it is an interesting question. It never was clear to me who these 6 RB are before Brown runs out of ideas. What do you all think?

He only mentions Peterson and Lynch. Who would the other 4-5 be?

 

[cstu]

i said it before, one thing the NFL didn't consider (or care) when they began changing the rules around was how it would effect the RBs and their paydays. Grant it, in turn of the RBs losing their paydays the TE's are gaining theirs... but its still a little sickening that once 2nd most important offensive position is now an after thought. Think about the great teams of yester year,most of us can name the QB and RB on those teams because both positions were so important and went hand in hand. Now its the QB, his WRs and then oh yeah the guy that ran the ball every now and then.

If I was highly atheletic HS player and the coach wanted my to play RB the answer would be "no sir". Move me to WR or even LB because theirs more money / opp there.

Could you please say that out loud for the rest of the team to hear? Thank you for coming out, now go have a seat. Leave your helmet and pads, you won't be needing them.

No problem, see you when you guys play the school I'm transferring to.

 

[cstu]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

We've had a ton of top RB talent since AP that has been destroyed by injuries:

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, Wells, Moreno, Tate, Mathews, Best, Leshoure, Ryan Williams, Wilson.

 

[Bri]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

We've had a ton of top RB talent since AP that has been destroyed by injuries:

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, Wells, Moreno, Tate, Mathews, Best, Leshoure, Ryan Williams, Wilson.

those all seem similar to me...

 

[cstu]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

We've had a ton of top RB talent since AP that has been destroyed by injuries:

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, Wells, Moreno, Tate, Mathews, Best, Leshoure, Ryan Williams, Wilson.

those all seem similar to me...

A healthy McFadden was a dominant player. I'll argue that the most successful RB since 2009 (McCoy) is less talented than most of those guys.

 

[Wingnut]

From the Jim Brown article above-

I'm looking at the exceptions to the rule, not the rule . . . As we sit here today I can't name seven great (current) runners. Can you?

I think it is an interesting question. It never was clear to me who these 6 RB are before Brown runs out of ideas. What do you all think?He only mentions Peterson and Lynch. Who would the other 4-5 be?

IDK...Gore, Charles, McCoy, Forte, Morris?

 

[Bri]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

We've had a ton of top RB talent since AP that has been destroyed by injuries:

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, Wells, Moreno, Tate, Mathews, Best, Leshoure, Ryan Williams, Wilson.

those all seem similar to me...

A healthy McFadden was a dominant player. I'll argue that the most successful RB since 2009 (McCoy) is less talented than most of those guys.

What about Ingram and Bush? or Trent Richardson?Now I can't pretend to be able to explain why those three aren't the next greats, but this is my point-the talent is similar and I don't even know that there's a clear line between most team's #1 and #2 RB.

I used to really enjoy the debates when a starter got hurt and which backup would do well, and how well he'd do. It seems more plug N play now.

Remember how fortunate the Jets were to have Lamont Jordan backing up Curtis Martin? The Bucs were unique to have Warrick Dunn and Alstott. Thunder and Lightning.

I think it progressed to an overload at RB.

Tangent-

The one evolution type part of the sport that I totally don't agree with is how less important or less vital so many teams have made the FB seem. I don't know that if this were 20 years ago, we wouldn't have Trent Richardson the FB because he can definitely get out in front and make a block. Some FBs caught plenty of passes, Bush sure can but is more like a fancy 3rd down back used on more downs.

I loved the classic FB and some teams still have them- they are not "extinct" but it's not the same.

The last seven eight years, we average around 66 67 QBs to start each year. I do wonder if a FB around would lessen that number at all. I wish I had numbers from the previous decades to compare.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The NFL has seen an influx of similarly talented RBs.

Sure there's ADP and a top group, but after that there isn't a big disparity.

Think back to preseason and how many times we've debated how any of the three (or four) RBs on a roster could be their opening day starter. It used to be more clear cut where the starter was assured and the backup was being groomed. This used to be where we would whine they had no stud RB, but now we've accepted it as being normal.

We've had a ton of top RB talent since AP that has been destroyed by injuries:

McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, Wells, Moreno, Tate, Mathews, Best, Leshoure, Ryan Williams, Wilson.

those all seem similar to me...

A healthy McFadden was a dominant player. I'll argue that the most successful RB since 2009 (McCoy) is less talented than most of those guys.

What about Ingram and Bush? or Trent Richardson?Now I can't pretend to be able to explain why those three aren't the next greats, but this is my point-the talent is similar and I don't even know that there's a clear line between most team's #1 and #2 RB.

I used to really enjoy the debates when a starter got hurt and which backup would do well, and how well he'd do. It seems more plug N play now.

Remember how fortunate the Jets were to have Lamont Jordan backing up Curtis Martin? The Bucs were unique to have Warrick Dunn and Alstott. Thunder and Lightning.

I think it progressed to an overload at RB.

Tangent-

The one evolution type part of the sport that I totally don't agree with is how less important or less vital so many teams have made the FB seem. I don't know that if this were 20 years ago, we wouldn't have Trent Richardson the FB because he can definitely get out in front and make a block. Some FBs caught plenty of passes, Bush sure can but is more like a fancy 3rd down back used on more downs.

I loved the classic FB and some teams still have them- they are not "extinct" but it's not the same.

The last seven eight years, we average around 66 67 QBs to start each year. I do wonder if a FB around would lessen that number at all. I wish I had numbers from the previous decades to compare.

Quarterbacks are healthier than ever (well, at least in 2012): http://www.footballperspective.com/quarterbacks-were-healthier-than-ever-in-2012/

 

[Chase Stuart]

Running backs are not being paid like kickers and punters: http://thebiglead.com/2014/04/01/running-backs-have-not-become-less-desirable-than-kickers-in-the-nfl/

 

[Bri]

Quarterbacks are healthier than ever (well, at least in 2012): http://www.footballperspective.com/quarterbacks-were-healthier-than-ever-in-2012/

that's interesting. I guess to get to 66 several teams used 3 QBs

 

[Faust]

Inside Slant: Running back cliff after age 27

 

[Faust]

Chris Johnson's plight: A hard truth for modern running backs

By Judy Battista

NFL Media reporter

By now it is plain what is happening to Chris Johnson, and what has happened to many running backs this offseason.

The three-time Pro Bowl back has been devalued, his 28-year-old legs being viewed with about the same trepidation and suspicion as the uneven ones on a wobbly table. Maybe they can be managed with some care, but you're probably going to want to move on pretty quickly.

There are special circumstances for Johnson, who was released by the Tennessee Titans one week ago after the team couldn't find a trade partner. He is more of an outside runner. So, ideally, he should go to a team that has good offensive tackles. But eventually, Johnson will be signed (although likely not for big money). Even though running backs famously decline at his age with as much swiftness as they once tore through defenses, Johnson -- whose breathtaking speed still holds the NFL Scouting Combine record in the 40-yard dash -- retains the promise of a breakaway play. There are enough teams -- like the New York Jets, one of the most logical destinations for him -- that could use him to give desperately needed burst even if that explosiveness comes only about as frequently as a backyard firecracker.

A personnel executive from one team said that Johnson's long wait for a new job is likely as much about Johnson in particular as it is about how the game is played today.

"I think it could be both," he said. "But also the guy was making high money, and I'd bet his asking price was too high initially and now he's realizing his market isn't there anymore."

The cold shoulder Johnson has received, though, says even more about the big picture in football, even beyond the NFL. This isn't about Johnson or veteran running backs who have endured heavy workloads. This is about the inexorable diminution of the running game itself and all the parts that go with it.

There wasn't a running back taken in the first round of the 2013 NFL Draft and there almost certainly won't be one taken next month either -- but it goes much further than that. The result is that even those who enviously watch the Seattle Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers run their way to the very top of the NFL might not be able to find the pieces to emulate them, even if they bucked every trend in the game to try.

When Gil Brandt was working as a personnel maven for the Dallas Cowboys, team president Tex Schramm walked into his office one night after the first week of games in 1977. Schramm was on the Competition Committee then, and his question to Brandt was loaded with implications: "Did you see the scoring this week?" Brandt had seen it and what it showed was a dearth of touchdowns. Nine teams had scored seven points or fewer.

By the next year, the committee had put forward rules changes that have shaped everything about football since, from the contracts professional quarterbacks receive to how youth football is played on the school yard. Offensive linemen were allowed to extend their arms in pass blocking and defenders could not engage a receiver after five yards. The outsize passing numbers, the 7-on-7 football leagues that now dominate the youth game -- they all spring from those rules put in place that year.

The change was nearly immediate. In 1977, NFL teams averaged 25 pass attempts and 37.4 rushes per game. By 1980, it was 30.6 and 32.1. By 1984, teams averaged more passes than runs, and the NFL has not looked back since.

One perhaps unintended consequence was that pass protection became the primary focus of offensive linemen, in many cases to the near exclusion of run blocking. Big, tall players with long arms -- who perhaps were too short to be basketball power forwards -- were funneled toward the offensive line, where their reach and height made them better suited for pass protection than for the lower-to-the-ground run blocking. And when colleges -- and then high schools -- abandoned their traditional running games to follow the NFL toward the pass, the cycle was complete and run blocking was largely washed out of the system.

Contemporary college linemen so rarely run block that they are difficult to evaluate. Paul Alexander, the longtime Cincinnati Bengals offensive line coach, told me five years ago that to evaluate O-line prospects, NFL coaches and scouts will often only watch goal-line tape because it is more likely to involve run plays than passes. And NFL offensive line coaches now must teach run blocking to those who have never performed it.

"There's guys in the league who can pass block but can't run block," Alexander told me then, for a story in The New York Times. "There is nobody playing in the league who can run block but can't pass protect."

The consequence: There simply aren't enough offensive linemen proficient enough in run blocking to go around, and certainly not enough to power a league full of copycat teams who eye Seattle's success with Marshawn Lynch.

"There just aren't enough offensive linemen that are skilled enough to play with," Brandt said.

And so the cycle feeds itself. Whereas once the running game was dominant at the earliest entry points to the game -- it is, after all, still easier to hand off than to accurately throw, and the wishbone attack was still prevalent in college not all that long ago -- the pass has become such a focal point that the athletes who might once have been running backs are instead being moved to other positions, so that they too can flourish in the sophisticated offenses that are run at the high school levels. And, Brandt says, because college defenses are so fast and so sophisticated now, it makes it even harder for college offenses to run.

The end result is apparent in a quick look at the 2013 season. Teams averaged just 27.1 rushes per game, the lowest figure in recorded history, according to Pro-Football-Reference.com, which tracks the numbers back to 1932. Meanwhile, teams averaged 35.4 pass attempts per game, the most ever. And offenses averaged 23.4 points per game, another all-time high. The pressure to score, combined with the lack of resources to produce consistent and plentiful running attacks, almost certainly means the future Chris Johnsons of the world won't fare any better on the open market than he is -- even if some coaches long to exploit defenses that are getting progressively smaller and quicker to stop the pass.

Still, Johnson had a pretty good run, considering he eclipsed 2,000 yards in 2009. Adrian Peterson did it in 2012. But the historical evolution detailed above raises an obvious question: When will the NFL have another 2,000-yard rusher?

It seems foolish to declare that it will never happen again, no matter how much the talent and the rules tilt toward the pass. But it almost certainly will take an outlier of a running back who happens to fall into the perfect confluence of circumstances with his team to do it. It would take a coach willing to use a run-first offense, with a defense constructed to win close games, and likely with a middling -- or at least unproven -- quarterback. Ironically, that is how the Jets were constructed when they went to two consecutive AFC Championship Games under Rex Ryan. If they land Johnson, perhaps it will be the way they are built again.

But a look at the statistics shows that a 2,000-yard rusher is going to be as rare as a three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offensive coordinator. When Johnson and Peterson broke the 2,000-yard mark, they each averaged more than 20 attempts per game. In 2013, only one running back in the entire league did: Doug Martin of Tampa Bay. And that might only have been because he played in just the first six games before suffering a season-ending injury. Even the NFL's leading rusher -- LeSean McCoy, who plays in a Chip Kelly offense that easily led the league in rushing -- averaged just 19.6 carries. Marshawn Lynch, Seattle's workhorse back, averaged 18.8.

And those numbers are far greater than anything posted by the younger backs who received multi-year contracts in free agency this offseason. At 27, Toby Gerhart and Joique Bell are just one year younger than Johnson. But neither has absorbed the blows of a primary running back. Gerhart has logged only one season with more than 100 rushes, and last year he ran just 36 times. Bell had 166 rushes last year, but just 248 total in his NFL tenure.

Their careers will look much different than Johnson's, of course. As different as the landscape of the running game must look to Johnson right now.

Follow Judy Battista on Twitter @judybattista.

 

[Faust]

Beasts still roam in backfield: Demise of RBs in NFL greatly exaggeratedGreg Cosell

Can anyone, relatively speaking, play running back for the Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks and have the same success as Marshawn Lynch? If you believe this to be true, then you are among the many who subscribe to the notion that the running back position is significantly devalued in the NFL. If you don't believe that to be the case, then you would have a more difficult time arguing that running backs have a reduced value in today's NFL.

There are not many who would argue that Lynch was the offensive foundation of the Seahawks in each of the last two seasons. The players will tell you that. He has averaged almost 20 carries per game in both 2012 and 2013. Lynch is a classic between-the-tackles pounder who gets 6 yards, or more, when his offensive line blocked for 3 yards. He can run effectively in any offensive formation, whether it's base personnel (multiple backs and/or tight ends), or three- and four-wide receiver sets, with Russell Wilson in the spread shotgun. Lynch is a complete runner with no limitations.

There are not many runners with those full complement of attributes. The bottom line: the Seahawks won a Super Bowl with the running game as the starting point, and Lynch as the tempo setter. Yes, they had a great defense, and there's no question that allows you to stay committed to the run, but the point is the process, the approach, the belief that running the ball with commitment and power is a viable way to win championships in the NFL.

Another point to consider about a running back: the value of his quarterback's ability to stress a defense with his legs in a base running game that includes designed runs that have either a boot action or an option element. How does that factor in to the success of an individual back? Does that diminish his accomplishments and lead you to answer the initial question affirmatively, that many could have achieved what Lynch has done in Seattle?

Regardless of your answer, the Seahawks were built as a team. They did not blindly follow the gospel that the NFL is a passing league in which all begins and ends with their QB turning it loose. They were not dependent on Wilson throwing for 300 yards on a weekly basis. Their team was not structured that way. Wilson threw for more than 300 yards just twice all season (none in the playoffs), and he did not exceed the 200-yard mark seven times in 19 games. He was efficient and largely mistake-free within their framework. The caveat, of course, and it may be just as important to the Seahawks' success as Lynch and the league's number No. 1-ranked defense, was Wilson's ability to extend plays with his legs, to break down the structure and discipline of the defense, especially on third down. How much is that aspect of the quarterback's game an indispensable piece of this winning paradigm?

Lynch possesses all the traits you look for in a feature back. He's both powerful and elusive. The powerful part is the most critical and often overlooked. In the NFL, there's a marked difference between running tough and physical, and strong and powerful. That distinction separates backs at the NFL level. You cannot consistently and successfully run inside, out of base personnel and base formations on a weekly basis, without a power element to your game (For those thinking LeSean McCoy, it's not the same. He ran predominantly out of spread formations, which dramatically changes the mandates and the skills for the back). That's why you have to think long and hard about whether you believe Lynch is an interchangeable back within the context of the Seahawks' template.

This, of course, leads to the now annual question of the value of running backs in the NFL draft. From 1963 through 2012, at least one running back had been selected in the first round of the draft. Last year, that did not happen, the consensus being that the position holds less importance to winning in today's NFL. It's a passing league, blah, blah, blah. It's ingrained in us, especially at this time of year, when philosophical discussions are the order of the day. How would Seattle feel about the declining value of the running back? Or perhaps San Francisco, generally regarded as the second best team in the NFL? Colin Kaepernick threw for less than 200 yards in 12 of his 18 games. Is that the formula for winning we're often told about?

You can always find good players in later rounds in any draft. Simply because that's true (Frank Gore was the first pick of the third round back in 2005) does not justify the argument that the position has lesser or limited value to NFL teams. And remember that coaches almost always see things differently than scouts and personnel people. If coaches want to run the ball with commitment and consistency, and more important, build their offense around the run game, they need a specific back to execute the plan each week. There are always examples of teams having success over a short period with certain backs, like New England with LeGarrette Blount late in the season in 2013. People point to Knowshon Moreno as the prime example for the decreased value, and by extension the relative unimportance of running backs, in the NFL. He rushed for over 1,000 yards and caught 60 passes for an additional 548 yards, and he was not in high demand in free agency. That fueled the argument that backs are duplicates, indistinguishable from one another, and therefore less valuable.

That misses the point, or more accurately, makes the point. Do you believe that either Blount or Moreno could be Lynch in Seattle? Moreno is the more telling profile. He was the 12th overall pick in the 2009 draft, selected with the expectation that he would be a foundation back. He did not become that kind of player, and perhaps few speak to that distinction between tough and physical, and strong and powerful better than Moreno. His success in Denver last season came primarily out of three-wide receiver sets; in fact, 80 percent of his carries had three or four wide receivers on the field. There are many more backs capable of producing numbers in that offense than in a more conventional base offense with the physical demands it places on power and sustainability. Lynch is that back. The reality is there are not many like him.

Will teams think differently about the model for success given the Seahawks and the 49ers? Remember Wilson was a third-round pick, and Kaepernick a second (I guess that means quarterbacks can be selected in later rounds; maybe their draft value will also be declining). Will they attempt to build "teams" rather than putting all the focus on "maybe" quarterbacks? Is it back to the future: run the ball, play good defense, with the quarterback the only nod to the new era?

Sound like the Seahawks? They're the Super Bowl champions.

 

[Faust]

Agent's Take: The extinction of the high-priced running back

 

[Faust]

DeMarco Murray, draft class hurt by running back devaluation

 

[Faust]

Why the glamour running back isn't coming back in a QB-driven NFL:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pete-prisco/25281270/why-the-glamour-running-back-isnt-coming-back-in-a-qb-driven-nfl