NFL Running Backs- do they have a point?
The game has changed. They're still important, just not like they used to be.
Dime a dozen. Spend money elsewhere.
They are usually used up in the first 4 yrs. if they are great. I suggest they put some bonus money in their rookie contracts, if possible.
I think both sides have a point in this. RB’s seem to have the shortest career span of all position, even star RBs. Given this RBs drafted have most of their productive years behind them before they can cash in on a big contract because teams have control for the 4-5 year rookie deal, then they can tag them for a year at the average of the top 5 RBs in the league. Most teams are now using multiple running backs not having a true workhorse because there are more quality RBs than there are starting positions so the value is down. Teams are using a Money ball type approach to the position, draft a RB at least every couple years if you draft a great one keep him the 4-5 and tag him once, let someone else decide to give them their second multi year deal if they want to. Because of this RBs are not able to really cash in like other top players at their position.
Unfortunately for them it just doesn't seem like that tough a job all things considered, as far as pro athletes go.
No one is crying about kicker pay. But running back is not much different. There's 10000 guys that could put up good numbers behind the right oline
No one is crying about kicker pay. But running back is not much different. There's 10000 guys that could put up good numbers behind the right oline
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,754
- Reaction score
- 3,777
- Thread starter
- #8
My opinion is that they need to be front loaded if used as a full time back. I get the wear and tear but they touch the ball more than any other player than QB and take more of a beating.
Big fan of Wisconsin football and would be nowhere without our RB stable. If a RB is a standout in the pros, they should be in top tier money, if not more than other skilled positions.
An LT, Kamara, Holmes duel threat back even more so. But the guys getting 200 plus carries a year have a huge leg to stand on IMO.
Big fan of Wisconsin football and would be nowhere without our RB stable. If a RB is a standout in the pros, they should be in top tier money, if not more than other skilled positions.
An LT, Kamara, Holmes duel threat back even more so. But the guys getting 200 plus carries a year have a huge leg to stand on IMO.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,754
- Reaction score
- 3,777
- Thread starter
- #9
Don’t fumble. Fast, don’t break down, huge ask.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,754
- Reaction score
- 3,777
- Thread starter
- #10
And did you just compare a RB to a Kicker?
I think the game has changed and they have been devalued. The position is specialized with 3rd down backs and there's very few RB's that are true 3 down backs.
You can get almost the same production without being handcuffed Plus the #'s of guys that are 30 with 3000 carries is kind of eye opening.
The NFL has become a Pass heavy league with the change in the rules for the defense. Which is what really drove the change in roles for RB's.
You can get almost the same production without being handcuffed Plus the #'s of guys that are 30 with 3000 carries is kind of eye opening.
The NFL has become a Pass heavy league with the change in the rules for the defense. Which is what really drove the change in roles for RB's.
Yes it's not much different. There's far more competent people for the job than there are positions. That's why you don't have to pay them. Because theres 10000 people that can do a job there's 32 positions for
Physicallly, being a kicker isn't anywhere near as punishing as a running back. But kickers score more points.
It's a goofy thing.
I think that yes the situation sucks, but the league has been trending in this direction for ages.
Draft a RB, play them for a couple years, then draft a new RB. Rinse, repeat.
Take an exceptional RB, pair them with a terrible OLine, and are they still exceptional?
But if you take a decent lower tier RB, and pair them with a good OLine, that talent is amplified.
Draft a RB, play them for a couple years, then draft a new RB. Rinse, repeat.
Take an exceptional RB, pair them with a terrible OLine, and are they still exceptional?
But if you take a decent lower tier RB, and pair them with a good OLine, that talent is amplified.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,754
- Reaction score
- 3,777
- Thread starter
- #16
That is for sure. Time of possession, ball control and moving the ball down field I would say are more primary than a decent kicker.
rallo
#FYF
It's hard when certain teams really lean on an RB ala Zeke, Henry, and even Ekeler... then other teams roll an RBBC... maybe incentive laden contracts with some guaranteed money to ensure teams don't try to run the wheels off these young elite backs without compensation. (Like huge bonus at 250.or.300 touches etc.) Some are their teams top offensive producers.
Nobody relied on a running back from 53 yards with :03 to win a playoff game.
I think it's a terrible situation for the RBs.
Maybe the No. 7 RB in the league doesn't perform THAT MUCH differently than the No. 30 RB in the league. But the top 5-6 guys are still game changers and should be paid a lot of money for what they do.
And the teams that employ them focus their game plans around them, as they should.
Barry Sanders played behind some pretty mediocre to bad OLs in Detroit, and he was still a hall of famer.
Maybe the No. 7 RB in the league doesn't perform THAT MUCH differently than the No. 30 RB in the league. But the top 5-6 guys are still game changers and should be paid a lot of money for what they do.
And the teams that employ them focus their game plans around them, as they should.
Barry Sanders played behind some pretty mediocre to bad OLs in Detroit, and he was still a hall of famer.
How’d the kicker get there?
I’d say yes - of course they have a point. The RB abuse is getting a little out of hand.
The teams who’ve really thrived going running back by committee? Well. They generally have had Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady. That helps.
Dalvin Cook is a perfect example. He’s literally in the prime of his career, coming off of a great season for a 13-4 playoff squad. Released, not on a roster at the beginning of camp. It’s a little absurd.
The teams who’ve really thrived going running back by committee? Well. They generally have had Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady. That helps.
Dalvin Cook is a perfect example. He’s literally in the prime of his career, coming off of a great season for a 13-4 playoff squad. Released, not on a roster at the beginning of camp. It’s a little absurd.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Handicap
- 12.8
Yes, rb's have the shortest average careers. But wr's and te's are right behind them. It's almost as if offenses rely on young, fast, and healthy players.
The league is following the data, and the data says throwing the ball on early downs is better for offenses in general. The days of run on 1st and 2nd and then pass on 3rd down are gone.
And when was the last Superbowl winner with a bellcow rb?
There’s also a HOF (or eventual) QB attached to all of those teams beyond the Ravens and Eagles. That helps.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,224
- Reaction score
- 3,962
- Handicap
- 12.8
A QB that was paid, playing with a RB that wasn't. That's kind of my point. Get a game changing qb, pay him and his protection. Save money on rbs. That's the Superbowl winning template. Why pay a rb?
It’s also a deceptive list. It lists the highest paid rusher from the actual SB itself.
I don’t think Percy Harvin was more essential to the Seahawks run game than Marshawn.