It’s gross for guys like Stevenson. 4th round pick making peanuts for 4 years. Then he will get short changed on his 2nd contract in relation to what a mid line WR will get. Hunter Renfrow is a perfect example. One good season and he gets 16 million on his 2nd contract.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
RB Saquon Barkley, PHI (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
That is because WRs contribute to increasing team wins. RBs do not.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Username checks out
Drunken Cowboy
Footballguy
There are plenty of websites where you can educate yourself on modern NFL football, but generally running the ball is counterproductive to winning. A team should run the ball just enough to make lbers respect playaction.Username checks out
Furthermore rbs mean very little to running successfully. It amazes me that anyone who plays fantasy football doesn't understand this. When a star rb goes down the handcuff is pretty much always great. The QB means much more to RB ypa than a RB does
zamboni
Footballguy
I would say the OL means just as much, but I agree overall. LT was the last RB I remember who could thrive regardless of the state of the OL. and create tons of yards on his own.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Even Henry struggled when the line was destroyed. But he does fairly well with average OL play.
Ultimately if the RB is also a good receiver he’ll generally do alright with a bad line.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Try googling “strawman fallacy.” That sums up what’s going on here quite well.There are plenty of websites where you can educate yourself on modern NFL football, but generally running the ball is counterproductive to winning. A team should run the ball just enough to make lbers respect playaction.Username checks out
Furthermore rbs mean very little to running successfully. It amazes me that anyone who plays fantasy football doesn't understand this. When a star rb goes down the handcuff is pretty much always great. The QB means much more to RB ypa than a RB does
pinkstapler
Footballguy
A start could be making rookie RB contracts 3 years instead of 4, taking away the extra year team option on 1st round RB picks, and not allowing them to be tagged against their will. It won't immediately solve the issue, but I think it will help. Feels like a happy medium where you aren't directly forcing teams to pay them more, but bolstering what is obviously a very weak market on them. Especially with regards to the tag. Not calling collusion here; but it goes without saying the tag system only works when the market valuation is fair. When all teams are agreeing (collectively or individually whatever) to not pay RBs, them getting tagged is almost punitive.
And sure, teams don't need a stud RB to win a championship, but it doesn't hurt. And teams that don't have one normally have to make up for it by having larger committees using up more roster spaces on the position. Since the cost there is also negligible it's an easy choice. If we also increase the market value on them, it will raise the prices of RB contracts across the board and teams may have a tougher decision. It could become cheaper to pay one RB a top 8 salary, than 3 RBs a top 20 salary. Right now their decision is fairly easy, especially if it's a rookie RB in the draft they can pay peanuts for 4, if not 5, years. The way the system is currently designed, it's encouraging organizations to continue making the same decisions which will in turn continue devaluing the RB position. A negative spiral that will eventually come with some bad consequences.
And sure, teams don't need a stud RB to win a championship, but it doesn't hurt. And teams that don't have one normally have to make up for it by having larger committees using up more roster spaces on the position. Since the cost there is also negligible it's an easy choice. If we also increase the market value on them, it will raise the prices of RB contracts across the board and teams may have a tougher decision. It could become cheaper to pay one RB a top 8 salary, than 3 RBs a top 20 salary. Right now their decision is fairly easy, especially if it's a rookie RB in the draft they can pay peanuts for 4, if not 5, years. The way the system is currently designed, it's encouraging organizations to continue making the same decisions which will in turn continue devaluing the RB position. A negative spiral that will eventually come with some bad consequences.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
The highest paid running back on a Super Bowl winning team over the last 15 SBs was Percy Harvin for Seattle at $2.5 million - in 2009. Only two other teams, 2012 Ravens and 2020 TB, had an RB make $2 million.
Cap space is better utilized elsewhere. But by all means, as an Eagles fan I'd love to see the Giants invest $12-15 million a year in one RB for the next few years. Just like I loved it when Dallas spent all the money on Zeke.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
Not trying to come off as snarky, but I'm honestly not sure why you quoted me lol. I never negated or argued anything you put in your reply, nor did you really respond to anything in my post haha. Unless you are arguing having a good RB hinders a team, which I'm fairly certain you're not doing as it would be pretty asinine. The argument being made by me is the RB position as a whole is being undervalued and I've posited that it's at least partly due to a systemic issue in the way rookie contracts work along with the tagging system. A good chunk of their high level playing career can be dragged out being paid very little, and with few if any guaranteed monies beyond the year they are currently playing (and at a position which is historically one of the least durable and most prone to injuries; especially injuries which can derail or completely end a career and their earning potential).
What I can only assume is the argument you're trying to make (which again, is not the one I was talking about) is how high cost 2nd contracts to RBs have come back to bite teams and often isn't worth it. But if we do look at that, the argument actually cuts both ways when we simply ask "why?" It's because high end RB talent tends to be short lived and fall off quickly. So sure that reinforces the stance teams need to be cautious about investing highly in a 26 year old RB on a 2nd contract (if it's smart for them to do it at all). But at the same time shines a light on the drastically limited earning potential for a shortened RB career as compared to the other positions. Which is exactly why I made the suggestions I did in my initial post. One of the better solution seems to be creating a different structure for the RB position which takes into consideration their shorter shelf life and reduced earning potential. I'd think this is important to the NFL as a business as fans still like watching RBs on the field, especially playing at a high level, and they also still need college talent to desire to play that position and fill those roles in an offense. Of course someone could take the stance of "who gives a hoot, teams gonna do what they gonna do" or "it's the CBA they agreed on" or any other litany of flawed logic arguments, but that contributes nothing to the discussion being put forth. At least not what I made my comment on.
If I were going to argue against your reply, I'd say it's overly simplified and likely overlooks a lot of other important factors. For one, we could say it's not even only unique to RBs, as it's often also pointed out how important it is to make your SB run when your QB is on his rookie deal; as once you have to pay him big bucks it really puts a stranglehold on the cap that's left to not only support him with offensive weapons, but also to put up a good enough defense to make deep playoff runs. A much more exaggerated retort could make an argument like "No Super Bowl contending team has ever had a black kicker, so it's just not worth the risk of rostering one." It follows the same oversimplified, and likely arbitrary, framework attempting to show correlations which may have absolutely nothing to do with the root cause at all; and standing alone give little extraneous support to that. Kind of a mix of post hoc and false cause fallacies.
Just off the top of my head:
-Seahawks didn’t win the Super Bowl in 2009
-Percy Harvin was never the starting RB for a Super Bowl winning team.
-Marshawn Lynch was the starting RB for Seattle in 2013 and he had signed a nice contract in 2012. Believe he was marking in the 8 million a year range.
I’m sure you have made several other mistakes if I care to fact check it.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
A Super Bowl Seattle may have won if they just handed it to that highly paid RB, but I guess we'll never know
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Wouldn't that make them even less valuable from a draft position standpoint? They'd be starting off in a bigger hole as day three picks.
Either handed to Lynch or faked to Lynch and thrown to someone who would probably have been wide open in the end zone. But hey, let’s throw a slant into the middle of the defenseA Super Bowl Seattle may have won if they just handed it to that highly paid RB, but I guess we'll never know
A chance to go back to back.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I bolded the part of your post I was replying to. Not arguing, just disagreeing with the bolded. It hasn't helped.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
And Lynch made way more than 2 million when Seattle won in 2013.
Also, Ray Rice had signed a 7 million dollar contract in 2012 when the Ravens won.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
It certainly could sure; but 1. I think the payoff of being able to get a new contract after 3 years with no risk of being tagged (unless they wanted to play under a tag) would outweigh that. I'm no contract expert either, but I'd think money off a second contract would exceed what they'd make in a rookie contract. and 2. The fact all the data currently shows it does not pay to draft RBs in the first round (even when taking into consideration the 4 year contract, the 5th year option, and the ability to tag) teams still do it even against our own expectations. It wasn't a huge surprise Bijan went in the first, but certainly was that he went as early as he did (increasing his rookie contract money). And Gibbs going in the first at all was a shock (at least to me) based on how much of a statistical outlier he needs to be to hit. I guess this needs to be taken with a grain of salt as I largely look at this information through a dynasty/fantasy lens whereas these teams only care about how they effect their real world football teams. But I'd think the changes overall wouldn't have a ton of negative impact on the super elite RBs typically going in the 1st; and that the net results for RBs across the board would be an overall positive. Obviously complete speculation on my part.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
How many other SB winning teams in the last 10, 15 years had a highly paid RB? Do you think a rebuilding team like NY should tie up $12-15 million in a RB?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The Giants are rebuilding? I could have sworn they won a playoff game last year - and then went out and signed some players this offseason.
Ray Rice was making 7 million in 2012 when the Ravens won, so that was another mistake in your post.
You said no team had had a RB making more than 2 million. You were wrong.
As far as the Giants, they made the playoffs last year so not sure they are “rebuilding”. What I will say is they will miss what Barkley brings to the offense. To suggest Brieda and Gray will not be a big drop off and the Giants offense won’t take a step back is way off base.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Improving team then. They're not in the top15 favored to win the SB.
Do you think they tie up $12 million for a RB?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
OK, so my source was wrong. I posted my link. How many of the top teams have money tied up in the RBs? I'll give you SF, who traded for McCaffery.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I think they already tied up over $10MM with the franchise tag, so yeah.
Not sure what betting odds have to do with the Giants plans? Do you think teams that have long odds to win the SuperBowl just give up?
So they won’t be a better team with Barkley than without?
They probably won’t win a Super Bowl until they upgrade at QB. Even the 49ers with a really good roster couldn’t get over the top with Garoppolo at QB. However, with a strong running game, the Giants chances are better with Barkley than without.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
The tag is for one year. Do you think multi-year, big money RB contracts have helped or hurt teams over the long haul?
No, I don't think they give up. "Rebuild" was the wrong word.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Like anything, it depends, but generally big money RB contracts haven't shown great returns. Two seasons is technically "multi-year", but seems a bit disingenuous to phrase it that way. Two seasons of paying a guy, that was most of their offense on a team that won a playoff game, hardly seems franchise killing. Honestly the Jones contract has a much better chance of ruining the franchise.
If you're asking whether the Giants have a better shot with Barkley in the backfield than with Breida or Gray, that answer seems obvious to me.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I agree with the QB statement, 100%. Where do you rank the importance of a top RB in building a championship caliber team?
QB, O line, DE, WRs, D line, CB, Safety...Where does RB fit in?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
For '23, absolutely. But the question is should they give him a 3/4 year deal at $12-$15 million per. I believe the trend will show they shouldn't. It hasn't been important to building a championship team and will most likely be a hinderance. Do you think Dallas was happy with Zeke's contract after the first season? RB just isn't where championship teams invest heavily.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
This is a stretch of logic and relies on some of my fuzzy (likely bad) math lol; but really the "bad value drafting a RB high in the first round/in the first round at all" is also based on the fact RB salaries are already low. EG. When taking into account initial cap hit and signing bonuses as they are broken down over the life of the contract, and then looking at average salaries of the top players at those positions; taking a rookie RB early first equates to basically paying a top 5 RB value based on veteran salaries. On a questionable rookie, this is a big gamble. Guards, centers, and tight ends have a similar negative comparison. Whereas QBs, WRs, and tackles equate roughly out to top 15-20 positional value. Edge rushers have traditionally been the best bang for your buck drafted early, as if they hit, you have them locked up at far under what the other top players at their position make.
You could pull out Tom Smykowski's "jump to conclusions" mat and potentially make the case that by increasing veteran RB value, it increases their baseline contracts especially for the top players, which then in turn actually makes it better value to gamble drafting them earlier; as now the rookie wage scaling is a better deal compared to what current top RB contracts are worth.
Skipping past the Bijan part at the top; this article likely does a better job explaining the impact of positional draft value with reference to rookie wage scale vs. top level veteran salaries
Amused to Death
Footballguy
What's the easiest position in the NFL to replace? The running back, if we exclude punters, kickers, and long snappers. And I'm not really sure about the kickers and long snappers.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It seems you change the goal-posts each time you reply. You went from two years to now 4 years. I think I'm done replying now.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Where did I say 2 years? My entire point has been that its not smart team building giving an RB large, multi-year contracts and that the vast majority of modern day Super Bowl winning teams have not had one.
Only a few of '23's odds-on favorites have a high priced RB, and one them (Dallas) is only for 1 year.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
It's just my opinion, but reading between the lines what is holding up Barkley on the contract is not the length, but the guaranteed money. Being tagged this year and next would make Barkley roughly $22 million. I'd guess he's currently telling the Giants he won't accept a contract with anything less than $23 million guaranteed. Which I'd say makes complete sense. Sure we've heard they offered him $14 million per year, but if there's less than $22 million guaranteed, or a negligible amount more across a contract longer than 2 years, why would he ever accept that?
zamboni
Footballguy
I still contend something like this may make both sides happy, giving Barkley security and not strapping the Giants’ cap situation over the next few years.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You edited your post.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I have not followed Barkley's contract negotiations. I'm sure he wants the security of a multi-year deal and the guaranteed money that comes with it. If he's injured this year he may not even get next year's tag. So I fully understand his position. All I'm saying is that it is probably not a good long-term decision for the Giants to give it to him.
The Giants need to invest in their O line. A good/great O line goes a long way at making average RBs look good. And really an average RB is all teams have needed to win championships, generally speaking. Yes, I'm sure there have been exceptions.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I have made edits to correct spelling (I'm kind of anal that way), but I assure you none of them involved changing the number of years I have been discussing.You edited your post.
ETA the "to" before "correct".
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
ok - look at my response where I said "Two seasons is technically "multi-year", but seems a bit disingenuous to phrase it that way" in response to you saying 2 years at $12-15 million in that post.I have made edits to correct spelling (I'm kind of anal that way), but I assure you none of them involved changing the number of years I have been discussing.You edited your post.
ETA the "to" before "correct".
I'm surely done replying to you now.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Your faulty memory aside, do you think a multi-year (3/4 years) is a smart investment for the NYGs?ok - look at my response where I said "Two seasons is technically "multi-year", but seems a bit disingenuous to phrase it that way" in response to you saying 2 years at $12-15 million in that post.I have made edits to correct spelling (I'm kind of anal that way), but I assure you none of them involved changing the number of years I have been discussing.You edited your post.
ETA the "to" before "correct".
I'm surely done replying to you now.
ETA: perhaps the mods can find an archived version of my post you're referring to?
The Big Donkey
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
The reality is that other than QB, there is a ton of randomness to it and there is no single player that can make a significant impact on a team's success. Beyond QB, it's all about putting together a collection of good players and a good scheme that they excel in.
I wish I could find the thread but a few years ago in a similar discussion I ran some of the numbers on correlation between having top players at each position and wins. Surprisingly, after QB, punter was actually the position that had the highest correlation between good players and team wins. Kicker and TE were both near the top as well. DE pretty randomly in the middle if I recall.
The reality is there is just no way to know. I know there are all kinds of deep analytics on it but they seem like a huge stretch to me. There are just so many variables and trying to quantify that kind of thing is like trying to quantify how many Super Bowls each would have won if Brady played for the Colts and Peyton for the Patriots. It would be awesome if we could go to an alternative universe and see, but no matter how many absurdly complicated analytics they invent to try and figure it out we'll just never know.
There are anecdotes but they're useless. People say the last 10 super bowl champs haven't had a great RB or whatever, but those anecdotes exist all over the place. The last 15 CBs drafted in the top 10 have something like 1 career playoff win (I could be misremembering that, the exact stat was in a much more recent thread about this, less than 2 months ago probably). The Chiefs were 12-5, then got rid of Tyreek Hill and went 14-3 and won the Super Bowl without him.
The reality is the anecdotes (and likely even the stats) are probably a lot more correlation than causation, especially with such small sample sizes. The Patriots have like 35% of the Super Bowls in recent history and they don't pay RBs, so right off the bat that's a bunch of recent SB winners without a RB. I don't think the Pats would have magically been an 8-8 team if they'd paid a RB. As we've seen recently, the only thing that really mattered was whether or not they had Tom Brady.
And the anecdotes continue on that front, as beyond QB most people think far and away the two most important positions are DE/OT. But the Browns had 15 years of Joe Thomas with nothing to show for it. And Miles Garrett makes no impact on the difference between the Browns being great or being terrible. The only time they've been good the last 15 years is when they had great QB play. When they didn't, it didn't really matter at all that they had the best OT in the league or the best edge rusher in the league.
I don't think teams mind paying good money for an elite RB, they just don't want to get stuck in a longer term deal where they're stuck paying good money for an over the hill RB that fell off a cliff. I think it's the career length and sudden dropoff guys can have more than the impact of the position. You'd have a hard time convincing me that Corey Davis or Hunter Renfrow would be a better way to spend $15M this year than Saquon Barkley. The Giants just don't want to be stuck paying Saquon that when the cliff comes.
Last edited:
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Marshawn was the leading rusher that season. Just not in the actual Super Bowl. Harvin had 2 carries for 45 yards that game.
Marshawn rushed for 1257 yards and 12 TDs that year. He was a beast.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Right, total agreement with the bolded. So if they commit $12-$15 mil for next few years, they definitely run that risk. $10 mil for '23? Sure. Its the long term deal that generally does not bode well. Does anyone think the deal Zeke got in Dallas was a smart decision on Jerry's part? Hell, I was happy they did it. Tie up that money in an RB - it doesn't win championships.
With your analysis you mentioned and the QB, punter(??), etc. being the best investments, where did RB fall?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Yeah I think where I made a mistake was reading the chart as being for the season whereas it was only for the SB game itself. I should have found a better source and I acknowledge that. Still, I think my overall point regarding the importance of the RB in a championship team stands.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
While this thread, Running Backs Don't Matter 101, was started relative to the draft, many of the same thoughts apply here. The modern day NFL has devalued the RB position.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Since we know with these studies (and others) that running backs have very little influence on the success of a running game, and that running game success has little impact on winning games, the argument moves to the passing game.
Does a RB matter if he can be a pass catcher?
Well, in this study, Eric Eager (again) shows that passes thrown to RBs are the less efficient, less valuable, and less stable year over year, than targets to any other position.
The Frankman
Footballguy
did... did you literally quote your own post?
Dude there's an edit and delete post feature. You could have done that in one post...
Dude there's an edit and delete post feature. You could have done that in one post...
eighsse2
Footballguy
True. But there's also a quote feature!
