While it sucks that RBs get abused more than WRs and have a shorter career, but that's also a great reason for why giving a long term contract to a RB that has been in the league for 5+ isn't a great idea.
And while RBs are getting paid less while producing more total yards, I'm not sure that it's a great idea to simplify to total yards. If we break it down to yards per target/touch it looks something like this when comparing say Mike Evans to Bell:
Evans: 1001 yards on 136 targets/touches, or 7.36 yards per target/touch
Bell: 1896 yards on 427 targets/touches, or 4.44 yards/touch, or about 40% less yards per target/touch
Mike Evans is going to make an average of $16.5M on his current deal. If Bell is producing 40% less per touch/target than Mike Evans, then a deal averaging about $10M per year would be pretty close to matching dollar per yard/touch or target produced.
Of course you can't just measure it exactly like that, but when you see how many yards a WR can contribute on limited looks while knowing that their production is unlikely to dip considerably until much later than a RB, and you can see why teams are willing to give so much money to good WRs.
Some of this is a completely different discussion. But in summary, teams can get way more yardage throwing the ball then running it. It just took a long, long time for teams to better scheme for that offensively. Similar to the NBA, where teams have figured out that 3 point shots are way more productive than 2 point shots . . . it just took them 35 years to figure it out.
Getting back to football, if I were an offensive coordinator, I would have such an exaggerated run to pass ratio, most owners and coaches couldn't handle it. I would also run no huddle a ton to limit the sub packages defenses could use and literally wear their pass rushers out. I'd pass so much that in the few times they ran the ball it would be all but guaranteed to work.
BUT . . . I'd invest my money on offense on the QB and the OL. The rest of the skill position players I'd pay peanuts and I'd get people to fit the system. They wouldn't have to be great. I think the league has only scratched the surface in terms of routes, formations, setting up coverage mismatches, etc. My team would air it out 50 times a game and score a ton of points. And the running plays would end up being QB scrambles more than called run plays.
We are already starting to see some of this. Trip receivers, picks set by receivers, tight ends out wide, extreme crossing routes, double receiving backs in the backfield, sending atypical guys in motion. Sure, the likely response will be to just blitz and get a heavy pass rush, but if these gargantuan players have to do that over and over and over and can't substitute that won't last very long. I definitely think it is possible to run an offense like that, the question is who would be bold enough to try it on a longer term basis.
But to your point on efficiency per touch, yes, receivers are going to get more bang for the buck per touch or per target. That only plays into my no rushing offensive model. I would also go for it way more on fourth down, would try fewer field goals, and be less concerned about not coming away with points when it's 4th and goal from the 1. Oh, and my team would be going for two. A lot.
As far as LB goes, it's not his fault the team gives him the ball 400 times a season. I am sure a case could be made on what percentage of touches a player gets and therefore Bell should get the biggest paycheck in the league based on usage. I don't totally dismiss some of his arguments . . . but the RB pay scale does not support his thinking (at least for now).
