Running Backs Don't Matter 101 (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Matt Miller @nfldraftscout
Been saying it for years:

1. Draft a RB
2. Play the RB

…if he's good…

3. Franchise tag the RB ONE TIME

…and then…

1. Draft a RB…

https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1680993426760761344?s=21

Jonathan Taylor @JayT23
1. If you’re good enough, they’ll find you.

2. If you work hard enough, you’ll succeed.

…If you succeed…

3. You boost the Organization

…and then…

Doesn’t matter, you’re a RB

https://twitter.com/jayt23/status/1681068459877187584?s=21

Austin Ekeler @AustinEkeler

This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.

https://twitter.com/austinekeler/status/1681065124772352001?s=21

 

[wgoldsph]

Austin Ekeler @AustinEkeler

This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.

https://twitter.com/austinekeler/status/1681065124772352001?s=21

Ekler might want to look at the recent superbowl teams. Maybe just teams that have made the playoffs

 

[Boston]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

Nailed it...on the flipside some positions have had their values increased (some dramatically)...like the real-world jobs change over time and right now with how the NFL plays football and with the glut of talent at the position it just is what it is.

 

[Amused to Death]

Austin Ekeler @AustinEkeler

This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.

https://twitter.com/austinekeler/status/1681065124772352001?s=21

Ekler might want to look at the recent superbowl teams. Maybe just teams that have made the playoffs

Exactly. The Eagles are one of the teams with the best odds of winning this year, and have an RB room collectively making $4 million.

ETA: in fact, evidence may show that its now harder to build a championship team with a high priced RB.

 

[pinkstapler]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

Nailed it more lol.

 

[humpback]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

Why is that a problem?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The pendulum has swung too far. They have more value then they're currently getting. Guys like Barkley and Henry are still worth more then 10/yr. And the better RBs DO carry value into their 5th, 6th and 7 seasons. HIt on a a 1st or 2nd rounder and the 6 or 7 years you can get are just fine. Absurd to believe you NEED to be able to get 10-12 years out of any pick.

It will shift back sooner or later (some....the RB heyday is certainly gone in this pass happy league)

It does feel like the reevaluation of the RB position has gone a little overboard. Obviously it was stupid for Ditka to trade away his entire draft for Ricky Williams. Obviously it was stupid for the Jets to give Le'Veon Bell a bunch of money. But it seems to me that something has gone wrong when PKs are out-earning RBs. The whole "no RBs in the first round" thing has gone too far also -- there are quite a few teams drafting in the 20s each year who could pretty clearly benefit from a RB on a rookie contract. I think a smart team could identify a modest arbitrage opportunity here.

 

[Grahamburn]

The whole "no RBs in the first round" thing has gone too far also -- there are quite a few teams drafting in the 20s each year who could pretty clearly benefit from a RB on a rookie contract. I think a smart team could identify a modest arbitrage opportunity here.

The data just doesn't bear that out, and when you consider the opportunity cost involved with hitting on that pick in the 20s if you draft any position other than RB the gap widens even more. I'd much rather have a QB, DT, DE, OL, WR, or even a TE with that pick in the 20's. Your bust chance is equal, but if you hit on any of those positions you save yourself so much more money having them on their rookie deal than you do a RB. RBs are clearly available for cheap in free agency every single year. Other positions aren't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The whole "no RBs in the first round" thing has gone too far also -- there are quite a few teams drafting in the 20s each year who could pretty clearly benefit from a RB on a rookie contract. I think a smart team could identify a modest arbitrage opportunity here.

The data just doesn't bear that out, and when you consider the opportunity cost involved with hitting on that pick in the 20s if you draft any position other than RB the gap widens even more. I'd much rather have a QB, DT, DE, OL, WR, or even a TE with that pick in the 20's. Your bust chance is equal, but if you hit on any of those positions you save yourself so much more money having them on their rookie deal than you do a RB. RBs are clearly available for cheap in free agency every single year. Other positions aren't.

I'm thinking specifically here of teams drafting toward the end of the first round who are widely perceived as SB contenders. Those teams generally won't benefit from drafting QBs, DEs, DTs, etc. that late -- there's not a lot of immediate-impact talent sitting on the board at those positions. But a RB drafted at, say, 25 overall can come right in and start for a contender. That's just not true at most other positions, depending on the team of course.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the league was wrong to devalue the RB position. It was clearly an error for NYG to draft Barkley that high, and I tend to agree that no RB should go in the top 10 period, kind of like safeties and guards. I just think people have gone a little overboard with this.

 

[travdogg]

Austin Ekeler @AustinEkeler

This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.

https://twitter.com/austinekeler/status/1681065124772352001?s=21

Ekler might want to look at the recent superbowl teams. Maybe just teams that have made the playoffs

Exactly. The Eagles are one of the teams with the best odds of winning this year, and have an RB room collectively making $4 million.

ETA: in fact, evidence may show that its now harder to build a championship team with a high priced RB.

Interestingly a backfield with 2 top-35 draft picks too.

 

[Rookiefever]

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

 

[eighsse2]

Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine

Ding ding ding

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine

Ding ding ding

Sometimes

 

[eighsse2]

Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine

Ding ding ding

Sometimes

A great counterexample.

 

[BigJim®]

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

I don't really follow this line of thinking. A player is paid based on his relative value to a team, within constraint of a salary cap. It's just a reality that there is constant replenishing talent available for 32 roles, and diminishing returns when you pay these positions for what they already did vs. what they may (or may not) do in the future of a short shelf life. It's hard to see the merit in "manufacturing" a higher cost that simply does not exist. I also think it is unlikely to work for the reason you mention. There are unlimited players willing to take the actual value of the position.

 

[Mitchie]

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

I don't really follow this line of thinking. A player is paid based on his relative value to a team, within constraint of a salary cap. It's just a reality that there is constant replenishing talent available for 32 roles, and diminishing returns when you pay these positions for what they already did vs. what they may (or may not) do in the future of a short shelf life. It's hard to see the merit in "manufacturing" a higher cost that simply does not exist. I also think it is unlikely to work for the reason you mention. There are unlimited players willing to take the actual value of the position.

The NFLPA negotiates the terms of the rookie contracts and franchise tags, the RBs are getting the short end of the stick due to the nature of their position and the game. Think of it this way, if all the players had the same use and shelf life of RBs would the NFLPA have agreed to the same terms? Of course not, it wouldn't make any sense. Sure you can say screw them and I get that seems to be the majority opinion here. Seems kinda obvious that this is inherently unfair, but I'll live with being in the minority here.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. S.

@Ghost Rider nailed it imo

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

I don't really follow this line of thinking. A player is paid based on his relative value to a team, within constraint of a salary cap. It's just a reality that there is constant replenishing talent available for 32 roles, and diminishing returns when you pay these positions for what they already did vs. what they may (or may not) do in the future of a short shelf life. It's hard to see the merit in "manufacturing" a higher cost that simply does not exist. I also think it is unlikely to work for the reason you mention. There are unlimited players willing to take the actual value of the position.

Again, all of this is way too top level and ignoring the main issue. The issue is not that the free market has determined that the fair market value for RBs is lower than before. That's fine. The issue is that RBs are not allowed to get fair market/free market value until they're too old to be worth anything on the free market anymore.

The rookie wage scale and current salary structure is overly punitive to RBs compared to other positions, where guys still have enough career left to get a good free market contract by the time their coerced contract ends.

 

[Chaka]

Running backs bring a lot more value than just what happens on the field. The entire multi billion dollar fantasy football industry has had RBs leading the way since it's inception. That's the industry that led to perpetual growth of the NFL fan base and allowed the NFL to make millions and millions and millions of dollars on sponsorship from companies like Draft Kings.

They need a separate union, or to negotiate a separate contract structure within the next CBA.

Also the Chargers, Giants and Raiders would all be lucky to hit five wins without Ekeler, Barkley & Jacobs.

 

[Amused to Death]

Again, all of this is way too top level and ignoring the main issue. The issue is not that the free market has determined that the fair market value for RBs is lower than before. The issue is that RBs are not allowed to get fair market/free market value until they're too old to be worth anything on the free market anymore.

The rookie wage scale and current salary structure is overly punitive to RBs compared to other positions, where guys still have enough career left to get a good free market contract by the time their coerced contract ends.

I agree with the bolded, but if they increase the rookie pay scale for RBs wouldn't be incentive for teams to draft them later and look for the value in mid rounds (or later)?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Again, all of this is way too top level and ignoring the main issue. The issue is not that the free market has determined that the fair market value for RBs is lower than before. The issue is that RBs are not allowed to get fair market/free market value until they're too old to be worth anything on the free market anymore.

The rookie wage scale and current salary structure is overly punitive to RBs compared to other positions, where guys still have enough career left to get a good free market contract by the time their coerced contract ends.

I agree with the bolded, but if they increase the rookie pay scale for RBs wouldn't be incentive for teams to draft them later and look for the value in mid rounds (or later)?

Every solution is also going to create problems so who knows what the answer is, but the easiest seems like it would be not having rookie RB contracts be as long. That would probably hurt RBs in the draft but RBs typically produce earlier than other positions anyway, and additionally it would tilt the balance of highest earning RBs to the ones that have actually produced the best, rather than the ones that were drafted the highest.

So you may have top RBs making less out of the gate (since they are drafted later) but significantly more overall including their second deal IF they actually end up being good, which to me makes more sense anyway. You make the most money by actually playing the best, not by being drafted the highest.

And this isn't popular, but I wouldn't be opposed to rookie contracts being shorter across the board. This notion that the best way to win is to get a good QB on a rookie deal and go all-in while you have it isn't some time honored tradition that needs to be protected. It's a relatively new adjustment to a rule that affects the game in arbitrary ways. Again it would lessen the impact of the draft, since there would be a chance the drafted guy isn't on the team as long, but ultimately it makes the most sense in terms of the best players making the most money, and the best teams being the ones that can put the best team together, not the ones that just happen to hit on a pick or two on a cheap contract at the right time.

 

[travdogg]

Maybe its me, but I'm failing to see what the problem is. As far as young players, like high school aged, if you don't like the way RB salaries are going, play a different position then. If you are a smaller RB, maybe learn to cover, as CBs get paid. If you are a bigger RB, maybe pack on more muscle and try DE.

Running backs bring a lot more value than just what happens on the field. The entire multi billion dollar fantasy football industry has had RBs leading the way since it's inception. That's the industry that led to perpetual growth of the NFL fan base and allowed the NFL to make millions and millions and millions of dollars on sponsorship from companies like Draft Kings.

They need a separate union, or to negotiate a separate contract structure within the next CBA.

Also the Chargers, Giants and Raiders would all be lucky to hit five wins without Ekeler, Barkley & Jacobs.

I would strongly disagree with the bolded, especially about the Chargers without Ekeler. Raiders might be lucky to hit 5 wins with Jacobs. Giants won more than 5 games when Barkley missed almost all of 2020. RBs, AT MOST, might make a 2-3 win difference. Hell, the Titans were the #1 seed 2 years ago, when Derrick Henry missed half the season.

ETA: I might take the argument that up until the last decade or so, RBs were grossly overpaid, compared to other more important positions. Truthfully, everything is mostly interchangeable after QB. The difference between Christian McCaffrey (or a non-RB like say Aaron Donald) and a rookie FA is probably less than the difference between Patrick Mahomes and somebody even like Kirk Cousins. Its why mediocre starting QBs are still valuable, and to rehash my thoughts from the Kyler thread, as much as Murray hasn't been elite, we do that draft over, he's still a top-5 pick, maybe even top-3.

 

[eighsse2]

I think the conversation and debate on the value that RB's bring to NFL teams is a totally interesting and relevant conversation. "Is a team making a mistake by paying so-and-so this much money" or vice versa, 100% meaningful. But the whole "injustice" thing is just nonsense to me. If the teams are wrong in undervaluing the position, some teams will start to realize the trend is faulty, and start paying up again. If the teams are correct, then what's the issue? Should they have to pay more than a player is worth to them? Just because?

ETA: And like others have said, if the position isn't paying what you want, don't play that position. Granted, you don't necessarily see the trend coming in the 2020's when playing in high school in 2013. But that's life, just like choosing a business to start based on your assessment of where things are going.

 

[Amused to Death]

It definitely sucks for the Barkleys and the Jacobs of the league, but really they're neither over- nor under-valued. There are 32 teams who set the market and this what the GMs and capologists of the league have determined what the value is for RBs. We're on the outside looking in as fans and we have a different opinion on the values.

As @eighsse2 points out, GMs will start to adjust if they see value. Or when a team wins the SB on the back of a stud RB, everyone else will follow because its a copycat league.

 

[jabarony]

I think the conversation and debate on the value that RB's bring to NFL teams is a totally interesting and relevant conversation. "Is a team making a mistake by paying so-and-so this much money" or vice versa, 100% meaningful. But the whole "injustice" thing is just nonsense to me. If the teams are wrong in undervaluing the position, some teams will start to realize the trend is faulty, and start paying up again. If the teams are correct, then what's the issue? Should they have to pay more than a player is worth to them? Just because?

ETA: And like others have said, if the position isn't paying what you want, don't play that position. Granted, you don't necessarily see the trend coming in the 2020's when playing in high school in 2013. But that's life, just like choosing a business to start based on your assessment of where things are going.

Yep. If I'm the Jaguars, for instance, I'd outbid the Chargers for Ekelar/similar vs. making a push with average backs. Overpaying for a top RB will still be relatively cheap and will have much more of an impact on your offense than $18M Christian Kirk.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think the conversation and debate on the value that RB's bring to NFL teams is a totally interesting and relevant conversation. "Is a team making a mistake by paying so-and-so this much money" or vice versa, 100% meaningful. But the whole "injustice" thing is just nonsense to me. If the teams are wrong in undervaluing the position, some teams will start to realize the trend is faulty, and start paying up again. If the teams are correct, then what's the issue? Should they have to pay more than a player is worth to them? Just because?

ETA: And like others have said, if the position isn't paying what you want, don't play that position. Granted, you don't necessarily see the trend coming in the 2020's when playing in high school in 2013. But that's life, just like choosing a business to start based on your assessment of where things are going.

It definitely sucks for the Barkleys and the Jacobs of the league, but really they're neither over- nor under-valued. There are 32 teams who set the market and this what the GMs and capologists of the league have determined what the value is for RBs. We're on the outside looking in as fans and we have a different opinion on the values.

As @eighsse2 points out, GMs will start to adjust if they see value. Or when a team wins the SB on the back of a stud RB, everyone else will follow because its a copycat league.

And again, the issue isn't what the free market thinks of these players. The issue is that these players are blocked from being on the free market during the entire part of their career where the free market values them well.

If these guys were free agents when they were 23 or 24 they would be getting paid a lot more. Every other position still makes peak free market money at ages 26+, but for RBs the ship has sailed by the time they're allowed on the free market.

Again, this isn't something that was done intentionally and needs to be protected. It's not like they got together in the last CBA and thought "RBs really don't deserve to make good money during their few peak years, we need to set this up so RBs get overtly punished by this new CBA compared to other positions". It was an unforeseen effect of the CBA and hence, something that they can look to fix.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

As far as the "just play a different position" argument sure. But from the league's perspective running back is still an exciting position that sells tickets and merchandise and (through fantasy football) the game as a whole.

Running back jersey sales are still the 3rd highest of any position (behind QB and WR). Saquon Barkley sells a lot more tickets than Darius Slay. So if all the good athletes start playing CB or Safety and RBs are all just watered down JAGs then it's bad for the league, the teams, the entertainment, etc.

It's much better for the league to have Travis Etienne starting at RB for Jacksonville than it is for them to have Qadree Ollison starting at RB and Travis Etienne playing nickleback.

 

[eighsse2]

I think the conversation and debate on the value that RB's bring to NFL teams is a totally interesting and relevant conversation. "Is a team making a mistake by paying so-and-so this much money" or vice versa, 100% meaningful. But the whole "injustice" thing is just nonsense to me. If the teams are wrong in undervaluing the position, some teams will start to realize the trend is faulty, and start paying up again. If the teams are correct, then what's the issue? Should they have to pay more than a player is worth to them? Just because?

ETA: And like others have said, if the position isn't paying what you want, don't play that position. Granted, you don't necessarily see the trend coming in the 2020's when playing in high school in 2013. But that's life, just like choosing a business to start based on your assessment of where things are going.

It definitely sucks for the Barkleys and the Jacobs of the league, but really they're neither over- nor under-valued. There are 32 teams who set the market and this what the GMs and capologists of the league have determined what the value is for RBs. We're on the outside looking in as fans and we have a different opinion on the values.

As @eighsse2 points out, GMs will start to adjust if they see value. Or when a team wins the SB on the back of a stud RB, everyone else will follow because its a copycat league.

And again, the issue isn't what the free market thinks of these players. The issue is that these players are blocked from being on the free market during the entire part of their career where the free market values them well.

If these guys were free agents when they were 23 or 24 they would be getting paid a lot more. Every other position still makes peak free market money at ages 26+, but for RBs the ship has sailed by the time they're allowed on the free market.

Again, this isn't something that was done intentionally and needs to be protected. It's not like they got together in the last CBA and thought "RBs really don't deserve to make good money during their few peak years, we need to set this up so RBs get overtly punished by this new CBA compared to other positions". It was an unforeseen effect of the CBA and hence, something that they can look to fix.

That's a fair point.

If changing the way the system works would help, so be it. But I wouldn't want to put in some position-specific rules, which would seem like the opposite of fairness.

Honestly, I think the contract system should have little to no restrictions. For all I care, the contract could consist of a team, a player, a number of years, and a price per year. No monkeying around with the salary cap. Teams makes offers to players, players accept whichever one they want. End of story. That would be a lot simpler. But I'm not very informed on why it works the way it does. I assume there are probably some good reasons for it.

 

[hines]

everything would be much simpler without the draft and without a salary cap, I don't think this would lead to RBs making much more money but overall things would be much easier.

 

[eighsse2]

everything would be much simpler without the draft and without a salary cap, I don't think this would lead to RBs making much more money but overall things would be much easier.

The salary cap is the one contract-complicating factor that I do think is important to have. I wouldn't want championships and spending power to be so closely related. (Especially as a Bengals fan.)

 

[Insein]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

 

[travdogg]

everything would be much simpler without the draft and without a salary cap, I don't think this would lead to RBs making much more money but overall things would be much easier.

It would lead to about half the NFL being essentially a minor league. If you got rid of those things, revenue sharing would be the next to go.

One idea I like, is that the team who wins the Super Bowl gets the #1 pick the following season, and the team who finishes last picks last. Makes the draft much more important, and makes the lesser quality teams spend money, knowing they can't just tank for the top pick, while not sacrificing parity in the long term. Also leads to interesting decisions, for example, would the 2021 Bucs have taken Trevor Lawrence to sit behind Brady for a year, or taken a skill player like Chase, or a blocker like Sewell, or traded the pick for a ransom.

ETA: I think the draft idea would likely lead to RBs at least being drafted higher as teams looked to fill needs in the draft more. Doesn't likely help with 2nd contracts at all, but helps get some guys paid sooner, while fixing some other issues.

 

[BobbyLayne]

@CoopAFiasco
·
1h

Someone just needs to tell the Saudis what it would cost to buy every running back and these contract problems would get fixed right away

 

[Rookiefever]

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. S.

@Ghost Rider nailed it imo

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

I don't really follow this line of thinking. A player is paid based on his relative value to a team, within constraint of a salary cap. It's just a reality that there is constant replenishing talent available for 32 roles, and diminishing returns when you pay these positions for what they already did vs. what they may (or may not) do in the future of a short shelf life. It's hard to see the merit in "manufacturing" a higher cost that simply does not exist. I also think it is unlikely to work for the reason you mention. There are unlimited players willing to take the actual value of the position.

Again, all of this is way too top level and ignoring the main issue. The issue is not that the free market has determined that the fair market value for RBs is lower than before. That's fine. The issue is that RBs are not allowed to get fair market/free market value until they're too old to be worth anything on the free market anymore.

The rookie wage scale and current salary structure is overly punitive to RBs compared to other positions, where guys still have enough career left to get a good free market contract by the time their coerced contract ends.

Exactly. The only way I see rb getting better contracts is to up the rookie wage scale. But… that’s already been compromised with how teams wait so long on rbs at times. 4-5 year cheap rookie deals almost ensures rb will never get paid.
I understtand full and we’ll how rbs are “often” interchangeable but some rbs make mediocre teams competitive for sure. Arian foster is a prime example. While others make competitive teams super bowl champs see gurley.

For the position that has the shortest career expectancy it sure would be nice to see these guys at least get paid more on them rookie deals.

I’d be curious to see average compensation for all positions for an nfl career and see how extremely low rbs are on that list. Being a fail safe for a qb you’d think they’d get a fair shake on average earnings.

 

[Moonlight]

Rule changes that have favored more passing over the running game has contributed to the devaluation of the running back position. I expect that this will get sorted out and teams will covet and pay a premium for backs who are dual threats and as such good receivers. Not telegraphing whether your offense is more likely to be running or passing is an advantage.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

This would result in RBs falling farther down the dtaft.

 

[Insein]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

This would result in RBs falling farther down the dtaft.

Wouldn't matter if there was no rookie cap structure. They could hold out for the pay they want and at that point they've put no pro mileage on their body. If they get taken in the 4th round it wouldn't lock them in to 4th round pay. If they are good enough, a team will pay for the 4-5 good years of their career.

 

[humpback]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

This would result in RBs falling farther down the dtaft.

Wouldn't matter if there was no rookie cap structure. They could hold out for the pay they want and at that point they've put no pro mileage on their body. If they get taken in the 4th round it wouldn't lock them in to 4th round pay. If they are good enough, a team will pay for the 4-5 good years of their career.

Wait, you want them to eliminate the rookie cap structure completely? Why do you think any RB taken in the 4th round would get a huge contract if they did?

 

[Insein]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

This would result in RBs falling farther down the dtaft.

Wouldn't matter if there was no rookie cap structure. They could hold out for the pay they want and at that point they've put no pro mileage on their body. If they get taken in the 4th round it wouldn't lock them in to 4th round pay. If they are good enough, a team will pay for the 4-5 good years of their career.

Wait, you want them to eliminate the rookie cap structure completely? Why do you think any RB taken in the 4th round would get a huge contract if they did?

If their value is based on the first 4-5 years of their career and teams are purposely taking them late to avoid paying them, then this would solve that. Eventually, teams would stop drafting them late if they want the player.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Most of you have missed the central idea of this thread RBs do not matter towards winning NFL games.

 

[BigJim®]

Things are getting bad for rbs. One of/if not the most brutal position in the nfl. Rbs should honestly all strike until they can get better deals. Unfortunately the backups and 3rd stringers would probably handle the role just fine and it wouldn’t get them anywhere.

I don't really follow this line of thinking. A player is paid based on his relative value to a team, within constraint of a salary cap. It's just a reality that there is constant replenishing talent available for 32 roles, and diminishing returns when you pay these positions for what they already did vs. what they may (or may not) do in the future of a short shelf life. It's hard to see the merit in "manufacturing" a higher cost that simply does not exist. I also think it is unlikely to work for the reason you mention. There are unlimited players willing to take the actual value of the position.

The NFLPA negotiates the terms of the rookie contracts and franchise tags, the RBs are getting the short end of the stick due to the nature of their position and the game. Think of it this way, if all the players had the same use and shelf life of RBs would the NFLPA have agreed to the same terms? Of course not, it wouldn't make any sense. Sure you can say screw them and I get that seems to be the majority opinion here. Seems kinda obvious that this is inherently unfair, but I'll live with being in the minority here.

I'm not saying screw them, but it is what it is with a short lifespan job and more talent entering the market than jobs available. You can change what you want but reality is reality. For example, if they put a 3 year limit on rookie RB contracts, the law of unintended consequences will cause them to be drafted later (and paid less), because still there is more talent than jobs and it makes more sense for a team to target other positions early - that they can do 4-5 year deals with.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

The whole "no RBs in the first round" thing has gone too far also -- there are quite a few teams drafting in the 20s each year who could pretty clearly benefit from a RB on a rookie contract. I think a smart team could identify a modest arbitrage opportunity here.

The data just doesn't bear that out, and when you consider the opportunity cost involved with hitting on that pick in the 20s if you draft any position other than RB the gap widens even more. I'd much rather have a QB, DT, DE, OL, WR, or even a TE with that pick in the 20's. Your bust chance is equal, but if you hit on any of those positions you save yourself so much more money having them on their rookie deal than you do a RB. RBs are clearly available for cheap in free agency every single year. Other positions aren't.

Exactly! Investing draft capital in a 5 year plan doesn't make sense. If the plan is to turn and burn RBs, draft one every year/other year in the 3rd-5th rounds until you find the Rhamondra Stevenson or Elijah Mitchell and let him walk after his rookie deal.

Their shelf life isn't what it used to be. Occasionally, you'll hit on a Derrick Henry/Adrian Peterson/LT type but more often than not you're looking at a Dalvin Cook/Ezekiel Elliott/LeVeon Bell situation. You backup the Brinks truck and never get the same guy.

It does suck for these guys but with QBs and WRs commanding so much money... something had to give.

 

[humpback]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

The union needs to renegotiate rookie deal caps again. It was out of hand at the Jamarcus Russell point but now it's become criminal. That's the real issue for RBs. They need to get their best deal as a rookie and they're handcuffed by the pay structure.

This would result in RBs falling farther down the dtaft.

Wouldn't matter if there was no rookie cap structure. They could hold out for the pay they want and at that point they've put no pro mileage on their body. If they get taken in the 4th round it wouldn't lock them in to 4th round pay. If they are good enough, a team will pay for the 4-5 good years of their career.

Wait, you want them to eliminate the rookie cap structure completely? Why do you think any RB taken in the 4th round would get a huge contract if they did?

If their value is based on the first 4-5 years of their career and teams are purposely taking them late to avoid paying them, then this would solve that. Eventually, teams would stop drafting them late if they want the player.

I'm not following at all. The rookie wage scale is the same for all positions, teams just draft RBs later because they value them less than other positions. Right now they don't draft them late if they want the player. They just don't really want the player (at least as much as other positions), so even if they got rid of the salary scale and 4th round RBs started asking for tons of money they won't get it, just like free agent RBs don't get it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

Football is a rough, violent sport. These guys know what they are signing up for. Sure, the above scenario may not be fair to RBs, but no one ever said life was fair. Both Jacobs and Barkley could have taken what their respective teams offered them and been set for life with the signing of the contract (if they are not already). Holding out (figuratively speaking) for more money when the market is clearly not on their side tells me that they are being very short-sighted and do not see the big picture.

 

[BobbyLayne]

@KingHenry_2
·
Jul 17

At this point , just take the RB position out the game then . The ones that want to be great & work as hard as they can to give their all to an organization , just seems like it don’t even matter . I’m with every RB that’s fighting to get what they deserve .

@JayT23
·
Jul 17

1. If you’re good enough, they’ll find you. 2. If you work hard enough, you’ll succeed. …If you succeed…3. You boost the Organization…and then…Doesn’t matter, you’re a RB

@CMC_22
·
Jul 17

This is Criminal. Three of the best PLAYERS in the entire league, regardless of position.

@AustinEkeler
·
Jul 17

This is the kind of trash that has artificially devalued one of the most important positions in the game. Everyone knows it’s tough to win without a top RB and yet they act like we are discardable widgets. I support any RB doing whatever it takes to get his bag.

@saquon
·
Jul 17

It is what it is

 

[Soulfly3]

laughing at how some of you will try to justify how unimportant players that touch the ball 20-30x a game are.

laugh now, cry later... the elite athletes are going to run from playing RB, and it might as soon as now. the product on the field will suffer for it.

the nfl with no running game is the CFL.

 

[Soulfly3]

Ekler might want to look at the recent superbowl teams.

The common theme? HoF QBs. basically all of em.

 

[goose_egged]

Could the league and PA tinker with the cap rules to make RB salary count less against the cap?

I know this solution would tricky to formulate but it seems like it could be a workable fix since RB is the only position that has this exceptionally short shelf-life.

 

[Mitchie]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

Football is a rough, violent sport. These guys know what they are signing up for. Sure, the above scenario may not be fair to RBs, but no one ever said life was fair. Both Jacobs and Barkley could have taken what their respective teams offered them and been set for life with the signing of the contract (if they are not already). Holding out (figuratively speaking) for more money when the market is clearly not on their side tells me that they are being very short-sighted and do not see the big picture.

Nothing more pointless than arguing with someone who's argument is that "no one ever said life was fair" so I'll politely bow out of this one.

 

[Willem_Dafuq]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

100%. The players union has no teeth though so even when they negotiate the CBA again I doubt they do anything about it

 

[humpback]

The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs

Why should RBs get this special treatment?

The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.

Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.

Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.

why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?

I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.

The problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.

100%. The players union has no teeth though so even when they negotiate the CBA again I doubt they do anything about it

You're making the (IMO incorrect) assumption that they would want to do anything about it. Some of you seem to forget that it's basically a zero-sum game. Why would the players union, who represents the entire league, want to make it better for one position and worse for others? Do you think all of the WRs, CBs, LBs, etc. would volunteer to make less money so RBs can make more?

It's the same with the rookie wage scale- if they give rookies more money, that leaves less for veterans. Pretty sure that isn't something that the broader league or their union would support (for good reason IMO).